 All right, good evening everyone welcome to the South Burlington Development Review Board meeting for Tuesday April 4th My name is Quinn man. I'm the vice chair filling in for Don filbright who is out this evening And I will introduce the rest of our board members that we have here. We have Stephanie Wyman Frank Koepman and our newest member John. I apologize. I don't know your last name yet Moscatelli Moscatelli. Okay. Thank you so much and then for our staff. We have our development review staff Marlekeen and Marty Gillies, okay. Thank you So there are a few ways you can attend tonight's meeting we have folks in person here tonight You can also attend online Whether you're joining in person or online. It's important that you sign in This allows you to be granted party status given that you want to an appealed appeal a decision that we make On any application that's discussed this evening. If you're in person There's a sign-in sheet in the back of the room if you're attending online And would like to sign in please Provide your name and email in the chat box you can also sign in after the fact by Emailing Marlekeen at M Keen Keen at Esparl com and Couple more housekeeping for our virtual attendees We ask that you keep your microphones and cameras off unless you are actively participating and If you want to participate during the public comment periods turn your camera on and raise your hand and we'll recognize you and With that we'll move to our first agenda item Emergency evacuation procedures for those that are in the building with us. There's two doors in the back You can go right or left and head out of exits and Are there any additions deletions or changes in order of the agenda items tonight? I Suppose so We'll get to it really quickly But it looks like we are not going to be able to have a quorum for agenda item number five So if you are here for agenda item number five that will be postponed We'll discuss the date that's postponed to in just a couple minutes though So if you want to hear about that just stick around for another five minutes, and you should be good to go otherwise Agenda stands as written Okay, and any announcements beyond our new board member Hearing none and Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda. I Don't think we have any So we will move on to agenda item number five I will read this site plan application sp 22056 of beta technologies Inc to amend a previously approved plan for a 344,000 square foot manufacturing and office building the amendment consists of adding 261 parking spaces at 154 Da Vinci Drive this item was scheduled to be heard at our last Board meeting on March 21st and was postponed due to lack of a quorum as Marla has mentioned Unfortunately, we will need to postpone again for the same reason Yeah So sorry about the postponement. I appreciate everyone's patience with this We are a committee of volunteers and sometimes life happens. We had a couple scheduled absences and then one unexpected absence tonight Board member Stephanie Wyman is recused from this application, which brings us down to three and our attorney tells us tells us that Though a recused member does not count towards the total board We still need a majority of members So a majority of six is still four as you can see we only have three in the room And so we won't be able to make any decisions on this item I'm going to suggest postponing this to April 18th, which is our next regularly scheduled meeting. I Would love to try and schedule it sooner But unfortunately, I can't ask people who aren't here about their availability sooner And we have to make a decision in public During this meeting on when to reschedule it to we have plenty room on the 18th should have no problem discussing it fully and Yeah, that's really appreciate everyone's patience with this Could you please use a microphone? Thank you. Art Clugo beta technologies. Thanks for giving me a few minutes I'm sure you want to move on and this is likely not where anybody wanted to be tonight for sure we had Hope to get through this and and done considerable model work to get to this point It's not clear from the rules of procedure that you actually do need to make that decision tonight. You can wait And call a special meeting and we are going to request a special meeting As you mentioned, this is the second continuation We are extremely concerned about the impact of the project and our ability to deliver on our commitments to our vendors Our customers our investors We're putting over two hundred million dollars in the ground on this project to create a tremendous number of jobs To have the project delayed any further is really putting this at risk So I'd ask respectfully that the board and the acting chair consider How we progress into a special meeting Sooner than April 18th. Thank you. I'm not going to be able to speak to Special meetings and how they work on the fly But I can absolutely look into that first thing in the morning With our turn legal team. I know that counsel can call a special meeting and only require 72 hours notice I'm not sure about a warned public hearing so If the board would like me to I'm happy to look into that first thing in the morning and try to organize another date Just real quick from your rules of procedure if you look at section 5 item a Special meetings may be called by the chair. I would presume and Frank could maybe verify this The acting chair in this case provided at least 24 hours notice is given to each board member and the time and place of each Special meeting is publicly announced at least 24 hours before the meeting Those are much different guidelines than the guidelines that we're talking about So as you look at that Marla, if you could that would be much appreciated. Yeah I I wonder how that dovetails with the statutory requirements. So that's what I'll be looking into in the morning. Yeah, so Yes, I think as a board we'd be open to that Marla if you can look into that and can figure out our Availability to get a quorum before the 18th, but for the time being would we still continue it until the 18th right now? Yeah, okay, and if And I'll talk to you guys before you walk out the door Not to do in public session because that's a waste of everybody's time But I'll have a conversation with the folks that are here about their availability before we leave tonight Yeah, and I think that's our understanding as well, especially from talking to staff earlier today That it's an either or we're required. We need to request a special meeting slash hearing Understand that the next scheduled meeting is on the 18th Okay Great, so we will look into that option But right now I will entertain a motion to continue this to we actually can't make a motion Oh, right because we don't have forum so I am I am postponing 18th unless we are able to schedule a special meeting on legally and with Works with everyone's schedule Excellent. Thank you. Thank you. All right Okay And that brings us to agenda item number six continued preliminary and final plat application SD 2305 of Gary Bourne to create a general planned unit development by Subdividing three existing lots into three new lots of 0.1 acres lot one zero point one four acres lot two and One point zero six acres lot three and constructing a 3,350 square foot financial Institute on lot one a 6,480 square foot two-story mixed commercial and residential building on lot two and a three-story 27 unit multi-family building on lot three at 760 Shelburne Road This is another application that was continued from March 21st due to our lack of a quorum So we thank you for your patience and glad that we can hear you tonight. So with that You this is a continuation so you all have are if you've spoken before you've been sworn in Is there anyone new on your team that may need to be sworn in? Okay, let's just we'll do it for good measure So raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury? Excellent, thank you, and I think to start to just if everyone could speak their name into the microphone So we have that on record as well Okay, good evening. It's Gary born the owner of the project. Thank you and Jennifer does it tell Trudel consulting engineers the engineer and project manager I'm Greg rabbit oh from rabbit oh architects the project architect excellent. Thank you and just for awareness. There is another one at the Podium over there, so if you get up at another time, and it's easier to chat there So yep, oh Yeah, see there to see Kelly me here from TPG architecture. Excellent, and we saw you both last time as well. So thanks So before we begin we've seen this application before on March 7th And I just want to note that I'm sure you all noticed as well in the staff report They maintained all the comments that were in that original staff report and some of them now are noted that Staff considers the criteria met and we don't need to discuss anymore So those I'll be going through really quickly but if there's anything that you guys want to add feel free to you know say so on those items and Other than that. Do you just want to give? Maybe an overview of what you've been working on since we last talked we do have a new board member So if you just want to give a brief couple minute overview, and then we can jump into the items I can do that. So in the past few weeks We have been working on responses to some of the initial staff comments that we received and we have provided Responses and submitted that to staff which I think is reflected in the updated notes for tonight We did decide to not resubmit Site a site plan package. Obviously. There's some things that are somewhat straightforward to revise but we decided to not in the middle of these multiple hearings be submitting multiple rounds of Revisions here and there so we hope that after tonight. We'll have enough direction to make The changes we need to make for the next time we come in front of this board So I just want you all to know that we are happy to revise those plans We're just trying to do it in an efficient manner. Yeah, that makes sense. Thank you Okay, so we will move on to comment number one So previously We had directed the applicant to amend the plans to provide the appearance of two stories of the building on lot one which is the financial institution and We had indicated that No further discussion is required at this time So that's one that will move forward on The next staff comment we have is Sorry Regarding the reduced setback that has been granted and so The update is the board felt that the reduced front setback would result in a project which better meets The standards and so this one has also been met. So we'll move on And with that we are moving on to comment number three this comment is has to do with having one entry facing the primary road and Another component of the regulation that we're looking at is that The access should have a direct separate walkway to the primary road that's at least eight feet wide and so staff has noted that this criterion has not been met for a lot three and That the plans be modified. Yes. So we did provide a response that we can modify the sidewalk to be eight feet Well, I'd like the board to understand that the city of South Burlington is determined that five feet on Swift Street Is the correct size and the state of Vermont is determined that on Shelburne Road that five feet Is the standard and that's what's in place today and will be for the foreseeable future I have no indication from Vermont trans that they're going to change anything as The owner it's been drawn and it leaves a small room for landscaping To just simply have from this is from the the end of the building that faces Swift Street the rear Apartment building straight out to Swift Street. We're just advocating that it's five foot at the street It seems five foot from the building. It's a small ask But it does match what's in the area and I don't think it Causes a problem, but we leave it to the board if they really have to have eight Then we'll dig up the extra and just pour the concrete but remember where it hits it immediately goes to five feet So again, we're looking you know the regulation calls out this this eight foot width Does any does any board members want to offer comment on that or? Do we just want to move forward with that the applicant has complied with that or do we want to consider the five foot? We have It's a dimensional standard, so I suppose but waivers are supposed are required to better meet the Standards of The PUD so the applicant has to demonstrate that a five foot sidewalk is better in some way than an eight foot sidewalk By the way, are your mics on I'm a little they are I'd appreciate whatever you can do to lean as close as you can It's not your fault No problem. I understood you to say that you contend that a five foot sidewalk is an improvement Because it is more harmonious with the Other properties in the area. Is that your position? Yes more harmonious with the city's Sidewalks, which is what it's connected to And I guess I would add to that. I mean it it is additional impervious I'm not sure that an eight foot sidewalk is necessary for pedestrians Wait a minute when you say the city sidewalk you mean on Shelburne Road You mean on both both are five foot on Swift Street Street's five foot would connect to this and Shelburne Road is five foot as well. So you so you would have an eight foot wide sidewalk and The next property would have a five foot sidewalk on Swift Street. Correct. It would connect to a five foot So this is it sort of a talked about for Swift Street specifically Later in the staff report, but Swift Street has a rec path right now in front of your property as a sidewalk But the city's Capital projects Comments are to change it to a rec path to be compatible with the rec path on the rest of Swift Street And I believe that's an eight foot width So it would be an eight foot connecting to an eight foot through on Swift though You are correct that it's Shelburne Road is five feet and the eight foot rec path you're referring to is coming East-west down to the corner of Shelburne Road not entering my property. Is that correct? That's correct a little bit Yeah, so the if you see on the right-hand side of the page that is a rec path and so the the project in the staff report The request of the city is that that rec path on the right-hand side of the page Extend across the front of this property instead of a pit instead of a concrete sidewalk It would be an asphalt rec path across the Swift Street part of the property Correct Well, then it would all be eight feet. Is that your point? Right? Well, it's it's a rec path because of the bike and walkers that are encouraged to use that down to the corner Right not to cross into my property. My property is for pedestrians leaving the apartment house straight out. I