 Good evening, and welcome to the South Burlington Development Board meeting of July 19th, 2022. My name is Dawn Filibird, and I'm the chair of the board, and I'd like to introduce other members of the board. I'm with Stephanie Wyman, Frank Cokman, John Stern, and remotely Dan Albrecht, and I think that's it. Mark's not with us? Pardon? No, Mark was only here for deliberations. And from the city of South Burlington, we have Betsy Brown, planning and zoning assistant, and Marla Keane, who is our development review planner. Thank you for being here tonight. There's a couple of ways to participate. There's several ways to participate, one of which is to attend the meeting, as several people here tonight are doing. Another is to attend virtually, and we ask that if you are doing that, you keep your microphone and camera off unless you are actively participating in the item before the board. So, if you, for example, want to give public comment, raise your hand during that part of the agenda, and we will acknowledge you and you can then turn your camera and your microphone on. The chat function is for administration matters only, so we ask that people avoid chatting in the chat and only use that for signing into the meeting, and I'll talk about that in a few minutes. Looking at the agenda, let's talk about emergency evacuation procedures. In the auditorium, there are doors on each side in the back, in the event of an emergency, you can go out either of those doors and turn left or right, and it'll bring you outside. Are there any additions, deletions, or changes in the order of agenda items? There are not. Okay. Thank you. Do we have any announcements? I don't think so. It's a hot day. It's a hot day. It's going to get hotter. And are there any comments and questions from the public that are not related to the agenda? Okay. Hearing none. I want to remind people that this meeting is being recorded, and anyone here in the auditorium, we ask that you sign in on the sign-in sheet up back, and if you're attending virtually, you can sign in with your contact information, your email in the chat room, and if you're listening on the phone, you may sign in by sending an email to Marla at mkean, k-e-e-n-e, at southburlingtonvermott.com. Nope. Nope. Sorry. The shortest one. All dogs, new tricks. Right. S-B-V-T.gov. Okay. I'll put it in the chat too. Okay. Thanks. And the reason you want to sign in is so that you'll be considered a participant in case you wish to take any action later. Okay. Our first agenda item is as follows, and we are going to allow 30 minutes for a review and discussion of this, although it is likely that it will take less. This is miscellaneous application number MS-2203 of Fernando Cresta to alter the existing grade for consistency with adjoining properties. The improvements consist of regrading the backyard with 8 to 12 inches of top soil at 410 Golf Course Road. Who is here for the, are there any recusals? No. Okay. Who is here for the applicant, please? Good evening. When you sit down, please make sure your microphone is on. It should show a bright green light. Good evening. Fernando Cresta, 410 Golf Course Road. Thank you. Pardon me. Yes. Thank you. I was just making a note of his name. Thank you. Do, are you with people who also will testify? Perhaps. Okay. I'm going to swear you all in. Raise your right hands, please. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury? I do. Thank you. Before we get into this, Mr. Cresta, do you have anything to add to the staff report as written? I don't. So my understanding is that currently, and correct me if I'm wrong, currently you are in violation of a zoning ordinance. I'm going to let Marlar say this because I know I'll get it wrong. So a couple of meetings ago, the board heard an appeal of the zoning permit that the zoning administrator issued to do some exterior renovations and to add fill to the backyard of this property. The board issued their decision, partially upholding the decision of the administrative officer to do some improvements and partially revoking the portion that had been for grading of the backyard. And so the Crestas had already placed some fill in their backyard, so their options were either to remove that fill or to apply under this application a miscellaneous for alteration of grade to keep that fill and perhaps to add to it. So that's what they chose to do. They testified in the appeal hearing that they had placed a couple inches of soil. This application is to add 8 to 12 inches of soil total and allow them to finish up their project. Thank you. I could never have said that. So board members, what questions do you have? I only, I have two questions. One is the, you had a fairly persistent opponent here. I'm sorry. No discurrency, but I've forgotten his name. Is he with us tonight? Is there anyone here in opposition to this proposal? And we will also announce public comment. I understand, but I'm curious about that. Sure, of course. And my only other question is, Marla, are you and or any relevant engineers satisfied that the changing grade doesn't present a drainage issue for anybody, any adjoining properties? Yes, there's a better plan in the packet than you guys had the opportunity to see during the appeal period or during the appeal hearing. And I think that makes it very clear that this does not create a drainage problem. And the absence of the opponent is consistent with that conclusion at least. Those are my only questions. Any other questions or comments? Okay. Hearing none, let's turn to formal public comment. Betsy, do you see any people online who would like to make public comments? Okay. So hearing none, I guess we turn to taking a vote on approving. So what you'll do is you'll just close the hearing. And then if we have a few moments out tonight, we'll vote on it in a private session. Got it. Got it. Got it. So we'll take a vote on whether to close. All right. Do I hear a motion to close the hearing? We close this hearing. Thank you. Second. Thank you. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstain. Okay. The motion is carried. Thank you very much. Thank you. We will, Marla will be in touch after we deliberate on the draft decision. Great. Thank you. So the folks that are online are for O'Brien, but I'm going to, I saw one person in the hallway. Yeah. I wonder if there's some people out there. Did you look at the engineering? No issue. No. No. No. Looking. Looking. Almost. I just got mad at this. We knew you'd come. Coming off the edge. Absolutely. Actually, this is probably just the place you want to be, because it's cool. Actually, isn't the new art cool? It's not. Did you go all the way down the hall? Yeah. When you leave, go down past to the senior center. There's these like ones that are made from. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And also some items that are made from pieces of wood and leaves and things. They're really cool. Is it one of the VCA traveling art exhibits? It's selected by our South Burlington Public Art Selection Committee. So it's local. It's very local. Yeah. Oh, neat. Oh, I didn't know that. Nice. Oh, gosh. Okay. The next item on the agenda is agenda item number six, application SD 2210 of a Brian Eastview LLC to create a planned unit development of six existing parcels currently developed with three single family homes and a barn and totaling 102.6 acres. The development is to consist of 155 homes plus additional inclusionary offset units and single family duplex and three family dwellings on 11 lots totaling 23.9 acres. 18 commercial development lots totaling 39.8 acres and 25.2 acres of undeveloped or recreational open space at 500 Old Farm Road. So this is a very big project and I think that the suggestion is that we review it in stages beginning tonight. Yes, we will. Yeah. Starting to starting tonight and get as far as we can tonight. We're allocating two hours to this portion of the agenda and get through as much as we can, which I will just add a lot of which tonight involves us understanding why what the changes are from preliminary plat and why you've chosen to make those changes. So in terms of recusals, I I just want to say that I'm not going to recuse myself, but I am an owner in O'Brien hillside. But I don't believe it's going to cause any conflict of interest for me. And are there any other recusals or conflicts that people need to announce? Yeah, I just I'm going to make a disclosure that my company was hired during the preliminary hearing to do some conceptual sidewalk sketches for the old farm road. But they're no longer involved with the project. And I don't believe it will have an impact on my ability to be impartial. Thank you, Stephanie. Okay, I'm going to swear you in. Raise your right hand, please. And okay, good. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth whole truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury? I do. Thank you. We had one more. Roger Digginson is going to show up at some point. Okay, so you might just have your mind when he gets here. I think it is. It could lean in as much as possible. I'm sorry. There you go. And if you would kindly introduce yourselves, Evan Langfield with O'Brien Brothers, the applicant. Oh, now we can hear. Thank you, Betsy. Andrew Gill with O'Brien Brothers, the applicant. I'm a civil engineer for the applicant from Krebs and Lansing's consulting engineers. Okay, thank you, Scott. And then you guys did have Carolyn online and she disappeared and Corey's also online. Right. Might they be testifying? Hi, Corey. Yeah, Corey probably will. I'm not sure Carolyn. Did you raise your right hand when we swore these guys in, Corey? I am right now. Okay. And Carolyn, you're not there? I think Carolyn got my email that said we she probably didn't have to come. Okay, all right. Raise your hand, Corey. Please. Thanks. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury? Yes. Thank you. Okay. Um, talk to us please about the changes and why. If you could walk us through them with pictures and art and just so we are really clear why things have changed. Yeah, we put together a presentation that we could pull up and just kind of walk you guys through. That's a great angle. I'm wondering, you know, we have a written version. Well, I think you have this too. You have the same report we do, don't you? Yes. Are you going to follow a format other than the staff's format for what they consider the most significant changes that you're going to approach it some other way? We had written kind of the first comment was that they so comment number one is staff recommends the board begin by inviting the applicant to walk through the changes. So I think that that's what they wanted to do. Okay, so you'll have your own format. Okay. In this presentation, I will upload to the same website that you get the packet from to first thing tomorrow morning. Okay. Okay, good. Yeah, it follows along with the changes that staff had brought up in the report. The presentation does. I think it gives an overview and then addresses the individual comments. Okay, just so we'll get through that and then we'll probably start on the staff report and some things will have been covered and people might have questions. So go ahead entertain us. I'll get a try and get through the initial part fairly quickly. There's a number of slides. We just wanted to sort of pull up to give some imagery and character to the development that the cover shot the aerial that you just had up. Essentially, this is the outline of what's in the presentation here. So just a brief summary and some renderings that we had provided just so you guys can sort of get a picture of what's being proposed. The key changes that were noted in the staff report and associated with comment one. And then the barn redevelopment plan was one of those. And then there was a brief summary at the end about the traffic study because it seems to sort of be important to understand. And I wanted to just sort of recap the history to the traffic study and how we got to where we are in that. So can you hear Frank as well as I'm going to. Okay. Can you pull it in just a little bit? I want you to know that this is $5,000 for these. Wow. My neighbor had the same. That great. They were better 10 years ago. The beauty or the irony of this situation is there's a teacoil in the audience. So if you went inside there and turned your teacoil on, you'd be able to hear just fine. Do you want to sit? I don't know. Frank behind us is making me a little nervous. I can't see his body language. I don't know if it's easy or not. It'll take a brief minute. Well, Frank. I'll go two rows back. Sounds good. You have like a I need a mirror like on a bus. Yeah, just you have to hook something up for I think it's a setting on. Okay. Okay. It's a setting on the hearing aid itself to turn on the teacoil. So are we good Frank? Alright, better Andrew. Okay. So the project, this is just some brief stats about the project. Approximately 100 acres like you mentioned in your introduction for zoning districts, the R 12 R one P R D C one L R in the mixed I see you can see those in the multicolor map on the right sort of how they lay out over the project. The total density of the project is about 452 dwelling units, give or take based on the inclusionary bonus units available, which range from 10 to 15%, depending on the type of dwellings being proposed ownership or rental currently being proposed 155 dwelling units. The commercial and industrial density of the project is regulated by lot coverage. So in addition to those dwelling units up to the appropriate lot coverage of commercial and industrial development, we've estimated in our traffic study and internally, you know, about 400,000 square feet of office and medical use those types of uses hotel or retail use some senior housing use. The initial phase of the project, the 155 units represents about 34% of the residential density total, and about 6% of the development intensity if you base that off of the projected traffic impacts. So the intensity of the uses being greater in the C one L R and IC in terms of the number of people coming and going and being involved in the site. The next slide is just just some some summary renderings of the project that we had provided. And I'll just walk through these pretty quickly. This is the view from the barn on old farm road looking out over the open space toward the green mountains. The next slide just gives a little bit of a character image of the architecture in the buildings facing old farm road. You can see some of the parallel parking proposed on old farm road. And that's one of the triplex homes in that picture. So if you if you recall on the on the old farm road frontage, there are no curb cuts for any of these there are alley roads on both sides, right? The next picture is the alley loaded single family homes on the east side full farm road. And those are the homes with the detached garages behind them. This is a image of which we'll circle back to later in the presentation of the cottage housing that's being proposed at the former location of 100 old farm road. And this is just sort of an example of the different varied housing