 Wednesday, May 26th, 2021. My name is Dawn Filiburd and I'm the Chair of the Development Review Board. And with me are board members, Mark, are you with us? Mark, okay. Myself, Alyssa Eyring, and Jan Albrecht. I think Stephanie Langen is recused from this project. Isn't she, Marla? Stephanie Langen is recused and Jim Langen was unable to make it tonight. Right, okay. And also in attendance from the city of South Burlington, it is Marla Keane, our Development Review Planner, Delilah Hall, Zoning Administrator and Paul Conner. New dad, Paul Conner, congratulations, Paul. Who is the Planning Director for this city? So are there any additions, deletions, or changes in the order of agenda items? Hearing none, I will ask if there are any announcements that people need to make or want to make. Dawn, would you like to announce about meeting protocol? Or I can read it just from the top of the agenda. Meeting, meeting how to be recognized and all of that. Yeah, okay, I can do that. First of all, thank you all for joining us. This meeting is being recorded. And if anyone who wishes to be considered participant in the meeting should sign in on the chat box or send an email to Marla at m-k-e-n-e at s-burl.com. And this is necessary, it's necessary for you to sign in in case you want to, at some point in the future, want to have party status for an appeal of the board's decision. I also would ask that you mute your phone or your audio. And I think this is a small enough group, but our preference is unless you are speaking or unless you're a board member or the applicant, it's helpful if you actually turn off your video because it's confusing when there's a lot of people on the screen. Any other announcements or clarifications about procedure? Okay, we have one project to review tonight and this is a continued, continued preliminary plat, here it is. I will read it, but I need my reading glasses. It's a continued preliminary plat application, pardon me, SD 20-40 of O'Brien, a piece view 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 135 homes and single family duplex and three family dwellings on nine lots totaling 21.8 acres, 19 commercial development lots totaling 44 acres, one existing single family home and 25.1 acres of undeveloped open space, pardon me, at 500 Old Farm Road. I will ask the applicants to introduce themselves in a minute. First, I wanna ask if there are any disclosures or recusals other than Stephanie. And I myself will disclose that I own a home, a town home in the O'Brien development, but I don't believe my participation is influenced in any way by that. And if anyone disagrees, I'm happy to listen to you. Okay, so we have reviewed this application on February 17th, March 26th and April 20th, and again on May 18th. So we will be picking up where we left off from our meeting with this applicant a week ago. We reviewed a lot of comments and we have many more to review tonight. But before we start going through the staff comments, I think I want to turn it over to Marla to talk about the traffic study. And then we'd like to hear from Paul Connor about zoning issues relevant to this C commercial one and limited retail zone district. So Marla, tell us about the traffic study, please. Sure, so this project did involve a traffic study and the board, because it is a large project and involves a lot of offsite intersections, the board invoked technical review of the traffic study. One of the recommendations of the traffic study, actually there were a number of recommendations of the traffic study, excuse me, which are in the packet for the board, starting on, I guess, page four of the packet. There's a bunch of recommendations. One of those recommendations was to evaluate a single lane roundabout for Kimball Ave and Old Farm Road and also at the IFC Road. The staff recommendation regarding this comment of the independent third party technical reviewer is for the board to consider whether to direct the applicant to complete the evaluations and then any such evaluations should include an analysis of the impacts to large vehicle capacity. The board has not discussed this technical review item, but the applicant has taken it upon themselves to move forward with a roundabout study. Staff notes in the first page of the packet that it seems as though the board may, if they, first of all, need to decide if such evaluation is actually needed. And second, if the board decides to recommend such an evaluation, they should set forth some parameters. Parameters could be things like must result in level of service C or better, or must not result in impacts to adjoining properties, or must be costs no more than the currently proposed traffic signal alternatives. Any kind of parameters that would direct the applicant and provide sort of a witness test for whether the evaluation was successful and or whether the roundabouts are a no go. So I guess I'd like the board to discuss amongst themselves this recommendation of the third party technical reviewer and decide if they would like the applicant to perform an analysis or not. As in terms of staff position, we don't really feel strongly either way. The board has some experience looking at singling roundabouts on Kimball Ave when the FedEx project came along. And I think the board was, thought it wasn't a winner in that location, but it wasn't a clear loser either. It was sort of like, it's a little better to go with a signal than a roundabout and that's why we ended up with a signal there. So what are the board's thoughts on this recommendation of the independent third party technical review? Okay. Members, what are your thoughts? What page is the recommendation language in again? I mean, traffic study? We exerted it on page three of the packet on the screen, Dan. Yeah. Okay. Great, thanks. Can I have her comment? Sure, Mark. Go ahead. Thanks. I think that we should require the applicant to complete these. Those recommendations that you sort of brought up, Marla, seem reasonable in terms of, once we are able to evaluate it, we're not gonna require an undue burden, but at the same time, we want the best possible solution long-term for the traffic circulation infrastructure. I personally am not a huge fan of roundabouts, but I see their merit if they're done properly and done right. So I think a study is merited for this. And parameters, I think we can certainly do, are you looking for us to provide parameters at this meeting, Marla? Yeah, it doesn't have to be specific, but sort of things that would be a pass, fail for you if they were to evaluate a roundabout and would want them to start on the past side, obviously. They would start what, part of me? So if there's a certain thing about a roundabout that would make it a deal breaker, we would evaluate a roundabout that didn't have that characteristic. So if a breaker was taking of non-involved property, they roundabout would have to not involve other properties. Right. I think that your two to four, whatever their list of your recommendations seems reasonable to me. I think if it's comparing it to a signalized intersection and then just, we'd like to see the pros and cons of signalized versus a roundabout. You're right. If it makes sure it doesn't provide a C or less of intersection level of service, it doesn't cost more than a signalized, doesn't impact adjoining properties and should be logical and clear in terms of the traffic flow for the everyday user. Okay, good thoughts, Mark. Other people, I actually have a question. I believe we're talking three intersections in this project, is that correct? I think it's two. So it's Kimball and Old Farm. Right. And not Kennedy and two brothers. The recommendation was not to look at that one. So look at the future I see road. Okay. Computer seems to be frozen. I was gonna call on a page to look at. Page 18, well, I guess you get it. 19 is pretty good. C1 overall site plan. Tools, please. I'm doing an A1. Yeah, okay. Thanks. So the recommendation of the traffic, of the independent, their party technical review is to look at it in these two locations. Okay. Okay, great. Thank you for clarifying that. I have a question. Is there a, what's the ballpark how many years away before IC road is built? I'm looking, you said five to six. Is that what you said at the last meeting? I think it depends on the timing of projects on those lots, but I don't think it's, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect it to be in the first couple of years of the project. Well, you wanted to build the beginning of that road right away, right? Because of the construction thing. Yeah, I think we would be probably constructing the rough aspects of it in terms of a construction access right out of the starting blocks. But in terms of it actually being a usable road, I think, it would probably take a couple of years into the project before it would be accessing anything other than construction equipment. Gotcha. Thanks. So in response to that, I could agree that assessing the intersection of old farm road and Kimbell makes some sense because the road exists already and there'll be traffic through there and there is traffic. So, but I just don't require an evaluation of a roundabout at IC road. Just seems premature. Maybe we could condition it on upon X amount build out of ABC or something that would really trigger a need to evaluate it. But it would seem premature to look at it right now just because the situation will change, conditions will change, life will change seems far too early for that particular intersection. What do other board? Go ahead, Marla. They are seeking approval for the configuration of the IC road with this application though. I understand. I just know how long transportation planning things drag out and this road's not gonna be built for several years, so. What do other board members think? Can I ask a follow up question to the applicant? And I forgot what the phasing was and it sort of also follow up to Dan's question or comment. Old farm rooms is getting reconfigured right now. It sort of almost comes straight across and down and intersects Kimball a lot closer to Kennedy. When is that realignment happening in terms of the project schedule? So we talked about that at the last hearing a little bit. We have it tied to the phasing plan. I unfortunately don't have it memorized. I don't know if Evan, do you remember specific percentage? I believe it was in a year or two of the project essentially was when the construction of the road was sort of planned to start. And so you're gonna cut in the IC road as a construction access road roughed in and that'll be used for construction equipment and it'll sort of get roughed in before the realignment of old farm road occurs. Yes. Okay. All right. With that, I feel that doing both of them at the same time just from a feasibility investigation is worth it since the IC road, at least from a curb access standpoint is gonna be operating well before the old farm road is reconfigured and realigned. So I think knowing what a roundabout would do with those two intersections is sort of an important study and information to have and know. Other board members, way in. Dan, can you live with that? Sure. Okay. So we are, I just wanna be clear. We're asking the applicant to do an analysis comparing the development of a signalized two signalized intersections with a roundabout at each of those intersections and look at the pros and cons including costs of both of those options for those two intersections. Is that correct? Is that what we're looking for, Marla? Yeah, that seems to be what Mark and Dan were in favor of. I mean, given that we only have a quorum tonight it would be helpful to hear from you and Alyssa as well. I'm fine with that. I think that makes sense. No, I'm in agreement with what Mark said as well. Yeah, I mean, it's cost, it's level of service and it's impact to adjoining parcels. Right. So there's a kind of the criteria. Now, when would we be looking at this? Would we not close a preliminary plat until that analysis is done? So I gave the example of the FedEx project. That project did not look at a roundabout until the final plat stage of review. If the impact is minimal and the cost is comparable it may be reasonable to just kind of think of those interchangeable parts. But if the applicant feels strongly that they would rather have that solidified for a final plat, I'm fine with it. I'd be at either for a final or final. So why don't we ask the applicant? Evan, Andrew, what are your thoughts? Yeah, we would, we've already done most of the analysis necessary. I think we'd just assume sort of button that up and resubmit it to the board for review to get impact on. I'm not an engineer, but I do think that the sort of ancillary impacts of the roundabout sort of get into grating of the site roads and the project, you know, well on the roundabout and changing intersection elevations and things. And maybe Scott, could you explain that piece of it and why that is important that we sort of get that resolution? Sure, I can, because what we're, we have looked at this a little bit. I mean, we didn't have a ton of time, but we did it enough to get some sort of large picture ideas of the impacts on the road. And one thing that we're concerned about is that anyone who's ever driven down by this project on Campbell Avenue would recognize that you're looking at a hill, it's a hillside. And at any intersection, whether it's a traditional intersection or a roundabout, your new road coming into that intersection has to come in at a relatively flat grade or a certain amount of length before you can sort of take off up the hill at a steeper slope. And so the addition of the roundabouts gonna cause that to go another 30, 40 feet into the project cause, you know, what are already some very deep cuts. When I say cut, the finish, what I mean is that the finished grade of the road is gonna be, you know, six to eight feet to 10 feet below the existing grade out there. So we're gonna be creating basically tunnels up the slope. And we were doing that to some extent anyway, but by virtue of having to start, you know, further into the project, that's gonna exacerbate that situational line. To the point where it's gonna affect other intersections. Scott, I hear your point on that issue, but you also, you know, and I know you have to follow, you know, DOT standards and grading and stuff, but you know, Winooski has its, you know, it's an oval roundabout, but it's on a hill, it's on the slant. And I would point out that that was obviously a retrofit. And when you do retrofits, you know, certain standards are waived all the time and I don't think public works is very interested in waiving a lot of those for a brand new project. Well, and that's the criteria we're asking you, if you present it and say, you know, public works isn't gonna accept it because it's gonna have too much of a grade, that's part of the criteria we're asking you to look at. Yeah, I think that's fair. I think our only point is that, you know, we'll certainly produce a more robust memo in regard to this that can get reviewed, but we sort of figure it out because I think it wouldn't just be, you know, pulling the traffic light out and popping the rotary in, right? It would be extensive regrading and re-intersection designs. It would impact, you know, numerous aspects of the project, you know, well beyond just being able to kind of plug and play it. So we do wanna get it figured out. Okay, so are you pretty clear about what the board is asking of you, Evan, Andrew? Yeah, Roger, do you have any questions? Roger is the traffic engineer. And I apologize, I did not ask the applicant to introduce themselves. So let's just take a brief pause now. Who is