Would also note that I don't think that any other property that's been developed in the urban design overlay of which there are Handful not a dozen but five at least have fully complied with eight-foot connection So it's up to the board. I don't have strong feelings about it, but just giving the context Just to be clear Frank. We're talking about We're talking about this little Swift Street go around the corner. Yeah, keep keep going where further right further On the side of the driveway this keep going past the car. I can't my screen's good So I can't tell what we're looking at where switch right there So it's from the sidewalk to the building this Right, correct for the pedestrians leave in the apartment house if they were going to go to Denny's for instance The other thing maybe to consider is that it is additional and pervious area And I'm not sure that it's necessary from a pedestrian accessibility standpoint to have it be eight feet That is a little bit wide It also provides Reducing it to the width that we have it now also provides a little more green space open space for plantings So how long is that stretch aside? Probably 25 feet For myself, I would grant the way Yeah looking at it Seems like it would with the rec path and then onto the property So I would be comfortable with the waiver too. So I think we we have direction on that Wait a minute, where does that leave us and them? The three the three out of four of us just say we do you have a feeling about it? So we'll move on to comment for this one is regarding glazing So for all properties in the urban overlay district a minimum of 75% of glazing shall be transparent so we were looking for a demonstration of how this criteria will be met and Clarification on how much glazing will be transparent for the building on lot one And there's a button Says push make sure it's great. Can you hear me now? Excellent. Okay, great This is a sensitive issue because the bank is providing their own architecture and they They've been very careful in their language to us today. I mean the but the intention is that Prior to issuing his owning permit We would come back and show how we meet the other criteria and I would I would say fold that into this on our drawings There's a little table on the elevation sheets. It says what the percentage of glazing is It looks like they're compliant, but we don't know how much advertising graphics or whatever they're gonna put on there A long way of saying I believe their intention is to comply They gave us a caveat as so long as they can afford to do it or whatever But I'm not worried about Chase running out of money So I think I think if we can tie that into that other condition or treat it similarly that would be effective I think we would need clear demonstration of this before like closing a hearing right but on this or So what we have done on other projects is when the applicant says 100% you know, obviously, there's no demonstration When it's getting Close to 75% We have required demonstration before the hearing is closed if it's like, oh, yeah We you know might have some graphics on the windows, but the glade but the graph But the windows are going to be transparent, but for the graphics I think that's something we can do is a zoning permit because you can't have that much graph graphics on the windows anyway But if they're planning on making some of the glazing spandrel or Translucent when the screen on it or something we would want to see that before closing the hearing Okay, we'll have to we'll have to they have them to provide that Yeah, if I may I just wanted to clarify that We saw this comment and we plan on addressing it as we work through the Partial raising of the height of the building so we'll definitely include a table that shows the percentage of the glazing Great On to comment number five This is also about glazing and we are all set on this one unless there are further comments Same with number six. It looks like We are all set number seven, we also know further discussion Which brings us to comment eight This is a regarding rooftop elements So we are looking for confirmation Or demonstration of how the rooftop mechanical equipment Will or will not be visible I'm not sure but wouldn't this normally be maybe Marla can help me with this Marla. Is this something that would normally be Inspected prior to an occupancy permit because at that point all the equipment would be in place It depends on the skill equipment Marty. Can you pull up that supplemental rooftop equipment plan that they had provided? I assume it's in the bucket You've had some good luck with the mixed-use building that's up near the front With shrinking the amount of equipment that's actually on the roof And it's in the center section of the roof and there is a bit of a parapet wall So we believe we're all set, but we'll see what the drawing shows. Yeah, that's the right building. Yeah So Do you have any sense? Yeah, so what's what's the sense of scale on these things? Are we talking like a foot or two? Are we talking like eight feet? If you could just introduce yourself because you didn't get introduced earlier great push, okay Alan Spencer I'm with rabbit who architects Spencer yeah I'm sorry. Were you sworn in previously? Did you I came in while the swearing was in so I didn't can we do it quickly? Yeah, raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury? Excellent. Thank you So the plan you have in front of you was put together prior to some further conversations We have with the mechanical engineer. Those two big rooftop units are gone We're doing a much smaller residential size system for the commercial space on the ground floor So We haven't got complete Plans from that yet So we don't know exactly how far they're going to stick up But the hope is that our parapet is going to be high enough to to hide most of that, especially from my level Going to the large building that's an unknown right now We have no mechanical plans or designs even started on that building. So Our hope is is that we're just going to say that we're going to screen them with the appropriate materials that are going to You know reflect the building around them so um, so I guess the risk of not providing that is that if you Can't get them hidden um Then it would have to be an amendment to the plan so if you can't Do you know if you can't get them fully screened? I guess To make that a post facto I mean shouldn't they be required to demonstrate compliance with that criterion before We rule To make it just prior to a zoning permit right then it's leave some subjectivity, right? Yeah, I think your mic is on Hey, oh, sorry I was pushing I swear except except you would have the same objection If we said we'll make it a condition of the construction permit, right? You would have you would have the same problem When we go in for a construction permit from the fire safety, we do have to include mechanical drawings at that level But that's something that's just not prepared at this The stage of the game. So typically applicants have like a sense, you know, it's going to be um individual unit unit size units um For each for each apartment and those are typically one to two feet tall and this is what we're going to do Or we're going to have you know two Five foot units and this is what we're going to do and maybe they're going to be six feet Or maybe they're going to be one and a half feet if they're the smaller ones, but you know, it's within sort of the the scale Can you get to that level? Well, what's proposed right now? I believe in talking with gary is we're looking at split systems for the residential portion of the large building The commercial area in terms of the energy recovery is still a little bit up in the air those units can get a little larger um But the elevator itself is already hidden within the building structure. So that doesn't protrude up and and get seen I don't think we're going to have any issue hiding what we have up there But it's just it's such an unknown at this level. Well, I mean Can't we We'll be simply make it a condition of the permit that no no rooftop structure will be uh visible above the parapet without screening Well, those are two different things. Um, and the microphone is in a push and hold. It's just push it and wipe out. Okay. I did realize okay, um You know, those are two different things. So if the board wants to have them um screened by being um Faced in siding material That's one condition if the board wants them to be screened by not being visible. That's a different condition altogether We are going to see you guys again, you know, um as janice mentioned There is a revisions to the site plan forthcoming Is that something you can get a kind of sense for again without all the final details by the continued hearing What if without sizing the equipment we just provide a sketch showing what it what the screening would look like if it was needed If it was what I'm if it was needed If we needed to screen some of the rooftop equipment, we would show you a proposal of what that would look like In what materials we'd be using In You would show us something that we could then translate into language to specify any condition. Yeah sure Is is that a condition that yeah, that sounds reasonable. I would be comfortable with that Yeah, great. Great. Thank you. Oh and uh back to the other plan. I think this goes with uh, I'm not sure if it's on this Right up or not about the solar ready zone That same plan for the smaller building shows the shaded area to the right There is no mechanical equipment proposed on that roof and that encompasses more than 40 of that roof Which we have dedicated for the solar ready zone Thank you Okay, so this brings us to comment nine. Um, this is for landscaping Excuse me for just a second. Actually, you can just educate me a little bit Is it correct because I actually never thought of that before that Solar installation is incompatible with with rooftop mechanicals It's just you lose area. You can't install the solar where the mechanical but need a clearance around the rooftop equipment So it would make it very difficult At best Okay Comment nine for landscaping So for lots with buildings which are set back 50 or more feet from the front line at least 50 percent of the required landscaping Shall be installed between the front building and the front lot line So this criterion applies to the building on lot three Which remind me is the apartment building apartment building Um And so we also want to consider what this criterion means for Within a pud Marla, could you help me on that point again as far as what? Kind of we want to be thinking about In terms of the pud versus how we would look at it normally or just for a single lot rather Um, can you pull up the landscaping plan marty? Thanks So the criteria is for lots For lots not projects for lots with buildings that are set back 50 or more feet from the front lot line Which for a lot three the one on the right is swift street At least 50 of the required landscaping shall be installed between the front building line and the front lot line This project is Not really contemplated in the way that criteria is met or is written because this project has a minimum landscaping But I believe and correct me if I'm wrong Jen or lucy You're not really proposing the landscaping to be met on a lot by lot basis You're proposing the minimum landscaping to be met on for the pud as a whole. Is that correct? That's correct. Yeah, so the question here is you know Building three the building on lot three has a requirement on landscaping There's a number That is 50 of the value of that requirement on landscaping But they're kind of considering this as a whole So what does it mean to say 50 of the landscaping needs to be installed to the front of the building on lot three? I mean you could be strict about it and say 50 of the required value for the building on lot three has to be installed between The building on lot three and swift street, but I would say that there's potentially some room for flexibility Given that it's a pud What I would just say we we would appreciate that flexibility consideration because I think lucy's online now to chime in but she did spend a lot of time trying to come up with a cohesive Both planting and hardscape design with some cool benches and and other features that are consistent without the site So it didn't feel disjointed that there's just a residential building. That's totally separate from the other buildings So I think that's reflected in this design So we would appreciate that consideration a couple of other things we might consider and again, it's flexibility Right now the current landscape design that lucy's come up with lucy there Is allows for maximum view of the landscaping on this site now the planning Board directed us to go to the pud route to get this project put together the way it is with that in mind When you're on shellburn road, which is one of the busiest roads in the state Whether you're going north or south the landscape at this site if you look at the color photos Or if you've been down by you'll know what I mean It becomes quite visible if you're on the two busiest roads Furthermore, if you're driving east on swift that is going up swift street. So you're going to go up to a spear Again, the landscaping is in your face. It's a lot of landscaping It's it's a big investment But I think we've maximized or lucy's maximize the view of that Using the pud requirement. We're required to have x amount of landscaping for the entire project What's the best places to make the maximum use the other thing to understand is we move that curb cut on swift street Up the road and we eliminated the other curb cut And under the pud we could do that we eliminated the second one on swift and the second one on the busiest road in the state Shopping road but to do that we needed to push the curb cut up to make the traffic flow through here Much better than it ever was before so irregardless of the fact that we've brought the traffic numbers way down on the site We've also reorientated it to maximize how can they flow in and out through here? But when you do that something has to give so if you look at your photos What gave was the land in front of that end of the building? But I think if you ask most people driving by They would assume that as they face the building the long way on children road They're actually looking at the front of the building. I know technically If you chop the thing up into lots Like it was originally then swift street was the front in the old days or as of today But I think the public would view it the other way So that's where we where we were coming from when we orientated the landscaping Thank you Also, keep in mind that the ATM has got to go so there will be more room for landscaping