types within the project. What do you do you mind if I ask a question if you're if we have a question, what what makes something a cottage square footage essentially smaller. Okay, thanks. Yeah. And we like you know, they're kind of generally come in a cluster and communal landscaping and sort of like a feel like they kind of live together. You sort of think of like a co housing type complex. Okay, thank you. The next picture is just a sort of, you know, another example of a different style of housing. That's a bigger format housing, a three car garage shown that would be the I forget the names of the new roads is that Mabel way, which by the way, Mabel was Dan Leo's mother. Oh, the two O'Brien brothers mother. This is just sort of I thought it was helpful to just sort of orient people visually to the open spaces being proposed. And so you can see the sort of two existing open spaces at hillside. Can you do orientation in space like which is Kennedy and Kimball and old farm? Yes. So right there where the cursor is is Kennedy. And Kimball is running sort of along the bottom of the page perfect right there. Yep. And that shows you the new orientation of old farm road. It shows you the project that was recently approved the final plat plat 13 and 15 the two large multifamily buildings at the right side. And then you can see how the open spaces being proposed sort of layout. And I've sort of color coded them in line with the phasing proposed. So the green that you know, sort of like dark green on the west side of the road nearest to the existing would be the first two open spaces developed. And then the sort of yellow green would be the second two. And then the the army green with the yellow trim are the the last open spaces plan. So sort of working from west to east. And just to be clear, just for folks that might be watching at home, the the homes on the upper right corner where it says existing of that open space, the homes that are clustered around there in the existing hillside phase. So that's the 115 homes that are either already occupied or currently under construction that are not part of this phase that we're discussing. So the next slide is just a different angle of the aerial view just to give a little bit more perspective. So here you can see really well the multifamily project that was just approved, you can see the two summit housing buildings that were also approved at the sort of the two kind of parallel facing multifamily buildings, sort of at the left middle of the page. And then behind that where it says the word planned, you can see the that's the open space that's planned on lot 19. There's sort of a natural playground and like a tree fort and a slide that's integrated into the ground. And then you can see the new housing that's proposed sort of up beyond that. Excuse me. Is this a single? I have two questions about what's the area covered by the as in lot coverage? Yeah. Well, no, the acreage. It's not something that I know offhand that I'd guess 30 to 40. Is it not in the staff report? I thought it was in the staff report. Yeah, I want I want to say it's in the the 40 acre range because the the residential phase is slightly bigger than the than the hillside phase. And the hillside residential component was right around exactly 30 acres. Like 29.8 or something like that. 38% of the project area is the R one and the R one land is essentially where it is. So I think it's likely right around 40 acres. My second question is, is this a single? No, it's not. I can probably draw on it to show. Yeah, sorry, because Frank's not mic'd right now. I'm going to repeat the question. The question was whether this is one or more PUDs. I think I can do this. No, leave the sharing. I'm going to draw a line this this meaning what we're reviewing, reviewing tonight right now. So the line is here. Is that right? Everything to the right? This is like everything to the right of the line is hillside and everything to the left of the line is what we're reviewing tonight. Yes, sorry about that. I should have thought of that earlier. Good. Does that help Frank? So as we sort of continued through the next slide is a little bit of a perspective of the open space I was just talking about on lot 19. That's an open space is planned in one of the earliest stages of the Eastview neighborhood. That's what we're here to do, Frank, really understand this. So don't the major open space area is to the upper left in this photograph. There's several. So the one the big barn is here. If you go back one more, it might help more. It's a different perspective though. So this is the aerial showing the open spaces. So I'm going to draw the dividing line between the two projects again. It's okay because I got that part answered. But what I was leading up to is is all of this open space open to all residents of 155 units you're about to build plus hillside. Is the open space open to all? Yes, it actually ties together. Is there a master commonwealth covenant? Since there's separate P that's where I was going to have separate PUDs to how is the how is the large open space tied into everybody? Legally? Can you can you repeat I'll repeat the question. So the question is what is because Sue is taking minutes remotely. The question is what what is the mechanism that allows all of the occupants of this both the hillside development and the east food development to use the open spaces? Right. That's it. And also is it's going to be open? I think if I understood it from way back when we first started looking at this, the multifamily residents will also have access to the open spaces in that part of the plan as well. That's correct. So the the question was will the multifamily residents also have access to the open space and the answer to all of those questions is yes. And in fact, the intent is to have the the general public also have access to the open spaces. Yeah, the answer is legally right. So how do you how do you contractually do it? Yeah, that's not a simple matter. They're intended to be public open spaces with the exception of the barn and the walking trail that's shown at the upper left the sort of skinny little trail and we had I believe we provided offers of dedication and legal documentation in the final plat for those that trail that Marla just highlighted in blue and the areas surrounding the barn are going to have some sort of access agreement in place with the city details of which are you know to be ironed out. Is your plan for general access is for the city to take responsibility? That's what they've request. They've requested the city to take ownership. Those conversations are not finalized and you'll notice if you read staff notes carefully we have avoided committing to that. But we are meeting internally and we'll be inviting you to those meetings. That's a real big deal issue. Yeah, we had met with parks in rec and vetted that proposal before we made it. We have to revisit the plan because those were the conversations that we had. I think we have to revisit the plan because those were the conversations and they were open to that. So, I mean, we're we were responding to what the conversation was with parks and rec. It's open. Right. So, if if the applicants request for the city to take over all the spaces except the two that Betsy's highlighted in blue is not approved by the council, then we would be having a conversation here in this meeting to say the applicant's proposal is different and bored. How do you feel about that? So, the intention is to to sort that out before closing this hearing. Okay, go ahead, Andrew, please. Sure. So, so yes, the the open spaces that we're talking about our hope is that they'll be open to the public. Our hope is that they'll be owned and operated by the city of South Burlington with the exception of the two that that we've mentioned. I guess we'll be talking about that a little bit further. Here is a rendering of one of them. I just kind of put this in here because I you know we're pretty excited about this one. It's pretty interesting. We think it's going to be a lot of fun. We think kids and families and people in the city are really going to enjoy it. We've sort of drawn this I call it a tree fort but you know there's no tree so it's kind of not a tree fort but we have this little tree fort in the center and then a sort of slide that's at grade where you know kids can't fall off of it. Some rocks and climbing elements, boulders, you know in likelihood will look different than this because we'll have to kind of put it together but but that was sort of the that's the sort of idea of exactly what we're trying to construct there. So remind me the little park the hillside park by me. Is that a city park now? I know people all over use it but is that does the city maintain that? The city has not yet taken it over but yes that we we offered that up for dedication as well and it was designed with the parks and rec to the city specs with the intent and the agreement with the city that the city was taking it over so it's you know to Frank's questions I mean this would be essentially the same thing as the hillside park. Does that mean that the HOA would no longer be mowing it? It would be the city that would mow it? Yep. Okay thank you. I'm going to do a little mine here I'm going to take off my development view board hat and put on my planning department hat and say that their proposal is a paradigm shift for the city a little bit and I don't think it's a bad one but it's that's why these conversations are still happening because up until this point the city has owned neighborhood parks that are more destinations for people from outside unless we have a couple but less that are just designed to be part of the neighborhood. Samansky is one that's part of the neighborhood there's what six parking spaces there the new one in what's that neighborhood off of Allen Baycrest is sort of a neighborhood one there's only a couple parking spaces but it's really a paradigm shift for our city to think about parks that are not like a big complicated thing but they're more like a little spot in the neighborhood and so the more we have these neighborhoods with very dense development people have small yards small setbacks the more these parks become really important to those residents and they need to be available to the people who live there and you know what makes the city great is being able to share those parks and not have it be you know signs of you know residents only that sort of thing so it's certainly within what the planning and zoning department sees as an objective to have these parks be successful but you know as Frank alluded to it's ultimately the decision of the city council sure okay thank you so the next picture is just a different perspective of this same open space we just wanted to give a little bit of orientation so you can see the summit development on lot 11 and the O'Brien development proposed on lot 13 in the background so this this park is very proximate to that multifamily area that we've been permitting over the past year and that's just like the uphill side you can see the tree for it kind of still tucked in there in the middle so we can keep cruising here the next rendering just shows the barn planned barn redevelopment you can see the recreation path that's cutting east west across the site the silo that we're hoping to sort of you know clean up and and and repurpose and then the open space is associated with it the next one as well is the barn this is the view from old farm road so you can see the little picnic pavilion that's planned as well as the front lawn where there's a sort of a skating rink that we were proposing like a you know the lawn would be graded with like a I don't know it's not a puddle but the lawn would have grading that would allow it to get flooded in the winter so that it could be a skating rink for the neighborhood and just a point of clarification there's not currently a proposed use for the actual barn structure or the silo I think you know a logical use for the silo could be you know first floor public bathroom something like that that would be an amenity you know our service for the park but again right now it's just repurposing the barn the exterior structure and taking down the single source addition that's on the south end of the barn those structures are there now the barn and the silo are there now it was here Evan was the was that yeah oh sorry yeah so that the two-story barn structure is there the silo is currently there there is a one-story addition that's basically a milking parlor addition that was that is currently on the south side but we would plan on taking that down and that would be part of that where that that kind of cops or trees is there is not currently a planned use of the barn no no we so we did not add anything to the barn the the south store the south portion of the barn was an addition that took place I don't know the 70s yeah it's part of the milking parlor but you're going to shape it up you're going to have the structure itself without an interior correct it's it's getting a little shabby and so the the next picture is a rendering of the picnic pavilion facing to the west east rather looking at the green mountains you can see the neighborhood in the background all of this is to the specifications of the project so the tree placements the tables the pavilion have all been designed there's schematic plans in the packet for all of that and then the next slide is the dog park area so we worked quite a bit on this we met with the dog park committee after the preliminary plat hearings we designed the park in line with you know all of their recommendations and so you know it's a pretty exciting park we've got some tires and stumps and boulders and benches and water and separate big and small areas and you know the whole thing is sort of more dialed in than I thought it would be so you know this is an exciting part of the community we were glad that we could make it work I believe we did need to shrink this a little bit from the conceptual plans that we had because of some archaeological concerns I think we still have those archaeological concerns so portions of the dog park are built over existing archaeological sites we're working with the state on that and think that we're going to be able to get it all approved but it did sort of change the shape a little bit to sort of avoid the most sensitive areas of archaeology in that zone I think one of the great benefits of the dog park in this location is that it is on the the northeast portion of the the property and it's also you know it's it's planned in advance of any housing there and as I think anybody who's been involved in any dog park planning in South Burlington knows they can be a little bit anxiety inducing so by the by virtue of this being planned well in advance of housing people know what they're getting into but it's also set in a location that shouldn't really cause issues either I think it's roughly about an acre isn't it I believe it's still an acre if not more and why is the front part white is that cement I think it's stone dust some sort of special stone that doesn't get in the dog's