here for the applicant, please? Evan Langfield from O'Brien Brothers. Thank you. Andrew. Andrew Gill with O'Brien Brothers. All right. And I'm Scott Homestead from Krebs and Lansing Consulting Engineers. Okay, and Roger. And I'm Roger Dickinson from Lamarone Dickinson Engineers. Thank you. I'm sorry I forgot to do that. You should ask Evan. I'm Roger, I'm not sure if you've been on any before, if anyone needs to be sworn in, that hasn't been sworn in before? Yes, I was on one of the initial hearings a couple of meetings ago. But I'd be happy to get sworn in again if- Okay, Scott, you've been sworn in, haven't you? Yes, I've been there every meeting. Okay, all right. I think we're good. I think we're good. Okay, so it's clear what you need to do, what we're asking you to do. And it sounds like it's time down to move on to a discussion of zoning with Paul Conner. Paul, are you with us? Oh, I was supposed to text them while we were getting ready. Sorry, I failed the other one. I'm still here. That's all. Consider yourself text. Hello. Thank you. Just one moment here. Let me just get myself organized for a moment. I'll public it's organized. Is there a particular sheet that I should show at this time or? I would be ready with a couple. There's some C1LR concepts. And is there, is this Paul, are you presenting zoning in relation to one of the staff comments? Yeah, basically what I wanted to do was just take a very short period of time to give an introduction to your discussion about the C1LR area. So a series of staff notes beginning on, I believe it's page five, talk about different aspects of the C1LR area. Sorry, page seven. But this is sort of an introduction to that. Okay, there we go. Okay, thank you guys. All right, so I guess what I wanted to do, and thank you for giving me a few minutes to just give a little bit of a broad, big picture here. Delilah, why don't you turn off the screen share because I'm gonna show a couple of things. I'd like to just chat for a minute first. Great, thank you. So the C1LR district is, there's only one place that it exists in the city and it's at this intersection. And it's sort of a dual purpose. It's commercial one, which is the primary zoning district that exists along Shelburne Road and portions of Williston Road. And it says limited retail, that's the LR. And the purpose statement, which is in your packet, describes that it is encouraging general retail, specific intersections in the city to serve nearby residential areas. So that's one thing that I think, just like to sort of keep in mind. Commercial areas are intended to serve the convenience shopping needs of local residents and employers, employees, location and design are intended to make accessible both by motorized vehicle and by foot, thereby reducing traffic volume in the vicinity. It notes that there are size limitations on certain land uses. And so, for example, anything, the principal one is retail. So retail is limited to a total maximum square footage in the district. And I'm just gonna double check that while we're speaking here, seven. So it's limited to being no more than 5,000 square feet, gross floor area per tenant. So small type uses and a building footprint in a building footprint of 15,000 square feet. So just keeping that in mind, that doesn't mean that there couldn't be larger residential buildings. Couldn't mean that there couldn't be larger buildings that contain other components, but it is intended to scale a little bit to meet that purpose statement of serving the immediate neighborhood. So the second piece that I wanted to speak about as it relates to this is just thinking sort of from a perspective of what this site is and what this is a junction of. We're really excited to have the folks from O'Brien Brothers thinking about this and creating this neighborhood in this area. That's great. Sort of a focal point of the hillside neighborhood, of the under review east view neighborhood of various neighborhoods along Kennedy Drive that have been around for a long time. And also the employers and all the employees who are along Kimball Avenue. So it's sort of a juncture point of all of that. And so as you think about this being sort of a hub and also a gateway, we'd encourage you to think about how do you arrange this space to be that focal point of destination from a commercial perspective? In terms of scale, I mentioned one thing about the retail. I'd also encourage the board to think in terms of how to scale this appropriately to what's next to it going up the hill and then in adjacencies. And I think that there are some opportunities to think of some housing types. And the applicant may very well already be thinking about these. We understand that they're at a concept level but some housing types that we're not necessarily seeing quite as frequently in the city. Things that might be, not necessarily one, two and three plexes at one end or 40 plexes at the other end but things that can find this transition point places like the either mixed use buildings like where the small dog electronics is at the corner of Pine and Flynn and Burlington. Something that's residential. Mark mentioned Winooski and it's roundabout just to block off that roundabout is where the old peaking duck used to be. There was an infill housing in there and then behind it is a series of very compact eight or 10 townhomes all grouped together. Here in South Burlington, there's a couple of examples that might not be on the fronting side of Kimball Avenue but might be models to think about as you relate as it connects back into the rest of the neighborhood like the 12 plexes that are in South Village which create a transition from single family housing and duplexes to a larger scale. And my last example was gonna be that the just around the corner over on 116 there's some great infill six plexes that have been built in fact by the O'Brien brothers. I say all of this and I wanna be clear that we're not advocating for less density. The zoning district allows for 12 units an acre. We have no problem with that. We're really just thinking about how do we arrange land uses to foster that pedestrian environment? And there's some great examples out there that could be 12 plexes. They may be even more but have sort of a different facing. And so I just like you to consider that. And then the last piece that I wanted to mention briefly was as I was noting before the sort of destination point. There's sort of two large blocks in the C1LR area that are proposed by the applicant. The one that is further to the east has a concept of a little green area in the middle of it. And I think that that's a really neat feature. And I would encourage the board and the applicant to consider on the piece that is closest to the intersection of Kimball and Kennedy, what design features that don't have to be determined now but can be sort of put into the design palette essentially can be put into to unify this area, to not have it be a series of buildings but rather have it be a destination neighborhood, have a civic spaces that make it that destination. So as you think about the applicant's proposal, which we support of coming up with sort of a design palette, a set of criteria that would then move forward into future phases of design that you consider some of these parameters in addition to the building envelope standards the applicant has come up with which we think has some strong merit to them. So that's kind of my introduction. Marla, did I miss any points that I said I would talk about? Marla, are you muted? Sorry, thank you. One of the other things I wrote down, I don't know what I meant by it is street presence comma parking as indicators. That's the only other thing. Okay, well, I think that as I mentioned, thinking about this as a gateway, thinking about how to make sure that it is both from the intersection that Delilah has shown up of Kim and Kennedy that there's a strong presence there but also that it's creating an inviting environment. And we understand we're not blind to the fact that there is a strong need for parking with any development but how does it get sort of tucked in a manner that it's not a dominant feature and what parameters would the board want to think about to support that? So the one other example I wanted to give you, I gave a few examples of that sort of mixed scale housing on the sort of creating a focal point side. Some members of the board I know were on a few years ago when the Larkin Terrace project was first proposed. There's one building there now, corner of Fayette and Shelburne. And one of the components that the applicant presented at that time was a unifying feature through the whole thing of a pedestrian walkway, sort of an access that goes through it. And the parking arranges itself so that it can go over it and goes through it but it's a very strong civic component that has benches through it and that kind of thing. And it really sort of draws people or will as the project is evolved draws people through in addition to having the street now. So it doesn't feel as though it's dominated by a parking area. So again, it's early in the project for these folks, we're not recommending that they do a full design for the project, but as you think about the parameters and the expectations that would come out, you could consider things like there should be a strong civic component that connects it through or a certain size or things like that. The applicant has proposed some street presence that you'll get into specifically and a number of design criteria which we urge them to do and is a great starting point for this discussion. So that's what I've got. So Paul, would it be appropriate to now step through the C1LR staff comments that begin on page eighth of the packet? Sure. May we just take a brief pause and ask the applicant if they have any questions of Paul at this point? Yeah, so this is Evan. First of all, I appreciate everything Paul said. I think that generally speaking, we're pretty aligned on our thoughts with City staff here. I mean, what we've kind of internally referred to as the commercial corner has always been the focal point of the development and just kind of stepping back and looking at the broader development, the vision has always been to have a variety of living styles, have a variety of employment centers and then the kind of commercial slash retail amenities that would serve this community and sort of the broader community. And in keeping with the existing development pattern at the south end of the site, we chose to, again, with the existing hillside development, we really stripped a lot of the existing density there and shifted it north into that six lot subdivision of the commercial slash multi-family subdivision and then really concentrated on kind of gaining density, bigger buildings, more commercial focus as we got to that Kimball frontage because you're going from really a residential kind of style at the south end of Old Farm Road and close to the old condo complex is along Kennedy and then getting more commercialized as you get closer to the Kimball frontage. So it seems like a natural transition but it also provides a lot of, again, kind of living opportunities in a variety of different manners. So I think that everything that Paul said more generally in favor of, without getting into specifics, I think that's kind of the general feel and we feel that that Kimball Old Farm Road reorientation is truly the gateway to this site along with, I think that the Kennedy two brothers access is also pretty significant access, but I think the Kimball Kennedy because it goes into that commercial corner is really sort of the focal point from our perspective. And I think we're aligned and coming up with some form of landscape design slash pedestrian amenities, et cetera that has some sort of consistency as it goes throughout the development. So appreciate Paul's kind of giving that preamble and we'll just turn it back to you, Don. Thank you, Evan. Okay, let's turn to the staff comments. We can have them on the screen, please, I don't have another screen with me tonight. Paul, you want me to say something? Yeah, go ahead. Can I interject on a separate topic just for 10 seconds here? I apologize, but I wanted to just note we had a conversation, we've had a few conversations with folks. This is on a separate item on the agenda related to the sidewalk and rec path facility on Old Farm Road, sort of heading south in the project. And we've had some really productive and thoughtful discussions. We've also got some input in a letter from other neighbors. We let the neighbors that we spoke with today know that in out of respect for the fact that they gave us some ideas just today, some other neighbors gave feedback just the other day and the applicants thinking about this that we told them that we would not get into this discussion tonight. We really want to let people have a chance to think about us, think about the feedback that they gave us, them thinking about the discussion. So I just wanted, if anybody was sticking on the agenda tonight, just for that item, to say that we'd recommend that we continue to a future night. Thank you, Paul. So what that means is we will not be closing this preliminary plat tonight. We'll be continuing it. But I think that's very fair. Thank you. Right, so we're taking the opportunity to sort of digest the information that we've gotten. The applicants taking the opportunity to digest the information that they've gotten and we'll come into the continued meeting, no much more prepared to have a continued conversation about the rec paths and sidewalks. