 I'm glad to get you back, Sue. I'm so glad you're here. You missed your last week. Well, I'm guessing you wouldn't have rather been with us. Well, I would rather have been anywhere but where I was, and trapped in my house with a driveway that I could not get out of. Oh, we'll get it. I was supposed to be. What made up that problem, again, is that it's melting. It's going to freeze up. The roads are good, though. The roads are good. I've always been in my garage. It's sidewalks in my neighborhood. It's all the cycle on the car. The car over at the park today was sectioned up high sectioned up. Over down to the curb, I thought, Oh, good. I had to go jammed down and turn in my petition because I'm up for re-election. I pulled into the handicapped spot, which was fine. Then, from the road to the sidewalk, there's this mound of snow that's almost as tall as I am. I'm saying, what do I do now? What good is that? There's a group of homeless men who sit out by the side door of City Hall all day. One of them got up and came over and said, Can I help you, ma'am? He gave me his hand and he tapped down. I went and turned in my stuff when I came down. I gave him the dollar. He walked me back to my car. I'd probably still be standing there. There was absolutely no way. You just get from the road to the sidewalk. This is a handicapped parking spot. The City of Burlington probably did the worst job of snow clearing since I don't live there. Have you driven the south row of the streets recently? We've had a lot better cars. There's all the cars. Well, I mean, there's nothing you can do. They just fixed the market street and now it's bad. Well, that one little section that they fixed was fine. But then they did these little strips, which I don't know exactly. Well, they will make sense eventually. Oh, because they're shins, right? Yeah. They're going to pay 1,000. They have to raise the road several inches. And that's part of the issue. The shimmy. Yeah. But it's very odd the shim. I mean, I don't know if that's a real thing. It's very unusual to shim it now and then wait to pay the rent. Yeah. But whatever. Yeah. Whatever. It's an unusual bit of construction. Let's do it. Talk to the Army Corps of Engineers. They will explain it to you. In words, you will not make a stare. I'm not sure I won't. So you guys are going to have to speak up tonight because I've got to put so many over here. I assume you want a lot over here. I don't really know, but that's the way it is. We'll find out. That's how I found it, so. Yeah. Marla put everything out. She was not here when we did the original O'Brien stuff. And we don't know how many opponents there will be. Perhaps more this time, because have you driven by O'Brien's farm? No. Well, it looks like a bomb went off. I was quite surprised the first time I saw it. Yeah. Have you approved that? Well, yeah. Yeah. Well, they have the right to take down trees, but boy, it really made a difference. It made an awful difference. And it'll look like an arid. It's simply 10 years on. You say you grew up on the north side of Chicago? No. Oh. Oh. That's it. You've got a new tour. Everybody says. I know. I know, but not sure. Did you go to a new tour at high school? No. My sister went to a new tour. I went to North Shore Country Day. Oh, yes. Do you know where that is? Oh, yes. Yeah. Small school. Yeah. I graduated in class of 41. Yeah. It was funny. The other day, I was involved in a case competition for UBM's business school. We do a family case competition every year. Then I coached, I co-coached the undergrad and grad teams with Dave Mount. And the first case that came out was about the Pittsburgh family. And I went to high school with Dan. And we had our senior party at Jay Pritzker's house. I'm like, oh my God. It must have been nice. I mean, it must have been on 30 acres or something. And Glencoe, I think. And the house was up on top of a hill and looked out of the lake. We didn't get to go to the house. We got to go in the pool house. The pool house had two bowling houses. There's plenty of room for the band. I mean, it was huge. Pool house had to be. It had two floors. It was probably 10,000 feet. I had a friend in college who had gone to the Ida Cron Jewish Academy. Maybe some of the parochial Jewish school. His father was a big developer in architectural history. It's a huge house in Highland Park. The house was crescent shapes. It was in every room you faced. Had a view, sure. Yeah. You know, Pritzker is one of their sons. He's the one who actually took over the business for a little while. But the family got into a pissing action. With each other? Yeah. Yeah. When Jay died, he wanted, you know, he made his money in the old fashioned way. He stashed it offshore. Definitely. Of course. And he wanted it to all this day offshore. And he could just essentially use maintenance cash to take care of the family. Because maintenance cash was like a hundred million a year. I mean, it wasn't tricky. But the kids wouldn't have it. The kid I went to school with, Danny, was one of the big problems. So when they busted it up, each kid got a hundred and fifty million or so. So Danny is probably the brother of Jay V. Yeah. I think that's right. It was interesting. There were two kids that were expected to run the thing. And then there were maybe three other kids that didn't have interest. And then two that were Jay's brother's second wife's kids. More likes. They sued and said, hey, we left out of this. Because they were minors. I'm sure some lawyers did very well. They played this here. We did. Yeah. Well, mostly both the east and west. Sounds like it works. Okay. Okay. Welcome to the South Park and Development Review Board for Tuesday, February 5th, 2019. First item on the agenda, directions on emergency evacuation procedures from the conference room. If there is an emergency, we can either go out through the way we came or we can exit through these two doors here. But we should all meet in the south parking lot, which is right behind me, to make sure everyone's safe. Additions, deletions or changes in the order of the agenda items. Does anyone have any additional deletions or changes during non-announcements? The February 19th meeting next meeting will be held at the police station, second floor community room at 19 next time on the agenda, sketch plan application and for 4500 square feet of office space. This phase consists of six multifamily residential buildings with 322 units and a single-story parking structure at 255 Kennedy Drive. This is sketch plan, so we don't have to throw anyone in. Who is here for the applicant? Evan Langfield from O'Brien Brothers. Andrew Gill with O'Brien Brothers. Welcome. Thank you. So if you would step us, oh conflicts of interest. Oh, and? Yeah, it's come to my attention that our law firm, MSK Attorneys, has a conflict of interest with this particular project, so I'm going to have to recuse myself. And seeing as it's the only item on the agenda, I think I'm going to find my way out that door. And you don't have to wait in the south parking lot. See you in two weeks. Thanks. Thanks, Brian. We'll see you at the police station. Yep. Thanks. Take care. For a meeting. Yes. I just want to