claws okay it's like a stone powder dogs yeah so that's the entrance point for the little dog area so you can see the like fence that goes up and like the area to the left of the page is the little dog area and area to the right is the white area is like the vestibule the white area is like the landing zone yeah exactly where you have like two gates a trash can okay or a sallyport it's your second gate or whatever for getting in and out Andrew got a full education from the dog park committee on dog park is like more than he probably wanted yeah we met with them several times they we met with their committee we shared the plan they liked the plan yeah yeah the location we don't need to go back to the original picture but the the overview picture that we saw was the northeast up in the upper right hand side of that picture I'm not sure how that picture was oriented it's on the Kimball frontage the dog park so we could jump back a couple and just point it out for you um and what I just what's there now there you go so the dog the dog park is the lower left with the yellow highlight around the army green the sort of big where the little water feature yes exactly yeah right there yeah and so that's basically a cross from the ins building the um the not the ins sorry that's the blind association for the blind building on kimball avenue and um is this rendering what's there now I believe it's a field I get a little bit turned around out there because some of it's got scruffy trees on it but I believe the dog park's in the field portion again adjacent to those scruffy trees and the sort of ledge that starts popping up there and that water feature in the dog park pictures is there now that's a stormwater gravel wetland so it's not there currently it's not there but there's some wetland there isn't there there is a wetland uh beyond that okay yeah that's a little confusing because the upper left of that the blue oval it and the wetland impacts are one of the things that change right so you're going to talk about that that's a different wetland um we we limited the presentation to the things that you had listed in your the larger items you had listed in your packet oh okay all right this is good i might have been a misunderstanding thank you sure so the um if we want to keep going we had uh there you go so this slide shows that the the dog park the next slide just is a rendering of some of the walking paths that are planned this exercise fitness loop so you can see some of the equipment that's been specified for that I think this was one of the ones where the city was unsure about the ownership because um you know the city is okay with owning a rec path but maybe not maintaining exercise equipment so that was one of the conversations that's been ongoing just to be full disclosure to you guys and so for reference um you know kind of to get an idea of it's it's sort of similar to what burlington has down on their the bike path down on the waterfront that type of kind of exercise stage areas you know pull up bars and things like that so the uh the next slide there's just another rendering of the walking path exercise loop we kind of keep going we get into the sort of conversation of the changes uh so so maybe we misunderstood the directive a little bit but we focused on the changes that the staff report had brought up and brought to your attention um you know i do have some summary tables of the other changes and so if you're interested we can walk through those without a presentation and just sort of tell you what what happened there and what we were doing um but the uh the tilly drive rec path connection was one of the changes that was brought up and so you know i think this slide sort of sums it up uh we had initially been under the impression that we'd be able to get access to that adjacent property to construct the rec path connection in that access we were not able to get an agreement with the adjacent owner and so you know in conversations with the city we sort of discussed how we could go about addressing this and so what we sort of have come up with at this point is looking at a new trajectory for the path itself and so if we go to the next slide i think it shows so the old path alignment was the red arrow which is shown there and the we're proposing to sort of reorient the rec path in line with the purple arrow which would give a connection point that is adjacent to the medical center's current project um at which point conceivably they could connect to that rec path and continue it across their site to the tilly drive i think it might be helpful to to step back a little bit and just kind of revisit the the purpose and kind of the importance of this rec path to originally the city staff had directed us that they wish to see a rec path along the south end of old farm road connecting from our property essentially along the south stretch of old farm road which has existing development on there's you know a handful you know or i don't probably eight houses nine houses on the south end of old farm road that have been there for some time originally the intent or the request was that the rec path be located on the west side of the road and we express concern that as well as the neighbors that the dimensions of that built environment were very tight and that resulted in a sidewalk where i believe some of you participated in meeting up on old farm road and i think most people understood that you know was pretty tight there are actually garages that would have butted up against the rec path it would have removed most of the parking for those homes on the on the west side so then the discussion switched to well let's put it on the east side of which the residents on the east side express some anxiety about that and so what we came back with was a proposal to locate the rec path entirely on our property on the east side of any of those existing houses on old farm road so it ran behind in essentially this location it ran behind the new proposed homes and connected to tillie drive on lot i think it's lot two at the the pizzagalli development as opposed to going down to heinsberg road as opposed to going down old farm road and meeting heinsberg road yes so it was going to essentially run a parallel path but entirely on our property and meet up with tillie drive which was i believe the spirit and intent of what the goal was was to get folks from our neighborhood to the the mountain view business park okay so that was one proposal the city and the development view board gave us guidance that you wanted to see both that rec path now as well as a sidewalk and i think that there was some kind of compromise that okay well if you're going to have a rec path here we can get we can get by with a sidewalk on the old farm road south portion and so we proposed a solution that essentially was i think sensitive to the neighbors concerns and not trying to get too far into their property respecting their boundaries also respecting the existing landscaping buffer there because there is existing trees there and so it meanders a little bit um we are this project is currently under appeal it's been under appeal for quite some time because of that condition so we the environmental court ruled that uh that the appeal would be stayed until final plat was was issued so right now we're sort of in a holding pattern because that appeal is still live this is the just to help me orient this is the piece of that neighborhood that got on the site business yes that's correct yep and the neighbors are resisting eating into their well they occupy the city right away there that's correct and the question is how much right away you want to eat up at the expense of their little landscape correct it's a we what we did so that that so you got preliminary approval they appealed that they appealed it uh one neighbor appealed that yes based on that condition yeah so in meander i mean it was a nice because what is part of what you did right yeah so the the direction that we took from that site walkthrough and the following commentary from the development of view board was there's got to be a way to find a creative solution to this where you don't you don't get too far in there and and we make it work trying to figure out how to ask this question so um the appeal that the one neighbor had was that appealing a rec path or a sidewalk or anything it's it's appealing the condition that we proposed which was the sidewalk originally it was a rec path we down sides to the sidewalk i think that there is an opening i don't want to get too far in front of myself but i believe that there is an opening of level of flexibility based on a correspondence that i saw today i don't know marl has the development or view board seen that letter uh i sent it but i told them that since we're going to be having multiple meanings that we didn't they didn't need to take the time to read it okay but your project today includes that as a sidewalk and a new proposal along the medical center property for a rec path no right so what i've drawn is the green line is where the sidewalk was the green line on the left the red line on the right is where they had a rec path and it connects into that red line that they had shown i think what evan is saying is and i've i've flipped ahead in the slide so i kind of know where you're going um this purple line that's in between the one on the left and the one on the right through the medical center project area is an alternative that they are proposing tonight we haven't seen this before instead of the red on the right okay right correct we are we are currently proposed still proposing the sidewalk on old farm road and a rec path we can only legally put a rec path on our own land unless the neighbor gives us the ability to put it on their land and we've been unable to come to terms is there any practical reason why i mean as far as the schematic shows here there doesn't seem to be any material difference between which route you pursue is there in fact something i'm missing in a topography or the you know so the the purple line if you go to the next slide you can see that by placing the path where the purple line is we enable the medical center project to continue that path along where this i should have kept it purple but the you know uh you know that yes so you know we have a very short time to prepare these presentations from the time that we get the staff report and it's just so much fun to give you a lot so that's the purple alignment and you know it appears to us that there's plenty of room to run that path down there without even impacting the current proposal of the medical center so can we just i'm i'm not screaming i want to bring up a new point can you go back to the previous slide so when a road exists and is or is proposed to dead end such as in location a here the applicant has to extend to the property line and that's one of the staff comments we'll talk about that and then when an application on the adjoining lot is proposed they have to make that connection so as you guys know uvm medical center is currently proposing to develop this blue area and so because this this little road dead ends at point a they will be required to provide a connection to i'm going to pick a new color entirely um city official map has a roadway going here so the uvm medical center project future roadway right a the official map has a roadway going there okay it will be the responsibility of the developer of that lot to build the roadway if that lot never develops the city will again plan or hat eventually have to decide whether to abandon that plan or to build it ourselves okay um the developer of a parcel that is adjacent to a future roadway and adjacent to this connection is going to have to make some concession for there to be a roadway whether they have to build it or provide a right of way for it or what have you will be the subject of a future drb hearing but um the path that the that the o'brien eastview project is proposing should somehow contemplate that that there's going to have to be a road connecting from whatever you guys have called that one to future city roadway and think about how that rec path will interact okay okay yeah i mean and and to just to clarify the the proposal we still don't have permission from the adjacent property owner to build in the purple alignment um and so the you know our proposal is to build to our property line and that you know that project which is a substantial project would figure out how to connect the neighborhoods you know as is sort of the obligation of developers who are proposing projects okay so will we see at a future hearing a plan that shows a rec path to this purple location yeah we can absolutely update the plans to show that alignment um if that's something that you know i think we're hoping to get some feedback on that tonight but if that's a direction that folks feel positive about you know we we think that that's a good solution for this this issue you know as the slide before said it was our intention to build it in the red alignment to to get the permits to develop it to build it and to you know maintain it on behalf of the hoa at eastview until such time as that roadway or you know recreation path became part of a larger project we were unable to get that permission and so you know we we're not able to propose that and so we think this alternate alignment that sort of ensures that there's a live project that can complete it in the near term is a good sort of middle ground so the question then i don't know it comes up in the staff report so it's up to you if you want to kind of talk it through as a board now or talk it through in the staff report but i guess the question they're asking is does this seem like a good alternative and if so then they'll run with it but if not you know then they're not going to spend the engineering time to run with it sure what do you think board we're proposing to build it to our boundary and then it would be the adjacent development that would be required to make the connection and your boundary is the the dotted red line correct okay sorry let me clear what i drew so are you proposing to build what you've shown in purple well what we're suggesting is that we would i mean as is typical with any development we would build to our boundary and then the adjacent development would build their portion of it so my understanding is that the medical center project when they come in for a final plot they need to have that alignment on their application and it will be their responsibility to construct the path to make the full connection that's my understanding is that correct that's our understanding yeah so your current plan does not include that purple line as it exists on this scheme we we we can't build a a path on anybody's property that's well but you had proposed a path on somebody else's property at preliminary plot and the board accepted that as truth in making their determination on the sidewalk on old farm road and so i guess that's why i'm asking so many questions no and i agree that was a hundred percent the case the difference there though was lot two was not under active development