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Are we picking up at number 32? Sorry, Don, not to belabor the point, but would it be possible? There are quite a few neighbors on, to let folks know when that continued date would be in case they don't want to hang around until the end of the meeting. Good question, Andrew. Sure. So we didn't have been doing, which is save time as a future agenda. So unfortunately, I don't have any room until July 6th, which is one month out. So it'll have to be July 6th. Let me say that in a shorter way. Great. Give us time for the traffic memo. Great. Okay. Thank you. Shall we turn to the comments? Oh, I'm sorry. Wait. Someone raised their hand and I don't know your name and I can't see you anymore. Whoever just raised their hand, would you please identify yourself and... Yes. Hello? That was me. What is your name, please? Who that is, who's trying to speak? Yeah, can you hear me? I think you're probably in trouble with our audio. Okay. Are you in a butter? Can you hear me? Yeah, a little better. Try it again. I'm also Marla, Marla Wiener. Okay. I think you're with us last week, weren't you? Marla Wiener. Yes. We can't hear you, Marla. It might make sense to turn off video. You think that'll help, Andrew? Sometimes. Oh, okay. And with us, you. Marla, are you with us? I think that we're going to have to ask you to submit your question or comments in writing to Marla Keane, because we can't hear you. Yes. Is that okay with you? Yes. Okay, great. Thank you. We look forward to hearing you. I guess, I guess, um, Yes. Okay. Thank you. Can you hear me? You all right? We are having difficulty hearing you. Okay. Yes. I just, thank you for. We look forward to hearing you. Sorry. Thank you. Okay. Let's roll with the staff comments. Okay. All right. Okay, good. Thanks. So I think we're at 32 probably. Okay. Talking about design guide. Steph, do you want me to read the comments or do people feel that they've had a chance to read them so in the interest of time, we can go through them? What's the board's pleasure? No need to read them. Okay. Thank you. That's my opinion. Pardon me? That's just my opinion. I'm just one member though. Okay. Anyone who is opposed to me not reading these. Okay. Let's go through them. I will mention the, um, the topic and assume that everyone's read them. So number 32 is in, in regard to the design guide. And we'll ask the applicants to comment. That seems in line with what Paul and Evan were talking about. I think it's just more in the spirit of getting the conversation started. I think we're, I think we're good. Good, thank you. All right, move on to 33. This is in relation to intersections and gateways. It seems to me this also relates to what we just discussed unless someone doesn't agree. Yeah, I think it does. And, you know, I think to the point of, you know how the intersection can serve as an attractive gateway. I mean, certainly open to feedback from the board. You know, we have submitted some schematic layouts of the development. We've also submitted, you know, the regulating draft regulating plan or, you know, design guide as we're calling it. You know, there are some challenges with this project. I think everybody, you know probably is sick of hearing us talk about the fact that it's on a hill, but it is on a hill. And that poses challenges. And, you know, in particular with the corner of Kimball and Kennedy. I'm not sure if you guys ever have looked at our site from the corner but there is a very steep bank that goes up to the project site and, you know, Scott would be more familiar with the grades than I am. We did submit. And I think it would probably be good to just pull them up and show you guys the sections that we submitted just to get you sort of oriented to what the grade is doing and how it relates to the roadways that are adjacent to it. If that's possible to pull up. Do you know where that would be, Andrew? We had submitted it as a supplemental prior to the 518 hearing. I could email it again or if you guys- Is it possible to find that? I believe it's like exhibit 42 or something. If you can hold just a second, please. Supplemental from 518? Yes, I believe so. Exhibit 41 to the applicant. You're better off going into the project folder and opening exhibit 41. I don't see it. Oh, actually, there it is. It's page two of the supplemental from 518 if you're already in that one. Oh, I got it. Yeah, hold on. Do you have the first page in there? It shows where the sections are. Perfect. Zoom in a little bit. Where do you want to go? Just on anything. Just in. There we go. So if you guys see the red lines that are drawn on this plan, just to kind of orient you to the sections that are on the next sheet. So you can see there's a section running, essentially, from O'Brien Farm Road down to the corner of Kennedy and Kimball. There's a section basically running across the buildings on Lot 22 and 23, all the way down to Kimball Avenue. We have a section that's showing a little bit of what Scott was talking about earlier of how the road needs to sort of go into the hillside to climb at a grade that is acceptable to, you know, all of the different road regulating agencies. And then there's another one further down the page that runs through sort of more toward the area where the proposed dog park and playground is across that section of road. And so if you go back to the next page, you can, you know, so this first section is running to the Kennedy and Kimball Drive inner Kimball Avenue intersection. So if you zoom in a little bit on that upper portion. Oops. Yeah, you can you can kind of see. You know, that that's O'Brien Farm Road on your left hand side. So that's the O'Brien Farm Road. And you can see the elevation of Kennedy and down at the bottom. And you can see that bank that steps up pretty, pretty quickly. Scott, do you know so where approximately on this line would one of those buildings be located? Is that shown on your solid line? Sort of where the development is? So there'd be you're crossing several buildings, but, you know, the buildings along the, you know, Kimball and Kennedy, you would be to the to the screen right. And and for clarity, what that little dimension says at the end without zooming in, that's 21 feet. So basically, we're talking about putting, you know, the lower floor of the building or parking lot, you know, 21 feet above Kennedy Draft. Um, sorry, I just want to interject because I think this is obvious to some people who look at these kinds of plans. Every time it may not be obvious to everyone. These sections have a vertical exaggeration of two to one, which means that the steps that are shown on your page are actually half as steep as they appear to be. Okay. Thank you, Marla. Yeah, we got to fit them on the. So the, but the, I think, you know, the point here is just to show, so you can see how you zoom in the sort of the straight solid line is the proposed grading. Is that right? That's correct. And so you can kind of see, you know, on the one even below it, the section heading down toward Kimball Avenue, how the proposed parking area is ending up, you know, even slightly higher than the existing grade. And then, you know, would be would be sort of landscaped or banked down toward Kimball Avenue. And so, you know, there are some questions later on in the staff comments about the on the design guide. We've got this red line. It's like a landscaped, you know, it's a buffer essentially. And there were some comments as to what that buffer was. And what that is, is basically us saying, you know, we have, we're going to have to use this slope to gain this grade. And somehow we need to, you know, we need to landscape that and use that to create this sort of sense of ways that that folks are talking about. And so I I think I just understood it wasn't 100% clear. So what you're saying is that for the majority of the area in the C1LR, you're actually proposing to reduce, I wouldn't say level, but to reduce the grade and then catch up to existing grade at the far north end? Is that more or less what you're saying? I'm not sure. Scott, do you have a I think that's true and what it's being dictated by are roads that are already built. So we have set grades over on Old Farm Road and the future of others drive that are set. And if we're going to build parking lots and only so steeply, we can't build parking at 10% grade. What some of these existing grades are. And so, you know, to build a functional project, we're going to be on a fill on the north end. And I think, you know, our intent would be, you know, to sort of figure out how to use that. I mean, everybody who's driven around enough can probably think of a place where they've seen, you know, a building off of a road that has a really attractive connection to the road. And I think, you know, we haven't gotten into that yet, but that would be our intent to sort of figure out how to use this and to create an identity with this hillside. I mean, it's certainly not going to be proposed to just be a meadow. You have any comments for what that might be? I'll go ahead, Dan. Yeah, you know, it's interesting where we're kind of trying to construct a semi-urban environment. And visually, and again, I know it's just an intersection and there's office buildings nearby, but you're trying to create something new. I mean, the hill in many ways is a real advantage. And I know this is a big stretch, but if you walk around New Orleans, what's the most engaging feature is all the balconies. And it makes it an exciting place to be, these people, and not just Mardi Gras, but in general. Or you think of other urban environments where there's balconies. So I could see something like a promenade or a restaurant deck at that corner. Again, it's hard to envision it, but if we think down the road when everything's built out, that might be a way to, in other words, it's not just a facade. It's some sort of public space where people are walking there or it's, you know, it's got tables. It's got balustrades and then, you know, granite or something. It's some sort of communal gathering space that it may be private, it may be a restaurant deck, but at least it would be something besides a big hill and then some blank facade or office building thing that doesn't really engage it, you know. So, sort of the thought, or a balcony or something. It's all about how to make it interesting. Yeah, I think that's right. The height is an advantage of the right. The height is a feature in and of itself. Right. At all. So, use it as best you can. I think that's great feedback. And, you know, I would say to Mark's point, you know, no, we don't have, we don't have concepts of this. Certainly, we certainly can produce that as part of the final application. I think, you know, we would be able to sort of come up with a design for this buffer, you know, of some sort or some sort of character images of things that we could, you know, do to sort of to create that sort of environment you're talking about, Dan. You know, I just, I agree wholeheartedly with you, Dan. In fact, I would have to say I was driving around the neighborhood the other day and I thought, I love the way it's fit into a hillside. I think hillsides can be very charming and very interesting. And I think that's a real asset. I'm sure it's a pain in the neck for development, but I think it's an asset. And I think that it can be very interesting. Any other comments before we move on? Yeah, I have a question. And if I see Paul raising his hand, but I guess this would be sort of like Paul, Marla, applicant, you know, Paul, you mentioned that, you know, one of the light retail, the LR component of this is 5,000 square foot envelopes, no more than three, you know, envelopes or tenant spaces in one building, so 15,000 square feet, but plus other uses in bigger buildings. What are the other uses in the bigger buildings, you know, in this district? Sure, Mark. Largely speaking, the uses that are allowed in our main commercial districts are allowed here. So without, you know, going into detail, generally speaking, you know, service-based offices, medical offices, those are all permissible. I think the retail component of it was really intended to make sure that it's, that the scale of retail is not, you know, completely outsized to the, you know, secondary node that this is in the city. Okay. It is not a target, you know. And is there a required mix of light retail to commercial? There is not. The, you know, that can be a discussion point for the board, but there's no required mixes of any of this in the, in the, in this district. Okay. And is there any residential allowed within this district? There is. It's allowed at 12 units an acre. So that's the same as portions of Williston Road and a little bit less than Shelbourne Road. So it's substantial. And as I said earlier, there's, we're not intending to discourage, so it's a great spot for it. But we would encourage the board and applicant to think about, you know, ways to break it up, especially where it might come in contact with the duplexes along Two Brothers Drive dead end. Oh, sorry. No, no, please go ahead, Mark. I was just gonna, I was just gonna say that, you know, because with that information in mind of sort of like the mixed use development, you know, this obviously has some great opportunity to get some real vibrant mixed use going on, you know, with some residential, some retail and some office. So you have activity during the day, in the evening and at night, that you don't just have this thing become a ghost town at 5.15 in the evening. But it's also something that, you know, has some revenue drive, but also has the support for both self-supported with some residential and commercial office space, but also for the development itself, with some, you know, markets, some restaurants, you know, some, you know, hand storey shopping, retail type thing. And I think with the hillside, as Dan was talking about, there's some great opportunity for, you know, playing off of it, you know, with having like some one-story structure on the south side with two-story on the north. And instead of, you know, maybe building on fill, you get some underground parking on the lower level that, you know, you can play with the facades to have some open-air parking opening out on the lower level with the, you know, retail office above it. So you don't just get one big blank wall, you know, going up two stories on the north side of the development where you have one story on the south side, you know. So I just think that, yeah, and you can tie it all together with some, you know, some paths and some, you know, landscaping that's like a vein that runs through the six lots. So I think that this really does have a great opportunity to be like the gateway into the hillside development. And with the main new reconfigured O'Brien, or Old Farm Road, and the sort of the access points coming off of it going into the development, you know, I love, I'm excited to see sort of your preliminary sort of design concepts for it. Boy, I can tell you're an architect. That's great feedback and input. Any other discussion that the board wants to have before we move on? Okay. Next staff comment, please. Paul had comment. Okay. Go ahead, Paul. Thanks, Mark. I just wanted to make a note to what board member Dan was just speaking about that there is, we agree that there's some great opportunities here for, you know, to take advantage of the slope. I do think it's important that the board note that as the applicants described it, and correct me if I'm wrong, Andrew, but in the image that you're seeing there, the concept as shown would have the buildings beginning 20 feet above the elevation of Kimball Avenue. So that green space that you're seeing there, is that correct, Andrew? I think that's about right. Scott would be more authoritative on that than me, but that is my understanding about 20 feet. So I guess, you know, based on that, I would encourage the board and the applicant to really, you know, the challenges also present really unique design opportunities. But, you know, that's a substantial change of 20 feet before you start the building. So really think creatively about how to, you know, not have it be, not have it have the feel of a wall. I think Paul, that was my comment about if you put lower level parking on the ground level, you know, you wouldn't start with a wall. You might start with a column, a series of columns that opens into the parking. And the building can have balconies above that to break up. So you don't just get a wall starting 20 feet up. You know, you can break up the facade and the elevation and the massing. And then you could also, you know, when I'm looking at this going down Kimball, the two long elongated buildings on the east side. Yeah, you can get a great opportunity to get some pedestrian access into the C1LR there with some terrace steps and, you know, landscaping, as well as, you know, further down at the corner. So I think that there's some great ways to make the connections and not have the buildings feel as though you've got this, you know, tight slope up to a edge of a building and then go straight up 20 or 30 feet, which is going to have a negative impact on that facade elevation on the site. I think you have to find a way to communicate and engage on Kimball rather than turn your back on Kimball with these buildings. I appreciate Mark talking about terracing too because that's always sort of been, in my mind too, how to make that slope interesting. I think you could do a lot with planting there and kind of step it back gradually as you go up the hill and really make it interesting. And particularly on that, where the actual Kimball Kennedy intersection is, I think there's an opportunity to do something there. That's really cool. And, you