when that ATM is gone That's still that needs to be discussed What's going to fill the space in front of the large building? I'm sorry. Thank you now or in the future and well as planned as planned what's going to fill the space in front of the building on the Swift street side or the Shelburne road facing side the Shelburne road side Where are we talking about the the landscaping problem on the swift street side swift street side? Yes. Yeah, no, it doesn't make any Marty's going to draw the lot lines or highlight the lot lines Where the heck is the lot line for that for that? Is it is it following the curve of the driveway there? Well, that's the yeah That right So the lot line for lot one is the north south element there Yes, that's a little tricky the regulations even though we're developing the site as a PUD require The buildings to be on separate lots because they're different uses. So the lots are Drawn in here, but really the project is being developed as one cohesive project And you can see that, you know 50 percent of the landscaping is clearly not between the building on lot three and swift street because It's mostly pavement and most of the landscaping is sort of to the Shelburne road side of it. So this is clearly not met but You know, what does it mean to meet this in the case of a PUD? Clarifying question on that It's I understand that it's three lots because there are three buildings But as part of a PUD are these lots then legally bound together? Yes, so there's a covenant that they can't be split Right, okay. Just want to make sure that Well, what room do you again what room do you think you think look this is not the first time we're running into a situation in which the Strict reading of the of the regulation may produce a less than desirable design Um Is the problem that I'm trying to figure out exactly what the problem is What do you if you put a lot of landscaping? At that end of the building what you're talking about is the north end of the large building Is that it is that what we're looking at? Yeah, I think we would be looking at a significant redesign If we really did have to fit 50 percent of the landscaping in that On that side of the building. So I think that's the question is Can we get some relief from that strict requirement because it's a PUD and we're developing it as one cohesive project What is that? What is that space between the gray? If you could keep the hand just down into that space that almost looks like A devil's knife, you know the light gray that light gray space that what is that? And why is it what distinguishes it from the darker gray? To the north of it the darker gray is the Driving lane the accessway to the entire site and that lighter line where the car is parked is an area where we've designed to be a Drop off and pick up area And even ups drop off or uber eats We there's no parking other parking on that side of the building and we thought it was important to provide some type of realistic Accessibility to that building if you needed to drop off you filled it up with landscaping in other words if somebody Drove in with a ups truck. There'd be no place to put the truck, right? So it's a tight site But we we spent a lot of time on this design because we think it's the best fit for this site So that was one of the considerations that we made Well another way to meet you're the minimum land, well I think we would be hard pressed to get 50 percent In in there. We might be looking at shifting that access road Closer to Shelburne road, which I would hate hate to do from a traffic safety standpoint. So You know, I mean the design looks to me at least as far as I can tell I can make sense The problem I have for me is that a lot line is a lot line. I really don't think there's a Concepts intellectually honest distinction between a lot line between within a PUD and a lot line That's not within a PUD. It's just it's intellectual hash as far as I'm concerned So I'm asking do we what's the flex on the landscaping? If there is any well It's you know the same criteria if it better meets the objectives If it better meets the objectives of the urban design overlay and of the PUD then the board can Wave it but um, like I said before, you know, the board has unequivocally stated that the ATM is not allowable as designed So removing that ATM lane creates a hell of a lot more space pardon me for landscaping um, and so maybe the direction is You know, you're gonna have to Provide revised plans without the ATM Landscape that space and provide a calculation as to where you are and maybe the board would be willing to issue a waiver for the remaining dollar value at that time I think I respect your opinion on that but I do think the ATM issue is a separate issue So I wonder if we should put this discussion about the landscaping on hold temporarily So We get a chance to talk about the ATM I guess as far as the ATM is concerned what I heard from the board last time was that We would have the opportunity to discuss how it meets the criteria outlined in the PUD to make it a more compact Accessible workable. There's a bunch of language in there and and we started to answer that question and One of the board members suggested that we think about our answer And come back. So I I thought that's where we left off last time Yeah, we can move forward and to have that discussion. Yep, and then revisit this But and so but I will just I want to confirm overarchingly It sounds like that 50 percent does fall into the dimensional kind of standard that we could give a waiver to on landscaping Okay, great. Thank you and that We will move on to comment 10 And this is about inclusionary the required number of inclusionary zoning units it seems like there is some You know determination of how many units inclusionary zoning units were required And it is the number that's been landed on is is 30 units Wait, sorry 10 units of the 30 units are required for inclusionary zoning And so we were looking for your response on that Thank you The short response is we disagree with your math a little bit I will I will say I remember frank you've been an advocate for this Proviso in the zoning ordinance for a long time. I'm glad to see it there, but it's it's a little difficult to read Our understanding is that The base density for the site is per the tab tabulations in the in the zoning ordinance 20 units Of which three have to be inclusionary, right? That's right. So we have 20 units Three of which are inclusionary Those come with not a bonus, but An offset offset. Yeah, so The ones that are required by law Come with an offset at any rate that takes that offset takes you up to 23 Which leaves us a short fall of seven For us the math would be Half of those Three and a 3.5 would be inclusionary Because of the roundings provisions of the code you would round up to seven total three Per the original offset Plus four more where we're asking for an inclusionary bonus So the total number would not be third it would not be 10 out of 30 But from our perspective the maximum would be seven out of 30 10 out of 30 would take you up to 33 percent which is twice The sort of target goal of the ordinance it says normally you want us to have 15 percent We can go up to 50 percent But 10 units out of 30 is is too big a bite For the finances of the project to work and I'm not sure that's really how the ordinance is meant to read So we have our original 20 units which includes three inclusionary zoning units We get three bonus units that takes us up to 23 If we add another three and a half or in this case four inclusionary units that gets us up to 30 Unfortunately, you can't exceed 50 percent of the lot value I know you mentioned in your notes that you could get up to 31, but we don't see that being permissible You could also read the regs I read the regs to read that if we needed 10 inclusionary units to get from 20 to 30 That we would have five inclusionary units and five bonus units That would mean we would only need five additional inclusionary zoning units, but Either way, I think the important thing for us is it's not 10 I think we most likely going to land on seven And I would even advocate for five and and i'm here to talk the math if you want to do it Yeah, I think um the kind of backstory of this is that I wasn't really involved in this project initially And then when marla was out on vacation last week I stepped in to kind of update the staff comments And I noticed So you guys were asking all the references to six Inclusionary units to be eliminated and to for those references to be changed to five Because we had in our staff comments initially Been kind of alluding to six inclusionary units and you guys were like no, we're only going to do five So as I was revising that section, I kind of fell down this rabbit hole of the math And you're right that it's certainly it's not very clear So I think our game plan given that marla hadn't really seen this like she she came back in the office today And it was like surprise I changed your staff comment in a pretty big way So I think given that marla hasn't had a time a time to look at this and also the board isn't Hasn't like had a super Detailed look on this language We were thinking maybe this would be best discussed in the deliberative session when we can kind of break out the language And everyone can bring out their their calculator and their pencil and we can sort of figure out what this What this ordinance says and and how it's implied to your project? I I appreciate that I Don't envy you the ice cream headache. You will get running through the numbers But it does it does seem as though if if you have an applicant voluntarily coming forward to provide the added units um You know in our mind The math if it's if it's done the way we think it should be makes that possible, but if if if If we look at it your way then then we'd have 10 inclusionary units, which is substantially greater than Right double what you're right and and and the regs clearly say that The the inclusionary units the bonus units do not have to meet the income requirements So only have you know the bonus units aren't encumbered by the inclusionary zoning rules the way the the ordinance is read written so anyhow If you were asking me I would say they need to provide five inclusionary units and but uh If we if we Torture the math in your favor. I I think we would say seven would be the maximum Sure, I think we we felt in the interest of time It'd be best to parse through that in a separate session and just keep moving tonight But but definitely noting that you guys are looking for five and that my read red 10. So yeah, we got to sort that out Okay, that's back in january On a secondary note. Well, does it say You have to match each Additional unit with an inclusionary unit. Is that that that's what it says. That's what it says Well, the the language gives you bonuses in two ways it gives you the offset for the required units at a one-to-one ratio And it gives you the same one-to-one ratio for bonus units So in that regard the math is pretty strong. Well, I don't I'll I'll look at the language. I don't have the language in front of me yet You'd end up with 34 sounds like we don't have any place to put 34 Look at the formula. Well, if it's three for the base, that's mandatory And you got to match Another seven for each seven additional Market rate units, then you're at 34 units, right? I you need. Oh, okay. You need four and three. Okay So that Sounds like seven We I think we need to look at the language. It's yeah I I see where you're coming from and I want to look at it again And I'm glad you provided your testimony because that was exactly our intention. I just to hear your testimony Take that reading into consideration when we look at this again. I'll make sure I point out the specific section to the board in advance of the deliberative session and everybody can come prepared to With their calculators and pencils and big erasers Excellent. We will sort that out in deliberative session. Thank you So moving on to comment 11. Um, this is also Regarding inclusionary units household income eligibility. So, um We would be requesting written testimony on the current required cost of inclusionary units and income limits It seems like that would probably come At you can provide that written. Yes Yes, that's provided apparently in chitinon county. It's provided By a county agency. Okay, and it's published every year. So i'm not sure We can dig up whatever The 2023 is if it's been issued yet or give you last year's but it's public information And every year every year it's issued, right? So we'd want you to show us what How you're providing how you're proposing to meet that? Oh, I misread I yeah, I wouldn't get the way you would just not like your not like your rent But like are you going to do two bedroom units or four bedroom? You just run the math a little bit farther than the straight v hfa spreadsheet, but not too much farther Okay, yeah You know we can provide this to you did the math right now in south burlington An apartment available affordable to a family of three at 80 percent of median income They can spend 30 percent of their household income on rent That that works out to about $1935 a month for a two bedroom apartment And we designed the project so that the two bedroom units that are meant to be inclusionary are 100 square feet smaller and they have one one fewer bathroom than the two bedroom two bath units that are market rate Otherwise they're exact same envelope exact same appearance so But we can we can run the math for you and give you those numbers Excellent. Thank you. Is there any distinction these days between I I see there's a reference to v hfa Is there any distinction between which v hfa uses for income limits and what HUD is using? I I can't answer that. I'd have to look and see I I just pulled these up today. These are for january of 23 I can publish published by whom harder v hfa. This is v hfa, but I think they get their numbers from the same source Well, how does the how does the mother The mother ship so to speak everybody spins off of that. I don't know of anybody and I mean we might we might well that's a separate question I'm sorry. Yeah, and and as you consider this this is a proposed to be a rental project Gary He's going to buy and hold this he's not planning on spinning this off his condos Unless some disaster happens and we'll deal with that then but We would be basing this on the rental side of the equation That makes it a little simpler The 30% of 80% of medium these days is almost $2,000 a month hard to believe isn't it? No, I mean my first apartment in Chinden County was like 350 bucks a month, but Time has gone by for us Frank I think so Any other questions about this? No, we'll just need that a written testimony to accompany that But