say it every time it gets said, because I'm afraid people are going to start to say it. Right. Right. Okay. We're all going to go in. Thank you. Joe, is that telling you something? I'm sorry. It's sexual. It's funny if you don't mind. Okay. So please describe the project, please. Yep. So we're excited to start the second phase of the project, which I think, as you've probably seen, is consistent with what we discussed at the master plan, you know, a year and a half ago, it's just. Could I stop you right there because I'm having, you know, I must be having a brain failure. I don't remember six multi, whether always six multifamily buildings in the master plan. Yeah. Yeah, we talked about these. We, one of them, we actually had a, there was a line adjustment spot that was part of this. We talked about it actually pretty extensively. If somehow in my mind, there were two 80 foot high multifamily buildings and that was it. But no. No, we always had the. For the master plan, there were six footprints that we had provided that actually aren't, aren't two to similar to what. Okay. I mean, no one else is having my problem. So I also remember what you saw. I also remember two huge buildings. That's where we were focused the, you know, but you're right. Later stages, it became. Yeah. I think maybe what you're thinking of is the, the massing that we had shown you that was, you know, those were the buildings that involved the adjustment of the 50 foot setback. I mean, the four at the top all had that problem. But, but the view that you'd see from the, from the ground didn't really show the ones that worked to the rear. I think that's what it is. Yeah. I think that's probably why you're thinking that doesn't matter. Go ahead. So, you know, as we discussed at the master plan level, we were, the underlying zoning allowed for 458 overall units, 118 of which are included in the first phase, the residential neighborhood, which left 340 remaining available for use. And so in the current plan, we're showing 322 multifamily apartments across the six buildings in a combination of four stories over a podium base or so over a part, you know, for months, a year and a half, two years ago at this point. So it's. I think to have a residential neighborhood that segues into, you know, a higher density multifamily and again realizing the, the underlying density of the overall, which primarily is our 12 zone. There are three zones that are encompass this, but it's primarily our 12. And so this gets us pretty close to realizing that full density. When you were in, we discussed the possibility and we allowed you flexibility to swap commercial space for residential units. No, it was really the, the not meeting the full 340 available units is really, it's a current site plan that's, you know, it's somewhat limited by the site conditions. You're built into a hillside. There's only so much parking you can realize. We have put forward a plan that again is four stories over podium base and three stories over a podium base, depending on the building, whereas originally we had talked about five and four stories over podium base. So, you know, there is some potential where, you know, maybe if the, if the board feels that it's appropriate, we could look at going higher with the buildings. We thought that the plan that we were proposing now allows for a nicer transition. We, you know, had some pretty extensive conversations with, with staff about the transition coming from the, particularly on the Southwest side of Kennedy as you approach the Kimball intersection and kind of how you transition from some of those, the, the two-story condominium structures. There's a three-story lane caster, but it's pushed a little bit back from the road. So, you know, it's primarily Windridge on the, the East side of the road, how you transition from that to a three-story over podium structure. And then we build a little bit as we get closer to that Kimball intersection. Great. Thank you. So the 18 units, you're not going to come back at a future phase. When we had originally submitted this, we had said approximately 322 units. You know, staff recommended we be more, less approximate and more specific. You know, what I would like to suggest is that, you know, we're still in, you know, a sketch plan application and we'll continue to refine our plans going forward. So we'd like the opportunity, if we can realize some more going forward, great. I don't think at this point, we're likely to get all 340 though. But if not, you're saving for a big chunk, a third phase. No, no, this, this, this is the phase. Yeah. It's just, can we realize a little bit more density? Where are you on, on the initial phase? In terms of sales and construction. Yeah. We have currently, we've completed 17 units, I believe. And, you know, we're, I would say we're ahead of our projected velocity in terms of sales. We started our marketing and sales a little bit behind when we originally anticipated because of, you know, there was a lot of site work it was a pretty brutal winter. So we really started marketing heavily last March. So I think the reception from the buying public has been very positive. And I think the, the neighbors have also received it well since they've seen what we've been putting up. Don't we have a time, what is our, isn't there a standard timeframe between the granting of the, of the permit and the commencement of construction? A large project like this, the board has the flexibility to get along. For completion? Of the final plot approved phase. Yeah. I want to say it was eight. I think originally it was five and we had pushed to have it longer just based on market conditions. I don't, you know, I don't see that happening at this point, but you never know what happens in a year or two. And just to be clear, so where we are in terms of the construction, there's those three cul-de-sac streets as you climb the hill. We have, we've released the two lower streets and we're also building a town home. So, yeah, if you have the, But what I'm getting at is how soon do you think you'll be ready and able to start construction on this phase that you're putting forward now? Oh, the anticipation is that it would run concurrent with the build out, because it's not in competition with the four sale product. So it was always anticipated that while it would be staggered, it would be running concurrent with the build out of the. But you're, you have enough confidence in the market so you're not worried about your sales or anything like that? No, no, we're feeling pretty bullish about the sales at the moment. So are those your elevations? These are the elevations, yep. So these, this is a rendering from the previously permitted egress onto Kennedy, which is a fully signalized intersection. So this climbs the hill. That's two brothers drive there, which then connects on the right there. I'll show you. Would it be helpful to start with a site plan? Yeah, probably would. So go up a couple pages. Do you guys have a laser pointer or something? Sometimes you have? Is that better? Is this good or do you want another little short? Okay. We will keep Evan at the microphone so that we don't know. But I can look into it for