know, to Dan's point, we've always looked at this as the topography of the site as being a differentiator and a benefit to us. And while it does create its challenges, I think it does differentiate ourselves from a lot of other developments where, you know, they're flat and you can build on that site. But I think the whole site is already Don pointed out a level of character that you don't typically see. Okay. I'm wondering, I don't know if it's like outside of the scope of what you're able to do or what consider doing, but perhaps like commissioning murals on some of the large buildings and involving the local artist community could be a really cool way to sort of make the intersection more interesting and tie the project into the community in a different way. Interesting idea. Yeah, I would say to the point of the staff comment and, you know, to the point of getting something approved at Final Platt, you know, we I think we would think, you know, there's a lot that we can, you know, it's sort of up in the air because we don't know what particular uses in the buildings are and we don't know a lot of things. But I think if we have a sort of established green belt here and Scott sort of understands what the grades look like that we should be able to put together, you know, some sort of exhibit that can speak to like what that what that might look like or would look like, you know, sort of depending on how specific we can get with with the sort of unknowns that we have. But I think we could certainly come up with something and submit it with the Final Platt application that sort of looked at this this setback area, you know, from on Kimball and Kennedy and sort of ways to create connections at the points where we have the building frontages and sort of what that what that can look like. If that makes sense to you guys. Yeah, I think we can engage our landscape architects flagged Hodgson to really kind of put together some interesting concepts that might help to kind of illustrate a little bit. Thank you. Great. Okay, let's move on. Thank you all for great input. Number 34, and this relates to facade, I feel like we've covered this when anyone disagree or have anything to add to this. Unfortunately, these comments are a little bit jumping around in terms of like big picture, a little picture, big picture, little picture, this is a little picture comment, where the applicants table of the like design features says, you know, we'll have such and such percent glazing on the primary facade and such and such percent glazing on the secondary facade. This is a detailed comment pertaining to, well, what is a primary facade and what is a secondary facade? Comment is that all the facades, pages so now I've lost it. All the facades facing Kennedy, Kimball and Old Farm generally fit with what we primary facades in other zoning districts. The interior roadways would be considered secondary facades. So if there's no questions on that. Yeah, I think so just, you know, do you guys have the actual plan that we made the, you know, the like red, white and blue and black guide? I guess it's sort of not here or there, but the, we had on the guide, there's a line, it's like a gray striped line that is meant to indicate what side would be the primary facade. And on, on the plan that gray and white striped line goes along Kennedy, Kimball, and then up Old Farm Road. So we were envisioning the same as what you're saying. So the, you know, the secondary facades here are facing the parking areas essentially, in the way we, you know, sort of envision the guide working. Okay. Anything else board on that comment, staff comment? Let's move on to the next one. I have a comment on 35 and actually staff suggestion just above line the red number 35 of staff could support a proposal to build out a percentage of each facade with non-garage space. And I did maybe ask both Paul and Marla on this a little bit. My feedback, well, I get the point that we don't want garages to be dominant, especially within the residential context. I mean, is it part of the urban landscape also that I'm thinking of older urban landscapes obviously of, look, there's the parking garage entrance. And while we don't want it to dominate a building or a facade, it does signal to the vehicle drivers and visitors where the parking is. So I would support something that would keep that option open, albeit as long as it's not a big section of the facade. So Dan, to your question, you know, I think we try to write these as best we could to sort of present that there's some give and take here. And I think, you know, part of the comment there was the intent is proposing on various lots about 50% lot build up and then the remainder of it as shown could all be parking. They're then asking for a portion of each of the buildings to then parking. So, you know, I think when our perspective to you would be that might be too much in total. So, you know, if a portion of the area that is shown as parking, you know, right up to the street becomes a civic space, or if a portion of the greater portion of the total frontage is a building, then, you know, then we could certainly revisit the comment. But I think our concern is that if you took the total amount to the frontage and you said what portion of it is either structured parking or surface parking, it's a substantial amount. Yeah. Okay, thanks. I think that's a good comment and a good way to look at it because I think to Andrew and Evan's point or, you know, direction, you know, you do need to do a test study because last thing, yeah, as developers, you don't want to build too much parking because structured parking is very expensive and, you know, surface parking is cheaper, but you still have to do storm water and infrastructure to support it. And I think if you do a successful use development, you know, you could certainly do a certain amount of shared parking. And I myself would much rather see more structured parking below the buildings and give some flexibility to the percentage of facade, you know, that would allow it and given the location of it, you know, on this diagram that we're looking at here with the red-black and blue lines and to make the interior of these buildings have some selective parking as needed for sort of immediate, you know, short-term use, but to try to get some, you know, I'm thinking that this sort of vein that goes through the whole hall six lots gives some great opportunity to get rid of some of that surface parking, move it underneath the buildings and get like a common pedestrian, I would say, landscape mall kind of feel going through these things to connect them all together. I know you have some topography to deal with, but I think it's probably relatively common at that, you know, elevation going through the center of those six lots parallel to Kimball. And I think that, you know, you do need to figure out how much parking you need so that you don't build too much. And I think right now it shows a lot of parking in the interior of these blocks. Thanks, Mark. Applicant, do you have anything to say in response to that? I would say, you know, we concur that we don't want to build, you know, a single space more than we have to build. And so, you know, we will certainly do more analysis on, you know, as the buildings come to fruition, we actually have uses that would go into the buildings, you know, just so everybody's aware in the back of our minds, and this is really a conversation for the Planning Commission and Planning and Zoning staff that will take place at a later date. But we've always kind of coveted having some sort of community-scale market onsite, which the zoning regulations do not allow for. So if you think about like the Shelburne market or like the Max market in Stowe, so that kind of scale of a market that could serve a community of this scale, which the current Food Hub allowance doesn't allow for those 5,000 square foot units and a 15,000 square foot footprint. Again, it's not currently permissible, but it's a conversation for another day. But that's sort of also informed some of the layout here as well. Okay. Thank you. Just to sort of, you know, Delilah has the plan up at this point, I just kind of maybe want to clarify that the, you know, in the plan that we drew, so the plan you're looking at, the areas where the blue line is shown are areas where we're saying that within a building, and maybe we should clarify this to Paul's point, but that within a building that those areas would be where parking garage could be exposed to the street. And so, you know, we've analyzed it pretty carefully and determined that these buildings, you know, on these corners, you know, that this is the way the grading is going to work, right? So that underground parking is feasible and that in those locations, in order to build the buildings in this layout, roads in this layout, you would in fact have, you know, a walkout sort of basement condition in those locations, right? So there's no real other way to do it. So then the question is how much of that parking should become some sort of, you know, street-facing usable space and not be parking? And I think, you know, in the, we had a lot of conversation about this in the hillside project, we had presented some really nice exhibit in terms of how to screen the parking or how to make the parking lively, you know, using to Alyssa's point, I think we had, we had sort of looked at, you know, burls of some sort in the parking garage openings, green screens, different metal grates. You know, I was in my brother's house in Newton this weekend and drove past a building on 95 that had, you know, it looked like it was part of the office and it was a parking garage and you couldn't really tell because the treatment on the openings was so similar to the glazing of the office windows. So, you know, I think our intention would be to treat these openings with all of these different things that we're showing here, these sort of unique and artsy ways of doing it. But what we wanted to solidify with this plan was that, you know, in order for these roads to work and these buildings to work, these areas where the blue lines are shown are going to have a, you know, basement level parking. And that's why we had put it on there. Certainly if the building is not, you know, built out to an extent that it's shown, the need for parking would lessen. And so I don't really know how to tie that together, but, you know, obviously we don't need as much parking if we're not building buildings that are shown. And, you know, just another point on the plan while we're all looking at it. So, you know, the buildings that are shown are a concept. The regulating plan is saying that the dark black lines that you're seeing, like the big thick ones, those would be the basically the required frontage for the development, right? So any project we proposed in no event would the building not cover that much of the street presence? It could certainly cover more. And, you know, it doesn't match the buildings one for one because we're not, you know, it's a conceptual plan and we're not sure, you know, what those uses are going to be. And so we don't want to come ourselves into the most, you know, sort of to a single development plan, right? And that's why the lines are a little smaller than the buildings that are shown. And just like, since we're talking about it, there's another comment a little bit later on in regard to, well, if you don't build the buildings as big as you're showing, and you only build them to the minimum, which is the black line that you've done, you know, what are you going to do with all that other space? And I think that's a great point. And I don't think we have any opposition to saying, you know, if we, you know, we can figure out a way to say, if we're not building the buildings as big as shown, and we are in fact just doing the minimum frontage that, you know, the additional, some additional percentage should be created into some sort of a, you know, a public or a civic space that creates something desirable, right? And it's not just an empty void. You know, so I think our intent is to develop it more in line with the conceptual plan shown. Can we take a little pause and get some board feedback? Because Andrew just made, like, three points, and I just don't want to move on without the board weighing in on them. And I, you know, Dawn, to be sensitive to your excellent timekeeping skills, I think that we're kind of covering staff comments 35 through 38 right now. So hopefully this kind of fits in. That's great. Yeah. No, it's good. Good conversation. So the first of Andrew's point was that there is this idea that the parking will be screened, but it will represent a significant portion, or could represent a significant portion of the street frontage. And I think one of the feedback, one of the items that the board provided its feedback on Tillside was that that's okay for some of the building frontages, but a certain amount does also need to be functional building activated space rather than screened space. And so if we could go back to that color plan, you know, where is the board on this? And you know, is this blue? Andrew, you're saying blue is what you're asking to be allowed to be building that is also parking, right? Yeah, exactly. And I think, you know, to your point, I don't think that our request is that entire blue area would be parking. Clearly, there's going to need to be building access in that area in the form of some percentage. So, you know, obviously, we're going to want doors to the building and the street presence, you know, and during an exiting similar to what we had in Hillside, right? We ended up with pedestrian access, two pedestrian accesses per side. And I think we also ended up with some small, you know, sort of active areas, if I'm remembering right. Okay, thoughts on, on whether they're on the right track. I mean, I think this is something we're definitely going to have to get more details on it final. But is this the right track? Should they be looking at, you know, prescribing, proposing a specific amount of area that can be parking and the remainder has to have be more active? Provide some feedback. I'm not opposed to some of the blue there where the parking is. As long as there's a second story on top of it or a story on top of it, that draws the eye, you know, I definitely like those screening concepts, whether it's plantings or metallic elements or other design features that hide the fact that there's a parking deck essentially there. But there's got to be something above it that draws the eye so that people don't realize it's a parking spot. So that's my thought. Other members? Yeah, Don, I'll say that, you know, obviously I'd be rather hypocritical if I said I didn't support this. And this is exactly what I described, you know, before I took a look at this blue, green and black drawing. But I do, you know, I think that, you know, as the applicant has stated and as staff has brought up, you know, we're going to have to have some actual building facade connection along those lines to actually connect people from the street in and then break up the parking garage with the screening elements. And then to Dan's point, you know, that you then get some active engagement on the second floor, you know, whether it's retail restaurant decks, you know, exterior open air decks, you get, you know, retail or commercial building, you know, with, you know, but it's really going to come down to the details. And the applicant knows that, you know, the, you know, the lobbies for entering the building and going up to the second floor from both the parking garage access as well as from street access. So I'm supportive of it, but