and so our perspective is if another lot that's immediately adjacent that is adding a bunch of trip ends and and is putting a bunch of employees on site yes we have we have proposed this to them essentially we have not received either a positive or a negative response yet i mean i can't speak for them you know they're actively in development in front of you guys so it would seem to me that a project of that magnitude what's that this is lot six i believe right yeah it's sort of left of the red line the red it's the blue highlight area the medical the medical center property the surgical center okay so if you go to the next slide you can actually see how it lays out on that i guess that's one perspective i guess my perspective would be is it important to the development review board in the city that there is a pedestrian connection there and why is it 100 percent the responsibility of a residential developer versus a commercial developer trying to be content no no it's a valid question i think the original reason why this became an issue and why we proposed to build at our cost on lot two was because there was no proposed development there and so the city's response was well how do we know that this is this connection that's ever going to get made so we actually proposed to the owner of lot two that we would build it at our own cost and maintain it at our own cost until they developed that site and started actually using it in which case at that point they would be on the hook for maintaining it they wouldn't be on the hook for buildings we already built it but they had to maintain it and we were denied so you know we we have tried to be flexible here and work around the situation that we're trying to meet a request of the development review board and be flexible here but at some point you know it shouldn't all be borne by the cost of the residential housing which again is just going to the cost of housing versus a balanced approach which is that those commercial users are also going to be using the i get it i'm satisfied with my initial description the issue is that we should be looking for some representation something from depending on how important we think this connection is i mean it doesn't you know there's nothing about the housing development that says it necessarily has to be there but if we think it does then we need to hear from we need to hear from the medical center in connection with this proposal in some fashion i don't know how that discussion gets brought into our ambit but can i can i leave it out there it doesn't make sense if i won't talk about this connection when we don't have this critical party way again agreed if drb sorry frank if the drb insists that um you build your portion of the connector on your property or in your development and then for some reason the medical center doesn't do it how weird how odd does it become in your project to have something that just sort of stops or doesn't is it a problem i i think it's a little bit awkward but again i mean i i don't see it necessarily as critical to our development functioning it's more of a city objective of connectivity right and that that board had that objective in mind when they made their preliminary plot decision that the board had the assurances of the applicant at preliminary plot that there would be a pedestrian connection to or a bike path connection to tilly drive when they said yes we are preliminary approving this project and your offer is to provide the portion that would be under your control and then whatever happens beyond that is sort of our responsibility yeah and listen i mean we're not trying to be obstructionist here i mean we're not going to let a project of this magnitude and this importance die on the vine because of a connection across someone else's property but we just can't we can't physically or legally build it and secondly i think that there's just a level of you know appropriateness and sharing of cost right i think we have a little bit of a additional conversation about this because i think that there's some assumptions that are that were made at preliminary there's i think evan makes some good points and i think that we need to talk about what is important for this project keeping in mind that you know projects sometimes are affected by their neighbors and sometimes cannot go forward without their neighbors involvement so um you know you guys here welcome to continue discussing it but um i just want to make sure we circle back to it at a few days i'm thinking we should start to move ahead and uh this is going to be a common theme i think as we talk about this but let's kind of move on so we have a better understanding of what yeah and just to kind of close that loop though i i mean my assumption is i mean the medical center has always been you know open armed and and relatively you know amenable to working with us so i i don't really see it being a big issue i think the conversation just needs to come up sure okay all right so yeah there are additional comments about this that i think we can get to in the numbered comments but i'll keep running through the the changes so i mean this just sort of backing up to a 50 000 foot level this was a key change it was something that we thought we could do we were advised that it was the property owner was amenable and it changed and it wasn't because we didn't say we would do it we absolutely will do it we'll do exactly what we said we would do we'd pay for it we would maintain it we would build it and we were denied the ability to do it of no fault at all so right uh that change we had to remove that because we're unable to do it um so if we keep going through the presentation we can get to the next key change which would be the um stormwater pond locations so uh if you give me a shoot forward one i think so at preliminary plat we had proposed one large stormwater pond on the north side of kimble avenue where that arrow is pointing as it turns out apparently that's a sensitive archaeological area and so we're not able to put a stormwater pond there uh and so we had to look at where we could locate that sort of massive stormwater practice uh on the other side of kimble avenue in the development lots that we had laid out and sort of how to make that work and so if you um you know gonna flip forward one so we basically tried to look at you know how can we incorporate this pond in a way that's that's logical you know the pond location it can't go anywhere right it has to be somewhere that everything's going to drain to so it has to kind of be a low spot and it also gets sized based on like how much water is coming into it right so the size isn't flexible it has to be as big as it has to be and so you know what we looked at locations we sort of came to the conclusion that there was nowhere on the the the sort of other side of kimble that we could put one treatment practice that didn't sort of just create a massive you know sort of unbuilt gravel wetland that sort of was unappealing and so what we did was we split it into two and so if you go to the next slide you can see we basically took that one that's on the left over at business park lot north one and we split it into those two circles on the right so you can see at the four-way intersection of old farm road in the sort of upper left of the right side image you can see a small pond there and then another small pond on the corner of kimble avenue and old farm road and then you can see business park lot one in the lower corner is just undeveloped so that that will have to just remain undeveloped in that time. So is that so totally just forever into the future undeveloped because you're stripping the density from it or hoping to strip the density from it in a future phase? We are using the density from that lot in addition to the archaeological sensitivity I mean the entire lot is essentially a wetland so it's relatively unbuildable I don't foresee that ever being built. It drops off pretty steeply too there's not a ton of buildable square footage there. Between those two challenges like it just is yeah I would say it'll never be built on but you know you never know what will happen in a hundred years I think in the foreseeable future and so you know if you I think if you go one more forward there's a digital rendering that shows the two pond locations so you can see how we split it into those two areas and then if you sort of kind of in addition to adding the pond we added some homes around the pond as a sort of transitionary element trying to make that corner lot work in this new configuration so if you go forward one more slide you can see sort of where those four homes land where it says lot 24 and and you can see they were sort of straddling the zoning district boundary of the c1 lr and the r1 land and if you look at the space between the pond and the r1 border there's not really enough space to fit a building like a you know a larger multifamily structure or something like we had preliminarily planned in that area at that four-way intersection and so what we did was we tried to just use it as a transitionary element and we created sort of another alley loaded situation and i believe the next slide shows a rendering of sort of how that lays out a close-up are these the cottages no no okay so here we we sort of set up a three-story front facing the pond we connected them to a walkway we sort of laid out a landscaping plan that we felt was quite nice the rendering has an error in it which is that there is no sidewalk in the alley that's not on the civil drawings it's it's just in the rendering so so there is not intended to be an alley there and then where that red circle is we'd propose the building lot sort of as a way of in the future sort of making a more substantial building there something that would address both the street and the sidewalk and sort of connect the different areas so the two stormwater practices they're both gravel wetlands right so they would not be actually containing water when it's not raining we speak of that they are designed to scrabble weapons so for those to be shown as as ponds is sort of in act inaccurate yeah yeah and it looks like the one on the left is actually right because i think it's just a forebay that's got the water in it the one on the right you know i don't believe is going to be wet like that every every new practice is a gravel weapon so there would be a small permanent pool for the forebay but the rest of the practice you would only see standing water during you know relatively large or storm events yeah so the new practice is correct and the one on the right is is incorrect i don't see the one in the left i'm sorry there's like a little puddle in front of the second home from the right oh i see it thought it was a sand trap oh yeah it does look like a sand trap okay got it thanks you know i have a question about something that's semi-aesthetic are you thinking do you know that property at the end of edgewood drive that just before it it turns into hadley road that that five-story building that every yeah our barrel bill i think our barrel bill there was the last one on that road with that there's this i think what i take to be a storm water or some kind of treatment in front it's got these really not i mean i like it anyway i don't know it's just like that it's got these these water plants growing out of it you know what i mean i don't i didn't see that one what what's the what's the location again it's the one across from the twin oaks oh yeah you want yeah and it's in the front it's in the front of the building it's between between the street and the yeah yeah and it just looks like it makes it it's obviously got a drainage purpose and it just makes it look very very attractive i think with the with the reeds and other other vegetation growing in it very natural assuming that is good practice at least psychologically and it doesn't hurt it and rather than just open water or something like these will all i can't speak to the specific plants but all the gravel wellings would be would be planted okay they have stuff growing in that okay okay so so you can see here how at this corner we've tried to sort of create a transition we've we've worked with the two zoning district boundaries we've made some sort of you know a larger three-story structure on the downhill side that's two stories on the back on the alley side to sort of take up some of the grade change and we've tried to sort of landscape it into like a you know sort of a park feel that the landscape architects were working to design here at this intersections you can see the kind of arcing sidewalk on the other side of the road as well and how it all kind of works together to create this open space so and then at the next slide we just sort of showed a conceptual rendering of how development can lay out around that stormwater pond so by splitting it in two we were able to sort of make it small enough that you can fit some buildings uphill of it you know this is just a conceptual idea of you know sort of cool way that you could have some commercial development and a connection to the street there but that was sort of the guiding principle we wanted to still be able to engage those two corners we didn't want the practice to be too big and we wanted to sort of make it work in the neighborhood as best we could so that those were sort of the guiding principles there the staff report is asking about yeah sort of like a little bridge you know and that's like again that's just an idea of you know some of the feedback from the preliminary plot hearing was how do you make these kind of interesting pedestrian connections to the commercial area from Kimball Avenue and and so we were trying to kind of think through that with some of these renderings that were developed was the commercial area included in your sizing of your gravel well and there's that just you're gonna have to size it later on once you have an idea of what you're doing so the the ones that are shown are actually only sized for the roads and sidewalks and so forth but we have done preliminary sizing for the commercial developments in a different location okay okay so the the next key change that was highlighted in the staff report that we can run through was the change at 100 old farm road so this is a screenshot of the preliminary plot and you can see the existing house labeled 35-1 you know as the slide here is pointing out there was a weather event that damaged the home you know basically rendered it unusable and so you know given the reality that we owned a home that was essentially unlivable we sort of took a look at how we could work that into the development and since we had to rebuild it anyway sort of what we could do to make the development better and use that land perhaps more efficiently and so the next slide shows you sort of the guiding design elements of how we laid that out we definitely wanted to preserve the mature trees on the border of the the lot with the neighbor so you can see that sort of green strip there we didn't want to get into that we wanted to be sensitive to the neighbors and the surrounding development we needed to get stormwater and