the next time. Well, not when you say it like that. No, you were old enough to remember. She's still on TV. Oh my gosh. So just to orient everybody, here's Kennedy, here's Kimball, this is Old Farm Road. So this is the North US on Old Farm Road here. This is the existing under an 18-unit project. This street is all townhomes and duplex configuration. All of this up through here will be a section of a few here. That's all single family. Right now we've released this street, and a portion of this street. So we're well on our way. This street is almost fully built out at this point. We've got a number of homes under construction up there. And we're pretty far along over here as well. So this is the phase that we're talking about right now, which was included in that original master plan. There's six subdivided commercial slash multi-family lots there. Again, trying to realize the higher density that is the underlying zoning there. And so this is that last rendering. It's that intersection that you're looking at. But we have renderings from here. We have renderings from over here. We have renderings from over here. And so trying to give a feel for the scale, the mass, and the architecture, and how they interrelate with the existing architecture. And I'm glad to have that view because it leads me to something that my wife told me to be concerned about. I remember being impressed with, you know, the quantity of recreation in green space you had here. But here's the question. You have an eight-year-old kid on the top floor of your most remote multi-family project. How far do I have to go to find a place to play ball? To play ball or to recreate? To play ball. Let's say to play ball. I don't know where the closest, you know, community ball field is. Well, not a former ball field. They hit fungos. I mean, so we have... 1,500 feet. This football shape right there is a park that's a little over an acre. This area right here is, well, it is a stormwater management area. It's a landscape that has a trail network through there. There's also a perpetual green space over here. And then this is where the buffer, this isn't really what I would say for recreating. There's more of a buffer to separate the upper road from the lower road. But this right here is actually a graded landscape park. So that is the intent here. If you want to go ahead and throw the football around, play catch. And the distance from where I hypothesized? There's station markers on the road, but from the intersection of Elder Street to the end of the road is 1,500 feet. So from... So from the most remote multi-family building to the... From right here to this park, to right here is 1,500 feet. And how far from my hypothetical kid to your starting point for the 1,500 feet? From like, where would that be? Like here? Well, the most remote multi-family building. Probably this one, right? Okay, so how far from there to the starting point? How hard is it to get to the starting point? Well, this is 100 feet, so maybe 1,650, 1,700? So 1,700 feet altogether. So that's... Third of a mile. Third of a mile. And how about playground facilities per se for all these... In that kind of formalized park, there is playground facilities. We've actually specced them out with the city and improved them with the city and that's... So there is actually apparatus there. And so there's a... Just to kind of clarify, there's a retaining wall on the east side of that which forms that football there. And there's kind of a rustic staircase that climbs up there. But right in front of there is the playground apparatus. So I think... I think a third of a mile. Here I'm channeling Jennifer Cogman. I think a third of a mile is... Again, I don't know who you think is going to live here, but let's assume it's families with little kids. A third of a mile is a long truck for a housewife with a six-year-old and a four-year-old who wants to get to the playground. So I guess my question is, what's the potential? Well, they would... The area, you know, for a little more area, you know, they look pretty tight. So there's a proposed outdoor facility for tenants at the top of the hill which is substantially closer, which would include a pool, barbecue stations, probably ample opportunity for recreation during the summer. Recreation too broad a term. I'm being very specific here. A place mom wants to take her six-year-old and a four-year-old with a slide and a couple of swings. I mean, I would suggest that a third of a mile probably isn't too far to be going, particularly since there's nothing else anywhere in that vicinity over the years that's been built out for this specific purpose. You mean given the scarcity, they should be grateful. Well, I think... That would be the... Now, that's just Jennifer Coakman talking. Well, I mean, we have met with Jennifer and her committee. And she hasn't pointed that out? No, we actually had spoke with her at great length about this project and she agreed. And actually their committee unanimously supported and endorsed our project. Well, I'm going to have to tell her that. I would be... I mean, I'm sure we're going to end up in the conversation anyway, but I'm happy to have that conversation with her. The playground, though, from most of the southeast quadrant, the closest playground would be... A school. ...at Dorset Park or a school. I can tell you from my... That's not terrible. It's from my house. It was a mile and it was fine. We'd walk it all the time. Well, I think there's also, you know, there's land that is immediately adjacent to that that is still open. And there's opportunity for other recreational facilities. There's also a pool, which is probably four to five hundred feet from the furthest apartment. And that building will also have, you know, all sorts of tenant amenities that we'd listed in the application. You know, speaking from the perspective of someone with a three-year-old, I much prefer the idea of a pool to a swing set. My kid would love a pool. And she has a swing, so... That's an outdoor pool. That's an outdoor pool, yeah. Sorry. You know, I would also suggest that the, you know, the demographics of the residential community, I mean, we've designed it to appeal to a broad demographic, a broad buying demographic both on the price point and also kind of in the age range. And, you know, we're seeing that play out the way we had planned it. It is sort of an organic mix where you have young professionals, you have young families with little kids, you have families with kids in elementary school, some that are in high school, and then you have a lot of empty nesters. I would suggest that you're probably going to see more children in the residential single-family-in-town home neighborhood than you probably are going to see in the apartments. It's not to say there aren't going to be any kids, but it would probably be more likely that you'd see more kids in there, which would be closer to the... No question at all. Yeah. No question about it. Cool. I think we did number one already. Yeah. Yeah, so we kind of jumped in to the middle or the very beginning of your description of the whole project. So, is there... Would you like to, like, continue what we jumped