I do recognize the need to not have it just be a long line of open air parking, you know, with even just screening, because I think that could start to get monotonous. You have to have the break in the facade with building elements and different materials. Some variety. Okay. Any other comments or thoughts? It's a little hard to visualize, but I think based on what you're saying and describing, I think you're sort of on the right track. I'd be interested to see where you go with your designs. Okay. Marla, you were on a roll. Go ahead. The other thing that Andrew brought up was these thicker black lines being sort of the minimum frontage build out. And then, you know, if the buildings are minimum, you know, does the entire remaining space become like a lawn or does it become a parking lot or does it become something more? And I would love to see, you know, the applicant propose sort of a, maybe the, I'm just kind of fit the link here, but maybe the angle is, instead of having a minimum building, it's a maximum parking and then the next has to be building for civic safety. Does that make sense? I don't know. I'm asking you. Does that make sense? Yeah. Applicant, does that make sense to you? So, I'm sorry. A maximum parking and then what was the last part? I didn't hear that. Well, and I'm just kind of making this up on the fly. If the block areas are the minimum building and then you don't do any other building, you have a lot of things that aren't building along these frontage. And so the project sort of lacks the texture of C1LR, which is, you know, predominantly commercial, limited residential and complementary to the adjoining neighborhood. So how can the buildings end up being small? You know, maybe we all discovered that our needs are a lot less and we need a lot less commercial stuff. What does all that other space become? And can maybe the angle is to say, well, instead of a minimum building, maybe it's a maximum parking frontage and then, you know, the leftover space has to be civic space or a building or, you know, a park or whatever rather than saying maximum building. Yeah. I mean, you're muted. Can you hear me now? Yes. I'm going to look a little bit on civic space. Can you elaborate a little on civic space? I think was the, what do you mean by civic space? I can answer that. So I guess what I would describe as being civic space is activated people environments in our buildings. There's lots of different ways of doing them. It could be a plaza. It could be a green. It could be art park. It can be a lot of different things, but it's not lawn. It's not a stormwater pond. It's a focal point that draws people in. And so, you know, does that provide you enough direction? Yeah. So essentially a built space that is public. I mean, I think that pops to my mind, maybe it's not a great example, but it's that kind of sculpture park that's over in front of the grocery store of Shelburne Road. It's like stone gargoyles or something. That's a civic space kind of. It's exactly what everyone has in mind, Evan. Can I comment on that this done? Yeah, go ahead, Mark. Okay. I think that, you know, to Marla's point and to Andrew's point, you both are sort of describing the same thing. You know, Andrew was saying, if they ended up building just to the minimum building frontage, you know, the black lines, you know, they're not going to need all of the site for parking. And therefore they would, you know, end up doing something civic oriented. You know, so I think that you both are saying the same thing. And I do, I agree. I think that, you know, the last thing we want to do is end up seeing, you know, these minimally sized buildings based on the minimum needed. But then because they're small structured building, you're not going to end up getting structured parking. You're going to need more surface parking because you can't do the support of the structured parking on small buildings. So, you know, I think that to Marla's point of if we end up doing these small building footprints, we want to have a maximum parking requirement such that we do end up with enough volume and square footage space to get that civic element. And when I think of the civic element, I think of like a combination of there's like three or four things I think of locally, you know, the strip of land between Trader Joe's and Healthy Living, that sort of sculpture, landscapes, you know, park. I think of the Maple Tree Place, you know, plaza at the movie theater, you know, where yes, there's a lot of lawn, but there's the little amphitheater, there's the sidewalks crisscrossing it in the benches. And then I think of like the gargoyles, you know, pocket park. But I think that's something that ultimately yes, can also support a farmer's market for South Burlington, you know, which is not, you know, all lawn, you know, I think it's a good combination and a good blend that has a focal feel to it, and that ties it all together. And that's obviously quote, quote, worst case scenario, if you end up doing all the small things. But if you end up doing the big thing, I'd still love to see some sort of amalgam of that as well. So just to wrap up, because I do have to write the decision. I think what I'm inclined to do based on the discussion is write that these are the principles and the numbers will be sorted out at final plot. Does that sound okay, everybody? It does sound good. Kind of high level. I'm going to bring the board. Yep. Other, anyone have a problem with that? No. Okay. All right. Moving on. Was there another topic you wanted to bring up, Marla? I think Paula wanted to touch on unifying elements before we move on. What number are we on? I'm a little off script. Yeah. Okay. I think we just did 36. I believe we just did 36. Thank you, Ryan Andrew. So let's look at, well, let me back up. Paul, did you have something you wanted to say about unifying elements? I think so there were two things that I wanted to say that again, we're sort of picking amongst a bunch of the staff here. But one is, you know, one of the features of the urban design overlay district along Shelbourne Road is making sure that buildings have strong entry points, that it's a good either gateway into the building or gateway into the neighborhood like those two at the corner of Kimball Avenue and an old farm road. And then related to that, recognizing the topography that exists, you know, having the applicant consider, you know, what's the sort of main street part of this? If it's going to be a mixed use environment, is that the, you know, is that the slope up old farm road where maybe that's a place where you really want to try to create that feel of this is the center of this whole thing? You know, recognizing that it's going to be challenging for it to be that where you've got a 20 foot elevation gain before you get to the buildings on Kimball Avenue. So where's the point that's sort of like this is the heart of it, where you might want to have a little bit more texture that people, you know, that invites the existence of a coffee shop that invites the sort of the focal point off which then the ribbon that Mark is talking about and or the civic spaces kind of like grow from. Okay, thank you. And I realize that I'm using a lot of re-planery words in front of the DRB and I'm sure that you're glad that you don't have to hear those from me at all the meetings. But thank you. It's a good opportunity with an applicant that really wants to create a great design to think about this big scale for now. Right. Thank you for that. Okay, let's go back in terms of in terms of just clarifying that, I mean, we do have that challenge along Kennedy and Kimball Avenue with the grade change. I think our vision has been that, you know, it used to be a four-way intersection, but now we have a civic space there that you can see where the pond is and there's some picnic tables and things in this rendering. But that three-way intersection is sort of that area where the buildings are at grade with the road and you can sort of create that space where everything is sort of kind of coming together. Where are you talking about? So the intersection, the four-way intersection there in the center of the, yeah. And, you know, those and I think that the building, even the smaller commercial closer to Kimball Avenue is not much above, you know, there is some grade in there for sure, but it's not 20 feet. It's probably six or eight feet. So there's a lot better chance for a good connection through there as well. Andrew, what type of traffic calming or signalization or traffic flow impediment are you going to be having at that four-way intersection? So I think that it's at this point, I mean, I think there were some staff comments early on that it would be designed to have a traffic light in the future if it were needed. So it would have that sort of geometry and availability, but that, you know, currently I think it's a stopped controlled, you know, and I think we'll do, you know, raised speed bumps and raised crosswalks. I mean, I know this goes to public work standards, but, you know, I just think that that considering you have three sort of prominent buildings and then the, you know, the stormwater pond with the picnic tables, I see that intersection as a great opportunity to do like a differentiated color paving or asphalt or something to tie all those four corners together and make it more pedestrian friendly, you know, to for traffic, for pedestrian flow, you know, if you could imagine what we're talking about where the whole intersection is either painted or different colored pavers, you know, just so that people recognize that it's all tied together. Great suggestion. We will absolutely, you know, be able to sort of propose some things along those lines. I think it's in line with our thinking and I seem to recall a comment from Justin about special paving and what we were talking about, so we've been already proposed it. But we certainly need to get into that detail. All right, Marla, anything else that was triggered in your mind that you want to bring up before we move on? I think we should move on to, what are we on, 39? Okay. I'll dive in with the question just to keep it moving. So as the setback is the standard 30 feet and then I guess it's kind of hard to visualize without a markup but it doesn't, a short, if we're trying to create an urban environment, wouldn't we want a short setback of zero to 12? Marla, you want to weigh in on that? So zero to 12 was used in the T4 urban overlay district and there are very, very high standards for what the aesthetics of those buildings must be to have that setback. It's more a comment that those two things need to go hand in hand. You know, you can't have, I don't know, an ordinary building and a zero foot setback. Well, it sounds like the question that's clearly presented is proposing to have a very high quality street presence. So having those two go hand in hand seems like it would work here. Right. Right. Makes sense, applicant? Yeah, absolutely. Okay. I mean, just for reference, I don't know if Andrew said this in the beginning, but, you know, this framework was a large part influenced by the form-based code district, which the city put a lot of effort into. So the T4 is a good reference there. Okay. Great. All right. Next. I seem to have lost the language in front of me. I'll dive in on number 40. That's okay. Go ahead, Dan. As somebody who was a, I won't say a young grad student because I was 37 instead of 57 like him now, but I remember I moved here in 2001 and I was a grad student at UVM and natural resource planning. And we heard, we saw a presentation by the South Village developers at the time, with the folks from Maryland, I believe Paul might remember. And I always thought it was a cry and shame that there was no commercial use there. And I remember asking the developer as a grad student, like, why don't you go for a zoning change? Let's get a coffee shop or something in there with all that hundreds of units. And he said, well, that would be too difficult. And I, you know, any kind of zoning change would of course make the neighbors upset. So I would agree with the comment there on number 40 about some sort of minimum amount of retail service space. The landscape is changing. You know, you've got all those people living in, for Vermont, an urban environment, the ability to get out of a, get out of a condo, get out of a townhouse in the dead of winter and do something, anything get out of the house is key. So let's, let's, let's, let's make it feasible. I know, I know that it's certainly incentive to do as much residential as possible. But the desirability of the, of the residential will increase to the extent that we have good commercial and retail activity. So I like comment number 40. I agree. I mean, the worst thing is having to go, you know, into town to get a lemon, as opposed to, you know, hopping on your bike and just riding down to a little, a smaller scale store. So I agree. Any other comments from the board? All right, 41. What it's worth on that point. I don't, I don't think we have a strong push back on that. I think we will have to make the streetscape. And the whole purpose of this commercial corner is to have amenities that support and inspire people who want to live and buy homes at, at O'Brien farm. So, you know, if anything, I think Dan, I'm going to call on you to join us in our planning commission, the amendment request, because I think if anything would like to have some more opportunity to add some different types of retail and amenities to that space. Okay. Comment number 41. I guess I would say that will the detail of, of the percentage is obviously, you know, the devil's in the details. So I guess we should, we should, you know, take a look at that. I mean, for what it's worth, you know, in the plan that you're looking at, I think, you know, I think I said this in the application, but all of the residential density is contemplated in three or four of the buildings. And there's, you know, nine shown. So I don't think that it's a question of there being, you know, additional commercial uses on site. But requirements can get tricky in terms of how they're worded and, you know, what specifically requiring, you know, where. And so I think, you know, we'll just have to work through how to sort of structure that and we can make a proposal on that. Okay. Comment number 40. I don't, I think Paul had a comment. Oh, I'm sorry. I was just going to suggest similar to how you have with a couple of other items that the decision could write the principle and the applicant could be asked to present a proposal and final plan about how they would address this. And I think, you know, just to underscore what's just been said, the commercial is a lot of things, but not all of commercial is a neighborhood destination. You know, office space is wonderful. It's an addition, but it's not necessarily a neighborhood destination. And so encourage the applicant to think about, you know, what kind of parameters would you recommend proposed that fits in with your concept, understanding that, you know, this is a tricky subject area, but still want that it sounds like the board and you are committed to. Okay. Thank you, Paul. Any, that's so 42, following related elements in the, in there's a table. Is there anything we need to discuss in the table? I think you skipped 41, Don. Sorry, just, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Oh, we skip 41. Okay. Recommends board discuss limitations. Okay. As part of its design guide consistent with the rest of Eastville and Hillside. So what are your thoughts about this, Andrew, Evan? Well, I think, you know, our, our sort of initial take was that, you know, we