thank you for that. I think the next couple are about affordable housing. So you might want to stay there Okay. Yeah a few a few so I think we're on Number 12 now. So we're looking for the long-term management of the inclusionary units So we would be looking for that information Like prior to closing would be part of that you're going to manage them yourselves You're not going to have a third party managed the affordability Initially, we would manage them But we would likely engage a firm and then whatever standard done in the city I mean as far as we can include the the language on affordability in the lease if that's standard Well, wait a minute. There's a very there's a very easy way to do this Which is a housing subsidy covenant Are you familiar with the device? you can Like any other land covenant or that in vermine you can create a housing subsidy company gets recorded in the land records and states what the criteria are for living in this property and that's what The straightforward way to address the question There is an annual reporting requirement too. So whoever manages that is going to have to be Responsible for the annual. I'm sorry. Well, that makes sense. There's an annual reporting requirement as well The ordinance seems to anticipate that the city will take action to form a housing authority to act as a receiver for those kinds of individual units Well, the best protection and one that I think we should require when we have this kind of requirement Because it's all it's almost self executing. I mean think of the superiority of housing subsidy covenant over any other device It goes in a land records And the the the buyer of the building the next buyer of the building is restrained By that covenant that we should we should build that in And if you need it, I'll get you the statutory site. It's the obvious thing to do. I wrote it 40 years ago It's had a lot of good service in the intervening time and that's what we should require in order to demonstrate I've assumed we want permanent affordability, correct? That is the straightforward mechanism that doesn't require a lot of variation from project to project No, that makes a lot of sense. Um, I would it'd be great if you could send that language Before the next so that I could share it with the applicant That would be great Some kind of deed covenant Or permit condition is going to govern this for a rental property There's no we're not anticipating sales where we have to have all the bylaws and decks in place So the amount of paperwork I think we need to give you to sort of basically who is the responsible LLC or whatever And just a reiteration of what's in the body of the law, which is annually is Everybody else's rents going up the inclusionary units are governed by whatever Whatever standard HUD or VHFA we're working with at the time But yeah, I I think that's the only way this gets finalized is as it gets turned into some condition or Well, it's how the subsidy covenant will contain a formula, right? Yeah Which out of mere exactly the formula in the in the ordinance Which we can relate back to the HUD Standards for affordability because they're kind of permanent They're updated quarterly. I believe I believe they're updated quarterly Okay, and I think that ties into comment 13, which is draft legal documents So if you guys want the covenant route that would cover that I think So we'll we'll share that with you Comment 14 is about phasing. So there's no proposed phasing So we just wanted to confirm the timeline for the construction of the inclusionary and market rate What happened all at once before a certificate of occupancy was issued So my question to that is The intent is to build the entire project around the same time So normally we provide a phasing plan if we thought the back building wasn't be built for five years So it was clear that we were going to build all the infrastructure required to support the rest of the building. So Um We can do a master plan if needed But I was just wondering is there somewhere in the regulation that tells us that we have to do that in order to And if we don't we would have to build all of the buildings and before we could occupy any of them right so without separate Plans for which to inspect For full compliance with the site plan approval. It would all have to be done at once It doesn't require a master plan to add some phasing What it would require is a couple extra sheets that shows what the ground conditions would have to be at the end of each phase and The board could include a condition of approval that says, you know phase one Need to get a zoning permit within six months phase And then the zoning permit for the final phase within 18 months or whatever, you know, the board agreed to and you guys had asked for um, so it's a couple extra sheets, but I don't think it may be a good safeguard if you are hoping to occupy the buildings, you know, not exactly concurrently Yeah, I think right. We don't plan on magically completing them all on the same day and then Occupying them I guess my concern about providing the the phasing is Besides the infrastructure in the road We don't exactly know which of those buildings will be going for first or will be completed first So I hate to provide a plan as part of this application package that says The bank building will be first. What if that gets delayed and we want to build a different We first we would be satisfied with temporary Occupancy permits while the whole thing is in motion clearly a four-story building or three stories with a extended garage underneath With the elevators and the lack of HVAC equipment. It's no longer readily available Our mechanical engineers telling us 40 weeks for certain components So we know the back building even if it was the same size as the others is going to take longer It's not the same size as much bigger. The bank will have their own contractors working on site building their facility We'll have a different set of contractors working on the small building, which is like 6 000 square feet For us to get financing or to tell the bank that you can't actually open even if you're done because we don't have The elevator for the three-story building in fact Yeah, so let me interrupt before you go too far because what we're really concerned about is the site Not the interior of the building So if you think you can get all of the site work done and maybe the interior fit out not done um, we'd be good with a temporary aco for The other the other buildings to be occupied as long as the site work is complete Now are you fine? Well Depending on Time of year this project has been pushed back extensively So we likely or will be wintertime construction landscaping will have to wait till a time of year when they can survive Would would the board be okay with a binder code on asphalt to hold off on final paving until we had the correct weather conditions um, yeah, so to answer the question about attempts yo can be issued when there's um Weather conditions or other out-of-control factors that are limiting some of the things like paving or landscaping So if that were to be the case we could issue a temps yo, which would be valid for up to six months At which time it would expire and the idea is that six months is a long enough window That winter would become spring become summer and you could do the paving and the landscaping at that time We we don't do temps yo's for things that aren't Inclement weather really so so supply chain issues fall out of that Yeah, correct. I think it's it's just the fact that the stuff isn't available Right, but if you're talking about just interior stuff, it's not a it wouldn't be a big deal Our our ceo inspection would just be for the site. So we we'd check to make sure your bike racks are in your Your parking areas as it should be but we wouldn't be too concerned at all actually with with interior I think the crucial part of this whole conversation is getting to a place where we can have temporary ceo's for some of the buildings I mean, that's really that's what's important to us and and I guess the other thing that would help us is if we could have like phase a b and c and not necessarily one two and three because I don't There we may we may need some flexibility in terms of which building goes first That was my going to be my question about yeah, so if you're talking about phasing any of the site elements specifically Landscaping budget open space that kind of thing They're unless each phase stands alone. They do have to be sequential, but I assume they don't stand alone because you know some of the landscaping For lot three is going to be on lot one for example. So it just isn't really they're kind of cumulative But if you're talking about just the interior of the buildings from a planning and zoning perspective We don't look at the interior of the buildings other than The long-term bicycle parking, right? That's it So So if you're waiting on an elevator or an HVAC system, that's not going to prevent you from getting a ceo from us Understood But in this scenario All three of the building exteriors would need to be built or that could be done in an abc scenario Or it doesn't matter what building is done If the site is done Then it could be abc with the buildings themselves like you you know, you don't have finishes on the buildings But if you wanted to include the site Elements in that abc thing, then I think you would we would start to run into trouble right The landscaping of the elements around the large multifamily building can't be completed until the shell of that building is done Because there's just too much construction access needed then would never survive Right And that building could take a year to 18 months longer in construction than the front buildings You're saying we have to keep those vacant for those 18 months Which is why we're suggesting that you might want to consider a phasing plan Right, I'm just even with a phasing plan. You're saying though that the Landscaping is intermingled my suspicion is that you are going to provide The the requirement on landscaping budget For lot one and two will be addressed on lots one and two and it's going to be lot three that spills over onto lots one and two So my suspicion is that you're if three built lot three is last It's not going to be a problem. Um, I can work with the engineer on figuring this out But my suspicion is that It's not going to be a problem if one and two are sort of ab No particular order and lot three is definitely last Okay, right. I I would appreciate maybe some Additional discussion on that after this meeting. I just want to make lines on a plan sound super easy I just want to make sure that in two years Gary's not really upset with those lines that we put on the plan Yeah, and we have a few examples that we've done recently of this. Um, they've worked out well So I'm happy to work with you guys Do we don't we require do we require a site work slash landscaping bond? We do So as a practical matter if that bond's big enough, that's Reasonable assurance it gets done Or is that a separate issue from what you're talking about? Yeah, I think it's kind of a separate Okay, well, is it though? I mean if we've bonded for it the money's there to do it Well, the bond is only a fraction of the total required cost Okay, so it's in other words They could walk side. They couldn't Theoretically they can make a determination. Well, it's a hundred thousand dollars. We're the landscaping ten thousand dollar bond We can walk lose ten thousand dollars And not spend the other ninety right It's the landscaping bond is supposed to be our bond requirement is too small the bond requirement is for post-co purposes It's um in case of landscaping dying not in case Of billing or it's not surety for the initial construction really So we have no bond. I got it. We have a different kind of bond Okay, so it sounds we have the authority because it seems to me this is not the only time the question has come up And it's it's if nothing else it's a bargaining chip Do we have the authority to impose a bond requirement? Do you think a real bond requirement? a completion bond We certainly do for infrastructure And we do impose one for infrastructure um I don't know if we I know that the board has the authority to do anything the applicant to put anything the applicant volunteers to do and which is a decision That would that would have to be done in consultation with our clients A performance bond could be One percent of the cost of the job that's it's not a it's not a free thing There's a cost to providing those And generally the cost of the bond doesn't reflect the payout of a surety if they have to come and complete the project Well, I mean that's a matter of negotiation right we could say if it's a hundred thousand dollar landscaping We want a hundred thousand dollar bond In the in the context what the premium should be with the In the context of this discussion on finishing the project and getting occupancies and stuff That's not unreasonable. I mean because we may be coming to you and saying What happens if we can't get our landscaping in until next march? So in that under those under those kinds of conditions, I see exactly where you're coming from Okay, um, so it sounds like next steps will um the applicant will look into phasing and work with staff On how to make that work I will Uh, moving on to comment 15 Um staff considers no further discussion on this item. So we'll move on from that This is the atm is this the atm can we Oh wait, sorry about that one, please Oh, I'm so sorry. I was just I was just looking at my highlight that that that was the determination. Yes, so um discussion of the atm Uh, so again, we are in an area where the drive-through is Prohibited but um, you all have done some homework to present how it Um adds to to the goals of the pud I'll say that and I'll give you the floor to discuss that. Thank you There's some strong opinions about this, but I had prepared to discuss So thank you for giving me the opportunity to discuss this um So the atm one of the questions um, we heard at the last time that this was discussed in front of this board Was a question about Well, even if We did want to allow this. How does this atm? Support more efficient compact walkable and well planned forms of a residential neighborhood In a mixed use or infill area. So that's what I'm prepared to talk about tonight. So I think The main One thing to point out is that an atm drive-through is allowed in the underlying zoning district So just as a refresher, this is kind of a weird case if we were Not proposing a pud this would be allowed. So there's atm drive-throughs Very close by this site and normally would be allowed. So There's that but I do think how this supports a pud and making it a better site Is that the the atm enlist