into? I think it was... I mean, my preference would just be to go down staff comments and if we can kind of just have a free-flowing discussion and I think it's a more efficient piece of time. That's great. Yeah, let's go. So, comment one we did. Comment one we did. So, comment two is the subdivision to align with the buildings, which I don't think we have really any issue with. I mean, I think that does make good sense. So, any other comments on that front? Acquiescence is what we're looking for. So, the third point really addresses this amenity. The pool. The pool you're talking about, number three now? Yeah, so there's actually, there's two non-residential buildings. So, there's the pool building, which is very much an amenity to support the residential spaces. Again, I would say it's a subordinate use to the residential uses. It could be in any one of the buildings, but in reality it's an amenity that's supporting all of them. It's a more efficient way to use it. It's a better use of the land. The second building that's a non-residential is just a commercial building. We are allowed up to 45,000 square feet of commercial space. This is much smaller. Again, there are site restrictions and this could be a variety of things. It could be a leasing office. It could be a small office space. Potentially, as things progress with the land development regulation overall, maybe there's a coffee shop or something like that. That's an amenity that supports having this number of residents there. But I think the question really comes down to more the tenant amenity space on the top of the hillside and how that's looked at by the city. I think the staff had, we had suggested one way to look at it. Staff had suggested another way to look at it. I don't know if you guys want to respond or staff wants to comment on it. So just to sort of clarify, they had requested that it be considered an accessory structure containing accessory use. Staff doesn't think it can meet the definition of accessory structure. However, we don't think that's a problem because you can have multiple principal structures on one lot in a PUD. So you don't need it to be an accessory structure. It does, however, need to be considered an accessory use because all of the other definitions that it could fall under are not allowed in the zoning district. So we've included the definition of accessory use. And if the board feels it appropriate to consider for the purposes of this definition, the PUD has the lot rather than the actual boundary lines of the property. Then it should be no problem to consider an accessory use. And your point is specifically that it is not 15 feet or less in height, right? How tall is the building? Well, I think the building is not 100% planned out, but the height can go up if the setback were different. So I think, you know, if there's a lot of potential restrictions on it to consider an accessory structure would have to be certain. No taller than 15 feet or at least 30 feet back from the property lines and it couldn't have a basement. And in order to grant them the flexibility they want, it's simpler just to say it's an accessory use. That's the principle of building with an accessory use. Right. Is that acceptable to change the definition? I don't think we have any issue with that. I mean, you know, we have a slightly different read that I don't think, you know, runs in the face of that, which is just that, you know, this use, you know, if you look at, and you may smirk at this, but if you look at Old Farm Road, there are three existing pools with pool structures on individual residences. This is a amenity that's the same as those. It's just being offered to more residents and it's being, you know, it's one location for six buildings. Which is consistent with this adaptation. Right. So it's just, yeah, it's just kind of a different way of sort of saying the same thing. So if you're okay with it, I think. I like the idea of having the flexibility and the pool. Sounds like a great amenity. Right. So principle structure with accessory use. So that's three and four. So the fifth comment really comes down to the height issue. You know, there's a 35 foot height restriction or limitation in this area. Obviously we're not proposing 35 foot buildings, which is consistent with what we've always said in order to achieve the underlying density. We have to go vertical. It's better land use, honestly, to go vertical. And actually during the master plan phase, you know, the board pushed us to say, well, how are you going to realize the zoning? If right now, well, you know, in 118, it actually realizes about four units per acre and we're zoned for 12 units an acre. So this is kind of the, the fruition of that, that strategy. And in order to do that, we have to go up. I, you know, we've provided some elevations and some renderings. Again, they're conceptual at this point, but I think they're pretty representative of what the plan is. Kind of the overall style. That first plan shows you where the pictures are taken. So if you just scroll back up, it'll show you like, you know, each view is labeled. So you can kind of see where the perspectives are coming from, where those little red cones are. So the first one is that, that red cone on the right, excuse me, on the top right of those two. Yep. And then the second one will be the one right to its left. So this is looking straight up to brother's drive off of Kennedy. There's essentially standing on the rec path on the west side of the street, looking up the hill and the, the gray, excuse me, that gray kind of it's, that's sort of the place holder for this potential commercial building. So, you know, we don't have any architecture for that. But again, it could be a leasing office. It could be, you know, it could be our office space. It could be, you know, a leased office space to someone else could be a coffee shop eventually. So this view here is as you're, you're driving north on Kennedy. And so this is showing on the right side of the photo, a three story building over a podium base so that you can see there, that would be parking structure down where the cursor is. And then you have three stories of residential above it. And again, that was in attempt to create a little bit of transition. You can see from the architecture, we're sort of trying to break down the massing a little bit different color pallets across the building, different materials, you know, trying to create some sort of just massing differentiation. And then on the other side, so on the north side of Two Brothers Drive, that is a four story residential structure over a podium base. So it kind of gives you a feel for how those two interact. These are not designs for the buildings. This is just place holders for the design? No, I would say, you know, this is, this is the direction that the architecture is headed in. Well, go ahead, Sam. This is a lot. Let me put it this way. This is a lot of mass, right? Collectively, it's a lot of mass control. It covers a lot of land. These buildings are not beautiful beauty, given that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. These buildings are not beautiful. At least in my opinion, it doesn't