think our project has been presented to you guys, you know, you've seen what we've done at Hillside, what we've presented for the multifamily projects. You know, we've set forth the standards that, that we wanted to have in place. I think we're comfortable with, with what we've presented. So I guess we'd want to hear your feedback in terms of, you know, prohibitions of specific building materials, you know, has, has relates to the, to the envelope. In the former code district, there's certain things that are prohibited. Some vinyl siding is prohibited, you know, tar paper, sort of a format conclusion. One that does get people is EFIS is also prohibited. What was that, Marla, the last part you said? EFIS, it's some sort of, it's exterior installation system. It's a follow-up. Okay. You know, in particular with, with EFIS and vinyl, I mean, you know, some of the homes, I mean, the homes in Hillside are vinyl siding. And so I think, you know, and that architecture has, has come together rather well. I, you know, and I'm not, you know, lobbying for, for EFIS, but I also think that, you know, a blanket prohibition of a material, you know, when you're talking about three and four-story buildings, you're talking about primary and secondary facades, you know, just because you, you know, you could have brick for two stories on a building. And the third and fourth story be, you know, EFIS that sat back after a water table, you know, they make EFIS that looks like metal panels now. They make vinyl that looks like clapboard, you know, there's, there's materials are constantly evolving, they're constantly improving, you know, it's not your 1990s vinyl out there anymore, the stuff holds its color, it looks good, you know, so I think our take would be that the board should, should look at the buildings as they come in, you know, as they always do and, you know, and make those determinations, you know, and in the process rather than just saying, don't use a product, a product that might work well in the, in the situation. Board members, what do you think about that? Can you live with that? Can we live with that? Yes, you know, I mean, I'm really not a fan of EFIS big time, but I, I understand where the applicant's coming from and I don't want to blanket reject stuff, but at the same time, you know, I, I totally get where staff is coming from with, with that comment and, you know, this, there are secondary elevations and, you know, that rear elevations, but I don't think that this development and this sort of, you know, area, I think we're trying to avoid having it have those sort of rear elevations. I don't see where we're going to end up having that given, you know, your prominence on Kimball, then the interior sort of parking, the sides of the buildings are going to be for circulation from Kimball up and up to the other areas. So, you know, I, I think that, you know, I'd rather, you know, I always think of vinyl and EFIS as sort of like your 25 to 50, you know, 25 to 40 year building and, you know, the brick and even like the cement board products and your other products are like the 50 plus year buildings. And, you know, I think this development wants to have the construction scale aesthetic detailing of your 50 plus year sort of building and development so that it has that longevity feel from the get come. But again, I, like I said, I hate sort of ruling something out until we've seen it, but I don't want to sort of say, okay, let's see it and then, you know, kind of hate it. So, I think we feel, Mark, I think we feel the same way as you do about those products. You know, what we've proposed, what you've seen us propose previously is, you know, a high quality architecture. I think we committed to, you know, to delivering on that. But, you know, this is, this is exactly what you said at the end, which is, you know, prohibiting something without seeing it or even knowing what that proposal might be or why it might be proposed. And I, you know, I don't think that the board necessarily has an obligation to approve the project at a later date if it meet your, you know, architectural standards. So, yeah, I guess I just, I'd like to see more information is what I'm saying. I don't want to rule something out or give a blanket comment because you're right, materials and technology and specifications are changing, you know, you know, but that said, there's certain vinyl products where the like hardy plank and cement boards from a cost standpoint are comparable, close, but provide a much far superior installation and sort of aesthetic look. So, I guess I'll leave it, it's an open-ended thing to say. Let's see, let's see it in further detail. So, Mark, are you suggesting that we deal with this at Final Platt? I think we need to see it on a case by case basis. Yeah, I would say deal with it at Final Platt. I'd like to see them propose it, you know, and give us more information about those materials and specifications because if we just say we're going to allow vinyl or we're going to allow aifice or we're going to allow stucco, you know, it sort of gives them an open-ended ability to install, but if we say present it and let's see it, you know, and then hold them to it, that's a different story. Can you live with that, guys? Yeah, I think I think that we would, that's our expectation. We'll make a presentation of a specific project at the point the details are known and that you guys will have the ability to, you know, accept or push back on it. Absolutely. Paul. I might recommend, given that what the applicant is asking for out of this preliminary and Final Platt is not the actual buildings, but the design parameters, if the board doesn't want to speak about specific materials, and I completely understand that, maybe some verbiage as a condition that talks about what, that somehow captures what Mark just described, an expectation of quality so that, you know, if it's an entirely new board and different applicants eight years from now, that it's a known expectation. Sure. How about the child? It's no material. We've never seen that a big box store. Sounds good. So as we move on to South Comment Number 42, we have discussed many of the things in the table and I would say we only need to discuss the first, the second to last, and the last of the things in the table. So the first one pertains to the number of stories and the suggestive suggestion is that there should be not just a maximum number of stories, but a minimum number of stories as well. Could we have the table up in front of us, please, Delilah? Thank you, everyone. Okay, number of stories. I enlarge this. Applicant, what are your thoughts about a two-story minimum for street-facing facades? We're fine with that. Okay. Yeah, I guess one question would be on the two-story minimum is, you know, we would like to have the ability, you know, if you had a pharmacy come in and they can't live with, you know, an occupied second store, could it be a fall second store or second store, you know, facade that's not necessarily occupied? Yeah, I think there's a couple examples of that in the city. I think the CVS on Wilson Road has a big, you know, false second store. Trader Joe's has a false second story. You know, so something like that I think was our concern and initially not saying there would be a two-story minimum. For instance, if this market ever came into fruition, you know, most of the time supermarkets are one-story. Right, right. Okay, so you can figure that out. Yeah, I think it's a great opportunity to get some clear story windows with some natural lighting into the retail space below. Yeah, if that, with that, you know, caveat, as long as it's not required to be an occupied story, I think that that's where on board. Yeah, okay. All right, Marla, you said the second one. So before you leave that subject, there was a second half of that first one, which was if the building's very tall to consider some step backs. Yes. Yeah, I think you said the fifth story would have to be step back and that's fine. We're fine. Well, and I guess I'd recommend that the board have this discussion, you know, given the, especially given, you know, the prominence of some of the heights and things, you may want to think about, you know, maybe in some cases it's less than that. So I guess I'd encourage the board to have a bit of a dialogue about what kind of urban feel you want to encourage or have the applicant propose to you. Okay, I like the idea of stepping it back if you get up to the fifth story because, you know, it gives a great opportunity to get some engagement, you know, next to your deck about, you know, large balcony, you know, an outdoor space up there, you can do some, you know, or potentially partial greenroof to really break up the facade. You have a huge number of, you know, a variety of things that you can do with this that will only enhance the buildings and not be just a five-story wall. Our own little highline. Okay. Yeah, I think we, you know, we're, like I said, we're on board with that. We can amend the design guide at Final Platt to have that setback built into it. Okay. And just one more on that same topic. I mentioned earlier about, you know, especially an area like the Dead End Brothers Drive extension. On one side of the street you've got duplexes. On the other side the applicant is proposing potential four-story buildings. You know, there's some really good design features that can make that much less imposing. I mentioned, for example, the small dog electronics building at the corner of Flynn and Pine. Plus you're really closely paying attention. Nobody knows that there's a four-story on the top of that. You really step back and look at it. I didn't notice it till about the 20th time I went by, but there is a fourth story there. It's just tucked a little back and it gives a little bit, you know, the scale makes it referring to across the street. So I guess, you know, especially where there's transitions to much lower density things immediately next door, thinking about not having these big juxtapositions. Great suggestion. Okay. Can I just interject before we move on to the next one? Sure. I'm going to be panantic and annoying and I'm sorry. We were doing really, really well with reviewing, having conversations with the board, and I just want to make sure that, you know, these are comments for the board's discussion with asking applicant questions rather than the other way around. Say that again, Carla. You broke up. I just want to redirect and make sure that these are discussions with the board and then the applicant is here to answer questions rather than the other way around. I apologize for being overly pandemic. I'm not very good at subtle, but I just want to. Okay. All right. Let's go back to the table. Do you mind if we just go row by row since this is somewhat new to me? Sure. So the second row about the prohibiting street facing first story garage, I'm kind of confused because in the other diagrams you were looking at, it did seem like, I mean, obviously we don't want a single story garage, but it looked like we were talking about a garage first floor deck that would be screened. So I'm kind of confused. Yes. It seems complicated. Right. And it is. You're absolutely correct. When we wrote these staff comments, we were thinking the board would not be okay with having the garages as they showed them. Got you. Okay. All right. Next one, didn't you think we had covered this Marla, the next two? Yes. And actually it was the last one you thought we hadn't covered. Street, tree, last two. Can I ask about the parking, about the parking one? The staff recommends the board establish a maximum amount of surface parking in this area. Do we have some sort of formula or do we have the staff have some rough suggestion of what that maximum amount would be? Is it a percentage basis? Is it a percentage of the overall square footage of the building, or how do you determine that? I think I'm going to use what we talked about before with the principles that, you know, this should have the feel while parking is okay facing the street. It should have a lot of breaks in it and should have interest on the second story. So basically in writing this, it and I'll lay out the principles and then leave it to decide if we want to stop. And Dan, I would just add to it. I think Mark had a really thoughtful comment earlier on this subject that the scale of the development on this will, you know, there's sort of a tipping point that if there's not enough development, it won't justify structured parking. And so, you know, ensuring that the tools that you put in place is economically viable to do the structured parking, which then eliminates some of the need for surface parking and let's it be building, let's be civic space. So just reinforcing what Mark described much more eloquently than we could. Well, that's a first. Okay. Dan, do you have any others before we get to the left? Yeah, I just have a question for the applicant. 50-foot spacing, what was your rationale for asking for that on the street trees? I presume that it came out of the form based code script that I was looking at, but maybe I read it wrong. So I think that it was what was in the code chart. So, you know, I don't know. I don't think I changed it to 50, but you know, 30 is fine. Because we would like 30. If there's one thing that I can tell you for certain, it is that the minimum landscape requirements for buildings of this size are so high that we could plan a street tree every two feet and probably still be asking you to use it to buy an art sculpture. So I think we can do 30 feet for sure. Okay. And do we need to talk about the uninterrupted sidewalk width? I would like to. So they're proposing to use some of the sidewalk width for what we've defined as civic spaces. You know, is there a minimum sort of available pedestrian way that should be available? That was poorly phrased. You're breaking up, Marla. A minimum pedestrian width? Yeah. I mean, wouldn't five feet be typical as your minimum? And then you can elongate it for sort of the cafe, bicycle parking, you know, can be in and out from that. But there should be a core width of at least five feet for a straight sidewalk. I think that was the question. That's sort of a standard. But we want to see more in to enhance the gateway feature or is all the other elements taken together adequate to do that? Personally kind of feel like they're adequate, but I'd certainly entertain other thoughts from board members, other board members. Don't all speak at once. Alyssa, Dan, Mark. Yeah. I mean, I think, you know, you want a minimum of five feet just for pure circulation, but that doesn't mean that's the right width, uninterrupted width for this development. But typically when you get a much deeper uninterrupted sidewalk, it's because you're designing anthra uses into that space. So if we're talking about having those uses meander in and out of the uninterrupted sidewalk, I'm not sure if we then have say, okay, let's have eight feet and then you can have it widened in other areas. But you know, I think that five feet of uninterrupted sidewalk is decent. And then you've got your other uses for the art benches, the cafes, the bike parking, the sculpture areas. And that also gives you some nice space for some landscape buffering between the parking areas and the buildings. I mean, that's just my thought, but I can clearly be swayed a much wider, you know, standard width. I would agree with that five feet. And I think to some extent this will be self-regulating a little bit. Yeah, it's going to be market driven what the building, the site, and the landscape connection features are going to kind of self-design it into that