particular location? Allows for there to be Less of a need for someone to park to use the atm if it were at the building. So In this case if someone were to come in to use the drive-through The atm they would Just drive up use it and leave the site They wouldn't necessarily be taking up one of the precious parking spaces on this site in order to utilize the atm So I do think that there is a way that this drive-through does support A more efficient use of space on this site Parking is not allowed in the area Um Where the atm drive-through is on this site? So in this case the atm Drive-up area provides an area that doesn't require additional parking on the site I also think that just from a practicality standpoint The atm in this location does allow for um greater accessibility and use for site users. Um, that includes people with disabilities elderly members of the community And also people with young children. I know that I've had to take a toddler and a baby into a site and I definitely at that time in my life were seeking out locations where there were drive-through opportunities, whether that be An atm or a cup of coffee. So I do think there are scenarios where The atm drive-through area is highly desired and needed by the community I think the the other thing to to step back just a little bit on this um Originally, this project was brought forward in 2020 at the end of 2020 and then to 2021 so COVID was this was a while back. That's how long this job has been kicking around the offices and I always had to deal with it, but The the short story on it is the planning board in an open zoom meeting, which is still on the system So if you get really bored or can't sleep at night, you can pull it up and watch it It's a little dry, but it's very clear on this is january 25th 2022 the planning board directing professional staff to bring back the p.u.d.'s For this project They said it would be good if it was covering williston road if it was covering Shelburne road But the whole conversation the night of the meeting was about this project Now they never mentioned me so you won't hear my name But you'll hear the addresses back and forth that this creates an opportunity for the city and for the owner to work an arrangement where we could create what we've created here, which We think is a wonderful Compromise and gets gets us all to where the city plan is telling us they want the city to go to Now there was no mention in that meeting on the 25th That oh give them the p.u.d. Or offer it see if they'll take it But then in january marla tells us there was a rule inserted that even though drive-throughs are allowed in this district This bank could move across to denny's or move the other way to koto state club and put in the drive-through they can't do it on mine because We were directed and it seems like a really good idea to us by the planning board To go with the p.u.d. Give up the curb cuts give up the ancillary uses cut the traffic count in this high traffic area And this will get us through the process. So we have a project. We're all proud of and is economically viable um So in february that rule was yanked out We didn't notice it as the applicant which is on us We should be all knowing and all seeing but the rules are quite complex And there's some contradiction or some confusion between rules when you go from page to page But we missed it Staff brought it to our attention the wednesday before the last time we actually met in person So we did have about five days notice that oh by the way, even though you've already been through One phase of your permitting and we we got through a sketch plan And even though these plans were pretty evolved in 2021 Before the planning board stepped in and said create a p.u.d. For this type of project Those plans all had the drive-up atm not a drive through Pay window or with a tube with money just drive up get your money. Don't have to get out of the car Continue on what we're asking here is while it's not Automatic like it would be if this bank moved to koto or moved to the denny's where it is automatic They just simply have to draw it in and meet the the stacking requirements It is not automatic, but the planning board was kind enough to give you the ability To okay this but you have to vote in any affirmative that you want it. This is very important to this project We've taken the p.u.d. As it was described to us and that may not have been incorrect If it's not incorrect, that's on me, but we took it as If you do the whole thing and give these items up Create something that's walkable something that's less impact on the streets cut the traffic count We'll work with you now One of the big asks was we need two stories even though in staff notes They tell you that showburn road is one of the busiest roads six lanes the state of vermont will never be city center here in Burlington, so staff tells us this We went along with it They acknowledge it will never be that way down the street, but we did it anyway That's part of the reason why we stuffed three units in above that to try to justify the height of the building And we've given you if you look at the graphics that we've handed out It's a good looking Two-story building it will look great when you come off the interstate It will give the view that I think The city planners were thinking of when they created these rules, but we need this drive-through We really do and we think it's a small ask If it wasn't about anywhere else in here, I'd say That's not reasonable. You show up here. It's not even allowed in this part of the city It's a lot everywhere in this part of the city except now my project Sorry, it wouldn't even be allowed on this site if we weren't proposing a PUD And we were just coming in to develop the existing single lot that exists on the corner of shellburn and swift We could be proposing, but we need an ATM Right and in this case, we feel like the project is better, but we're sort of shooting ourselves in the foot by doing a PUD Well, wait a minute. You're also getting two more buildings, right? We're also giving up the curb cuts We've got three buildings today Frank, right, so we're not getting I'm sorry. We've got three buildings now. We're not we're not gaining any buildings. We're changing out the usage But we're giving up the curb cuts and stuff because we we think what we've proposed and staff has been very involved in a lot of these changes and The engineers working for me have put a lot of work into looking at the regs Heck in 2020 I paid Greg to present several different Visions to paul to get an idea not that oh, this is going to get me a permit No, that was not the conversation the conversation with paul was in the planning department was of these What seems like better fits And we took the project from there forward no guarantee of a permit, but that's where this all started I'd like to get a few things clarified some from you and some from marla if you could be patient with me From you when you say it's very important to the project I think what you mean and you can correct me if i'm wrong But I think what I heard you say is the bank really wants this and you're risking the tenant if you don't give them the drive Through is that why it's important to the project? Yes the economic need to work here There's no other reason it's important to the project. Well, it works on in this part because it brings good things to the site It what it brings good activities to the site. You don't have to get out of the car. We're dealing with a handicap The Crime rate being what it is. I think it's a very positive thing for the project And it's it's not a big focal point as far as driving by for the motoring public My question for marla is is the prohibition is it correct? That's the only reason it's not available to them is because it's a pud That's correct. And is that a general rule for puds or only in this particular overlay? Uh general rule in puds Citywide Yes Without regard to whether they're on shawburn road or somewhere buried in the southeast quadrant 15c 01. Yes, that's correct I think it's something we ought to discuss. Maybe not here Yeah, so my sense of the board at the last meeting was the board said PUDs are prohibited. We do not Please remove the PUD from the plans. Um the applicant saying that they heard otherwise Um, but I walked away from the last meeting hearing that this was a closed issue. Um You know, they've made their case You certainly can discuss it further, but I don't want to go down the road of Having how can I phrase this? Um, I don't want to go down the road of leaving the applicant with false hope and having strung out meetings where in the end they are Feeling like there's still a door open and the board feels like the door has long since been closed We've seen that that's not a comfortable situation on other projects So if the board is feeling that the door may still be open, um, that's okay You know, as gary said it is allowed In this zoning district, but for the fact that it's a PUD But if the board feels like this is not in support of a more efficient compact walkable and well-planned form of residential neighborhood mixed use and infill development Then there is no Authority to modify the standard to allow PUDs and the board should unequivocally say remove the remove the atm from the plan But I think it's clear that it does support a more cohesive Development and meet that criteria because if we Just pulled the application and came back in with chase bank on the corner We could do that tomorrow with an atm But we have to take back the curb cuts Which is by doing the PUD we are doing a lot of good things and making the project better overall I think It just seems weird to have to shoot ourselves in the foot because we're doing a PUD It just seems like a weird use of that mechanism And it's pretty odd. It's pretty odd. Um We should have caught it earlier as well, but everybody missed it initially because it's weird it It doesn't We we've watched the tapes from the planning meetings because they're in the record So you can just bring them up and we're not finding where the planning board Ever asked for this so it surprised us right out of the blue only because While we didn't attend those meetings because they record and we played them Likewise the last meeting here where this matter was discussed It's in the public record Just if you get really bored play it and you'll see that we didn't agree We said we were sent away with come back with a better argument Because it isn't flying but at that point we hadn't had a chance to dig into it enough to know Marla, do you recall why this was put in so soon after the public meeting the planning board had Why this specific rule? It's a one-liner that was popped in there. I'm not involved with rules writing I don't get involved with the planning commission at all. So I don't have any information on that My if I could postulate a little bit I would Based on only reading the LDR I read this in the same way that I read The prohibition on new Gas stations on Shelburne Road It seems to me and I'm basing this solely on a strict reading of the LDR and not any insider knowledge It seems to me that this is one of those things where the planning commission is attempting to sunset Drive-thrus In the same way that they are attempting to sunset gas stations along Shelburne Road by saying no new no new gas stations no new ATMs Sorry, no, sorry no new drive-thrus No new drive-thrus in a PUD, right? You can build them at Koto. You can build them on all three sides of us You cannot build any new gas stations That's a different rule. It's it's apples and oranges. I would jump in and say that we we did see a project um Probably three months ago four months ago for the UNOs on Shelburne Road the old UNOs And there was a proposal to put a bank there um, and the urban design overlay Perhaps to kind of build off a marvelous point the urban design overlay prohibits Um drive-thru lanes through the front of a building You can do them to the rear side still but um, you you have to have a That same thing that you're working with a direct pedestrian oriented connection between the street and the The use so that that project ended up being sunk because they couldn't figure a way To put the drive-thru to either the rear or side of the building. Um, and so that's another sort of Way that drive-thrus are sort of being pushed out Of our more focal parts of town. Well, I'm very pleased that The designers were able to put this behind Behind the building so thank goodness because otherwise we'd suffer the same course as the UNOs property So it does meet the criteria. It's not akin to a gas station. We're trying to get rid of the gas station Well, maybe you ought to go back to the bank and persuade them a walk-ups good enough Just to clarify is this Etm, I assume it's solely a drive-up Is there also a walk-up with this facility or is it just the drive-thru? It's just the drive just the drive-thru But like any drive-through you can step up to it just as you came with any bank If you're coming down the bike path you can whip over to it and get your money None of the stuff about activity on the site. I find persuasive I mean, I don't find it persuasive the only thing persuasive is the risk of losing a, you know blue chip tenant and I understand your Desire in that respect on the other hand, I think Martha's probably right It's in there for a reason They don't want the way. Yeah They don't want new atms now eventually You know Maybe denny's gets rezoned at some point when denny's moves out. I don't know. I don't know how the progress of that goes But this the underlying zoning does allow it So if we pulled this application and didn't propose this as a pud and developed it as three separate parcels Tomorrow we can come in with an application for chase bank with a drive-through in the rear of the building. I believe Right and the the advantage of doing it as a pud is that it allows you to reconfigure The sites in a way that wouldn't allow this site configuration if you didn't if you did it as three separate sites, right? I mean because the lots would be I think the front lots would be bigger and the back lot would be smaller Under existing additions, right? So it'd be a different it'd be a different application Right, so I think that sort of proves why we think it's better for the pud to do it As a cohesive project than to just come in solo For the corner lot and develop it as a bank or whatever else Gary chooses to do in the future I think there's advantages not just for us and not just for chase bank There's advantages to everybody for it to be designed as a pud It's just a really weird thing to be included in the pud regulations Could you put the graphics up please for me for the finished project? There's no advantage to anybody, but the bank