count toward the vote. It's not going to stop me from saying whether they do or don't comply with the regulations. Could somebody make a bit more of an aesthetic effort? It's what I'm saying. Well, I think we are making an aesthetic effort. And, you know, I mean, I understand it may not be your taste. You know, we, I think we've taken a good faith effort of breaking it down and trying to come up with some architecture. I mean, you know, we're less boxy, more height variety, taller one place, less tall another place, a little more complicated, maybe a pitched roof here and there. Does our architect on the phone have any opinions? Mark there? Yeah, no. I mean, as Frank, as you said, instead of beauty in the eye of the beholder, I mean, I'm not personally, again, I'm not a huge fan of the style, but it is the very contemporary style that is pretty much going up in a lot of areas of the city right now. And it's sort of the current design trend. It's sort of like multi, you know, material. There's some penetration differentiation as opposed to just a box. I know that upon first look it is sort of like a box, but there is a lot of stuff going on in it. I like to see a different design, yes, only because I'm a different style of architect, but it doesn't bother me for the fact that right now there's really nothing there and you're establishing the district with this map building. So in that guidance or in that vein, it doesn't bother me as a designer because it's not going to be in conflict or disarmament or anything. I don't see this as dramatically different than Bartlett-Brook. I understand that Bartlett-Brook was even more modern than this, but in terms of the style of building that you get for an apartment building, you're not going to put pitch roofs on apartment buildings. It's just not going to happen. So I don't have a problem with it. I like it. I mean, we did go for a contemporary aesthetic. Obviously, we're not trying to check. That was Frank, not Jennifer. I'm confident she would agree with me. And together, we can't swing the votes. Is that your wife, Jennifer? Yes. This is a rendering looking from O'Brien Farm Road. So this is the road that's entirely townhomes, duplexes, and approaching a three-story building on the southwest side of the building. There is a rooftop kind of promenade that's attendant amenity for kind of a viewing deck, some space that people could gather and get together. It's actually on the one on the left. So you have three stories, and then it steps back in the need of a four-story. You can't really see that it steps back, but that's a three-story over podium on that side. So I love these renderings. But the trees are baby trees. These trees, you know, within, I hope, what is my lifetime. These trees are going to be a lot bigger than this. So, you know, so for example, when you look from the top, what we're going to get to in a couple of renderings, I would be interested, I mean, so if you could describe as we go through these, what's the maximum height of these trees are going to be in kind of 30 or 50 years? That's a good question. We don't have an arborist here, so I'm not sure I could accurately answer that. Okay, so you have a selected species. No, no. Okay. I mean, these are street trees that are... These are street trees, right? These are the approved. This is what's been going on. Yeah. These are the ones that are permitted in the existing plan. And what variety are they? Well, we worked with Wagner and Hodgson on the planting plan, and they have a very extensive palette of trees they select from. So... I'll pull it off. I'm not 100% sure. There's a mix. There's elm trees. There's oak trees. There's maple trees. There's trees I've never heard of. Something called a green vase, I think. So, without the plan. But elm, oak, and maples, you're talking about 75, it's 100-foot trees when they're fully grown. They're big trees. Okay. Assuming that the elms don't get caught by... Yeah. Yeah. What's elm trees? There's no ash trees in here. I'll tell you that. What's the distance between the last home here and then the multi-dimensional? What's in between? So, if you went back to the site plan, you might get a better idea. It's probably something like 50 feet or 75 feet. That's probably not even... It's probably about... It looks like about 40 or 50 feet. Oh, it's a parking lot in between. Parking lot. It's an entrance to the parking area. And in the approved site plan from the single-family duplex part of the neighborhood, there's a huge head. There's a hedge there, like a solid cedar hedge. On what side? Just adjacent to the house. So it runs between the house and the road. Okay. Does that sort of hide the gradient change that looks like that's occurring here? Or is that... It would go down... It'll go downhill. The hedge would go down the hill along the side of the house. And I don't have that plan here, but... And also, I mean, all of that would get looked at. There's going to be an extensive landscaping requirement as part of this decision. And so that would certainly be part of it. Yeah. And just, you know, for reference, all of the homes on the existing project, they're really oriented east-west, because they are... It is a pretty dense neighborhood, so they're proximate to one another. So you're not really designing to have a lot of windows pointing to the next house over, because, you know, you're 12 feet apart from the next house. So while, you know, you are kind of budding right up against that, it's not oriented in that way. And if, you know, I encourage any of you that want to come out for a tour, I'll show you, and it actually works really well. They're flooded with natural light, but it's, again, it's east-west light as opposed to north-south light. But in that instance on the left, we did use the varied roof height to sort of allow that transition into the fourth story. I guess I would just say that Wagner and Hodgson have some work to do to try to make that... try to soften that approach from... you said it would... O'Brien driver? O'Brien farmer. Yes, this approach is a tricky approach. So I told them day-proof plans, and they're actually specific species already called out for those trees. Right, but not down... All the way down to Kennedy. All the way down to Kennedy. Yeah. Yeah. On the street. I've got two red oaks and then two red maples and then two shade master honey locusts. So, yeah, specific trees. I mean, they can... it's not a big deal to amend the plan if a landscape architect feels that they're not appropriate for the last tree. But, John, are you referencing the buffer between the duplex and the big road? Yeah, you get to the last duplex, and I'm sure it feels the same way going to the right. If you've got entry roads going both directions, yes? Yeah. There and across the street. And you have the ability to put interior trees that buffer the corner that are tall enough to... The red oak is going to be huge. The locust is going to be 45 or 50 feet. You may want to think about those species just because you may want something higher and broader to buffer that... because that's a big change. But... Yeah. So, how comfortable are we with this height waiver request? There