 This is the development review board meeting for the table second. We take up items, generally in the order that they're on the agenda, and when we call each item we ask people to come up to the table here, and we take testimony under oath, and we'll square people in at each item. There's a sign-up clipboard on the table there if you're interested in getting information or having party status testifying a project. We encourage you to sign in on that clipboard at some point during the evening. And when people do testify, the acoustics in here are terrible, so we ask people to really use the microphones. There, everybody helps us. The first item is the agenda, and for a variety of reasons, we are swapping two items on the agenda. The first public hearing item, which is 1315 George Street, we're going to move that in place of Dannaford Road. The reason is we have several people recused on the George Street, and we have one member of the board arriving late, so we want to make sure we have as many board members as possible in hearing that item. And the folks from Dannaford Road, apparently, are okay with making that change. Other than that, I think we have no other changes on the agenda. That's correct. I want to welcome Ravi, our new board member, alternate. Welcome. And we have communications. We have one comment from Public Works on 68 Pearl Street, and we have some minutes in our packet for March 19th and March 6th, which I know Elaine is anxious to have them signed and filed away. So those are the minutes. So the first item on our agenda is under consent. Item is 400 Pine Street. Is the applicant here? So this is consent. It's an application to get a time extension on your current project to finish construction of the multi-use building. Obviously, we see you're well underway on it. Yeah, if you're driven fast, yeah. And are you okay with the recommendations in the approval recommended by staff? You know, I did not see anything posted. Didn't you get a letter or email? I got an email with the agenda. I don't think I got an email with the recommendations from staff. Mary's going to hand it to you. Two very short items. While you're looking at that, does anybody on the board object to having this as a consent item? I have one quick question, but we do not need a public hearing. Okay. Before we get to your question, is anybody in the public here for 400 Pine Street? No. Do you want to ask your question, Austin? Yeah, I just was, you're looking for an extension, and I couldn't quite tell whether you're looking for, and the notes say that you're looking for project completion May, June of 2019. Correct. So are you asking for an extension until June, let's say June 30th, 2019, or do you need more time than that? I don't think I'll need time, though, with construction projects. Things do happen. So I would take whatever time, you know, the board would allow me. I think July one would be a pretty darned reasonable time to have this completed. Thank you. So saying all that, can we have a motion on this item? Yeah, I would move that we approve the application for the extension of time, adopt staff findings and conditions, and just clarify that the extension will be to July one, 2019. So second on that. AJ, any discussion? All in favor? Opposed? I'm not opposed. Thank you very much. Good luck. Thank you. And our next item on our agenda is 251 Stanaford Road as a public hearing. Thanks for accommodating the agenda. No problem. And is anybody else here for 251 Stanaford Road? Just the applicant. Okay. Can I have both your raise your right hand? And do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth on the pain and penalty of perjury? Yes. Okay. Maybe we start by you're introducing yourselves and sort of briefly state. We have the packet here with some of the documentation, which I think your relatives, right? I'm sorry. Is it your mother that lived here? Yes. So it was my grandparents house. Again, your name is? Oh, I'm sorry. My name is Erica Reddick. I am trying to purchase my grandparents home. It is currently owned 50% tenants in common by my mother and my aunt. Yes. The home being 251 Stanaford. Yes, sir. Yes. I'm John Franco. I am an attorney in Burlington and I'm representing Erica in this matter as a lawyer. I'm supposed to fill this out too. So basically you're presenting a case that it has always been a three-unit building? Oh, no, not always, but long enough. No, always. It's been a triplex since it was built. Do you want me to hand these out? Hand these out. Whether it was used as a triplex is a different question. I have a handout here showing that. You want me to do it, John? Pass them around. The handout is a zoning permit that was granted by Ken Lerner back in August of 1988, where it indicates at that time the use of the property was as a triplex. And attached to that is then the certificate of occupancy granted later in August by Holt. In one of our grounds is we think that that actually has a preclusive effect under section 4472D because it was for changes to what was described as a triplex. And there's a couple of cases on this. There's the graves versus the town of Waitfield and also the town of Bennington versus Hansen while we're children at home to say in these kinds of circumstances, good, bad or indifferent, it has the binding effect of section 4472D. And I would add to the board, this is the third case I have of what I call these long tail triplex conversion cases that we seem to keep coming up now by the enforcement office. The property was constructed in 1964. If we use this as a benchmark in 1988, that was almost 31 years ago. I have another case which is on appeal to the Supreme Court, the Zhang case, which is going to be argued two weeks from today as to whether or not the statute of limitations applies to both the construction and use. That's one of the grounds we've also had. That was the case where the conversion occurred in 1992, which was 25 years ago. And I have another case where the conversion occurred in 1972. And I think it might be these are, I understand the interest in not having a lower medium use residential zone be inundated with cutting up both houses and creating multiple units, but these are cases where these facts have been in the ground for decades. We have a situation here where apparently Erica's grandmother went in and applied and obtained this permit in 1988. And now here we are in 2019 and the family is being told, oh no, no, no, this is illegal and it can't be used this way. So the three grounds are that this has preclusive effect under 4472D. Alternatively, that the 15-year statute of limitations applies. But also we had a belated claim that it might make sense to treat this as a conditional use under the non-conforming residential use ordinance and essentially recognize what's been the fact now for at least three decades. So if I catch the import of this, is that this point in time sets it as a three-unit building in 1988 and... Being used as a triplex, it uses the term triplex. And that 4472, that's the exclusivity of remedy. It's not appealed in 30 days. It's final. So your position is the city didn't appeal this determination. No one appealed this determination. It's written existing use of properties, triplex, and that's that. The case, the oldest case I think is the... I think it's Graves versus the town of Watesfield was the applied for a permit for mobile homes in the town of Watesfield. It was granted. It turned out that the zoning administrator allowed two mobile homes and only one was allowed. Supreme Court said it doesn't matter. The other case, this is one of my favorites, the oldie by Goody, the Bennington versus Hanson-Walbridge funeral home case, which is they claimed that they applied for and got a permit for a funeral home. They didn't mention there was a crematorium. Supreme Court said, wait a minute. You didn't disclose it was a crematorium. You can't be bound by that. And also, there's another related case, the Costa Blot case. That's a little different because it had to deal with either a DRB or a ZBA determination. But what it said is, look it. If you've been told what the use is going to be and you don't put in conditions saying you can't do certain things too bad, I call it the speak now forever, hold your peace rule. And let me tell you how old this was. You know who the attorney for the planning department was when this permit was issued? Me. John, let me ask you another question just so I have this right. The triplex was a non-conforming use in 88, right? I think it's always, well, way back, I think so way back in the before time there was a provision that in these types of zones you could get what they called. In that era they called it a special, I think a special exemption or special exclusion for an additional unit. There's no, here's the problem. There's no record that we have that that was actually, that that was obtained prior to then. But again, the problem with this is that unlike land records we don't really have a coherent and reliable record of what the permits were. Which is one of the problems with these long tail cases. So then you're saying well what happened 30 years ago? Is anybody around? Are they still alive? What are the records? I mean I had another case, the Jean case. We actually were able to find the person that made the conversion because for whatever reason he moved from Florida back to Vermont and back to Colchester and we were able to locate him. But this is endemic in these kinds of cases with the problem of trying to establish what happened. But this is, I think this is at least a, if you will, as a benchmark of what was going on. And it's at least 30 and a half years ago. So I just want to, the city's position, I have Scott on this thing, is that it never had legal status as a three unit building. Triplex. Yes, is the short answer. And 1964 would have required a special permit. Yes, special exception. And that, again, it's the use, not the structure. We're talking about the use. So do you want to get into the city's position or is that just a quick question? Quick question from me. May I make a comment? Yeah. Further to that point, there's also no original building permit. So if there had been something, assuming there was something submitted for the conditional use, the records don't go that far back to begin with. So that's why John picked this one because we know specifically for sure this is a date that is good. And this, I find that mistaken. This was a hockey. Yes. It was a build by house. In other words, hockey built it and then it was built to spec and then her grandparents bought it as a constructed unit. No, they actually purchased it before it was built. Oh, okay. We purchased it before. Yeah. So you may have already answered at least part of this. So there is not a permit for a triplex when it was built in 1964 nor for anything else. There just, there isn't a permit at all. There's no, there may have been one where there's no record of it. Okay. And that's sort of the second part of my question. Do you, I can't, I know the city's had problems or had some conflicting opinions on what permits they need to retain and how long do, do you know if permits have been discarded by the city for this period of time or just, we don't know one way. There's no permit. We don't know why. When I spoke with someone at, I think it was Department of Public Works, she said that there are some plans for that neighborhood. So the Stanford Road, Standberry kind of area, they have like a dozen building plans or something like that from hockey, but they're on like lot numbers. So you can't tell what the address is. You can't tell anything. And they said that they were going to ask for clarification, but no one's gotten back to me in the last month or two since I had that conversation. Okay, all right. Well, I'm equally anxious to have the Vermont Supreme Court tell us how to interpret this rule. It's been a problem for a number of people. We'd like to have some clarity on this, but can I ask you a question, John, about your other point? Can I just add to the