that I can see of having a drive-through Of the public the general public Mothers disabled people people who don't like to get out of their cars in the middle of the winter in vermont There's a lot of people that fall under that category that will take advantage of that The advantage to the city is the project you see on the screen The project needs to be economical now the bank approached the city prior to approaching me After they felt that from what they learned from the planning department That's when they finally came to me and said can we make an arrangement is this this seems like this may work for us This project was structured Knowing what we know about the the intricacies and the complications of south brilington zoning and trying to address those It's a very good-looking project when I read the specs that staff has been good enough to keep sending over to us This address is a lot of that we made it in a big housing component There was a big sales pitch from the city that if you make it a pud include all this you can do this many units When they pull the pud we can only put eight units in mac well The math doesn't work on eight units for a building that costs, but the sprinklers and everything else The math didn't work. It does work at 27 even with the inclusionary requirements, which we will meet But it's a good-looking project if you could put the other project up, please for a moment the existing This is what you've got now and and if you leave it out wide so you can see around us The neighborhood buildings eventually will face The planning process and will upgrade it but you've taken a big chunk at the entrance to it if you go down the road There's other sections where it has been zoning has kicked in you've got newer buildings So the street is evolving the gas station is from the 1950s. That's 70 years ago This layout that we're proposing gets us for the next 50 or 60 maybe 70 years because it fits it's Environmentally, it's it's a good setup It it creates what we need to make this happen. Can we renovate these structures? Yes The back building is concrete block with steel girders that can be renovated in place. It will be economical But we thought this was our chance to convert it over We've given up the ramps. We knew we had to give up a lot We gave up the gas station. We give up the entrances. We combine it all so it flows I think it's going to be a really good-looking property and we've tried to listen to anything that's been brought to us as far as what people wanted proposed A drive-up for this one. It shows up late in the day. I don't understand with so many sets of prints kicking around magically we end up with this that I don't care for that. I know this is an important issue I think we've we've heard testimony on it and I'm not hearing anything new but I appreciate, you know the context and everything So is the board in the position to Take the hard stance on this and say, you know It's it's not allowed in the PUD update your plans Or is this something that we want to discuss in deliberative session? You know and keeping in mind marliss point of If we don't see backtracking on this We we should not do so I just think that given there's three board members who are not here tonight I think that we should take it up in deliberative session and give them each an opportunity to also discuss Based on what we have Yeah, and I'm leaning that way towards as as well just to be able to process as as well So we will take this up in deliberative session. We know, you know, we appreciate your additional testimony on this And we'll move forward Can I make a suggestion for deliberations? I know deliberations are closed But the board can vote to share information with the applicant If that if that's a conversation we can have Either tonight after everybody leaves or before the night. Well, I guess if we want other peoples Before the next meeting if board members feel comfortable, I would Appreciate being able to share the conclusion of that conversation before we see them again Definitely. Yeah, I think that's a good idea. I'm comfortable with that. Okay. I think it's a real good idea Because I mean I'm having a deliberative session all by myself I feel the same way Back and forth. I have a suggestion to the applicant again it Look We face this difficulty time and time and time again the something gets written If you violate what's written You're open you're you're open in the doors, you know, eventually You get to go down a slippery slope and you have no regulation anymore On the other hand some things are just dumb I'm not sure this falls into that category. However, I my suggestion to you And I'd appreciate if you did is write down succinctly with no PS What you think the benefits to the PUD are and to the immediate neighborhood are of keeping it as a drive-through We can do that and submit that One sheet of paper presumably would do the trick but as compact and as hard-hitting as you can make it without too many words We can do that. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss it and for the opportunity to Have you discuss it further? That's what I understand our rationale is correct If we if we decide to oh marla, right? I know you're I know you're exasperated Because it's okay One other thing I'll mention following up on my previous question. What I'm having trouble with is You're asking for a waiver to allow a vehicle only access to an amenity That doesn't exist for pedestrians Because I don't think asking people to stand in the middle of the road to access the atm is really where we want to go It's not the middle of the road. It is. You've got a traffic lane. It's designed for cars It's marked for cars I wouldn't really want to stand in the middle of the drive-through lane to get my money hoping that somebody's paying enough attention I don't get hit So are you saying it's anti? I would just I would encourage you maybe to look at you know, the idea is to make it more pedestrian friendly So is there some other way I would feel more comfortable if there were another facility that pedestrians can use Or it was designed in a way that pedestrians could also use it safely Without telling them to stand in the middle of the road That's an interesting perspective. We'll certainly take that into consideration with our one pager Yeah, I mean one of the things that's Doesn't operate in your favorite from the standpoint of operation just looking at looking at the design looking at that picture Basically, you're creating another road Behind the frontage buildings you can see them coming in from swift street and driving right through the parking lot And out on the chauvin road It is a slip lane and we have designed. I don't think that that Rendering fully shows all of the plantings proposed out there. There is A retake a small retaining wall in that area Which is showed in some of the other renderings and there is some additional landscaping there so There there is some screening intended to be provided Okay, I'm going to suggest we move on because I want to make sure that we get through Everything at least as a first pass so that you guys have good marching orders for our next meeting. Yes. Thank you All right Come in 16. This is about the solar ready So we would we would be looking for demonstration on how These standards and appendix CA will be met prior to closing the hearing. It sounds like that was due when we discussed it earlier Okay, this next comment is about having a mix of dwelling unit types So currently There's 30 units proposed of which 29 will be two bedrooms and one is a one bedroom That's not the most mixed of units So we're just looking for a response on that one city has been approving In fact in just recent weeks has approved a number of buildings where the units aren't mixed so we're We're needing to stay with this for efficiency of construction This is a new standard Okay, this is a new standard with this uh February 22 ldr. I don't think we've approved any large buildings under that standard yet Well, we need these need to be efficient. This thing has become nip and tuck. We've got two different sizes of twos two bedroom units And what are those sizes past experiences showing us it with some professionals on the market units And uh singles end up renting a two bedroom if they can afford it using one for an office. So it's What are the two sizes that you have? Pardon, what are the two sizes of the two bedrooms? Oh, it's the footage on the two bedrooms Sorry, uh Similar to what I mentioned earlier your standard two bedroom unit is 975 square feet or something like that The inclusionary units are slightly smaller because we eliminated one of the two bathrooms And we made the the footprint a little bit smaller. So you have a Two bedroom two bath two bedroom one bath one bedroom one bath So there's it's it's there the varieties coming in the scales and the rent side and the rent rules Very difficult to run three and four bedroom apartments Unless you have professional onsite management Family scale units are a little different more difficult to manage Because you don't always get families sometimes you get a lot of unrelated adults living together, but um That's that that was our recommendation to them What does the board think um about the mix is this mixed enough given the inclusionary market rate and One one bedroom or would the board like to see um, you know I I'm not necessarily saying that it needs to be three or four bedrooms Maybe it's you know some of the two bedrooms get converted to one bedrooms One of the board think I have a question first. What does article 15c stay? Is this a plan unit development approved under article 15c? Yes Yes, yes So what are the standard are there standards for a mix under article 15c? No, this is so 15c 05 and 06 are the conservation PUDs and the neighborhood development PUDs this is developed under 15c 7 which is a general PUD which does not have um specific standards For a mix, okay It's clear as mud, right? um, I don't I don't want to like Provide an opinion here, but this this one is um, it says here a mix of dwelling unit types Uh, must be provided within neighborhoods and developments. It seems like it's more speaking towards Like a subdivision style PUD and perhaps less Less about the contents of one apartment building but more like if you're going to do a south village It can't be all a single family. That's how I read this and I don't mean to like Be on the drb. I just wanted to flag that quickly and and also I know there's been conversations somewhat and that uh All one bedrooms all studios is a cheap way for developers to go and perhaps not great for south browns and housing stock Um, it's cramming everyone into one bedrooms and studios So, you know, that's another maybe thing to consider Thanks, mary. I don't need well what what what would you Prefer is a mix. Do you want do you want to see three bedroom units? Is that was that what you're talking about some bigger one? It's up to you guys I mean the standard says a mix of dwelling unit types And a mix of architectural features and styles must be provided within neighborhoods and developments It says the dwelling unit types and it says cottage single family two family small multifamily townhouse Well, these are apartments I mean it doesn't say It doesn't further sub divide subdivided right into unit types What i'm getting at is I think what they've done here is a reasonable commercial neighborhood Mix you have when you say a two unit a two unit Apartment is 900 square feet. That's not exactly a mansion You know that could be occupied by two people could be occupied by three people could be occupied by one person with an office A professional single professional person could rent a two bedroom apartment Have an office in in their apartment a small family could You have a couple in one room one or even two kids in the other room It's a it's a it's a high utility mix to me and I I find it hard to argue with You know if it was if it was 29 one bedroom Yeah, I would have a different view of a different view of it like that thing that larkin wants to go There's another one proposed for like postage stamps for people who Don't want to be in a cardboard box. We're going to take a step up But but this is high utility Frank I would agree with you So I would I would tend towards the criterion being met with that type of mix that's possible and I think to marty's point that it It looks for other Variations that we're not seeing here since it's a building So I would agree and not and I'll see ask direct the applicant to change but If other board members want to weigh in as well Okay, okay. I think we're giving you direction. Um, all right moving to Common 18, um, this is pedestrian orientation staff considers that pedestrian asset access could be improved to the multi-family building both from swift street Um And recommends the board direct the applicant to modify the plans to provide a more direct pedestrian route from shalburn road To the multi-family building It might be helpful if we could bring up a site plan on this one You know the concern here was that if you live in the multi-family building um The sidewalk from the multi-family building sort of stops at the edge of the lot and doesn't extend all the way to shalburn road. Yeah Do you all have um And I'm just looking at this and and I'm thinking the same if you wanted to walk off To shalburn road. There's you're walking through the parking lot. It might not be the most safe So um any any thoughts to kind of make that pedestrian connection a little bit more I think that we could provide the sidewalk along the south side of the mix use building. I don't think this is something that we You know We've designed it like this because it's a tight site, but we understand if that Is something that you would like it's not that hard for us to accommodate that request Yeah, so would that include a Striped crosswalk or something in the drive lane in the in the open part. We could stripe it But then concrete up to it and then concrete I think that sounds like it would be sufficient And a good use of you know making sure the site can work. So Do that. Thank you great all right comment 19 So this is regarding privacy um so original comment is uh Is the board Discuss whether they would like to see an improvement to the appearance of the east side of the multifamily building in consideration for future redevelopment of the adjoining site in the update is um That the updates to the elevations have added interest to the side of the building And recommends the board consider whether this criterion is now met keep in mind there is uh insufficient room to provide significant screening so Could we see that revised elevation that includes the bump out in setbacks It requires visualization beyond my powers How much