was one more view. Do we want to go one more view? Yeah, just to show probably from the upper meadow. So this gives you a feel for the scale of that Tenant Amenity Building, which again is placeholder architecture, but also the scale of the buildings from the... really from Old Farm Road. Right. And this is the view that I thought, you know, it's not going to be long, I mean, in terms of lifetimes, before those trees are much taller than those buildings. And actually, I mean, if you, you know, if you had gone up there, and we showed this previously, if you had gone up there prior to us, you know, starting to do the ledge removal, the existing canopy was higher than these buildings are. So there wasn't a view to begin with and there wouldn't be a view. The painter or whatever, the viewpoint is from a future development area. That's not the subject of this application, right? Right, exactly. The foreground is going to be allowed to turn back into woods. The point is that the street trees that you can see out there are going to well exceed the height of the buildings. Fill in. Right. The view. It's going to be higher than the building. The other rendering up from Two Brothers Drive, you know, we were, this one was, we thought was really successful in sort of hiding the massing of the building. So that's the view from the upper road, sort of the highest single family road as you're coming around the corner to head back down towards Kennedy. And so that's a three-story building and it appears like a two-story building because of the topography going around the corner. The one thing I would also say, you know, this doesn't apply to the broader community, but the public that has come through our sales center, people that have been perspective purchasers and people that have actually purchased, we have been very consistent on communicating, you know, what the next phase of development is and we have a bird's-eye view of the overall development with six large, they're actually large in the buildings we're proposing, showing exactly where they're going, the proximity to them and the overall scale of them. So it's not as though folks don't know this is coming, we want to be very clear and upfront with folks from day one. Everybody hear that? Yep. You want to move on? On height waiver? Generally speaking, except with having heard John speak about transition, other than that, in this location, pretty much indifferent to height. I mean, if we can improve, frankly, foot, you know, undeveloped land by increasing height, I'm a fan in this location. I mean, I honestly think they're a little small. I am, too. Could we get rid of maybe one building and do five buildings a little higher? I'm only half-kitten. I mean, you've got a parking density problem, right? That's really what's driving the unit. Yes. I mean, it's not to say that we, you know, there couldn't be some adjustments made and maybe one building or two buildings get higher and so you create a little bit more site plan space and you keep the unit count roughly the same. You're probably not going to ramp up your density considerably higher. Like I said, you know, I would like to pick up a couple more units and that might be some tweaks. Really, what we're kind of reacting to is, you know, this is higher than anything around it so we're trying to be a little bit sensitive and provide transition, but if the board feels that additional heights of possibility are appropriate, then we're not pushing back on it. Well, it's just going to, I mean, what you've got here is going to create a neighborhood that will flow, I assume, flow over the backside at some point and turn into something more and I've been in a bunch of these neighborhoods fairly recently because my daughter was out looking for apartments in Wisconsin and they look like this. On the backside of them, there'll be a fitness place and a coffee shop and a hotel and, you know, they just flood in. So, in the end, this is a, you may get some kids and it depends on the size of the units but it's almost identical to what you see young people wanting today. So it's a great opportunity, I think, and so I just want you to make sure that you get the density you need to make it a success. I appreciate that. And again, I think that, you know, we're not stopping here. You know, that's the message we would communicate. We master plan this first section. We're already working on the balance of the land but the plan is that you have these different styles of housing in different amenities, different commercial spaces that are supporting the different styles of architecture and living styles. So ideally over time, you get a much more organic feel to the neighborhood as opposed to just saying, you know, it's 55 and over, it's just a young professional neighborhood or whatever. So you get everybody kind of interacting in a true community. I'll be a lone voice for not going higher. Oh, I don't think you're alone. So the next question is the PUD standards. So I think there's a few things here, one of which is, you know, the height comes into it. The one thing that I do want to point out, which is kind of in the preamble to getting into the different comments of PUD standards is the point about the traffic study. So when we proposed the initial master plan and then as we proceeded through sketch preliminary and final plot with 118 units, we had one traffic study that encompassed the entire build out of the full master plan of this existing master plan. So the 458 residential units plus up to 45,000 square feet of commercial space. And if you recall, you know, we spent a lot of time actually going back and forth on that. I believe there was even a third party engineer. I think it was actually on the state side because we permitted this through Act 250 as well, including the full traffic study. And not only did VTrans move forward with it, not only did the Department of Public Works here with South Burlington approve of it, but there was actually a third party study that was done that VTrans contracted with. So before you go too far, I apologize that that statement was unclear. I didn't mean to imply that the traffic study didn't address what you're proposing now. The traffic study did address what they proposed now and the board was comfortable with it at final plot. So we didn't see, staff didn't see any issues with continuing to use the existing traffic study as representative of what they're proposing today. Okay. Save my breath. Open spaces. Yeah. So six was just basically reiterating the height comment because it's addressed under PUD and under. So again, this kind of harkens back to the open space issue kind of harkens back to what we started off with discussing, which is, you know, we, what we thought one of the purposes of the master plan was, you know, kind of knocking off kind of the big picture items, traffic, circulation, pedestrian connectivity, and then green spaces. And, you know, it was our understanding that the green spaces that we were providing were constituting the entire green space for this portion of the master plan. Again, long term. And it's probably not even going to be that much longer before back here presenting something