sewer back into our neighborhood and so if you if you think about it old farm road is sloping down here towards heinsberg road and so we needed to be able to drain essentially back into our road network which would be going uphill and so how you kind of make that work and so if you go to the next slide you can see sort of what we laid out so we we ended up being able to fit five of the small cottages here in sort of a linear format we put an interconnected sidewalk in front of them if you go to the next one you can see another image of it so this is the image as you're coming up old farm road of how they lay out and so that mature tree line we wanted to keep is on your right here in the in the image where's the retaining wall that staff just well that's it that's it there but if you go to the next slide you can see the location of the wall relative to the to the road so the retaining wall this is a little bit fuzzy but the wall only runs till the you know there's two homes that the retaining wall is not in front of and you can see where it ends there it's that sort of little squiggly rock looking thing along the three left hand homes exactly there yet so it would be kind of a landscape boulder boulder kind of retaining wall not just a you know concrete similar to the hillside boulder walls that we've created oh okay so it creates you know not only serves a purpose from a stormwater perspective but it's also creating aesthetic interest okay and so if you climb on if you look at this image you can see sort of you know sewer and stormwater needed to go back to daniel drive and so if if old farm if you know if those homes like the configuration that we use a lot in the neighborhood the homes sort of step down the hill so like the home nearest daniel drive would be a little higher than the next one a little higher than the next one and the next one but if you do that in this location the alley ends up draining right towards the neighbor's pool as does all the water that the homes are shedding off and the only direction you can send your sewer is the same way or into a pump station which you know has all kinds of other problems and so then you end up needing to locate a stormwater practice next to the neighbor's pool where all the trees are or running a pipe along through the trees and it sort of becomes a bit of a mess and so that's why the homes are tilted up and that's what the retaining wall is being used for but we you know we felt like it was a good fit it provided you know five more cottages which was something that preliminarily the board was really keen on having in the neighborhood and so that's where we landed with the design where's the high point on old farm road that's a great Scott question it's a it's it's based there's a long flat relatively flat section of old farm road basically between Daniel Drive heading back towards Campbell before it starts to go back down so really old farm road is is sloping back towards Hinesburg road so in front of these homes it's still coming up and then you get to Daniel Drive and it plateaus and that's the high point that's correct could you flip back to the retaining wall again please so when you say cottage these what comes to mind are those little red cottages on Kirby yes Kirby is that the kind of what you have in mind exactly yeah okay all right and there's that reason I included the other slide was it's the landscaping plan so you can see that there's a ton of trees shrubs and plantings planned for this area you know if you skip back forward to that there is an increase in the number of units in the project from the preliminary plat by how many I believe it was eight or eight or nine I'm not a hundred percent sure it's not more it's more units being proposed in the initial phase but it's not more units than were total included in totality there's no more land involved in the project it's just that you know we we removed one home and put five cottages so that's an increase of four and then in the other area we added four homes on the lot where the stormwater pond was so I guess that would be eight total oh but we removed a cottage in another location to make that work better in line with your feedback so I think maybe we're at seven no it is accurate the preliminary plat had a hundred and forty eight or something yes seven less I have a good question sure so is the standard for you know the height above pre-construction grades still going to be applicable here and with the additional fill how does that work I believe it would be you know the homes won't not comply with the height regulations at two stories I I don't think regarding you know regardless of that existing we're not bringing the grade up that much I think the high limits 35 feet or something there or 28 feet for a pitched roof and so these will be in that range even if you account for you're not changing the grant significantly in this area to make it so it would I think it's coming up three or four feet but that's the equivalent of a walkout basement I wouldn't think that there would be a height issue for these these homes but we can we'll look into that okay moving on so the other comment in the staff report as a change was the barn redevelopment plan and I you know when I looked back at it we actually proposed this to the board during preliminary plat this change so I and but we can you know sort of talk through it the originally we had proposed this as a pool and like a resident club and a sort of private amenity and during the preliminary plat hearing you know we sort of revisited the the the notion of having it as a private pool or a private space and we sort of wanted to open it to the public we wanted it to be more of a scenic park where you know everybody could go and that you know the whole neighborhood could use and people from outside the neighborhood could use and you know maybe eventually the barn would be some sort of rentable space or event space or you know they're just wanted to make it more open and so we had gone through that with you guys and sort of re-evaluated it and turned it into a sort of destination and overlook park type pavilion and we had presented that in our packet from four six twenty one and so if you go to the next slide it shows you what we presented at preliminary plat and what we're presenting at final plat is you know it's basically identical it's just on a CAD drawing just to add to that so I don't know how many of you are familiar with it but it's probably going back nine or ten years ago the city went through a rebranding process and the the group that they worked with came to the conclusion I think there were three or four nodes in the city that reflected kind of the major geographical sort of nodes of the city and one of them was this ridge and the view from this ridge so that was part of the thinking that transformed it from being kind of this private HOA club to sort of a the overlook park on spear street was a little bit I mean this is a little bit like this I think this is actually a much more user friendly there's a lot more space to get out and you know actually use the space but it has a similar type you know overlook looks west of the Adirondacks this looks east of the Green Mountains what's the footprint area of the actual barn space or of the whole barn lot do you have any idea Scott I don't have it off top but I'm trying to get is it 3,000 square feet what I was trying to get at is is it would it be amenable to really a public performance to a public convening place of some sort yeah it's it's a possibility and you know we've kind of bandied around some ideas it is sort of an interesting space the way the the barn structure is that the hayloft is not a big open hayloft like you see in a lot of older barns it has a lot of beams running throughout so it does break it up but yeah I mean we're open to a lot of different ideas and you know we had even referenced in this presentation kind of a quasi public use so the intent is not that it's just locked off in the public yeah I think there's a need to have that more settled before we close because I think if the city owns the space but the project owns the barn that gets really awkward in the future so we'll make sure we keep moving that process forward and I don't know that the city wants to own a barn that doesn't have a use because then we're paying to maintain something that's not being used and that gets awkward too so it's very for any issue and this was one of the the parcels perhaps for that reason that when we met with the recreation department we sort of decided on an access agreement versus ownership by the city so I think that we had proposed in this area that this would be maintained by us and there would be a public easement easement to use it but yes that would certainly be an issue good discussion so we can cruise through the next couple slides here this was just a rendering you've already seen of that space you know there is a sledding hill there's a picnic pavilion and then there's the sort of depression for the skating rink so this is the sledding hill that you can see in the foreground here I have a stupid question how are the soils up there if you're going to flood it for ice skating it's all it's all mapped you know I forget the exact thing but it's all these soils put on your stormwater hat it's all clays and rock yeah clay a lot of clay I imagine they don't perk very well like everywhere else I'm not it just for those of you who are not familiar with the site the white home to the immediate north or right of the barn and this image is privately owned so there is a three acre site that's not owned by the company if you go to the next slide it actually makes that pretty clear so that's the project plat we just wanted to call out the lotting we'd put the barn on its own lot lot 49 in the lotting so that the separate ownership could get sort of sorted out but that big white parcel is not owned by the project do you have any concerns just if you're going to be grating a depression in there when it's not winter of that filling up with how's the drainage if you have desoils there's not really any the only thing that would get into it is literally the rain that falls on it everything else would be great around it so I don't really have a lot of concerns there because it's just it's just grass that would sit there you know there's no road or building or anything that would grade into that no concerns that it'll eventually turn into a wetland and then okay can you skate on wetlands that's why I'm trying to help you out here I just know how things go in Vermont and if you have a created wetland that you made an oops on they're just like well yeah that's a wetland now generally we see that more when there's a source of run up too like you know significant upslope area or something or even a storm water pond it's outletting to it or something like that but we do this is literally the only water that's going to get in that is the rain that falls on it you'd certainly like it putting a little four inch drain or something in there that becomes problematic so that was sort of the summary of the issues that the staff reported raised the reasoning behind it and the things that we had come up with the next section that I wanted to walk through with you guys and I don't know what happened with that highlight on the PDFing of the PowerPoint but it did not look like that in PowerPoint so apologies on that this you know we wanted to just and I've got Roger here who didn't get sworn in but maybe we want to get him to speak to this a little bit but I'll just kind of run through the history of the traffic report because I think there's sort of a lot of it's got a lot of importance in the project obviously there's some big traffic implications but it also relates to the sort of sidewalk connections the rec paths and the sort of overall plan for the area and so you know there's there's quite a few mentions in the staff reports throughout preliminary planning currently of this sort of the fact that the offsite that the applicant had reduced their offsite requirements for improvements to traffic because of the conclusions or implications of creating connections in the Tilly drive study and in fact there are no infrastructure improvements that we've reduced due to the conclusions of the Tilly drive study so the the only the reductions in the in the offsite improvements came from reducing the intensity of the development we were proposing so if you if you kind of go to the next slide I'm sorry reducing the density or intensity the intensity that we were proposing to sort of permit in full and so like I think the history here is important to sort of understanding that just to set set the table what you're talking about is what was presented the thing is the board never saw those traffic offsite improvements because that was something that we worked out before it even got to preliminary plot so what Evan's talking about what Andrew's talking sorry you're not the same person what Andrew's talking about is in their initial application the offsite improvements were more robust than you even saw at the first preliminary plot hearing and now there's a couple lane improvements lane widenings but not as much as was in that first round that never even made it to the board what in the reasoning for that was that city staff approached us and said you know the city has long-term objectives of making the city more pedestrian and bicycle oriented less vehicular oriented and therefore the widening of certain or the addition of turning lanes and widening of existing roads doesn't kind of jive with that right so yeah so I you know I just back to Evan to kind of cruise through the bullet points here you know I think that the the last one on that page you know it was another thing the staff report had said that without the connections you know the rec path or without the connections the conclusions of our traffic study might change and and you know Roger's perspective is that that statement is not accurate that those connections don't play into the conclusions of our traffic study so if you go to the next slide I sort of walk through the history of the traffic study you know our original preliminary plat submission August 18th 2020 we submitted a traffic study June 16th 2020 the proposed roadway modifications in that study included a significant expansion of the size of the Kimball Avenue and Kennedy Drive intersection adding you know a couple of lanes to that already you know three lane wide intersection it also included right and left turn lanes on Kimball Avenue entering our new intersections and it even sort of supposed that there might need to be a traffic light on at Gregory Drive and Williston Road all of that being said with those improvements we would be able to solidify 1,890 p.m. peak hour trips for our project meaning that those trips are sort of hours to use for the development and that was the full build out of all the 100 acres that we sort of supposed could happen so the next slide sort of shows you the reaction to that that was in the initial staff report or maybe it's the slide after that which you can't read because of the