room is back? I mean, I think the point is well taken, you know, there's not much room is back there I think 10 feet between the back of the building and the and the lot line 10 feet And then what's immediately on the other side of the lot line parking lots A parking lot for there's a large building behind I mean what I'm trying to visualize is a practical matter going forward. Well the next guy over Does he have room to put up his own screening without impairing the utility of that lot? Maybe I'm just taking my email from Lucy real quick. I think she I'm so sorry. I didn't mean to send you on a goose chase. I think that I probably sent that to marla. Um I could try and send it to you again right now really fast. That's all right. I have it. I'll take over sharing an east elevation so This is the side on the top of the screen here that would face The adjoining property. Oops. Sorry meant to zoom in. I bet there is but in the interest of time We're not going to get there. We're not going to see it tonight So before it was it was flat And so to compare kind of a side by side on the site plan You can do this So you can see that it's pretty close pretty close to the lot line Over here. So there is room There's you know room for a little bit screening, but if these folks who live in this side of the building want any sort of sunlight probably not a great idea to put a lot of screening in there Which is why we had suggested that maybe a more interesting side of the building would be a nice way to make this A more desirable place to live in the future when it's redeveloped So Is it is that a tree line that's there now? It's kind of a scrubby property. What is that? I think it's just law. I think it's just lawns on the other side the neighbors I think there's some shrubs. It's There are some shrubs existing. They're currently kind of sumac type of material, but just naturally growing on mitt, you know adjacent to the parking lot So given the site configuration and the fact that the board has previously felt pretty comfortable with the location of the building Staff was not suggesting that more room would be made for screening Staff was just suggesting that in lieu of screening the building be made somewhat interesting It seems like that's been accomplished. So I would have no further Any other thoughts board? So everybody feels good about this Any other thoughts on this one or Given that again the Kind of restriction of the site Staff was trying to get at improving how the building looked appears like that's been done any any further Direction to the applicant you guys were just I'm not going to pretend I can visualize it. I just can't Okay, that's fine. I just wanted you guys were processing so I don't make sure any any thoughts were were put out there Okay, so moving on to comment 20 This is about the amenities that are on site So Staff recommends the board confirm they are comfortable with the site amenity locations with respect to the amenities being considered on An overall PUD basis and with one amended Amenity being split between two parcels We do have this visual up if you Might just briefly give us an overview of the three areas that are highlighted in green so I think You know this sort of is related to the overall PUD Vibe that we're going for here. We're trying to make it cohesive so that the entire site fit together so these three areas were selected and preserved to really be an open space each of them open spaces on their own that could be used by People who lived and worked in this area. So Um, we think that these three locations are the locations that make the most sense They don't split up perfectly amongst the three lots. They're really There's one between the two buildings up front and then Really the heavier use at this site is the large apartment building So that has a more focused open space on the west side of the building and then there's a little pocket open space That's a really nice pergola and some benches that match the rest of the site In the area Towards swift street where the drop-off and pickup area is proposed to be so We're proposing this because we think it fits the site best not necessarily that it lines up with the lots perfectly I'm Given the layout of this site site. I think the split amenity between the two buildings The non residential buildings work It looks like that was One of the the cruxes of the staff comment Other thoughts I didn't realize that was a pergola. I thought those lines were some sort of subsurface infiltration system up until this very moment It's going to be great That being said I need to look into whether that's going to be considered an accessory structure in the front yard and be Okay, we can also talk about that. But in general, I think the locations for the open space. Yeah Yeah, I think we're good with the locations. I will look into the pergola Okay, I hope we can keep it because I think it'll look great Marl, I have a question that's just brought out by this particular diagram. I mean, I'm assuming And I take the applicant's point look what we got there now, you know, but I assume that The lot coverage is just massive, but I guess it already is is that right? No In the case of a complete redevelopment the existing conditions don't matter. So this project does meet Coverage requirements. Well, I don't know if it meets but um, but does it does it increase does it increase the The impermeable surface That is in the beginning of the staff report. Let's see But not as much It's an aside. I don't want to take up more time with it now. I think it's okay I just was striking when I saw the little bit of green and the big sea of gray But that diagrams a little misleading though in that it's those green boxes are In the context of much larger green areas, right? Those are just the focused areas that are determined to be special amenities There's a lot more green there than that diagram Okay All right, um, I am going to move on to comment 21. So, uh, this is Oh, so the um, nor learn, um, amenity space, um, will need to be or we're not asking for the eight foot pedestrian Sidewalk anymore. So that will not need to be altered. So we're all set with number 21. Great. Thank you Uh, 22 no further discussion is needed as indicated by staff 23 These Comment 23 is speaking to comments from the director of public works and the director of capital planning And some of these comments still need to be addressed. Um, so that's just something that will you guys will be able to work out with staff Yes And 24 Um This is trip generation Um We did submit oh go ahead. Sorry. Yep. Go ahead. We did submit an updated memo to address some of the concerns that were brought up in the original comments, um, which we submitted, um, recently Okay, so we'll look into that. Um, my concern here is that Some of these comments may affect the trip generation and you are on the hairy edge of having a problem with trip generation So I don't know if addressing the comments is going to adjust the trip generation up or down or Adjust the existing trip generation up or down, but I just want to be clear that um Given these comments, I don't think that we are 100 certain that we Are in the clear on traffic yet, but if I haven't reviewed your revised stuff So perhaps we are now 100 in the clear. I feel like we are in the clear. Um We were lucky enough to have roger dickinson You know an expert traffic engineer at our office these days. Um, and he did Take a good look into these comments. We provided some responses, but he also did apply some of those more conservative, um, rates to his numbers and and This is where we wound up. So I feel comfortable with it, but I understand you still need to take a look I have a question Yes, about traffic It says update 4 4 2023 the applicant is testified existing pmpk hour vts Is 124 Really? I mean right now it should be close to zero Yeah, so the ldr's are Um, the author once authorized for 124. All right, I get that. All right, but then that wasn't my main point You said the proposed pmpk hour vts is 120. Does that assume you have the drive-in authorized It I would have to take a look into the numbers about whether or not that changes the numbers. I'm not sure that it does Um, I guess maybe it does right because it would be maybe adjusted down if it was just a bank with no atm Although if it had if it had an atm at the side of the building, right? There's there's different in the ite the Manual for calculating it. There's a rate associated with each type of use I don't know what those rates are off the top of my head a method for calculating the the trips for an atm For each type of use. So there's things like There's things like a bank donut shop versus a yeah or a bank with a drive-through and a bank without a drive-through There'll be different calculation methods But this is just a naked drive-through Well, there's a bank Pardon, it's associated with the bank. Oh, no. There was a bank building. Yeah All right, so do you know the answer marla whether this 120 includes the drive-in drive-through or not? Let me put it this way it better. Yes. There's a mission I'm sure it accounts for that But whether or not I guess I don't know if the top of my head was what I was trying to articulate What is the count difference between both of those slightly different uses? It's still a bank So, yes, the numbers are probably slightly different. I just don't know exactly what they are Without looking in the manual All right Moving on to staff comment 25 There are some parking spaces located approximately 18 within 18 feet of shelburn road And staff has noted there is insufficient space for a typical car entering the site to maneuver out of these spaces without Being in the sidewalk So we Want to look at this and see if it might be appropriate to recommend removing one parking space To allow more room for that Our preference is that would be a really good spot for one of the employees Perhaps at the first building because it's right there and coming in at that time of day The traffic flow through this site, especially Early morning and late in the day Of people entering the site will be minimal. It'll be the apartment while we're exiting the site So I do feel that it's a valuable space. We'd like to keep space. We've got we've got a nice green patch Next to it. So as far as visual from shelburn road, I think we kind of got that covered But I really don't want to give up the spaces Well, we just saw that it's 120 trips though. I mean, it's I think it's disingenuous to say that it's a low trip generation Yeah, I think our position is just that You know, parking spaces are precious on the site and I know that if I was pulling in off shelburn road That wouldn't be my first choice for a parking space But if you're coming in from the other direction It would be fine So I do think that there's a way that it could be utilized by an employee of one of the businesses where that There wouldn't be someone coming in and out all of the time Like one of the spaces in front of the bank. This would be Ideally utilized by an employee One of the businesses I'm just not sure that it's a safety hazard It is inconvenient if you're pulling in from Shelburn road into the site to use that for space But nothing about that space requires you to use it I don't have strong thoughts on this It's definitely this is kind of in your bailiwick I'm thinking I'm in thought here So I I agree that coming in like you could easily drive in back into that space My concern is more about someone exiting that parking space with someone coming in off of shelburn road That creates a conflict point, right? So I think that's why Gary had mentioned that maybe if it's okay with you We could propose to leave it and then identify it as employee only parking for one of the businesses in the mixed use building I guess my question is how would turning it into employee only parking Change any risk factor for a conflict just because they'd be coming in one once a day early Yeah, no, I agree with that. I think it still poses the same conflict issue Well, if it was somebody who was working the site then after the first few trips into their To go to work they would understand how the traffic flow worked So it wouldn't be somebody who Wasn't thinking about it because they grabbed the space. I think it was an employee parking space They would know okay take a good look around before you back out or or back in and drive out Yeah, I think the risk is still there that that's my only Comment for that. This is something to think about in deliberations. I mean it's an easy thing to Take off the plan if the board says take it off the plan And I guess my one question around that is The board directing to designate employee only spaces Is that I mean they're volunteering to do that. So I guess that would be right um Yeah, so there I think there is another staff comment about the number of designated parking spaces. Yes. Yeah, so we'll get to that as well Okay. Um, yeah, so we will um Discuss that in deliberation A question or comment 26 Uh So There is a concept to provide a recreation path along swift street, which we have discussed um So the uh staff Recommends the board require the applicant to modify the plans to provide the a recreation path along swift street Um should be reflected in the plans provided to v trans uh for the section 111 one permit And so that's just um, sorry just to clarify. That's just updating the plans to show the Rec pack that's anticipated on swift street Right, and um lucy did meet um with a deputy director of capital projects regarding this issue There's a there was a question for us about space and where exactly that would go But we've since worked that out and we can show that on the revised set of site plans. Excellent. Thank you Uh comment 27 is the water district. Um Comments, um, they're not included here because um, they're extensive, but those will need to be addressed as well Yes, we can address those comments as part of the next application excellent, and I did remember to include those in the packet You have them. Yes. Okay, great. I'm sorry. They weren't included on the staff report. Sorry No, but sometimes I say that I'm going to include things and then I forget. Yeah, yeah, okay, great Um comment 28, uh staff considers no further discussion required Okay, and so now we come to the uh other comment about reserved parking spaces So the assumption is that residential parking spaces are not reserved Um, therefore no additional guest spaces are required and we were looking for confirmation on if this is yes Yes, we're good for that. Excellent. Thank you Okay, and now we are on comment 30 So there are some reserved spaces currently on the plan Correct for the excuse me correct for the bank. Yep Okay and so to allow for that, um, there's Criteria one through five listed