previous question just a little bit? Sure. I had another case involving a property across the street from the old Adam School. And there was a parking terrace that was put in and the neighbor complained that there was a pre-existing, it had never got a permit or whatever. And in that case, it just so happened that the planning department had an old Polaroid photograph of this in the file like circa 1977 and we were able to locate the property had once upon a time been used as a student housing for Champlain College and we were able to locate the, what was then called the dorm mother who lived there. I mean, this is, I'm just trying to explain about, you know, unlike land records, when you go back a certain distance. We have heard all sorts of horror stories. So I understand the problem again. I'm just trying to, if, if there was some permit issued when the house was built, that would be a starting point. In this case, we just don't have it. We just don't know if somebody applied for it and got it and it's been lost or whether there was never anything issued. So I get that. The other part that you meant talked about a conditional use for, can you explain your argument there? And my basic question is at this point what we have before us is an appeal of a finding of not approved as a triplex. You're suggesting that we examine whether conditional use for a residential something, and I can't remember the term you used would be appropriate. Yeah, the, the, the, it's under article five. The section is not conforming residential use. It's on page five dash 17 of the current ordinance. And let me explain the logic of, this is something we added later. I think the nature of, of Erica's inquiry was really for all in terms of, all intents and purposes request for declaratory ruling. I think that's really what we're dealing with here. So the thinking was, well, if we're doing that and since if there's a non-conforming residential use, it's got to be approved by the DRB. And it's kind of a the novel review of what happened before the administrative agency. It would make sense to bring it up now. And that's why we did it. Didn't you say I shouldn't have even asked for a zoning variance? Yeah, I don't think a variance is the right. I think it's the right church, but the wrong appeal. A variance is very tough to get over my impossible. It's really to prevent a regulatory taking. That's the only reason for it. This is really, this is a conditionally permitted use, conditional use approval says pursuant to article three, part five. And it's a change in expansion of non-conforming residential use. I mean, we clearly have that here. The department doesn't, has argued that this section doesn't apply. I don't know that I quite understand the navigation through that, but that's also a consideration here. So I'd like to get to the city's position. If anybody on the board has any questions for the applicant at the moment, we'll get back to you too. So just a second. I think, Scott, I think, I'll just have you maybe present the city's position. I think one of the questions I have is there is an ordinance in here from, and it's not clear where it's from. It's obviously an ordinance that talks from 62. That's from 62. And it does list multi-unit and that page. I don't know if the next page talks about them being additional use, but it doesn't talk about it on that page being conditional use. Maybe you could explain that too. Well, I'll enter that and then get into the position. So if you read above where it talks about multi-family, it says, I'm paraphrasing because it's not under my nose. It says the following use is a subject are approved, but it's not in there. You say any of the following uses. Okay, so number five. Any of the following uses, one authorized as a special exception by the zoning board of adjustment, A, apartment houses of three or more family units, hotels, tourist cabins and motels, B and C are irrelevant. That's what I'm referring to. Three or more units, special exception. Okay. I'm familiar with that. I think there's special exception back then. And then I think of Scott, if I'm not mistaken, then there was another amendment. I call it the anti hippie amendment. It was about 1970 or 71 that then added a definition, a more exacting definition of what a family was. And then I don't know what the next iteration was which change it might have been in the 80s. Well, 71 was when family definition was tweaked right at group quarters. I called it the post Woodstock amendment. That's not on trial tonight. Scott. Okay. So this is not an enforcement action. Attorney Franco said something about the enforcement office. Co's not involved in this at all. This was a request for determination to bless the triplex use as a preexisting nonconformity. Sorry to do the 22nd recap on that for something to be a legit preexisting nonconformity it needed to be okay when it started. So the house was built in 64. The 62 zoning code said single family duplexes are okay in this area. Three more homes needed a special exception from the ZBA. So administrative zoning permits pre early 1970s are not in our files. We're looking for them. We have zoning permits and we have a ZBA decision from 1968 for real estate office. I assume it was a home occupation but there's not much in the way of detail. Anyways, the point is we have ZBA decisions back to the 40s including one for 68 for this property. So 62 said you needed ZBA decision approving it. House was built in 64. The permit log that was in use in the time that said anything about the triplex use. That's really the punchline. Most of the city records point to two units which is a little bit curious if it always had three units. There are some records like Vermont gas and the affidavits which point to three. But I think the punchline really is there's no ZBA decision approving this. So then we're looking at the statute of limitations you know on the drill on that Maturity Franco correctly points out the 204 Neverth Avenue jang case of the Supreme Court and depending how that goes that could have significant implication for this case. On the use of the use violation. So your position is that the no matter how it's been used in intervening years the fact that it never had a legitimate use and it's a use violation. Right, grandfathered is predicated on being legit when it began. Except that we claim that that changes with this. But yes, thank you for reminding me attorney Franco. So in your packet tonight you have a zoning permit from 2017 the application form refers to existing proposed use as two units. So then you say it's reversed by the 2017 application. I don't think that the application that the triplex from 88 is legit, but if you are willing to entertain that we have the permit from 2017 referring to two Permit in 2017 to do what? That refers to two units as existing proposed use. That being said that was submitted by my aunt who was not very well didn't pay super great attention to things. We have a variety of permits and records in front of us that talk about two units and three units and sometimes it's just a single family house when things are being applied. So it is confusing. And this permit really it approves screening in an existing porch. It's not a change of use. It's hard to say the city was reviewing and approving everything used really wasn't critical to this decision. I hear what you're saying but I can throw the zoning is in derogation of common law property rights and it's supposed to be construed strictly against the city and liberally favor the property owner and throw Hanson wall bridge and the other graves case back at you. I understand what the legal argument is. You know how that would I could argue your side of it too. And just I don't know if it matters or not but as Scott mentioned this wasn't a violation well I mean we didn't get caught you know we've been with code enforcement forever we've never had any violations code enforcement has it as a three unit property we've always paid all of our bills on time and everything so there was no like this would not have come up and gone to get a mortgage for the property and then you know the appraiser was like it's a three unit and the city was like no it's a two unit and they were like sorry sucker you can't get a mortgage now so that's how we've gotten here you're not I mean that's a spot where a lot of people get caught at that point I'm not caught yes caught up at that moment you know people try to resolve that and usually it's the same kind of issue it's like a more value as a triplex than as a duplex I suspect a considerable difference in fact it is such a considerable difference that if I have to spend tens of thousands of dollars to convert it to a duplex it will no longer be feasible for my family to keep the home well you know whether you can use it I would talk to Mr. Franco about this if I could do any structural conversions I have I'm sorry can you say that into the microphone so I can hear you better I think again we're into this realm of structure versus use so I know that I know that the environmental division has taken that position since Judge Wright first articulated it 20 years ago I said I know that the environmental division has sustained that reasoning for the last 20 years to me it makes absolutely no sense why would you build a deck if you can't use it why would you build a third apartment if you can't use it and what we will be arguing to the Supreme Court is Occam's razor the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one and that the statute of limitations applies to both uses and to what structures otherwise it makes no sense and I've also asked like is there some way that we can you know change this fix this like can I just call Patrick my roommate so that like you know not to be dishonest or anything but like what can we do to just not make it so that my family can't keep the home that my grandparents purchased 60 years ago for our family and what I was told was that the renovations had to be significant enough so that it could not then be converted back into a separate apartment which is reasonable I don't even like to argue about it so Scott from the to this point of view whether this has been in continuous use as a triplex or not is not a factor it's irrelevant it was built in 64 62 was the cutoff for special exception so it should have had a ZBA permit if I may briefly just about making it legit maybe you were referring to attorney Fraco's comment or not anyways I'll address it so there's in the appeal documents request for consideration under the nonconformity condition to use so I'll say two things there one is if they want to pursue that right they would have to file a condition to use application more significantly and this might be confusing explanation because it's confusing that provision is in there to enable otherwise nonconforming residential uses that are approved through adaptive reuse and residential conversion so in other words if you're in the residential low density zone and you have a commercial structure and you do the residential conversion you're not limited to just a single family or duplex that provision is there to incentivize conversion and adaptive reuse is maybe the case by increasing the allowable density right so that's basically there to allow your result in triplex or quadplex that's not here because you're not doing an adaptive reuse and we use that for north avenue right the multi family was an adaptive reuse therefore there was sort of a density bonus for conversion to residential north avenue the one on north avenue I'm trying to avoid calling it the mayor's project yes I will know I mean we have other projects in the same kind of category as this where I don't think anybody tried to get away with anything I think it just happened over the years that now because of the mortgage thing you're you find yourself caught in the corner view and I think the board has tradition I had a lot of sympathy for that but it's a struggle as we feel bound to that we have to do something that fits with the zoning