highlighting but this it basically said that the staff recommended the applicant meet with the city to review the conclusions of the study so if you go back a slide you know we met with staff and I think these got out of order but we met with the staff I'll just summarize it and forget the four points we met with staff and they said these are really big road improvement road widening you know we don't want to see this sort of road widening like let's look at how the Tilley Drive study sort of viewed this area because when that study was completed they didn't assume that any of these major road widening endeavors were necessary we looked at the study Roger looked at the study we couldn't achieve our full build out regardless of what the study was assuming without widening those roads and meet the tests that are in place under state and city regulations for level service we just couldn't do it so we said well geez the city doesn't want us to widen the road and it's a pretty big project and this is 20 years in the future that we might you know actually meet these thresholds so maybe it makes sense to scale back what we're looking for and just get to a point where everybody's comfortable with the infrastructure improvements and so what we did was we we did a partial build scenario which is what's before the board currently of 1,307 trips so it's 583 pm peak hour trips that we expect the project will generate that we don't have any traffic approval for in this packet because if we go above the 1,307 regardless of all the connections we're making because the Tilly Drive study said these connections would be nice we still have to make those improvements so I just sort of wanted to to get that as a baseline sort of clarification so the Tilly Drive study has informed the connections we've made just because the city's looking to make those connections and so we've agreed to do them where possible but we haven't received a benefit from them in the form of any reduction in what we're required to do if that makes sense because the offset again was just reducing the trip ends that we were requesting Roger do you have anything to add to that? Andrew did a pretty good job Roger I'm going to have to swear you in if you're going to testify what's your what's your name please Roger Dickinson thank you raise your right hand you can use the mic up on the table too please do you solemnly swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you I didn't even have to get to the perjury part push the button on the mic Don I was going to say is it on? there's a button on the mic it'll turn the light bright green no you just have to push it once is it bright green or is it dull green okay there we go there we go okay sorry okay as as uh excuse me Frank what you have a finished word of it under penalty of perjury I do thank you so as Andrew and Evan just stated the goal from the original traffic study to the revised study that you have before you now changed from in the first study we identified what improvements were necessary to accommodate all that the applicant wanted the full bill here's the total you know let's develop every lot to its maximum potential that changed to in the revised study that you have before you now which was reviewed by George jackamart at pulmonary plot to basically pull back and say okay given the city's goals to maintain the current street configuration the current intersection configuration without extensive widening how many trips can the roadway network accommodate and so we came up with a partial build scenario to analyze and identify that and it did actually determine that the Kimball Avenue old farm road Kennedy Drive those streets were all capable of accommodating that level of traffic without extensive widening or changes modifications I will point out that the so-called widening of Kimball Avenue to add turn lanes in our revised study and this is shown on the plans that have been submitted for this application the widening is really not a physical widening Kimball Avenue is presently 32 feet wide curb to curb it can accommodate three lanes of traffic in that width and so adding a left turn lane at the intersections of old farm road and Pawdash road really is not widening the roadway physically but rather restriping the road the pavement markings to change it from a two lane road to a three lane road within the confines of the existing curbs so the the analyses showed that future connections will help and I don't want to you know leave you with the impression that we concluded that they wouldn't help they they do help improve future traffic conditions they are a worthwhile goal in this area in the Tilly Drive Kimball Avenue area but they are not essential to the partial build a level of development that we identified in the revised traffic study lastly the revised traffic study incorporated the changes that were requested by George Jackamart at the preliminary plat so we actually reduced the the credit that we were that we originally had had calculated for for share trips between mixed uses interconnected trips so and some of some of the other changes that that had been requested thank you yes yes so Frank would you like to make a motion regarding invoking a traffic study review an independent traffic study review doesn't hurt it's in the staff report to request the let me find it so what there was a specific proposal of what the traffic study would include okay it's staff comment number four so the independent technical review to review the updated traffic memo and the bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure review and to confirm that the design of the project correctly implements the recommendations of both studies do we have a second second any discussion board all in favor of approving the motion say aye any aye any opposed no the motion is carried so I just here and have a time check we said we'd spend two hours on this but I want that to include any public comment so before we go any further I'd like to get a sense of how much public comment there might be and I don't see anyone here but is there any indication online nope that's you know there is no indication online no okay all right so let's let's continue on thank you Roger I think that that sort of summarized the you know the major changes staff had pointed out in their comments one through three and so you know I think to the broader question we sort of assumed at this point we would just hop into the the sort of other numbered comments okay if you know if you guys want to hear more about other changes that weren't enumerated in the staff comments I can you know if you think it makes more sense to integrate it into the review of the actual components of the project at a later time I think that's how we had envisioned it but if there's yeah that was kind of my take on it you know other than to just say that like we tried really hard to stay true to the preliminary plot and I hope that you know you guys when you're sort of reviewing this you know I mean the preliminary plot decision I think was 40 pages long our narrative went through each bullet point of the decision and spoke to how we tried to implement that so you know we obviously there's going to be a number of things that changed and went back and forth I think with a project of that size and that number of criteria to meet but our goal here has been to stay true to that as best we could throughout the process and to sort of make it better when we needed to make a change to it okay let's uh let's just go through the comments I think one we've covered two improvements to the path I feel like we've covered that and board please jump in if you don't agree or Marla yeah so I guess the question then becomes what does the board want to direct the applicant to do about the tilly drive connection unless I'm sorry I wrote this like you know a week and a half ago unless that comes up later in the staff report I don't remember if we said it again I guess it would just be good if the applicant can just update them update us on their discussions with the medical center okay could I just ask a question there sure just a clarification question so we have reached out to the medical center and like I said it's it's it hasn't been you know they didn't give us a stiff arm and say no I think the response is more than we'll you know we're concentrating on our development plan and that's where our focus is right now but it it wasn't a stiff arm so I I guess the question is if we've been told by one Lando and our Pizzagalli that we flat out cannot do it on lot two and the other one currently doesn't really want to discuss it and yet it's a large enough issue for the development review board that it it is hamstringing us I'm not sure that we on our own are going to have the ability to really drive this unless it's brought up by the development review board as a question for the applicant and the other project we do we do maybe I guess the sense of the board that we welcome their suggestion before we impose on them something chance to think through maybe if it was couched in that language you might get their attention Dan we're gonna say something I have a question for staff I mean this is kind of like those stub ends that happen all over the city you know sometimes couched as a fire department turnaround or something but you know for an adjoining lot I mean the applicants done what they can do on their lands so I don't know if knowing that it's kind of like it's almost incumbent upon us to talk to the medical center more discreetly about it if the city wants some finality but all the applicant do can do is say okay we'll build the path stub to the southeast boundary of our parcel and but up beyond that well there's nothing else they can do I don't I don't entirely agree with that and the reason the context is that there was an affirmative represent you know and here I'm following what what Marla is saying there's a I guess a point of principle here there was an affirmative representation made of preliminary play so I think it's a little more incumbent upon the developer in this case to take on more of the burden of helping us okay they can do that burden but if UVM says we're too busy trying to figure out our own future to give anything more than vague like yeah we've talked to Brian folks and we'll do the best we can but we're not promising anything that all you know what do you want a proof that a proof that Evan sent an email to them my suggestion in that case if there is no connection to Tilly Drive is that the decisions at preliminary plat that the board predicated on that connection are now back up in the air you know the decision that there was not a need for a rec path on old farm road specifically if the board predicated the decision that there only needed to be a sidewalk on old farm road on the basis that there would be a connection to Tilly Drive and now the Tilly Drive connection is only a maybe then I think it's open for revisiting whether the preliminary plat decision as to old farm road was the correct one and is this bike path or rec path a shall construct or a prefer to construct it the decision of preliminary plat was the applicant is proposing to construct a bike path connection to Tilly Drive therefore the board concludes that only a sidewalk is necessary on old farm road right but I'm saying does the development require a rec path to be constructed and we they can choose where that rec path goes but it has to be constructed to make that connection or is it a this is too big a project to point to a single statement in the regulations as to you know things like parking shall be to the rear of the building it's more like the project shall incorporate appropriate access and connectivity and because the project is so large that could mean many things right so the decision when it was written that preliminary plot that was ran as a the developer shall construct a recreational path the the no it's more like the developer is proposing and we are approving this proposal you know if the if the developer weren't proposing a open space around the barn you know you may have reviewed the other components of open spaces differently so it's not as black and white as that all right so where do we go from here so I guess if there's a requirement for connectivity doesn't the requirement extend to the medical centers project and so if there's certainty that we can create a connection to our property line shouldn't there be certainty that their project will need to connect as well I mean the regulations are the same right so the point I'm making is that this is a bigger picture connectivity and if the if the board if because your proposal was to make the connection the board made their other decisions about the connectivity of this project as a whole on the basis of that being a part of the project and so I think we need to know if that is still part of the project or not to know if the other parts the project need to be revisited so I and I understand I think what the city's objective here which is simply to have this level connectivity regardless of who builds it I think where we get a little bit caught up is we understood why we needed to make that representation when there was a level of uncertainty on lot two that that lot was ever going to get developed and so that's when we said yes we will build this temporary rec path until there is actually the road that goes through the official map location which would have a rec path running parallel to it the situation we have now is very different where I mean the Mountain View Park has how many hundreds of thousands of square feet of commercial space that's already been built and then something else is being proposed I'm not trying to push something on another developer I'm simply saying that we are building our fair share of it the same way that someone else who has a real project before you it just seems like a very reasonable request this isn't a theoretical conceptual project this project is actively in front of you right now why doesn't it have a pedestrian connection to where these people conceivably are going to be living when we're doing it on our end let's summarize really where sticking point is you were willing to pay for a road when you thought there was no other way to get the road built and we wanted the road now that there's a great big developer with lots of money who could pick up the tab across the airport you don't see as a matter of fairness no I that you should have to pick up well that's that's a hundred percent correct Frank because before it was a theoretical issue now it's a real issue it's also though inaccurate because we agreed to pick up the tab we maintain that we would pick up the tab and build the road in the rec path in the original location that we said we would the property owner has denied that permission regardless of who's paying for it it's not an option that we pay for it by the way happens to be the master developer of the adjacent property so we offered to pay for it the offer is still on the table that we would build the rec path where we originally proposed and it's not going to happen because permission has not