above the staff comment, um that Should should be met um, can you speak to? Having those reserved spots and how it meets these criteria Yes, I think specifically regarding number four. Um Part of the reason they are labeled as reserved for the business is because they are business and there's other uses on the property that could potentially dominate other parking areas and I think um You know chase bank specifically was looking for some reserved spaces to make sure that customers could access the site if they wanted to Um, so just to clarify for the board. They're proposing to reserve 11 spaces for the bank Six forty five uh 63 parking spaces are proposed gen. Do you remember off the top of your head? How many are in the garage? Um 27 okay 63 minus 27 is 40 30 38 no 36 36 and so 11 of those 36 surface parking spaces are proposed to be reserved for the bank number four that they're asking for um Consideration on is to provide a minimal number of spaces for a small commercial business Yeah Yeah, I would thank you for for making that point. Um, so surface parking spaces. That's about almost a third um, so I I would direct the applicant to Provide less than than 11 seems like a large amount for the If you're relying on that criteria, which is to provide a minimal number of spaces I think the 11 would be a mixed Of some of those some of those would be handicapped the symbols are already in place Some would be 15 minute drop-off pickup. Some would be the for the uh Employees that were not so much well even for the employees But it's during bank hours on bank days that they're open. They'll these spaces will be available for the apartments for unfortunately for us for denies and for the codos Nights weekends and the rest of the time. I don't think 11 is a big ask for the business given that we do need to have the mix so it's during business hours, which I presume is an eight to five situation, but that's just guessing I guess you asked part of the question. What's your what the total number of spaces available? Uh, let me look 63. Thank you 45 of them are surface 63 total There's 27 in the garage. So that is skewing maybe the visual on this this plan that we're looking at doesn't show all of the Additional 27 spaces Under the building. So there is quite a bit more parking associated with the residential building there. Yes primarily that would be for tenants But when you consider the additional spaces under the in the garage it's not all that excessive the garage you're saying there's 27 spaces under the under the building. So that's less than one space per unit as For what you hope to build there, right? That's like Nine-tenths of a space per unit roughly There's 27 units and 27 You're trying to get the 30 there's they're in the other building. Oh the other bill there in the other building has three so Basically you're providing one parking space per residential unit roughly In in the garage. Yes. How about in the project as a whole less than that How many more Well, so the minimum required for so the ldrs do have a minimum parking space requirement from all d family buildings You'll be glad to know They are required to provide. Yes, they do meet it They're required to provide 45 parking spaces for the residential use. So 63 minus 45 is 18 So they're proposing to reserve 11 of their 18 non residential spaces for one of their tenants and the remaining Would be available for the other tenant but we're not But also nights and weekends it would be available to the tenants, right? There will be some You know shared parking considerations for the businesses versus the residential uses is one thing That's not what the plans say they say reserve for financial institution use Should they say reserve for commercial for? non-residential or something I was referring back to the Point that we don't have specific spaces on the site designated as residential only What is the board's thoughts on having 11 spaces reserved for the bank? I think that my biggest concern would be for operating hours on saturdays because I feel like the banks are usually operating Saturday mornings and a lot of the People will be at their residents at that time And if the other commercial property is also open on a saturday, I think it becomes a saturday morning more concern um, I think You know during the week i'm less concerned with it because I a lot of the tenants will likely go to work Um, so I think the opportunity to have more open spaces on the lot will be there And I do like the idea of having the shared residential and commercial use lots. I think that that makes sense and you know situation like this where there is limited Available parking spaces But I think I do have a little bit of concern for just for the number And for saturday and then what kind of enforcement mechanism ends up happening on a saturday if Someone doesn't get up and move their car by Nine a.m. When the bank opens, you know, are they going to get towed? Will they be fine? Kind of that This is an age old anybody who's owned commercial property. It's an age old problem and we we deal with it I mean, we've been able to be flexible with our neighbors in recent years because we haven't fully utilized our own but We can we can deal with it because we need to keep our commercial tenants and our residents is happy You know a resident tenant is not going to be happy if their car gets towed So we'll have to manage it But I think the other thing is with snow removal with designated spaces. It does help us With snow removal when we do get this year has been unusual But normally we get a fair amount of snow and we have to deal with it So I think the designation does help us in that area, but I do think Who picked 11 you were the bank? I'm not sure how we got to that number I think it might have it might have been a mix between the employees and how much how much retail traffic They thought they needed it may have been a combination of staffing And how many the customer flow they felt they needed it may have been based as much on the square footage Of the well what i'm asking you who who who who just who's did they say? We want 11 spaces or did you say we think 11 is the as an appropriate number? 11 who's the driver for the number? I would guess the bank it certainly makes sense to me just because with the bank that size they've got to have staff So it does make sense to me And dedicating spaces in front of the bank doors Hopefully the merchants will be coming in to make their deposits and stuff like they're not going to want to park willy-nilly They're going to want to park in front of the bank It feels I am just being conscious of time here. It feels like we've we've gotten testimony I think we're going to give a couple guidance Talk about a couple other things in deliberation Does the board feel like this is another item that we can give further direction on out of that? Okay? I think if I could just ask if there is some direction about reducing it would be super helpful for me if there was a specific number To be reduced by or maximum Provided recommendation instead of just less just along the spirit of Specifics for when we come back in next time so that we can provide you with something that's acceptable Would be helpful. I would like to see a smaller number, but I don't know that I speak for other people Yeah, I think Further more specific is what we would want to come to you in deliberation I don't think anyone on the board is had has thought this through enough to try to give you But I will say that every member here has said this is too many parking Yes, exactly. So I would say be expected that will it will be less our recommendation, but We would want to provide you more specific guidance and maybe what would help deliberation is We see Two handicap spaces that we expect would be reserved for the financial institution. Correct those two. Yep, and then um It was also noted a couple 15 minute drop-off sites our Parking spots. How many did you foresee being the the 15 minute limit? I I don't have that specific if you could have if you could provide it It would have informed but if not, that's fine. So we'll we we can get back to you on that Okay, thank you It's just out of curiosity. Thank you to drag this out, but um Could Could you Instead of designating bank parking spaces, could you prohibit tenant park or apartment parking? I'm sort of flipping the calculus a little bit, but if you had signs, it's just saying no apartment parking No resident parking no resident during hours of operation something like that They're saying dedicating this to this institution. What we are saying is My experience with these mixed use projects like this type is that the challenge is Forcing people to fully use the garage To be honest It's in the middle of the day when you come home for lunch. You don't want to go in there. You just Grab a site and you're running the unit, right? And that's That's the time of day when we'd really like to push the member of the garage, but it's just a thought I think that that did come up of you know, if these could be available for the other commercial tenant That would be helpful. And if that's something you think you're We can definitely bring that back. I'm okay So we'll consider that in deliberation too as far as that recommendation But I I will give the further guidance that I would lean that way too that they be opened more generally during but based on the hours of operation of the bank But available for the other commercial tenant as well Okay And Comment 32 if I haven't lost track or did I skip? Oh, no, I skipped 31 right here on the screen. So We're looking for long-term bike path long-term bike parking on lot one Or that sufficient long-term bike parking is on one of the other lots Could you speak to the long-term bike parking that will be available? We have a really nice indoor facility in the apartment I believe we've got it worked out with the bank to have two and the locker in their room for their staff So that that will come back with their list of comments their solar and their other Okay, yeah, it has been something that we've been communicating. It's been discussed communicated They weren't understanding what the ask was understood. Okay. So that's in the works. Yes, and we're comfortable with with the requirement excellent Comment 32 Staff determines no additional discussion 30 common 33 are comments from the city arborist. So those will need to be addressed Lucy, do you have anything to add are? Going through quickly. I just want to make sure that There's nothing in those comments that we need to ask question about No, and I already addressed them in the comments. Okay. Thanks. I'm just Trying to look quickly as we move along. Yeah. Yeah, make sure we don't miss anything to give feedback on A comment 34, uh, it looks like we are just looking for confirmation That shade trees have a caliper of two and a half inches even though the nursery may specify differently To have that we agreed to that in the written comments as well. Okay. Excellent. Thank you And comment 35 is comments from the stormwater section also will need to be addressed We we can do that and comment 36 is uh recommend a recommendation to reduce the illumination levels of Uh, the locations to a more reasonable level on an order of eight to ten foot candles Um, and so this is for the illumination on lot one at the proposed atm Is this something that? I expect might need to be discussed with the tenant, but is that something that might Right. We have discussed it with them. They are looking to keep it at as high as possible just from a safety perspective It does get into a little bit of whether or not we're going to be allowed to keep the atm. So i'm not sure how important it is to Sort out the exact amount of foot candles we'll be allowed to have here It seems like tiny details on a larger project I will say that the board has in the past considered illumination levels under a canopy um in a slightly different pun not intended light Then overall site illumination levels. So there may be some Available flexibility if we get to that point. Okay. I think it's not a good use of time to discuss it now. Yep. Thanks Great and comment 37. Um, no additional discussion needed And with that, um, we have a number of items that we're going to discuss in deliberation And give as we noted share that back with you which is is not always the case So we have those list of items that you'll have Feedback from us before the next time we see you But have some marching orders as well. Yeah, thank you for that and thank you for We got lucky and being able to get through all these comments. So thank you all for your time and Doing that We really appreciate it. We got lucky. So we need to decide on a date to continue should we take public comment? That's a great idea. Um, anyone Any public comments anyone online? Sounding like none. So now we now we can choose the next state Um, so we would need revised Materials two weeks before the continued hearing date Um, I can have the board delivery on the things we were going to deliberate. We discussed deliberating on On april 18th But they wouldn't so then I would not be able to get the feedback to you Until you know the next day, which is two weeks before the next meeting So I guess I would suggest continuing to may 16th which gives The board time and then gives you two weeks to get me things two weeks before the next meeting Is that okay may 16th I'm not quite sure that it's enough time considering the coordination that we need to do with chase bank on the results So what would happen if for some reason we agree tonight on may 16th But we're not able to get you plans in time. We would just request a continuance to the following hearing. Okay. Yeah The sooner you can make that request the better because if the june 6th hearing were to fill up before you were able to get That request in I wouldn't be able to grant that request for instance um, the other thing is if You know, you want to I could see a situation where Say all the site stuff is addressed in one meeting and then all the building stuff is addressed in another meeting You know if you want to keep that date and address Many things and then have a few outstanding things that might be a good use of time too. Okay So may 16th All right, I will move to continue sd 2305 to May 16th Did I say that correctly? All right, all those in favor I opposed All right, I think we'll see you on may 16th. Thank you. Thank you so much um next up is minutes We Assuming john has not spent assuming john has a life And has not watched the february 22nd and march 7th meetings in order to review the minutes Um, I would propose just yeah pushing the minutes out to the next meeting. Yeah, okay Sounds great other business None Okay, um, so meeting concluded at 9 31. Thank you everyone for