regulations and trying to find some solution that works with that is the challenge and I attorney Franco if this 1988 is something in 1994 a subsequent one that talks about being a duplex again so we're sort of we would have I mean if this was a trial we bring in a number of people that say that representation in 2017 is just incorrect it's been a triplex for decades and included in our package is affidavits from the folks who literally watched the house get built if I should there are more people in the neighborhood that I've met that remember my grandparents they were friends with my mom and my aunt and my uncle and whomever and they all said that they were happy to provide affidavits as well and I was told that it wasn't that we had to and that they probably might not matter anyway but like it's I mean the neighbors have known that it's a triplex see that testimony in here they're quite clear about that not nobody's contesting any of the facts it's just how you apply those facts to the the requirements of the ordinance even if you accept that as 100% true we still have legal issues that we need to get past I understand that well we don't know Scott if I understand this right it's sort of by there not being a ZVA on file we don't really know what was actually applied for 1963 or four we only know that that does not exist in the file sort of a negative kind of thing that permit does not exist in there but there's no record of actually what was applied for right well it would make sense that a single family or duplex would have gotten an admin permit and again in the 60s we don't know where they are if they're anywhere we do know where the ZVA decisions are because we have them and I guess one makes the assumption that if it needed a particular permit it would have gotten that particular permit not like what we see sometimes where just as an example we've seen before the coordination between public works and planning and zoning where permits were issued by public works for a project that was not approved by zoning two unit building or three unit building where the zoning permit wouldn't have allowed it and that people have building permits for those kind of things and once upon a time the zoning ordinances were administered by the building inspector in the city of Burlington way back in ancient times of 40s, 50s and 60s I think Ray Wheel maybe was the building inspector so you've got a whole and what really brought out this problem was the history of permits was when they had the Bianchi decision that made the lack of permits a stain on the title and it was every all the I don't do real estate law but the real estate practitioners were pulling their hair out because they said look we don't have a recording system like we have for deeds and that kind of thing for the permits and that really created a mess and I would just say in my opinion that it's a complete file of all of the permits if you don't have the actual building permit I don't know how you can say that you have everything when you don't have everything and the record of buildings which is old also even shows that the second floor is separated into a two bedroom and a two room so it's unfortunate that people were not diligent about crossing all of their T's and dotting all of their I's just I think we've got I was going to leave you with one last thought make it a good one this house was built when the Beatles run Ed Sullivan just to put it in perspective any other questions for the board thank you and nobody's here for this I believe thank you we're going to maybe deliberate at the end of the day we'll see I have a question for staff the board and staff there was an instance where we did recently I can't remember what yes it was on something where they said remind me why that worked because it was we were trying to establish I'm sorry can you guys speak into your microphone I think on that case if I remember quickly we're trying to establish continuous use that was the only thing they needed to that too as Zeroy said what we're trying to establish was that it was not continuously it was always there I did not hear half of what you guys said in a prior project before the board it was a similar issue but not identical the question was had a some conforming use ever been abandoned for longer than a year I was trying to remember whether we were doing the six months or a year rule but this one was a year the building was abandoned the use and so we had to take affidavits from people who said not was always used as such okay and that is not helpful in this case it was really it was a factual issue and as we talked about earlier if we accept your facts 100% we still have some problems and I just wanted to make sure we talked about that in public hearing so it's on record then yes our affidavit does show that it's been in continuous use since it was built according to the affidavit thank you for asking that cross is one problem now the next item on the agenda is George I thought I did close it actually before we're officially closing that public hearing thank you will we be deliberating tonight you think on this one or not are you refused on the next one no I am we are and if we want to stick around we could maybe deliberate on this later we'll stick around and two of us are refused or three of us Jeff has left so Jim stepped out for a minute I think it makes sense to wait for him to join okay well why don't I just call it but we won't take any testimony until he's here yep so the next item and again just for the record Brad A.J. and Jeff are all recusing themselves so I will be serving as the chair for this application this is 19-0533 C.A. 19-0532 C.A. 19-0534 C.A. 19-0535 C.A. 19-0536 C.A. 13-1519 George Street 688090 and 70 Pearl Street so the applicant is here is there anyone else in the audience tonight who thinks they might wish to make comments or ask questions about this application alright can you all raise your right hand so I can swear you in do you swear the testimony you're about to give in this matter will be okay thank you so may I give a preamble before they do their presentation sure do you want to wait for Jim to return I think it would be good to have as many board members participate as we can so that's a yes you're going to wait for Jim to return at your choice let's wait for Jim to return just for those of you who have not been here before the applicant will present the application board members can then ask questions of the applicant and then we'll give an opportunity for members of the public to ask their questions make their comments so that will come Mary I wanted to give just a short preamble before the board hears this case because it's relatively unusual part of this application is being reviewed under the standard articles of the ordinance and that's the residential portion we have two zoning districts and two sets of regulations if you were reading your supporting material online and you opened up the folder for the project narrative it was followed by a great deal of information a lot of checklists none of those are for you that is the staff portion of the review so for the article 14 section for the form districts relative to the Pearl Street properties your review is limited to the request for extra height and that's in your findings or in your staff report article 14 on page 22 that is the limit of your review is the extra height the remainder of the staff report is relative to the residential portion which is in the high density residential zone and those are the George Street properties so if you have any questions about what you're looking at or what your review is I'm happy to help you with that Mary thank you and I get the distinction there were a couple of areas where it was very hard to look at this as two separate projects with two sets of rules one was traffic because I get it we have traffic generated by the senior housing but it's impossible to which is I think probably relatively minor compared to the traffic generated by the hotel and cafe and also parking are interrelated so I think we'll need some assistance on figuring out how to apply those criteria given the two projects in two different zones with different standards you do bring up a good point I have provided you with the most recent parking and traffic study from the applicants but this afternoon DPW provided their analysis which is before you so that's in your communications packet okay so I'll turn it over to the applicant if you could identify yourself and then what do we tell us well it's been a long time I think the last time you saw us was in 2016 when the sketch plan so we've come a long way since then I'm John Alden with Scott & Partners Architects and I've got Rick Bull with me here and I've got a lot of consultants that are waiting to answer all of your detailed questions so I know well there's a lot of parts and pieces to this and you're right to point that out so we do have a hotel building we do have an apartment building and we do have a parking you know approach with an underground piece and a surface piece and it does all relate together it's one big project and we're just going to walk you through a short slideshow I might have some of our panels here explain the details of some of them but I'm trying to keep it brief because I'm sure you have already read it so let's see what happens here this is from an older slideshow because you've seen it before but I just wanted everyone to remember where we are on the city map so we're in the box here that's the existing Victoria Place and then because zoning's changed since the last time we were here we now have the red line indicating the difference between the RH zone and what is now the form district 5 and there's also an overlay E for height okay so it part of the project the apartment building is actually over here in the RH section the hotel is over here in the FD 5 section alright so here's the existing site plan you can see the buildings that are in place now include former single family homes now apartment buildings along George Street these two lots here this is the standard house which was recently rehabbed quite nicely by Rick Victoria Place the former Bulbs Restaurant Social Security and the large parking lot that exists now 48 spaces surface parking 18 belong to Victoria Place in the standard house and the remaining 30 are metered by the city those 30 spaces are there's a purchase and sale agreement with Rick for him to take over all the parking so that entire lot comes to be part of this project application and there's a deal between the city and Rick that 30 spaces will remain available for public use during the day not necessarily metered by the city but however Rick wants to do it he still has an obligation to retain access to 30 spaces so that anybody could use them and we'll get into that later it's part of the parking the proposed site plan I'm going to have help me with this one but there's a lot of material going on here with regard to underground things this is the surface plan this is the ramp down into the garage from George street this is the apartment building this is the hotel with the restaurant it's a commercial space on the first floor fronting onto pearl this is the existing driveway that's been redeveloped as a more of a shared use you've got pedestrian you've got cars and we'll show you how that works later on in the slideshow this other little piece here is just the stair coming down from the wing of the hotel which you might be able to pick out there's a yellow line here which outlines the upper level of the hotel starting on level 2 it is over the parking lot you guys want to do the fine points on maybe the underground structures and so forth please so Brian Courier O'Leary Burke civil associates so John started so the utilities for the George street loft building will come off George street we are doing a slightly water line replacement along the road it's an old 6 inch clay line corroded so we're going to be replacing a section of that with 8 inch PVC adding a hydrant at the end sewer comes off the existing