been granted and so that's what's changed and now there is a developer proposing a project on that same piece of land where they've denied us the ability to do something at our cost that we had and we're not crying poverty here Frank we're simply saying there's a level of appropriateness and fairness and oh by the way every inch of additional amenity that this project has to build goes straight to the bottom line of the cost of housing the same way that the other one goes straight to the bottom line of the cost of health care but there's a level of fairness I wasn't shaking my finger I don't know how can we describe the issue it doesn't necessarily feel that way the issue is not the funding of the cost of the path the issue is the inability to gain permission to build the path would would it be fair to ask you to succinctly frame what you are requesting of the board sure yeah I think I think the succinct request is would the board consider taking it up with a medical center at the next hearing that you have with them that they it seems reasonable to have a pedestrian connection we're going to build our piece of it would they consider connecting to our pedestrian connection with another way of putting that just just just as an idea might it be you're asking the board to only consider the part where you actually have legal standing I think that's even a better way of putting it yes right so marl I've got a question for you if this development has already been constructed would the medical center be required to build the connection on their parcel as part of their final yeah so if this development had been constructed with a different way of satisfying the connectivity criteria you know way that the board found satisfactory right because the board like I said the board predicated their approval of the connectivity criteria on the existence of this proposed path so if they had if the board was satisfied with the connectivity in the absence of this path with some other configuration theoretical and there was some sort of dead end something happening there or even an easement because commercial properties are required to provide easements to one another the adjoining property would be required to make that connection do you have any sense of when the medical center will come back to us they will be at your next meeting okay so really the request is we leave the cut to the change we leave this developer this is the request of the obligation to build anything beyond their property line understanding that they'll build what little bit there is to build up for their property line and basically essentially cut that part of the preliminary approval out all together and it's back in our lab what we're going to do with the medical center that's it now if that's acceptable to us it's not off the wall the question is is it acceptable and if so let's not mess around either it is or it isn't either we're going to solve it or we have to that they solve it one way or another those are the choices well I think to add to that though the hearing's not closing tonight so I think it is an ongoing conversation and it's also important to point out that while we are suggesting that you know to John's point all we can legally do is build up to the edge of our property in this scenario because we do not have a city right away on old farm road we're building well beyond our property boundaries at the development review board's request so we're not making this request in a vacuum we are going well above and beyond our boundaries in another location that has a city right away right in the same way that you are proposing to add turn lanes on Kimbalab you know it just it's I want to make sure that we remember that this isn't really different from a road connection it's connectivity is connectivity is connectivity so does anyone on the board have a problem with us taking this up with the medical center at the next meeting as a strategy to to move forward I mean it feels like we're at a four-way stop and nobody can go till I think that's a great idea okay all right so you're not going to get super clear super clear feedback tonight I think we're comfortable with that right now okay I'm sorry I missed that last statement I just said I think I think we're comfortable with that right now having a little bit of ambiguity right now okay all right okay let's move on with the comments can I just say I feel like when I was a kid watching the Muppets and there were the two guys up in the balcony making wisecracks okay number two this is improvements to the path I think we've covered that we might be on number five at this point honestly yep existing barn although okay yep good okay traffic okay number five is in regard to the sidewalk staff supports this comment recommends board modify the design of the sidewalk to address it have we done that yeah this this one I think is actually really important when we were hoping to get your feedback on it tonight just because our next hearing is kind of so far out so this is sort of this goes to something I think Evan touched on earlier during the initial presentation and I think there's two aspects to it so like you've got two comments here the the sidewalk where it ends and then also the sidewalk design you know that's what those two blue comments are and I I think that they're both indicated to be sort of supported by staff and so like we definitely wanted to touch on this I mean to the to the discussion about sort of tabling where the sidewalk ends and and talking about the design of the sidewalk that's kind of what we spoke to a little bit earlier and we worked really hard after that site visit with the board to design a sidewalk that did what we talked about that preserved the mature trees that didn't sort of totally upend the existing character of old farm road and in fact that was the specific condition of the preliminary plat that we designed the sidewalk to preserve the existing character maintain the vegetated character of old farm road I think was the quote and so we we did that we spent weeks on it we surveyed every tree on the road we spent I don't know how many hours Scott and I were walking around out there saying well what if the sidewalk did this what if it did that how do we get around that tree what about that telephone pole how do we make this work and this is the design we came up with and it absolutely has a couple of jogs in it because we're jogging around giant trees beautiful trees and so you know public works comment I get it it might be challenging to plow a sidewalk with jogs in it but our take on it we did what we were asked to do and not and preserved that roadway and that character and created that connection in a way that made sense in line with the site visit that we had so you know we're interested in hearing the board's feedback on that comment from public works I mean if we add a six foot green space between the road and the sidewalk the sidewalk will be in all of the things that we were trying to save well and to add to that in which I think the email correspondence from the appellant and then the other neighbors who seconded it that came through this afternoon to the city stated and I'm not going to speak for him but I think we're at a point where they are reluctantly accepting the design that we've come up with because I think that they appreciate the fact that we've gone to great lengths to avoid you know imposing upon their property and also saving all that existing vegetation I'd say I completely that's got some charm that really it really does yeah the charm doesn't improve by straightening out the sidewalk and knocking down some trees but we asked them can you preserve you know well it's any more personal than that I asked them and they did so so is it we should reject it reject this the harsh word we should thank the P.W. for their comments and affirm the development design so I guess my question because I know I know where they're coming from you know I live on a street where they miss plowing the sidewalk where it jogs every winter and I walk on torn up grass it's very strange are the places where so Betsy has it up on the screen there's a couple of little spots where the sidewalk is not directly adjacent to the road is there a reason it's not just I guess would you be removing more trees if you were to just keep it straight and along the road the whole time yeah I think that you know Scott and I looked at this the and maybe maybe Scott should speak to it I believe it has something to do with drainage being able to cross back and forth and not having to move ditches right what we were trying to do when we those jogs are basically at the driveway crossings and so we were trying to preserve the existing drainage you know where the culverts are and also allow sort of outlets from the drainage running along old farm road to have a place to go because what we what we can't really do here at all is is common plate adding catch basins and stormwater piping and stuff because this is all on ledge right no one wants to blast a five foot deep trench out here along old farm road next to these old houses so the idea was if we we jog the sidewalk in the drainage can run along the sidewalk and then when it hits where there's a culvert already can go into those culverts and drain the way it always has so the one on the left looks like it behaves almost as a normal urban sidewalk crossing where it kind of comes in to cross a little ways back from the direct intersection the one on the right isn't that way what on the right is an extension of how the sidewalk is along the frontage of the project so we we continue that and then it goes in but there is a little jog that's to go up and next to the there's a huge tree right there so is it better to just abandon that project configuration at the point of at the point of the tree that might be an option in that particular area I do have a if it's helpful I do have a zoom conference schedule with the DPW on Friday so it would come along oh I should have picked a different color and is the sidewalk curved Scott proposed curved only in not the whole way only in short sections there's a there's a more detailed plan that would show that because I think the fear there was the length of of a run without a drainage crossing right so like if we and if if DPW were more inclined to accept a longer run without a drainage crossing than a jog then I think that that could potentially get straightened in that ultimately this is a comment of DPW right and so the board's objective to preserve trees DPW's objective is to make it so maintenance actually works it's not even a matter of convenience it's a matter of you know you're going to be plowing grass if you if you're you're on a 18-hour shift and the sidewalk jogs so if the DPW feels that there's a better solution that keeps the board's strong objective of preserving trees then it seems like you should go with that because board you're not going to be upset if it moves to where I've drawn that yellow line as long as it doesn't remove any additional trees right yeah I think that you know if if the position that that Frank took is sort of widely held on the board that if we have that understanding in the conversation with DPW Friday that that can help to sort of come up with a solution that that might work for everybody and so I think we're totally open to that if that's the sort of direction I think just knowing that feedback is helpful okay board any other comments about this before we move on okay thank you the other aspect of the comment is the terminus of the sidewalk and so we ended the sidewalk specifically where the preliminary plat permit asked us to and that's why it stops where it does and so I guess you know this is a request a new request from DPW to extend that all the way up to Tilly Drive and so that just to be clear that was not included because it was not the requirement of the preliminary plat so let me make sure I understand they would like it to come down old farm road and go down along Huntsboro to Tilly Drive right just to where I've drawn the yellow because that's an existing rec path okay all right and I don't know how far that is because I don't really have a sense of scale when we're the zoomed in and your thinking is that's not your responsibility I guess part of our you know thinking on all of this section has been you know what is the litmus test for what what is a responsibility to develop or to be building you know I mean this you could take this to kind of a an absurd degree too as to where it goes and you know I will point out that again pointing at our neighbors who are active developers the red barn market went in they didn't build a connection and so I think there is kind of a that sub is their connection okay but why didn't they go I mean they built a path to nowhere and so I I guess again the question just becomes you know at what point like where do you draw the line and so what we did was we designed it to the specific condition of preliminary plat get it well the board drew the line at preliminary plat and we followed the condition exactly and again I support what the developer is saying and for another reason as well going back again to our segment I see particularly if they if this Tilly Drive connection gets completed I see no functional value to the additional quote connectivity except for the sake of connectivity that in fact detracts from the charm of that neighborhood right and I would I would not support the BW account okay other board members I tend to agree Frank I really disagree with that I think that a path to a sidewalk the dead ends is going to result in a continuation of the desire path connecting the end of the sidewalk to the red barn and so the decision I don't think it's valueless I strongly disagree with the fact that it has no value the board I would entertain the board the board's decision that it shouldn't be the responsibility of the applicant but I strongly disagree that there is no value to finishing the last 100 feet of an otherwise multi-mile pedestrian connection if there's a gap of 100 feet it just feels like how did that get missed and that's why it's suggested by DPW is that this creates a wonderful connection that the city has a great need for and it leaves a little tiny hole in it and that just kind of has a weird flavor to it so my thinking is that that's the city's problem that it's not the applicant is proposing to do what was said in the preliminary plat and why should they go above and beyond when it's not part of their project and I'm not and I'm not opposed to the board concluding that it's not the applicant's responsibility but I am opposed to the board's conclusion that it's valueless I think it's very valuable okay I hear that I think it's valuable when I would second the chair's comment I mean it's one thing to ask a developer to build a road that's going to become public to spec now we're starting to stretch it here with and I get it the connectivity in the sidewalk that makes this good but if the city can't find a way to build this on its own and then the city should stop telling people what to do so you know I get it there's a pattern