sidewalk. Okay, Alyssa, anything to add to that? Nope, sounds good to me. Okay. All right, let's move on. We're on board with the five feet. Sounds great. All right, 43. Walking trail configuration in the loop. So we're now moving on to the IC zoning district, which is if we could kind of show the plan on that guy. That's 74 of the packet. So we're out of the north end and we're now at the east side of the project. And this project connects to the residential portion of the project and the commercial CRLR only by pedestrian paths. There is no proposed vehicular motor vehicle connectivity. I'm just to kind of set up the context. So the first comment, so the first comment was about the paths in the previous configuration roadway was much farther east, sort of along the center of the area that's now proposed for development. And that walking path that Delilah has highlighted was a big loop. So the question here is should that loop come back in at the south end to that legacy farm road extension in Delilah? Who else might annotation tools somehow? Yeah. Try again. Thank you. So the question here is there was a path here as well. Obviously, it doesn't work exactly with that building, but should that be put back or is this okay? So the middle yellow loop path that goes up to, I forgot the name of that road right above, but that connects to another path that goes up further. The red line that you drew, does that connect to another path of some sort or is that just sort of like the end of the neighborhood and therefore the thought is that it should connect to the path system? Yeah. It doesn't connect to a path. It connects to a sidewalk. Okay. Whereas the one in the center, you're correct, does connect to another path. Okay. And there is a sidewalk that runs all along the IC road, correct? Or a rack path or something. Okay. And so the two yellow lines come off of that rack path, sidewalk, and go to the neighborhood and go over to the IC, no, the C1LR district. So the question I guess I have is how is the additional red path sort of a benefit as opposed to just sort of going along the sidewalk in that neighborhood to the other yellow path that connects into the rest of the development? That's a great question, Mark. I don't see that it does. Yeah, I guess, Donna, what I would suggest is I think Marla drew sort of a north-south piece there, but given the sidewalk, I think some of what we were thinking was a connection from legacy farm extension down to that sidewalk to create another walking loop so that, you know, frankly, so the residents don't have boredom of doing the same exact loop every time. So just that second one that Marla just drew. Right. That makes more sense to me. Yes. You don't have the long leg of your red L. You just go from the road down to the sidewalk, and then the sidewalk itself connects to the other two yellow paths. That I agree with. Yeah. Yes. It seems like a waste otherwise. Yeah. Highest question on that. Would stairs be allowable there? Because we have very significant grade change between those two spots. You're breaking up, Evan. Or was that Andrew? It's Scott. There's significant grade change between those, and you would need stairs to do that. We don't have room to grade it out without using houses. I think that's sort of one of the reasons why we didn't put the connection there. I guess we're also, this path is stopping at the edge of our property. The rec path also continues through, and the road right away is presumably getting built through. And there may be a way to sort of, the logical place for that connection would be along the future roadway connection that is shown on our plan for future connectivity of Legacy Farm Road to the IC Road. That connection would, if we ran it along that road, would be fairly straightforward and not much longer than that straight line drawn there. I wonder if you could, Andrew, describe what you are thinking of yellow lines look like. A three-foot dirt path, or are they like an eight-foot paved path? So one other piece that I also did forgot to mention is that we did try to limit the number of things in this wildlife corridor that the Natural Resource Committee was keen on replanting and fairly dense, and that was some feedback that we got from them. The two points crossing it currently are the two yellow lines shown. The yellow line, the shorter yellow line that's like arching up the hill, is the proposed east-west shared use path connection. So I don't know the width of that. There's eight, eight, or 10 feet. I think we would prefer eight to spend some feedback about 10. We need to look at what that does and how it works. But the reason that it's cutting on an angle is that in order to keep the slope in the parameters for the design of a shared use path, we had to go on that weird angle. And so that trail on the left is a shared use path. The other one is likely, I would say that we would keep it gravel or something like that. It could be three feet wide, it could be five feet wide. I don't know that we have an opinion. I'd say five just because that's what a sidewalk is. So that would be probably gravel. We could look at paving it if that's useful. That's also connecting over to the dog park area. So after hours, the presumably those commercial parking lots might be overflow for, you get off work, you take your dog over there to the dog park, you park over those lots. I think the gravel path might not be a bad idea. So I'm bored with a little bit more information about the vision. What are your thoughts? Hey, Marla, were you asking the board or the applicant that question? Oh, the board, sorry, I didn't realize I didn't come across. So with the more information from the applicant about their vision board, what do you think about southernmost red line? Well, I guess one question I would have is if we do we're sort of required at this stage rather than requiring it when we get the adjacent development going in where the two roads are going to connect. If we do require it now, does the city allow steps in sort of these connection rep path type of things? What I would say to that is that I think in that scenario that we would expect that to be privately maintained, this city, I can, I don't usually try to speak for Dustin, but I would say the city does not want to own stairs. Okay, then I would say we wait and defer it to then the adjacent parcel gets developed and the roads connect. We then will do the connection at that point then. That makes sense. Likewise. Okay. Good. All right. Can we move on? Are we done with the chart table? So we're on staff platform 44. And this comment is again sort of a before and after comparison. Basically the applicant had been proposing, you can kind of see it on the top of the page that Jalila has up right now. The IC road was much farther south than it is now, or sorry, east. And then the idea of a road, or not a road, but a right of way through here to a path through here. And now it's become just a path. And so this staff comment 44 is, should this path include a right of way for a potential roadway connection? And that was one of the comments provided by the board at an earlier hearing is that though we recognize the applicant's testimony and if this is steep, we don't know what the term will bring. And so it would be good to have the ability to build a road. Should that make sense later? And so now that this is much closer, should that ability still exist without putting any burden on the applicant to actually design it or build it or anything? I would say yes. I mean, I think why not? Yeah. I mean, I think that the only thing you're doing is you're sort of splitting the houses or you might lose a house to get that 60-foot right of way and to connect it to provide for that possible future connection. But I think that also allows for a visual connection between the two developments, even if a road never goes in, you don't sort of have this wall of houses that you feel like you're tucking, you're kind of going between two houses to get down into the IC area. I think that's a great point about having that physical connection, that sort of visual space. We took the right of way out because we provided a viable connection point up your feet to the south of this. My understanding currently is that this is not a viable connection point for a road. It would be far too steep to actually ever be built. Scott could speak to that. And what is the grade through there, Scott? I mean, is that road viable as a road? So what I'll say is that the rec path you're looking at to make those grades work, we had to design most of it at a 10% grade, which I think is okay for a rec path who would not be acceptable for a road of this type. And furthermore, what drives it again is if you're going to have intersections, you have to have the flat spaces at the intersections. So if you do flat spots at each intersection on each road, you're going to end up with a section in the middle that is completely unworkable. So I totally hear what Scott's saying. But I think to staff's comment, I think getting that 60 foot right away just splits the houses a little bit wider so that your rec path doesn't feel like it's going through someone's side yard. And if something should happen or some change or something, it does give the city that sort of 60 foot right away connection between the two public rooms. Okay. Other members of the board? I think it makes sense. It sounds like an engineering nightmare, but I think it makes sense. I mean, a lot of right of ways that we've provided in the project are smaller than 60 feet. 60 feet is quite a large right away that would potentially result in losing homes along that roadway. Could we sort of look at trying to create the connection and visual space that you're talking about? I mean, I think that it could be done in less than 60 feet in a neighborhood where homes are 12 feet apart. You're talking about five times the width of the normal space in the homes. I could be convinced, especially given you're probably never going to be able to get a road in there connecting it. So I think it's more of a visual connection and an ability to not feel as though you're going in between some of the two houses. So if there's some sort of middle ground that allows you to not have it feel like there's a missing house, but it also not like you're going in between two houses. I think it would be much more comfortable with that if it's more of just kind of creating a better entryway or through way, because the other aspect of the right of way, 60 foot right away in between two residential houses, those two residential houses, they're going to have a lower sale and resale value by virtue of having a potential city road in between them. I mean, that's just the reality. Well, can I ask, I mean, Steph, is there, do you see the potential for ever putting a road there? Or is it just literally a 60 foot right away to potentially get a road there? I think to a certain degree, this was a shock comment. We saw the change from the left drawing to the drawing and said, oh my God, we've lost all the best parts of the design by moving the road. And then I think what Scott just said reminded us of the connection that have now enabled south of the project on the left-hand side of the page. That becomes less of a concern. So I feel okay with just widening it rather than providing the full right of way. Okay. And Mark, I would just add that, you know, I wholeheartedly agree. And also to the point that I think Andrew said about, you know, people being surprised about rights of way between their homes that whatever the applicant can do to be exceptionally clear that legacy farm extension will continue and will connect into the IC road. You know, we, you've been through this multiple times in the past. And, you know, we don't want to be in a circumstance where those neighbors come and are expressing surprise that that's connected. Yeah, absolutely. Yes, we're just like, we understand a good much emphasis on that as we can. Yeah, we, which is often times why we ask that the road be built right to the property line, which I hate additional asphalt when you don't need it, but it also prevent prevents like future wait, I didn't know that road was continuing, you know, but yeah, I agree with Paul's comment. And yeah, I think that we can certainly live without getting that 60 foot right away. And I think just widening it so that it's apparent that it's a rep path and it's connecting two different areas. Okay, great. All right. Just one last note on that. I know a few folks have been in the neighborhood of Butler Farms, where there's a rep path that connects through the golf course. And though there is some with their, the neighbors on each side of it, you know, have expressed their displeasure for there being a rep path in there. So having something that is sufficiently wide that people feel that they have their privacy and that there's a legitimate encouraged use rep path is the key, key component there. So thanks. I would agree with you on that Paul because I live in my neighbor. So I go up into that bike path and you're right one side, you're literally looking into someone's living or windows. And then on that other, you're literally right on someone's driveway. There's very little buffer between the rep path and the adjoining properties. Okay, we'll take a hard look at it. Yeah. Thank you. Showing move on to, oops, 40, 45 discourage a heavy buffer in this area and instead encourage the homes to use lot 32 as their neighborhood play area. Could you explain this little Marla please? We have a visual that we submitted of the park. I think the next two comments are talking about it. You might want to pull up the sketch that might help you describe it as well, Marla. Yeah, I think that was at the end. All the way at the end, close to the end. No, that's not right. And I was, fortunately, don't have all these exhibit numbers memorized. Well, we don't need the exhibit number. We need the page number. Don't have all those memorized. I thought this was your full-time job. Come on. Oh, here it is. It's page 71. The landscape drawing, the color. Yeah. Yeah. And then page 72 has sort of like a zoomed out. These are all the open space areas. Yeah, thank you. I either want to work for them. I go back to the staff comment. Staff comment says discourage a heavy, as previously known, the staff recommends the board discourage a heavy buffer in this area and instead encourage the homes on lot 33 to use lot 32 as their neighborhood play area. So in the concept on the previous page, it looks like the proposal is kind of opposite that. You know, the board has spent a lot of time on other projects looking at. So could you go to the previous page for me? And again, I had an interruption. Oh, hi, Lucy. A lot of times on previous projects talking about like buildings having two fronts and this seems like an opportunity for the same here. Which is lot 33 or 32, you know, if we're looking at the pretty landscape drawing. My computer's having issues with this PDF. So I'm going to stop sharing for a moment and see if that fixes it because the documents, yeah, hold on. Go ahead and have your discussion. I'll try and fix this. I think those lots were the ones that are backing up to the barn. I think it's context. So I'm sharing. I'm really bad at sharing at the same time. But so lot 32 is these homes. Oh, I see. Okay. 32 is a series of homes. Got it. Okay. And 33 is this open space. So what you're saying is we should encourage the developer or we should require to have more of an actual connection between lot 32 and 33 rather than segregating them and making lot 32 or 33 sort of isolated from those lots. Right. So maybe it's sidewalks that connect