sewer service along George street he mentioned the ramp going down to the underground parking the hotel is going to be served by the existing utilities on Pearl street water sewer just upgrading the existing services for the restaurant the storm water system has been reviewed by the conservation committee and the city storm water department it's inclusive of a underground storm tech system promotes infiltration and overflows to the combined water sewer on pearl street that's it hi Jeremy Owens landscape architect TJ Boyle associates let's see here one of these buttons so here's the landscape plan essentially the landscape is based on three major components you have a redo of the existing drive aisle you have some outdoor space for the apartments and then you have some periphery landscape the first major component is we basically have a 24 foot wide drive aisle with five feet of sidewalk and roughly five or six feet of sidewalk on this side and what we're trying to do because we have a hotel entrance in the back here is we're trying to convert this to a little bit more pedestrian style entrance to be more inviting and make it more of a shared space rather than essentially mostly a drive lane so we've reduced that drive lane to 18 feet and we've essentially got five feet of walking space an additional five feet of either planting islands and temporary pull off for either unloading or loading of vehicles or pedestrian drop off 18 feet of dedicated drive lane and then we're retaining the existing sidewalk along the side of the Victoria police building the other additions are materials we've added some paving surface I'm sorry concrete paver surfaces we haven't exactly picked up the colors yet but the idea is that the pedestrian use will take precedent over the driving use and so most of this is going to read on a more pedestrian scale rather than asphalt roadway bike parking out front as well as some seating for the commercial space off to the side the next major component is the outdoor space for the lofts building we can't really hide the fact that it's a parking lot and underneath we do have parking as well so this area here is actually on the concrete deck above and so instead of having to come out of your lofts building into essentially a parking lot we've decided to take advantage of getting additional green space credit that we need in order to have this used in the first place and convert this into more of a garden type outdoor space we have your main connection for pedestrian wooden seating wooden deck with seating on top for picnic tables and then an outdoor gardening space and a small shed some additional gardening space and a little bit of bike storage that's the second major component and then the third is the periphery essentially we've got landscape plants along the very thin strip over next to the office too we're using very thin small diameter trees to get some vertical relief onto the building as well as a little bit more of a green buffer along the back edge we have a six foot tall fence to maintain some privacy between the residential uses to the north and the parking space by privacy I mean some screening and for headlights and essentially visibility into the site and similarly over here we've softened the building on the north side and maintained some privacy here for not only for the residents to the north but also for the new residents inside the residential building so that pretty much wraps it up John you want the pointer back okay so I'm just going to walk you through a couple of the floor plans just I'm trying not to spend a lot of time on them because I know you've already seen but just so we all remember this is our entry ramp this is the lower level it's only the rectangle you see here this is the footprint of the hotel above and the garage entry level for the lofts building has you know tenant storage bike parking those kind of things inside back to the full surface level this is the lofts that we just saw here's the hotel over here there's the stair coming down these are all the surface spaces that are underneath and I'm going to quickly go to the second floor so now that you can see the wing of the hotel as it covers the part of the parking all the spaces behind Victoria Place remain so we'll see those later that's part of the spaces that will serve the ongoing business and commercial uses at Victoria Place this is the fifth floor which where did Tyler go it's actually a little smaller than the floors below you can see we have mechanical space here we have a little bit narrower wing on that end we're forced to step back from the residential district to the north so that's what's driving the shape of this and now I'm going to let Tyler do the elevations you've seen the materials in your package so yeah it's Tyler Scott and partners could you just try to speak into your phone you could pull it around if you want to there we go so the top elevation faces west and this is a stairwell here and this is some of the landscaping that was described previously this level down here is a dark somewhat glazed brick it's not a glossy brick but it's meant the original Art Deco base of Beau's restaurant up above that is a more beige brick here and then above that is a reddish brick this material here is a metal shingle that is sort of an overlapping installed in sort of an overlapping manner and then above here is some mechanical screening we're not actually sure how large that will need to be so we're still working on that end of it but that's just mechanical screening that would be a similar tone as the gray down here out here there is this fifth floor steps back on the south side here and there's a canopy over that the deck here and then it also steps back here what this is is mechanical screening on the fourth floor so that the residents on the north side won't see that and then down here we have a canopy on the south side as an entrance to the below here to the restaurant so on the east side again similar materials as I just described this is just a dining area upstairs also and then this portion right here actually steps towards you in the picture that would be towards the east in its effect this is again the metal shingle material here this is a cement board panel here and that's it it's about 10 foot 8 it's about 14 feet from floor to floor on the lower floor 10 foot 8 on up from there and then just a little bit higher to accommodate the roof construction and insulation from there so I think it comes out to about 58 feet somewhere in there so anyway that's the description at this point is there another there you go so the Pearl Street facade is this narrow facade here it's about 37 feet wide and we've again incorporated sort of a the general appearance of an art deco look here with the brickwork which was one of the requests of the city planning department and so that's the general goal here a lot of glass down at this level for most likely a restaurant at this point then rooms up above here and then again top room set back top suite on this south side here some of it would be hidden behind Victoria Place roughly from this line over would be hidden pretty much by Victoria Place in the sense from Pearl Street but we've taken this mass and broken it up with a series of panels that align with the stairwell here and then on the north side we've switched around to a spent board panel here and some brick yet here down below here as you see is parking down below in this area this is a mechanical space here so parking is down here what you see here is the fence in the distance on the very north side of the boundary property so that's it in a nutshell so we have an overall Pearl Street elevation on the top with a new hotel peeking out existing Victoria Place standard house and you can see the forms of the proposed new buildings behind that and then on the bottom is just the site section showing the entry down into the garage from George Street and now you can see a side view of George Street lofts and cut through the hotel so shared use and again Jeremy spoke very well about this this is the current location of the drive back into the parking area but under our redesign we're really trying to make it into more of a pedestrian plaza and something that would be inviting to get people back to the hotel entry discussions with DPW a while ago suggested they would allow us to play with all the paved surfaces and other sidewalk surfaces out there so we took advantage of that and have actually shown pavers from the west side all the way over to Victoria Place so we liked that ability to play with that we think it helps with the whole pedestrian experience and it certainly helps with our entry sequence and just a close up there's one of the planters that Jeremy described we envisioned some type of signage here identifying the place and providing some direction back to the hotel entry you can see the way that the undulating pattern of the pavers will create some intrigue there and also provide space for cars to pull off and while they're waiting alright so we're on to George Street Lofts now and I'm going to turn this over to Joel again for that I'm Joel Page with Scott & Partners George Street Lofts is four-story building with a full basement underneath the basement we have utilities and bike storage and other accessories as John had mentioned the exterior facade of the building is really clad in durable materials the main George Street elevation I'll try to use this thing this is the George Street elevation the building if you look on the adjacent elevation sets back so the main facade along George Street is a mix of brick and metal shingle panels which are similar to the ones being installed in the hotel and then further back is all metal panel siding the idea is there were some comments from the Design Advisory Board about trying to scale the building in some way so that we could sort of create a transition on to George Street and we tried to do that because we couldn't really change the physical side of the building to do that with materials so the idea would be when you'll see them in perspective is the line of brick and the little parapet cap that goes along it is actually of a similar scale to the buildings along George Street and then the metal clad upper story sort of kind of disappears in the background and then they're capped with some smaller faces along the side of the building I believe this is the just bring the microphone a little closer the ends of sentences are getting lost a little bit on this side of the building this is the north elevation on the side of the apartments there's an exit out the back end the building along George Street again the brick turns the corner so when you're looking at it in perspective the primary elevations you'll see are the corners of this protrusion of the front of the building we've broken up the scale of the back portion of the building with multiple levels of metal panels with different faces and different contours to help give it a feeling of order the windows for the building itself are designed in a similar pattern to what you see along George Street a more residential pattern of popped openings as you make your way hit the wrong button again around to the back of the building this is the side that probably no one will see except somebody in the hotel metal clad siding and then on the George Street or the Pearl Street side of the building this is where you enter into the parking garage and then we have metal panels and then again that brick corner facade as you turn and you're looking up onto George Street the building itself will be built super high energy efficiency we're trying to meet the efficiency of Vermont's high performance requirements it will be used the major tenants will be elderly and a mix of access within the building of stairs and an elevator the roof will be basically low pitched with internal drain so we can manage the storm water coming off the building there will be a few protrusions off the top which would be the elevator sort of a screening for the rooftop duckless mini-split