in Vermont of extorting things out of developers because they want to get stuff done so they're like sure we'll do the path and sure we'll do the park because it's just not worth it and they want to get the project completed but I don't think this is the kind of thing that yeah if it's a priority for the city make it a priority right John did you start to say something yeah I just the the box that's been drawn what is why is that box that's not part of the preliminary plan is it the dash I think it's an inset or something it's just the drawing we picked reference so there's another plan sheet in the plan set that cover that that's okay what would roughly correspond to the plan sheet okay the preliminary plat are the two little arrows that just that little portion within the rectangle it wasn't the preliminary preliminary plat being the full rectangle with the extension correct okay so that's referencing she I think C-19 I was just I just wanted to look at what that actually looks like in the existing condition just because I was looking at the drainage features and there's like a guard rail there and some other things so is does anyone on the board disagree with what we've been discussing and that is that the applicant is should not be responsible for that extra southern 100 feet or however far it is okay I think we're going to call time we've gotten through six I think we've covered a lot of stuff that if tonight could go on forever we've already we've pretty much addressed but I think that in sticking to our time guideline we will entertain a motion to continue this hearing and do we have a date for that Marlon? Yeah I was just looking through we do September 7th I don't know if the if the applicant I mean I don't mean to overrule you Don anyway but if there was you know sometimes you ask the applicant if there's any like one or two pressing things they would really like to board's feedback on before we close for the evening so Andrew and Evan are there any pressing things you'd like the board's opinion on before we close tonight That's what I was just asking on your side Sorry that's what I was just asking Andrew I think the the phasing plan will be the next piece and I don't think we're going to get through that in the next 10-15 minutes so Yeah I think maybe the I don't know if this is opening a huge can of worms either but the you know there was a question from staff regarding right away coverage and how and I think that it would be helpful just in terms of being able to refine our plans and get them finite because there were two or three areas where we had requested some differentiation from preliminary plat because of coverage I think that was staff comment number 11 is that right nine no staff comment nine thanks oh right before phasing okay yes it was about I mean it was couched in the terms of the extensions of the roadways to the property line but it's really about lot coverage generally do you want to introduce it sure there were I think there were two two or three areas I mean throughout this process we've been really pinched on coverage in the R1 district it's an incredibly small amount of lot coverage it's you know 25 percent of the total land is allowed to be covered in the R1 district I mean that is just not a lot especially when you know a city road has to be 20 feet wide has to have a sidewalk has to have a rec path has to have all of these features you know we've got east west connectivity whatever all of this stuff and so what happened was you know our coverage is essentially maxed out if we add you know 10 20 square feet we start looking at losing units so we have 155 units now which by standard requires 16 affordable units 10 percent if we lose one unit the city is going to lose an affordable housing unit was the way that I sort of structured the conversation and so there were a couple areas where pushing the coverage would force that reduction and I said is it really worth it and so the two areas were extending the the sort of little cul-de-sac over by the medical center project all the way to the property line when there's no nothing to connect to and the city would have an easement anyway and the other area was the jog of the rec path along old farm road to sort of go inboard of the existing old farm road right of way and the two things together added like you know thousands of square feet of locked coverage and so staff's recommendation here was essentially that you know the board could consider a reduction of coverage that's going to be deeded to the city in some format to enable those features without and so you know we're obviously fully would would support that we would love that flexibility and so I think it's a question from to the board and you know maybe staff wants to introduce the reasoning a little bit more but you know we're fully on board with that and if it's possible would love to proceed and can I just offer one more piece there so one of the things that's sort of exacerbated particularly in the R1 district was when the inclusionary zoning requirement came into play you know the affordable housing aspect of it you then granted you so 10% of your four sale houses or 10% of your four sale homes had to be affordable and therefore you got bonus units and we brought this up to the city to the planning commission and the planning commission did adjust somewhat the coverage to account for the additional units that were stemming from the affordable units but it wasn't 100% so it wasn't like those additional units then got just you know pushed off of your coverage ratio so by virtue of the inclusionary zoning requirement going into play it actually only exacerbated the coverage issues in this district it disabled you from getting the bonus if you don't have any more lot coverage what good is having another the ability to build another unit right that was the so the staff suggestion here and you can obviously read it for yourselves but was that you know maybe the board could take some statistics from the applicant and consider waving or not waving but removing a portion of the lot coverage that is within the proposed public right of way from their computation of coverage and the reason we had suggested statistics from the applicant is to figure out what that number would be it wouldn't be to say oh yeah none of the roads count towards your coverage because that would be inconsistent with the board's previous decisions but if it's if the roads represent if you have a maximum allowable coverage of 30% in the R1 district which is what you'd have and the roads represent I don't know a quarter of that maybe a quarter of the road can be removed you can get some fraction back but I'm I'm just spitting out numbers and we were kind of looking to you to make a proposal that the board felt like the roads represent 28% of the coverage so 146,000 square feet out of an allowed 511,000 square feet so it's just about 30% of the coverage is within public right of way in the R1 or total just in the R1 yep which is the only area that this is an issue because the other are like 70% for some perspective I think the IC is 70% black coverage and so is the C1LR so you're going from 70 to 30 so are you suggesting we need a more refined refinement of those numbers well so what would it take well we could certainly I think for this conversation if the board's open to this interpretation to enable this I mean we can come up with a proposal we can ask you you know we can get back to you so the question is would the board entertain a proposal if you came back with some more numbers I certainly wouldn't have a problem with that would anyone can I just ask a question sure yeah so sorry for being the new guy the design which you recognize as being less than ideal is the design of the barn road and barn road sidewalk other transportation components or where you've laid out the homes what's not ideal because of the yeah I mean I don't think that we're necessarily pushing back on something not being ideal I mean there's just been a number of requests of the board throughout the project that have caused huge increases in coverage so like you know one really big one is the east to west rec path connection that runs to the existing hillside neighborhood across the barn lot I mean that's you know it's a 10 foot wide path that's probably you know I don't know 4,000 feet long I mean it or it you know it's it's a maybe it's a thousand feet long so what would that be 10,000 feet of coverage you know which is the equivalent of six or eight homes it's little things like that right and so the other the two that we brought up in the permit were that we had taken out of our lot coverage calculations the the cul-de-sac road which it'd be you know if we had a site plan up I we changed all the names but the the cul-de-sac road that sort of dead ends it stops like 20 feet short of the property line and the condition of the regulations is build it right to the property line which is another 4 or 5,000 square feet of coverage for you know it serves no purpose to the development and then there was a jog of a rec path on old farm road to sort of create a landscaping feature so that it didn't just parallel the road it sort of jogged in with the homes and made like a nice feature that I don't think wouldn't be nice but that went outside of the existing old farm road right of way which then triggers that being counted because otherwise that rec paths in an existing city right of way and isn't counted towards coverage so so you're looking for more available you're looking for more available land to build on more available coverage so that we can create these you know these nice features the seas looking for and frankly if this is a viable alternative we'd probably seek to be a little bit you know get a little bit more credit than we need just for those two things just to avoid future problems right like I know one time a long time ago healthy living tried to put a sculpture on their lot and they couldn't do it because they had no lot coverage available and we certainly don't want to run into a situation where the 150 homeowners somebody tries to you know put a bump out on their house to put in a fireplace and there's no lot coverage available and they can't you know make these sort of minor home improvements and they're getting sort of you know stuck so I think we'd probably look to get a little bit of a cushion there so that everybody could feel like you know in the future we're not going to have problems and you know you guys could get all of these things you're looking for so that's the road there on the left of the page you can see where it doesn't go to the property line no it's it's on the top of the page there was a rec path that kind of like where the homes aren't quite as close to the road on the top of the page there used to be a rec path that went along the front of those homes yeah on the on the west side of old farm road you see where the homes dip in so the theory was the rec path would dip in with them yeah so it's not on this one because it they took it out but on the previous yeah so it would dip into toward the units and create like a little arching right yeah I remember there was a lot of discussion about how much the board like that yeah so is there anyone on the board who would object to us asking the applicant to come back with some numbers about lot coverage that we could discuss the practical matter I mean what they're saying is perfectly reasonable my only question is how much discretion do we have to mess around with lot coverage well so the board doesn't have the ability to waive lot coverage the board has the ability to remove the public rights of way from the calculation of lot coverage so in view of that shall we ask the applicant to come back with some numbers for some data yes okay thanks all right is there any other burning issue that you need feedback on tonight so many but we forget there's only so much the board can absorb an an expected view to explain so no this is productive thank you let me just make sure no one has signed on to provide public comment that's EDC anyway no okay good so I would entertain a motion to continue this hearing until september 7th I'll make a motion to continue the hearing to september 7th thank you I'll second okay Dan seconded any discussion all in favor say aye aye opposed good we will see you back here in september and it sounds it sounds really far away yeah it's not that far away but thank you thank you oh I guess I do have an announcement I wasn't on your map by the way just going back to no not related to that I'm not related to them but the thank you guys the board's annual recess is the second meeting in August so there's only one August meeting right that's why they're to september is because there's no oh that's right second august meeting some minutes I think we just got to get you back here I don't know we're not done with our meeting frank we're not done with our meeting frank can you frank join our meeting we're still meeting thank you guys there's a there's a teacoil that's compatible with like teacoil compatible hearing aids yeah roger that's what he's just asking me I don't think yeah and then we also have a portable teacoil that it's a headset for people who are hearing impaired that want to sit so it's if you're hearing aids aren't compatible you can put on a headset that amplifies it but there's nothing for board members no it's because the stage is not just a meeting stage it's also like a performance stage I guess was the reason I was given and it would have to be a different technology okay does an auto connector do you have to push a little button you have to push a button but then we also have some headsets in the closet if someone doesn't have compatible hearing aids they can just put on a little headset do the headsets work up here no they only work in the seats okay yeah all right yeah okay well I can't do that when I wouldn't do that when there's people back there but it was a huge advantage tonight I must say amazing I have provided the feedback that it's not just this board it's other other boards from the from day one including one of the people who built this building use hearing aids and is on on one of our boards and just he sits here can't hear a darn thing oh god that's awful yeah is there a solution that to spend the extra money to put the other technology on the stage are we still yeah we're still meeting sorry yes like the sidetracked so the we need to approve the minutes of June 21st and July 6th and I believe only June 21st made it into the packet okay I did think I saw the 6th okay I move approval of the June 21st meeting minutes meeting minutes thanks any discussion any uh suggestions edits whatever all in favor of approving the minutes of June 21 say aye aye aye pose all right okay staying wasn't present and um is there any other business I guess just to mention that there's no second meeting in august okay everyone catch that okay okay all right uh I guess that's the end of the meeting thank you thank everyone when we going to have a short deliberation on one of these things yeah we can do that quickly we're ready for it there's no changes