new to you. But it is to have a path network throughout the entire site and to have additional green spaces. But for the purposes of this, we believe that there is enough green space. I wasn't suggesting it. And I was there to be, and I'm not suggesting that the overall green space concept is inadequate in any way. I mean, as a percentage of the total, if you're only thinking about it numerically, I think it's fine. And I like, you know, there's a couple of nice spaces, right? What I'm reflecting about, I just like to think about it a little bit, really. And this is, the analogy is this. Farrell's got his development behind us. You know, behind Shaw's. You know what I'm talking about, the four off of Del Parkway. You know what I'm talking about there? Well, nobody thought much about that then. It didn't get much consideration. And we're looking at those families there, and they are hard pressed in exactly the way I was describing. Now, the argument is Farrell Park is down the street. It's on what? Farrell Street. Ever heard of Farrell? You can go down to Farrell Park and get plenty of green space. But you have, it's just not so easy for, observably, for families with young children to manage that, particularly in tough weather, you know. But in any event, for a mother with a stroller, with stroller aged kids and grabbing another one by the hand to get probably not more than a third of a mile down the road to Farrell Park and across Swift Street. Not that great. Just, if you can squeeze something in for those, for those relative, for those multifamily things, just see if there's anything useful you can do. Understood. Were there any other points on that, the open space, green space? I agree with Frank if you can find some spaces to make some, you know, little pocket areas. Little things for little kids, you know. I think that that's certainly part of the goal. So, you know, we haven't engaged the landscape architect yet, but I think that's a step that, certainly by the preliminary plat, we'll have all that hashed out. As well as how it connects, you might remember the stormwater pond area that's closer does have some green space. There's a community garden that's next to that, and there's also a series of picnic tables and things that are programmed around that area. It actually does look pretty nice. We built it last year, and I've got some photos of it before the thing all turned into a mud puddle this winter that we could share as part of the next permit too, so you guys can kind of get a feel for it. If you also recall from the master plan process, one of the things that we requested and were granted that the master plan permit was the ability to propose to use, this is a dense site, and it's a big project, so you're going to have a significant landscaping requirement on a pretty dense site plan. And so we made the request to, conditionally to propose to you guys, could we take some of that landscaping budget and if we saw some amenities, you know, if it's a pavilion or something like that, a gazebo, something like that, that makes sense for the community members, but may not be, you know, an actual planting that you guys could at least consider, one of the things that you guys approved at that time, so. Aren't we limited in our ability to do that one? I mean, I don't think it's a terrible idea, it's just that, to what extent can we do it? The limitations are at the site is otherwise well landscaped, and the landscape standards are otherwise, the intention of the landscape standards is otherwise met, so it's really at the board's discretion to what degree that's allowed. On some smaller properties, it's been 100% hardscape, and then on other properties, it's been a balance. But it's never a building. It's never been a building, that's true. It has been a gazebo kind of thing. Landscape? On 20 Kimbell? Wasn't there a gazebo? There's a gazebo that covers a rock garden area, but did we count the gazebo as landscape? The budget. We were awfully nice to Allen. Maybe not. Now you know where to look. There's the sculpture, yeah, there's the sculpture, but I don't know if the gazebo itself was counted. I don't know either. It's unlikely that he would have chosen to put in a gazebo if he didn't have to. Yeah, that's a good point. It was a well landscaped, I mean, a heavily, previously landscaped property. I think you can solve this with your pool area one way or another, pretty easily. Great. So the eight point actually concerns a little bit of that tenor and amenity space, which is particularly the parking, the head-in parking, as you go around the bend on Two Brothers Drive, as you head down towards Kennedy. Yeah, so you're essentially right in front of there, but you probably want to look at the site plan. We keep scrolling up. It's just at the bottom of the page. So it's these parking spaces that I think are being referenced. And the suggestion was, you know, can we look at parallel parking and that staff would obviously want DPW to weigh in, which, you know, at this point, you know, this is pretty conceptual still. The exact location of that tenor building could shift a little bit. We could do some reconfiguration of that. So why would you want parallel parking? I don't think parallel parking there is a very good idea. But I think I have a lot of people who want to come and use that and maybe want to drive their little ones up from the apartment building at the top of the hill. Sure, but it's concerning to have, I mean, as an engineer, it concerned me to see parallel, or head-in parking on the road. We have to back out into oncoming traffic and not being able, like if you were in this spot here, you wouldn't necessarily know that somebody was coming as you were doing this. And they wouldn't know you were coming out. I see that. Yeah. So I think there's eight spaces to the left. So to the south of the building. I think those are actually in the existing permit. It doesn't mean that it can't be amended if we find a better layout for it. It's those ones that are on the curve that are not currently permitted and we located there really to provide parking for that tenor amenity space. With that amount of space that you could bring the road slightly wider and have parallel parking on both sides, yes? I mean, I think what we would say is, you know, we're not married to this. We need to have some parking around that building, but, you know, we can sit back down with our engineers and our land planners and our colleagues. How many spaces would you lose if you went to parallel parking? Quite a few. There's also angled parking and there's also an opportunity to reorient the tenor amenity building if needed to help. The back-out objection is fairly compliant. We don't need to design it for them. I think there's a lot of opportunity up there to come to a better layout and outcome, so I think we can work on that. Onto number nine. You know, I would say on nine and ten, you know, we're not pushing back on that. What it suggests is, you know, we need to get this to our architects and engineers and try to work out something that addresses the issues. Great. Thank you. So I guess my one question would be, you know, this meeting is sort of