units I think it's all me now alright so the rest of the show is mostly I'll say the pretty picture part right so we've got streetscape shown here some of these you've seen in your packet we've got the view from George Street looking down up George Street to the north and then the whole really the site elevation along George Street so you can see what Joel was talking about with the roof lines and the various components we spend a lot of time trying to get more dense apartment building to look like it meant to match the other smaller buildings to the north on the street so the materials the rhythm the windows all are designed to be sympathetic to the neighborhood to the north and then we I think you've seen some of these before but you know we've got the sky put in some other features from the rendering so we'll just take you on a spin around the block here this is the other housing unit we didn't get all the windows put in but that's the neighboring building just to the west again corner of Pearl and George and straight on at the apartment building looking back south along George and I think you have these in your package as well but it's sort of the overall site you can see really how it does a nice job building up the density in the whole corner there as you approach Pearl Street in the downtown core and we put this one in because it's really hard to kind of understand all the parts and pieces that are happening on the hotel building in three dimensions from the elevation so hopefully that helped people understand what happens there so this is our what we're hoping for we're hoping to get going fairly soon you know as soon as this summer we've got a constructor manager on board we've got Rick ready to get going as soon as he gets through the process here and we hope to be pretty much open in 2020 so I'll leave the slideshow at that I'll talk about anything you want I'll talk about any of the staff comments we thought the staff report was very extensive and right on the money with what we were trying to do we don't really have any trouble with most of the conditions although DPW's traffic and parking comments are a little concerning we just got those today and Roger Dickinson is here as our traffic engineer and he and I will handle any and all of those comments today so where would you like to start well again other members may have questions but I think as I said earlier a summary of the traffic study would be helpful again we have DPW's comments but like you we just got those I have not had a chance to review those I don't know is somebody from DPW here today too right and then again there's good materials on your parking plan but it's dense it's long if you could just give me a summary of how this works for parking and justification of the parking waiver those who would be the two things I would identify we get to the really technical part I'll have Roger come up and join me let me tackle the first part so in general the parking plan outlines how we're orchestrating the use of the 88 physical spaces I will point out that with the bonus for underground parking we have 128 124 spaces on paper to satisfy the zoning demand of 108 so on paper we're fine including the waiver now the waiver we're asking for is a 50% waiver of the loft building only so because that's in the RH zone it generates two parking spots per unit at 20 units that would normally be 40 spaces we're asking for a 50% waiver based on that they're predominantly as in 18 out of 20 units are single bedroom units for seniors and so based on Rick's experience with similar housing stock he finds that the ratio for people actually having cars is less than one per unit so we're fully expecting there to be something like 12 to 15 cars physically on site because of the 20 units although we are only looking for direct one to one one space per one unit ratio of parking so we're asking for a 20 space waiver which would leave us 20 spaces for the 20 units two points one is there's a sort of a backup plan of tandem parking if there's the need for it can you walk us through where that is and how that works and secondly there's an agreement with the city that 30 of the spaces are going to be available for public parking I think during the day so how does that work into your parking calculations there are 39 surface spaces we are saying nine of those spaces and we're assuming they're along the back of Victoria Place will be left available for Victoria Place customers we're saying the other 30 spaces on the surface will be available for day use by anyone which is what the city requested and it will be the hotel management's job to figure out that if they have to actually move cars because it will be valet parking they'll have to move them and what we find from our traffic analysis and our parking analysis however is that from the hours of nine in the morning till about seven at night there are less vehicles generated by the hotel use then we need to provide the 30 spaces and the overlap is where two spaces short is between eight and nine a.m. so between eight and nine a.m. according to the shared parking analysis we'd only have 28 spaces that were free and so we're saying that it will be again back to the valet system to make sure that those two cars are either tandem parked down at the lower level or maybe the case never actually happens or maybe we take advantage of spaces that aren't being used by the seniors so there's a lot of active management required but the hotel commitment is to manage those vehicles so that there'll be 30 spaces available during the day for the city agreement okay and so how the 30 spaces that sort of disappear during the day for use by the hotel how does have you included those 30 spaces in your again the numbers of required spaces for the hotel cafe use is there some sort of a shared use analysis is that how you count for those there is that's the basis of what Roger was talking about and I think I don't know if you saw and I may have Roger explain this but did you see this page in the traffic analysis and would you know how to interpret it because it's dense there's a lot going on Roger do you want to walk everybody through that good evening I'm Roger so we've performed a shared parking analysis using data from the Urban Land Institute shared parking publication as well as the Institute of Transportation Engineers and the city ordinances and basically we have from those sources and publications we have hourly ratios we know that the residential you know the parking demand peaks in the evening and then as people go to workshop or wherever doctors appointments things like that those spaces are vacated during the day same for the hotel hotel peaks at night guests leave during the day and gradually in the afternoon new guests come in check in for the next evening and so this is all factored into the shared parking analysis and the spaces are essentially available on a first come first serve basis there's no you know block of spaces for example that are reserved exclusively for George Street loss for example or Victoria Place it's all first come first served up that's in the analysis we fully expect to allocate spaces to the residents of the lot so they know where their spaces are again it's the hotel will have to manage around that when they valet in the cars are the public spaces the 30 parking public spaces are they metered are they free how we're pretty sure they're metered now the my understanding of the agreement of language in the city agreement is that maybe they're metered maybe there's a monthly arrangement maybe there's any number of ways to pay for those spaces if you use them but they need to be available during the day at 30 so the in the parking and in the traffic analysis we have included the fact that cars will you know hotel guests will arrive at the site check in their cars will either be in some cases moved by valet service to the lower parking lot or the guests themselves will move their vehicles to the location where the management directs them to park we've accounted for the extra trips in the traffic analysis people having to go around the block valets will have to for example because George Street is one way they'll have to turn right go down North Champlain go up to Monroe and then circle back on George in order to access the the lower parking deck so that was all included we have uh responded to the dpw's comments on traffic other questions that was outlined in an email that we received last Thursday we responded to them we performed the additional level of service analysis and you know have pretty much determined that there is no traffic congestion pro street in front of this site operates at level of service A which is the best level of service during the PMP Gower traffic coming off of George Street is right at the breakpoint between level of service B and C and that's really the traffic or the movements that experience the most congestion here is exiting George Street during the peak hour the parking parking potential for parking if need be in the lower deck where we can stack park cars if necessary I also want to mention that there are requesting a 50% waiver on the George Street loss the most recent parking data for senior housing apartments would indicate that 5% tile highest parking demand for senior housing is only 0.67 spaces per unit which for this project would equate to 14 parking spaces for the 20 proposed apartments so your waivers is still being conservative and actually we expect that there will be less vehicles less parking required for the elderly senior housing so I may just help you with this chart a little bit so the way I look at this chart is Roger can do all the calculations he wants but I want to know if I have 30 spaces on the surface available for the city between the hours of 8 and 5 so what we looked at here was along this line if I have 88 total spaces and I need 30 I need to find a number where does that number across 58 spaces so on the chart at 8 o'clock in the morning it says 60 so that's the 2 I was talking about from 8 to 9 and then at 9 o'clock in the morning my shared parking demand is only 54 and it stays under 58 all the way up until I get past 7 o'clock at night so that means according to the shared demand analysis that there will be 30 spaces available in that site somewhere during those hours and it's going to be Rick's valet service job to make sure that the 30 spaces that they need for the city stay at the surface so any car that that's on the site looking for parking that's not part of a public I'm just driving in I want to park gets valeted to an empty space so that's how I know there are 30 spaces available management problem to make sure they know where those cars are now we also have some other data from Victoria Place existing we've got 20 years worth of data that says I've got 34 units there and I've only got 15 of them with cars alright so another piece of real information from this site this is not made up this is what we're watching we also know that this lot the 30 cars that the city is saying we want to make sure there are 30 cars there well we've got a 30 car lot there today and it's significantly underutilized the DPW did their own study before they decided to enter into the agreement to sell it back to Rick is this a good lot are we getting utility out of it and the answer was no it's underutilized it's really significantly under parked so Rick we don't know where these 30 spaces who's going to use them but there's no evidence to suggest at the moment that they actually get used Rick can I ask you do you have an opinion as to why the 30 units only are using 15 parking spaces is it income sensitive is it location sensitive what's your opinion I think it's a combination of all of the above is if you look at I went on a website I don't recall the name but you type in your address and they give you a walkability score and they give you a bike ability score and for the George Street loft site we got a 99 and a 95 respectively between walking and biking and so there's a gentleman that comes in the laundromat a couple times a week and I started up a conversation with him and he lives over in the Kenzie house I said Bill why do you live there he said location I said do you have a car no I can walk to everything you've got the post office the marketplace now all of a sudden you have the bus terminal literally across the street you can just walk everywhere and that's it's the location so I'm going to also respond to the latest DPW comments or they keep suggesting these were the ones we got today let me I think what may make sense is is to let DPW provide their comments and then I would give you an opportunity to reply to those just helps us hear this in the right order I think so let me propose this do board members have questions on the issues we've been discussed if not my proposal would be to open it up to the public so people can ask questions make comments and then we'll have the city come up and discuss the parking and traffic comments and then let the applicant come back any questions from board members at this time it's not your last chance okay good right so I want to since people have been sitting here for a long time I'm going out of order a little bit are there members of the public to ask questions or have comments yes sir my name is Brian pre-court my family owns the building across the street from the boves restaurant on the corner pine and pearl street it's it was built in the early 1800s it's got 13 apartments and five small offices my concern is the parking I was concerned the parking's always been a little muddled to me in how this was figured out I was concerned in 2001 when the first development was done and the 57 unit there were 57 parking spaces in that municipal lot I was assured by the city that with the new development there would be no reduction in parking they showed me the math and I couldn't understand how a 57 space municipal reduced to 30 spaces was not a reduction in parking that's what I was told I was also assured by CEDO and a number of people that those 31 spaces would remain metered at a municipal parking lot that was going to work and that was going to be fine everything that I've seen as I said the parking calculations always seem to get a little muddled with me because everything that I've seen in the zoning documents it talks about proposed 48 parking spaces those 30 parking municipal parking spots were always counted into the parking calculations and now they seem to be counted again into the parking calculations so I have a concern with that we have five small offices over there and those offices use that parking yes it is convenient it is not full all the time that's what makes the parking lot convenient I can pull in there two offices have given their notice and left because of this Linda is so unique is concerned about the parking and after 18 years in the building she's going on month to month to look for another place because she's concerned about the parking the city doesn't seem to have much concern down there I heard that study was done and that that was an under utilized parking lot was that study was done before the cherry street parking garage was torn down and the city had the bright idea to remove all the parking on the south side of Pearl Street in front of my building for a bike lane and a flower pot my tenants don't really need the flower pot or the bike lane they need parking I have great concerns with what that there's talk of that these spaces are going to remain 30 there's going to be 30 spaces to remain in the public for public use but if you read the documents they don't have to be the post agreement agreement with boves states that the city at its discretion can decide that it no longer needs those 30 parking spaces and boves gets them there's no public comment it can decide what would make the city decide we really need these spaces my understanding is the boves are going to collect the money on it what is the city care or am I supposed to believe that well we should really trust the city this time and this time those 30 spaces are really going to remain public I have a great problem with trusting the city that they're going to remain public my building's been there for over 150 years we spent a great deal of money 25 years ago renovating that building the uses in that building need parking the city seems to have very little concern for that those are my comments thank you anyone else chair good evening excuse me my name is Sharon I'm a city councillor from ward 1 this obviously is not in my ward but that doesn't preclude me as a resident for making comments regarding this I do want to just pick up on what the other gentlemen said I do believe there has been a fair amount of controversy between what is necessary for parking for the businesses around this development I'm not sure exactly how recent the DPW tabulation of the spaces and how many are utilized was done I don't know when that report was done I know it was this the comments that were shared tonight were comments I heard maybe a year a year and a half ago so I think it is germane to find out is that still the case or has it changed one way or the other I am concerned about the fact that the 30 spaces that are available it seemed to suggest only daily though and so I'm just trying to figure out is that true or are they available for public 24-7 I do recall that the DPW felt that the amount of revenue that would be collected from those spaces was not significant so that Mr. Bo could have that revenue that's my recall on that conversation also so anyways I really would like to understand the public spaces better and make sure that we are not only welcoming a new addition but we are also supporting those uses that are in existence right now that will continue I think that's really important the other comment regarding parking and I'm not sure I couldn't understand what is germane and what isn't germane in this application but I think the housing units can speak about parking I'm not sure but now in Ward 1 we have senior housing and Macaulay Square is one of those examples where unfortunately people I think underestimate like it or not what seniors do and what they need for cars and in Macaulay Square people are clamoring they don't have enough parking so I'm really concerned about when we look at the conditions regarding what parking needs are for certain populations of people whether those people are people who are members of inclusionary zoning who may actually have to work outside of the city and need their own vehicle it's you know it's not just one size fits all I think if we develop correctly we should be smart about it the other piece regarding parking is that with the loft there will be I guess 20 spaces for 20 units it seems fine but what about if someone has a visitor where do they park I've always wondered about that how do you accommodate visitors for people I just don't know how that is handled so moving on to the other reason why I'm here is it's not that to do with height as maybe some of you might have thought it has to do with the historic nature of some of the structures one of them boves restaurant is on the historic register my understanding is houses on George Street 13 to 15 and then 19 those two lots qualify but are not on the historic register and to me I think that so this is my two cents on this in Florida if you go to Florida and go to a certain hotel they actually built around an old diner and use that diner as part of the restaurant it looks like you could still have that facade and still do that and so there'd be a link with history and yet the new use it just seems like such a missed opportunity and I don't think you I think it still could happen and I think people would like that anyways but it may be a different tone for a restaurant that's number one number two is for the houses the old houses that are going to be demolished once again I'm not sure why the facade of the houses couldn't have remained and then the new structure be built behind as an addition with some height and you would have the streetscape as it existed with the old and historic but yet you'd incorporate behind and around the new and still not lose units in this city I always hope that there is opportunity for creativity as we move forward but I really am mourning the lack of respect for the past and history and I think it's a very sad turn in the city that we don't understand the value of it thank you hi my name is Dave Hartnett former North District City Councilor as of last night was my congratulations thank you thank you I've enjoyed it it's great serving in the city I'm sorry I don't think Mr. Hartnett's been sworn in oh I'm sorry do you want me to raise your hand oh yes I'm sorry I'm sorry do you swear the testimony you're about to give in this matter is a pain in penalty of perjury yes thank you thank you Mary great thanks I just want to address two issues in regards to the project that I think is what seven eight years maybe even further down but just over the last three years of the work that they've done through the neighborhoods the boves and the project managers coming to MPAs I think they've been to the board two and three MPA at least two or three times laying this whole project out I appreciate the effort that has been made in regards to this project which in an area in the city of Burlington I think is in desperate need of some growth and it makes sense and not to mention an affordable place to stay overnight that doesn't cost $275 really is a need for us given the location where the medical center is right up the street University of Vermont we priced people out from staying in Burlington they don't stay here they stick with South Burlington I think but in regards to parking I would invite any of you guys to go downtown Monday through Friday during the day and look at the empty parking garages that we have even since Cherry Street has been closed there is plenty of parking in downtown Burlington and the message lately over the last four or five years is that we want people to live in our downtown we want them to be able to walk and bike and ride the bikes we don't want vehicles in our downtown really kind of the change that we've been trying to make here in downtown Burlington and I think that we've been successful in doing it I understand that we have our obligation to supply parking for small businesses that might be across the street but certainly not for tenants that live there that's not our responsibility as a city to maybe possibly supply parking for people that are renting apartments that's clearly on the landlord and so why I understand that the small businesses might need some parking I don't think it's our responsibility if the tenants are using any of that parking overnight and stuff and now that might be gone but that's certainly not on the city the landlord needs to supply the parking or come up with an alternative parking for them that's not on for us but I just wanted to say that there is plenty of parking in downtown it might not be across the street from where you want to go but there's plenty of parking in downtown Burlington thanks anybody who has not spoken who would like to speak all right there's a city, DPW, you want to come up and tell us about parking and as you're coming up on the parking issue the proposed condition which would become part of our permit if approved is that the 30 public spaces shall be provided and accommodated per the parking management plan in addition to this permit sorry great, thank you Susan Molzon, senior public works engineer with DPW we did look at the submitted traffic study assessment as well as the parking assessment I can reiterate a few comments from Roger I've been working with Roger to resolve and we'll continue to work with them to resolve our other comments regarding the traffic there's no significant impacts to the surrounding area including with the recirculating of traffic to access the various driveways on the site the remaining comments primarily deal with the parking and the parking management again to ensure that the 30 spaces will be available for public