a monumental one for us because, you know, the height one is obviously a pretty big determination of how this starts to play on the future. Sounds like most people are, well, I don't know, I mean, Jennifer, are you okay with what we're proposing this height? It's going up beyond that that you have concerns about? Yeah. Okay. And then it sounds sort of like from everybody else that there is unanimity on the height is... Subject to trying in some way to accommodate John's point about transition for those... Well, I think they're doing it. They actually have, we didn't see it because there was a setback piece. But, you know, as long as they're, as long as you can soften it a little bit, but I don't object to the height at all. You want to take a strop hole? I know you'll do it a lot in principle. Or even higher if you could bring it down. You know, if you could vary it a little bit. I think the roof top amenities, is that on all or just one? It's on two of the buildings. I do like that one. Two sides of one. Okay. I miss both. One. So, a strop hole is a good idea. I'm in favor of the... Yep? Yes. Oh, not... I know what I'm talking about. Right. It's just a sense of the board of whether the proposed heights are okay. I think... Yep. Mark. Mark. Yep. So, there we are. Great. Thank you. Comment from the public. Hearing none. I have a suggestion. Which is that we don't just mumble our way out of this theory, but that somebody say, well, let me do it. I move that we close this, you know, and the sketch plan here. So, by making a motion, there's the potential that you're creating a decision, which is potentially appealable. I don't second that motion. It would possibly be a middle ground to explicitly conclude the meeting and direct the applicant to come forward with a preliminary plan. And Bill has some canned language. Right. You got some language? Right. Canned language is sketch plan is a high... This is going to take three minutes. 180 seconds. Let's start counting. Sketch plan is a high level review and a discussion where an applicant receives feedback from the board on the major elements of a project before it is fully designed. During the meeting, the board may provide oral guidance to the applicant, which constitutes the board's determination that the application meets the purposes of the land development regulations. These comments are to help guide the applicant to a later application that meets LDR requirements and contributes to the goals and contents of plan. It is not a formal hearing and does not result in a binding decision. There will be an opportunity for public questions after the board completes their initial discussion of the project. Members of the public are welcome and encouraged to ask questions or provide feedback at this very early stage of an application. Please direct all questions to the board chair. The board may choose to continue the meeting to a later date if there are questions that remain to be examined. The future date will be announced prior to concluding this item for the evening. Upon conclusion of this sketch plan meeting, an applicant who wishes to move forward with their project will have to submit a complete application. The next level of review includes additional public notices and a formal public hearing. Senator May, I pose a question to the chair. Is the chair saying at this point that it has had a plan? Is that part of what the chair is saying? That's a good point. Yes. So could I ask a question? Sure. So if you conclude the hearing and we... That's not a hearing. If you conclude the meeting and we start working on these things and in four weeks, you know, we have something else that we'd like to run by you. At that point, would we then be filing a new sketch plan application and noticing it in order to attend and then might it make sense to say continue for four weeks and at that point if we haven't had anything else come up and trying to sort of accommodate the concerns brought up that we could conclude at that point? Yeah, I'd be perfectly in favor of that. Are you feeling like that's likely? It didn't seem like there were any concerns. Well, the one might be, you know, adding some height on one building and we're also distributing the amenity space, parking locations or I think it's just a bit... I don't know that we feel that it's incredibly likely, but... The direction from the board is that, you know, you have some feedback on those things. You agree to look into them. It's ripe for preliminary plan. What's the time that... They have six months to come back for preliminary planning. Six months and I'm done for you. I guess what Andrew's saying is that they wouldn't get the benefit of any more board feedback on a subsequent iteration if they wanted to do that before preliminary plan. My temperature on the board is that the board is saying we trust you to take our advice and incorporate it into your preliminary plan application. Yeah, I would see why you have to proceed incrementally on the sketch plan. The tenor of the board is you're doing fine and we're flexible on height, which was your main concern in your fire preliminary plan. I think we're good with that recommendation. I think it's the first time ever we've pushed back on closing. It seemed like a meeting. Meeting. Yeah, and if that preliminary plan, you come back with a parking solution that we don't like, there's still time within that process to adjust. So as long as you're not pushed up until I want this approval and I've got to start building before snow flies or something like that, then there will be times for iterative final planning needs. We'll see you sometime in six months perhaps. Hopefully. Great. Well, thank you. Yeah, thank you very much. Next time on the agenda are minutes, there are no minutes. Because we miss suits of other business. So we do have an item of other business that concerns Dorset Meta. So, goodbye. Please send John and so on recusing himself and the item is simply continuation from March 5 to March 19. Applicant has agreed to request we've confirmed with Mr. Seth that they will not be seeking an additional extension. So, looks like a fine option. So, any comments? So can I just want to understand this in particular. The fifth was problematic for some of the neighbors. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. So the applicant is fine on March 19 with holding it then. And so are some of the neighbors and Mr. Seth. Is that correct? I would move that we move the Dorset Metals project to March 19. Second. Move the application to March 19. That's correct. Yeah. So you can't make a formal decision until March 5. But if you're just letting everyone know that's the sense of the board. The sense of the board is that we'll be talking about March 19 and we can make a vote. Thanks, March 5. Okay. So that is the end of Developmental Review Board for this week. And it's 8.06 p.m. Take care. Good night, all. Thanks, Mark. So next meeting is at the police station. We will not be having alterations. I don't think there's anything. I don't think that there's anything to deliver it on. So we'll meet at 7 at the police station. Okay. Thank you. And we know I will not be there. Yeah. Thank you.