parking during the daytime we did have some comments and things we would like addressed in the assessment and we'll continue to work to resolve those comments I think most of them lead to that we believe there'll be more cars will need to be valet parked and stacked so just looking for some more details on how that will be managed to accommodate all the vehicles within I believe the plan is to provide additional information around parking garage so this went to the applicant today so what you're looking for is modifications to the traffic and parking study to respond to questions or provide additional information correct yes and these comments more informally were provided to Roger Dickinson on Thursday and Friday of last week there were a few others that were raised today these were the remaining comments there were a few others which Roger had addressed questions for DPW so I haven't totally reviewed your memo but to some extent can you so there's 128 parking spaces minus the 20 waiver which is 108 spaces where are those other 20 spaces going away too I'm not understanding your question sorry I thought in your staff comments it says there needed to be 128 where's the minimum requirement is 128 parking spaces and they're asking for a 20 car waiver or 20 space waiver correct it's important that the board understand that one of the new provisions of the form district provides underground parking you get a bonus calculation so for every parking space provided below grade it counts as 1.75 spaces and you can utilize that count towards your parking requirements so although there may be hard spaces originally there were 48 underground and John said you were able to capture an additional space after that and 39 at grade so although there's 124 does that sound it counts up to 124 the short answer is they can meet their requirement for the hotel calculation which is 70 spaces they can meet the 20 spaces for the lofts development given a 50% waiver and they can meet the 18 spaces that were previously approved for Victoria Place it is important to understand too that when Victoria Place was permitted 20 years ago they were given a 65% parking waiver and as the applicant and the owner have given testimony they've never required that many parking spaces that were required to provide those 18 spaces so thank you I'm not sure if that answered your question but I think you need to see the bigger picture I think I was wondering about the physical versus on paper I had a question regarding paragraph 3 of the memo that you provided regarding paragraph 3 of the memo that you provided the parking demand ratio using the study for the hotel 62 spaces per room that part I'm assuming comes from a parking generation manual for a business hotel the parking ratio from table 8.1 to 8.1 to cities comments and development ordinance 75 spaces per room should be used for establishing the parking supply for the hotel component of the project so other than what is stipulated in section 8.1 is there other rationale for recommending this yes well for recommending using the city's ordinance rather than the IT parking generation that number from the ITE manual may not be as relevant to this location believe that number the ITE gives several different numbers depending on the location the types of hotels and so that was based on one study and I believe it was a suburban location so we feel that sticking with the city's ordinance of the 0.75 spaces per room is more accurate I believe that number was used in the parking assessment submitted by Scott and partners correct I believe it is just needed to be updated in the shared parking calculations thank you very much I just had one more question just the analysis and maybe you're not the best person to answer this of the parking lot use being essentially underutilized right now was that done before or after the Cherry Street garage came down that I don't know we do have someone here from CEDA who can respond to that question Allie I think a couple of people brought it up I just wanted to make sure we address that thanks thank you Susan maybe why don't we hear on that specific issue if you can thank you very much Mr. Chairman on that particular issue that work that work was actually done in 2016 between March 10th 21st of July 2016 DPW had in fact conducted 45 counts of this lot and out of those counts the lot had between 86 and 100% occupancy only twice and between 51 and 85% occupancy four times and in the remainder 39 counts the lot was below 50 occupancy so 50% occupancy so all of this to say that the lot has been greatly underutilized in fact it was one of the override in considerations which led the city to move in that direction but I think the time periods you just mentioned the Cherry Street garage was available during that period of time so with that no longer there is there additional demand and these spaces need to be available for that and I think that's a good question but I think from all the information and feedback that we have that lot still remains greatly underutilized I wanted to make a couple of other observations Mr. Chairman and one of the things I wanted to remind and again it goes in the direction of the underutilized nature of this particular site and we would recall that the site 70 Pearl Street was actually called out in plan BTV Dung Town and Waterfront as an underutilized site and we understand underutilized sites in Burlington Dung Towns means you have a shortage or inadequate density and under representation in terms of what one can use the lot for residential purposes and so all of this to say that CEDOS supports this particular proposed mixed use commercial and residential project we believe that it will reinforce the developing urban edge along Pearl Street and provide when we heard about their housing units it in fact increases the number of housing units initially I think it was six and now an additional 14 of senior housing I think that's a good thing because it would be low to moderate income units much has been said of the 39 unit hotel estimated to generate 30 new jobs we believe to and we know this to be the case that we will see an increase in groups revenues for the city through the restaurant and the hotel we have talked quite a bit of the parking and we are prepared to work with our sister department to provide additional concerns that the department may have the other thing before I close I want to mention where the site is located where the project is going to be located we know of course that there is access to a myriad of transportation options not the least of which is the transit centre others have talked about the biking the car sharing the pedestrian access all big pluses for the project my final observations relate to the environmental friendly friendly aspects of the project the solar panels which will be used and the lead for which will be pursued in the design construction and operation of the hotel portion and finally on historic preservation both's cafe is very near and there are too many people I think we feel persuaded that the design and facade treatment which would be used will in fact maintain the spirit of both's cafe and will keep that spirit alive and well thank you very much can I just ask you one question I was just thinking both's just to give the memory of the hotel could permanently smell like garlic but that's not my question so the BTV plan BTV you mentioned that it's recognized as an underutilized parking lot and just to be consistent because we asked about this with the parking analysis when was that claim made was it you know prior to Cherry Street garage coming down when was plan BTV done I think this was a few years ago several underutilized sites were called out there this was one of them I think that was in about 2016 City Council just approved the comprehensive I was an update of the comprehensive development plan this one was specific to downtown and the waterfront two different things thank you thank you very much questions I heard sort of centered on parking sufficiency of parking the available of the public spaces and again there was a question about preserving the historic buildings both the boves restaurant and the two houses on George Street sure I'll take the parking first since it's fresh in our minds the we kind of respectfully don't agree with the dpw analysis that we should be using the city percentages because the whole point of this is that we were providing shared parking in an arrangement that is generally as Mr. Hardner pointed out following a mindset that says we're trying to get rid of cars we don't expect to show up with cars park in the city and then leave them there all day, pay for them and so on we're expecting customers of the hotel to show up by taxi or by bike or by sailboat or what have you and we don't expect them to have the kind of cars that you would normally expect in a suburban hotel when I go to a suburban hotel I drive there and then I'm wondering where I'm supposed to go now I have to get back in my car if I go to a city hotel usually I try and find one that I don't need a car for at all and I'll take some other transportation from the airport or however I'm getting here and that's why these sites are attractive so we really are expecting both the residential population and the hotel population to not have cars at all in fact we would be really happy if there weren't any cars parked in the lot at all and the city can have as many as they want for as long as they want but we know that won't happen there may be special occasions throughout the year where high demand on the hotel and other reasons why people are parked there and Rook will have to find a way to still satisfy his agreement with the city and that's going to be his challenge but the parking analysis using the numbers that Roger has gone out and found that are applicable in a wide range of applications but specifically exactly for this kind of thing show that this is going to work and we would like to rely on that mindset and on those numbers and go from there and if Roger has anything else to add about trends in parking counts and percentages probably now is the time let me just throw something out there is again is the city DPW has requested additional information has raised issues that you're responding to now would the applicant want either to discuss these open issues with the city or an opportunity to review them more carefully and reply in writing I'm anticipating that we will not close the hearing deliberate tonight although the board will discuss this and that we would set it for a hearing at which time we could hear a report back on what you've been able to work out on parking is that? I'm not sure how to answer that I'll let Rick finish the answer but I'm going to start by saying there appears to be a fundamental disagreement about how to address parking and parking counts and we're trying to say that we should be using the models that are out there that are specifically for a shared use situation it's what the city is trying to do with the site in general it's what all of us are trying to do as city people who either live here or visit here none of us want a park, lots of empty parking left around we're only trying to build what's reasonable and what's acceptable on paper I have way more spaces than I'm supposed to have I have 124 spaces on paper I don't know how to use them nobody's really given us a shot at what happens with those spaces that are built into your regulations as bonuses for doing what we're doing which is putting spaces underground I heard DBW say that they were anxious or willing to continue to discuss this with the applicant that's I'm trying to pick up on that is that something you want to do or I want to just ask you one question it's already a condition in the staff report for this project so I feel like we walk away from this we're left to work on this with DBW and make them happy and I'm just I would like to get some indication that the direction that we're going in which appears to satisfy most if not all of the criteria that are in your regulations and that this project is designed to achieve is the right direction otherwise ultimately that is this board's call on whether the parking is sufficient so again I'm not saying you have to agree with DBW or you have to give them everything they're looking for the question is whether you can work something out get a little closer which frankly makes our job a little easier but in the end if you continue to have these disagreements then it comes back to this board to decide which one we think is appropriate and I think we've heard both sides I think I explain this to me again so is there a motion and a thing that happens tonight that says go and as staff is I think we will discuss that in a second we can do that right now and this is just me one of five people speaking I think because there's a lot here we need to think about what we've heard I have not gotten through the hundreds of pages of materials that are in the packet so we need to absorb that and think about it I'm my request would be that we continue it to the earliest available next date at which point we can come back and ask additional questions we might have and you and the city might be able to present some consensus that you've reached on this or we can't reach consensus board it's up to you that's my thought let me throw that out to the board is there somebody who wants to close the public hearing and deliberate tonight or Monday or continuing it does that make sense if I'm the only one who thinks that then I'm one of five yeah I think I mean I think I'm known for not being a huge fan of putting in too much parking because it is a waste but I do think that there is some concerns I think some of those could be easily addressed for example the public parking can there be more signage can you put something in your parking plan that does more of an indication of how the hotel will actually manage that actively you know like how will they make sure that the keys are actually valid and so on that I think would address probably a lot of our concerns so to give you time to do some of those things would be okay coming to this here until an hour or two ago so I don't want to deliberate tonight okay good thank you all right so I think that's Scott and Mary Wins our next available date so the well there's a cast to it the next available date is April 16 and it's actually a light agenda this could be added but Mary and I as project managers are at a conference so you'd have to do it without us or you could defer until May 7 you've a preference in terms of how much time I know like most applicants you want to build this summer as soon as possible I think on this on the outstanding issues frankly I I personally would be willing to stumble through this even without Mary and Scott because it's we have good experts that we can ask questions of I agree with that there's a lot of information and documentation that we have to review not just parking but a litany of other items too and as long as it's okay with the applicant and DPW that many the parts of this memo can be addressed and possibly potentially resolved I would recommend moving this to the 16 as with you Austin would you feel comfortable without Mary and Scott but with DPW and I think I would ask Roger and Susan to return on the 16th so if we have questions the people that have the expertise are available to to answer those questions with that again I'd prefer to have Scott and Mary here but rather than delay it for another month I'd press on I think I heard somebody say that would be okay we're kind of in your hands anyway so you are not kind of all right so let's use that as a working premise would you like me to address the historic elements now and my own narrative on the project explained in detail many of the considerations that were made on behalf of the historic items we've been working on this project for a long time we've met with the state historic preservation office we've met with the city we've reviewed what happens to these buildings and how significant they are there is 150 page archaeological and historic assessment report in your package which I'm sure you haven't read yet explains in great detail the history of each one of those structures what condition it's in now what physical fabric is left of the original we have looked at that in the context of past applications and so again I think we have some new board members but I think there is a lot of background on the history of those buildings so so significant mitigation measures have been put in place not the least of which Rick was hoping I would show a video tonight which I'm not going to but it one of the items that would be put on the side of the building is another bi-way panel similar to the one out in front on Pearl Street by the post office that explains the whole little Italy part of the city which is a big deal and it's gone this restaurant has been the last remaining link and his family has been the last remaining link to that entire neighborhood and so it will be memorialized on a bi-way panel which will include a scannable link to the video four minute trailer is available now it's being done by somebody in Boston who just happened to hear about the restaurant closing they came up with this camera and spent the last couple of days of the restaurant's open existence filming and so that will be linkable through a smart phone or what have you and on the side of the building the whole building design is designed with the memory of that restaurant in mind so and the buildings on George Street frankly it continues to be my opinion they're in the R.H. District they're too close to Pearl Street they're much smaller than they should be according to your own regulations and as you imagine the density and the transition from the residential neighborhood R.H. and you read what that R.H. District is for this project delivers that and those two structures have been altered immeasurably since they were originally built one of them let me just go ahead Rick and then we'll come back to you George Street had a fire approximately 5-6 years ago in July there's nothing left of original at that site so it may be on the list of potential but there's nothing there it's sited and I guess I just need to ask this question in respect when the board has the city planners spending countless hours creating 15-25 pages of findings in regards to this project and then passes it along to the board for their perusal I guess I get lost here when the board defer to the experts who have spent these countless hours and time looking through all the minutia isn't that their role? Your specific question is will we defer I think we will carefully look at the information that staff has provided as well as you we respect their judgments and we have their recommendations and conditions in front of us but ultimately it's up to us and I think to maybe answer your broader question this is a public process and so this gives opportunity for public input and for us to consider that public input beyond what staff find and staffs hearing things tonight that they may be hearing for the first time so that has to go into it I worry when I hear the concerns about parking and we have our agreement with the city and it spells out what has been testified to earlier tonight but then I one of the board members said that we might have other questions do you have an idea of where those questions might be so that we can be prepared the next time? One of them was about historic structures so regarding that just to clarify my understanding that proper documentation of the historic structures will occur during demolition is that correct? Of course, prior to demolition and then you already stated that you're working with the SHPO on this so with documentation that documentation is going to be provided prior to any zoning permit being filed with the city? I'm not sure how it's spelled out but our commitment is to make sure those buildings are documented as required by the city prior to demolition so if the certificate for work has to be done we've had all the experts looking at these three buildings from the state to UVM you guys remember we've been working on this for six and a half years it's a lot of hardware we have not rushed into anything we have done things over and over again and so whatever the ordinance or the law state we will do it to that degree no shortcuts so if we need to do ABC we're going to do ABC whatever it is we're going to do it the right way the two buildings on George Street I don't really care about obviously I care about the restaurant but we had to talk with my dad before he passed away he was okay with that we just I don't know why this gentleman showed up at the restaurant in October two months before we closed and he happened to be at a document he made documentaries from Boston he just showed up just was in Burlington talked to a hotel concierge they directed him to the restaurant the reason he hasn't finished the documentary is because he can't take money from us there's a conflict of interest so he's been working on this for the past three years now to finish it we have a great trailer of course you're not going to be able to see it but we have a great trailer it just gives you this is not something that we have entered into lately this is more than just the building this was our life for generations and so the point of this is that we're going to do everything exactly the right way no ifs ands we're going to do it exactly the way that it needs to be so if we need to do this before zoning we're going to do it we just are we're going to do it just to reiterate I think we all appreciate the work that staff does and we more than anything appreciate your family and the legacy of boves and I know it wasn't easy to close it so just know that we really feel great gratitude to staff in the work and also your family and the countless Italians that made Burlington great and we're excited to see the final product with the bulletins in the video and I really appreciate the facade the art deco that's a really nice touch big change from the sketch so thanks for incorporating that alright could I just add a small supplement since the topic was historic review some of you may remember when this came to us as sketch plan more than six years ago and at that time the corner building the standard house was included in that redevelopment and there were strong feelings about how important that building was to Burlington so the applicant and the owner stepped back and have taken these years to reassess the owner has made a much significant a grand investment in that building it looks fantastic and I don't think it's a secret to know that they're about to get a preservation award for that building so the applicant and owner are quite earnest in saying that this is important to them to do it correctly and again I remember those hearings and had very strong feelings about that standard building and appreciate what you've done there so I think where we are is while I do this in the form of a motion I move that we continue the public hearing to a date certain on our regular hearing date on April 16 Erin Scott is at the right date at which time again we would love to hear a report back from the applicant and or DPW on anything they've been able to work out on parking requirements and the other issue would just be to give the board the opportunity to ask questions on what we heard tonight and anything else may come up as we finish our review of the supporting documents alright that was intended as a motion we got carried away so is there a second second alright discussion all those in favor alright so good so we'll see you back on the 16th thank you all this is very helpful Austin have said more clearly he doesn't need us you don't need us that's not what I said we really value that but we love you too can I have a transcript of my comments by tomorrow morning no that's what I heard we just need DPW they're the only office we need I think that's the last agenda item yes it is so I get to sit here and say the meeting is adjourned