to this right path, you know, having the right path culture to the homes. We've seen it on a lot of other projects. It seems like a good opportunity here as well. Yeah, because I do too, because it sort of reminds me of the the cider mill development where you have the wreck that literally runs along the west side of it where it's running to the west side between better mill and um source it. You have the wreck path and it's sort of like it's there's this sort of like buffer of whether it's wetlands or what that really disconnects those those lots from the wreck path area. And I think that, you know, somehow connecting it so that people feel that they go out of their backyards, go out of their house, go to their backyard and go access that wreck that recreational area is would be a great amenity field rather than segregating it off. Yeah, it's not very inviting the way it is now in the picture. Yeah, I don't think that we disagree that folks should be able to, you know, feel like they can connect to the to the bike path. You know, it's obviously an amenity. It's it's there and people are going to be aware that it's going to be there when they buy those homes or be comfortable with it. You know, I think there is a balance that we need to strike between creating a sea for the homes in their backyard and people who barbecue on Saturday and not have public walking their dogs, you know, 10 feet away with no screening, but also, you know, those windows of connection. I think that we, you know, this this drawing doesn't do a great job of conveying it. But, but, you know, I think that would be sort of my take on it would be to say to the land protect. Can you, you know, create privacy, but also create openings and connections and sort of does that make sense? It does. You know, there's the neighborhood directly to the north of other farms. Rye, the Rye development has that where the backyards of a lot of the houses are buffering or bordering right on that sort of recreational area with the playground and the open space and the the path that connects through there. And, you know, some neighbors, some because I walk through there all the time, some of the houses have embraced it and some have turned their back on it. And, you know, it's it's up to the development, it's up to the homeowner to decide how they're going to do it. But I think the ones that sort of embrace it sort of make it become more of an integral part of the neighborhood feel. And I would encourage that to look at that from a landscape standpoint. That's a great suggestion. Yep. All right. Any other comments or questions or thoughts about about this before we move on? Okay. I need to could we go back to the text please? Delilah. Perfect. Okay. 46. Steph. I'm not going to read this. This is a revised proposal. Let's see. This is about the resident club principally for public recreation. What about parking? Let's see. Evan and Andrew, what are your comments about the staff? So just one really for the board. They have provided this open space area and the board can only allow parking in the if the law is for principally for public recreation. So, you know, is the board comfortable that making that call and saying that, yeah, what they have is for public recreation? Marla, I'm sorry. Would you explain that again? The board cannot do what? So this is one of the three thou shalt never allow parking in the front, except when the principal use of the law is for public recreation. So the board needs to be comfortable saying that the principal use is for public recreation. Has the applicant done enough to make that the case that the board can make that determination? You might want to go back to that picture again. When you say public recreation, does that mean someone from Winooski could come and use it as well? Is it real public public? I guess that's a gray area. There is no definition beyond what's in the text of the comment. Right. Okay. I guess I would ask, I would like a clarification on that. Can we go to sheet 71 again, which shows that area with the parking in the front? Because I think that that, so is, and it shows it's a permeable picnic court, the old barn, the sledding hill, the rec path, the old silo repurpose, the practice field, the winter skating park, skating rink, and there's a circular drop-off. Is this for just the residents of O'Brien, this hillside development, or is it open to the public for use? The vision for this is that the park area is open to the general public, whereas if you recall, the original vision was that this was a private club space, so it was kind of an exclusive pool area clubhouse, and we kind of rethought it. Just for kind of a comparison sake, Overlook Park is a little bit of an inspiration because this is a pretty important view shed, we believe, over the sea and for the public, so we were trying to preserve that, but enhance it. But we want to be able to, I mean, we have an existing condition, we have an historic barn on site where it is set back from the road, and so putting the parking to the rear of the barn could be illogical, because you would take off the park space and pick up the view, and it also just doesn't make a lot of sense. But we would like to retain the possibility of, you know, an adaptive reuse of the barn at a later date could be an event venue, could be broken up into, you know, art studio spaces and hunted out, you know, kind of maker space style, it could be a daycare, could be a health club, you know, whatever, but the principal use I would suggest and propose is public recreation. It's open to public, and we're going to enhance it and put a bunch of landscaping dollars and designs. So you got like the sledding hill, you know, like, you know, in the winter, there's probably, like, three to five really good well-known sledding hills on private land, but they're open for the public to go in and park and use, like, you know, Burlington Country Club, you know, it's a private club, but in the winter, it's drive-in, park in there, park a lot, and go use their sledding hill. The Shelburne Post Office, same thing, you know, people park in that parking lot and go use that sledding hill. That's sort of what you envision when you say, you know, it's open to the public, but the club itself might have some private, you know, use to it. Exactly. Okay. Then I'm comfortable with the parking being in the front, because anyone can go there and use it. They might not be able to go in and use the club, but they can use the property, the open space. And I think it would be a shame to take up that back area with the beautiful views, and they are beautiful for a parking lot. Yeah. I agree. Okay. Okay, let's move on. Weaver requests. We're moving on to the weaver requests, and so I wonder if, let's see, is there a way to sort of consolidate some of this? Could you scroll down, please, Delilah? I mean, just, Marla, to your point, comment 47, 48, and weaver request 15, it looks like comment 49, you know, we're in agreement with your conclusions on it. Okay. So, did the board want to discuss any of 47, 48, or 49 further? Okay. I would need to see them. Delilah, could you please scroll down? I'm not seeing them. They're right in the modification of standards. Maybe Delilah's screen is frozen. There it goes. Okay. Thanks. So, staff can, so number 47, that can be done in final plat, applicant, are you, are you good with that? I'm sorry? Yes. Okay. Thanks. 48, I reckon we'll accept this request, modify their findings to reflect. Can you live with this? 48? Yeah. And then, what about 49? Yeah, I think we're okay with that. Okay. Any comments from the board about those three items? Seem all very reasonable. Yeah. I think so. Marla, do you have any questions? No, I think we're good. Okay, good. So, I think there's one more. Number 50, there are ways to meet these criteria and these criteria are related to the relationship of proposed structures to the site. The presence of an intervening open space in roadway reduces the needed reliance on architectural similarity. Staff continues to recommend the board deny this request. So, there are requests being that waiver of the requirement to have the buildings in the IC zoning district have a relationship to the remainder of the PUD. Okay. So, if you could stay on the text of the actual comment there, you know, just because I think the full requirement, you know, we're asking for specifically, I think, a waiver of, you know, just a pretty small portion of this. So, it says, you know, under the, I think relationship should, relationship of structures and site to adjoining area. The development review board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics. Attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain, the existing buildings and roads, and have a visual relationship to proposed structures. You know, our concern here is just that we have an industrial commercial zoning district in the development. And we've put a, you know, 100 foot buffer and then a 50 or 60 foot wide city right away and public road between those two uses, which aren't, that's an, I don't think conveys, you know, the current configuration, right? But if you're looking at the newest site plan, you'll see the, you know, you see the wildlife corridor, which is, you know, 100 plus feet wide. And then below that, you know, a 60 foot wide road, and then you get into an industrial commercial zoning district. And for those projects to be reviewed saying that they'll be encouraging a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics, it's just, I think that, you know, you could, you could waive the requirement or simply just provide some sort of finding or clarity that just says like, hey, we recognize that you can't make a single family home look like an industrial building. And, and that, you know, that we've provided a buffer and we've provided a break and that, you know, and that the sort of incongruity of it is built into the PUD. And that's why we've sort of structured it this way, right? We're not proposing single family housing in that I see area. We're proposing a buffer, you know, to keep a separation because, you know, the types of uses that are allowed like a lumberyard or, you know, an RV dealership or, you know, these things are hard to make look like a single family home. And so I think that that's our concern. We're just a little, we're wondering how do we sort of not set ourselves up to not be able to pass this test in the future. So I don't read this as requiring you to make industrial buildings look like a single family home. I think the point of it is to make sure that things come together nicely. I don't think that you need a waiver of this recommended of the requirement. I think that the way that you are proposing to transition things makes sense. And that it's just there to make sure that the transitions are nice and are appropriate and that there's not something that's like glaringly hideous about what you're proposing to do. Not that like you have to use the exact same materials on industrial building as, you know, a single family home. So I have a question and this is probably from Marla. When we were reviewing the apartment buildings down O'Brien Farm Road that are kind of brick and urban looking, we talked about how that was intentional on the part of the applicant to make it blend with the further development down the line. So how is this any different than that? I mean, that's a very different look than exists on O'Brien Farm Road or on the other parts of Hillside. Oh, is this different from that? I guess it's different. I'm not sure I can guess where you're going with this. Well, I'm not going anywhere. I'm just trying to understand because I think when they designed those apartment buildings to look more urban, that was very intentional and it's a very different look than just up the street where there are duplexes. I don't think that's Alyssa's point is that it can be complementary without being the same. Yeah, I would agree with that. But, you know, Alyssa, as she said, we're not asking them to design these commercial buildings to look like single family, just like we didn't ask the light retail area to look like single family. We're asking it to have some semblance of a standard so that there's, you know, some tie-in together. I totally get that there's this 100-foot wildlife corridor and there's not the IC road. There's all these buffers. But, you know, I think that we don't want to do is feel like it is a completely separate, off-due, you know, its own, you know, no holds bar development. You know what I mean? We're looking for it to be complementary to the rest of this overall development. And I think based on what you're proposing, you'll meet the requirement that you don't need the waiver. Right. Yeah, I think that's a reasonable explanation because I think actually Don's point is, you know, kind of the precedent there. You know, you've got two styles of architecture that are very different, but they work well together. Right. And it's a combination of different elements that make that work well together. I think we're looking for some design standards for these buildings as well and recognizing that it's industrial, you know, it's the IC, you know, core of your site. But we're also like, like, you know, we don't want it to be, you know, right now you're showing 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 buildings, 8 totally separate, you know, design buildings that just totally are there to meet whatever the core uses. We're looking for some complimentary, reasonably relaxed, but complimentary standards for how you're going to develop this site as well. Is that the point, Mark? Does the board want to pursue a slightly less rigorous version of that design requirements document that the applicant prepared for the C1LR? You know, maybe it's not more relaxed in the sense that the standards are more relaxed, but maybe it just has fewer standards. I think so. I think that to have the applicant propose something that they can live with that gives us some comfort that we're going to get a complimentary design, you know, that fits in with the overall development and the adjacent process. I hear you and I think, you know, the anxiety is just that the uses in this area are very hard to make attractive. And I think, you know, there's a very big sort of range of what it could be, right? It could be an outpatient building like Tilly Drive, it could be like, you know, S.D. Ireland's newest concrete batching facility with like a big tube sticking to the air and sand, you know, tunnels coming down. It could be an asphalt plant. Okay, I'll get it, but also look at, look at Midland Business Park, you know, which has sort of like commercial uses in there. And there is some design standards that have gone into each of those buildings. It's not just... I don't think there's any challenge with that. I mean, I agree with what you guys are saying. You know, I think the design guide piece, you know, would probably be challenging because it's such a vast sort of possible realm of things. But I think the approach of, you know, just needing to have them not be, you know, to have them have something. Yeah, we're not looking at the type of tight restrictions that we were discussing on the, you know, light retail area. You know, we're looking for more, you know, tomorrow's coming, not more relaxed, but, you know, smaller, less cumbersome design standards, but still provides some standards that you can live with and that gives us some comfort that this parcel is going to be developed with some cohesive tie-in. You know, whether it's the site details, whether it's the site lighting, whether it's, you know, something, you know, all the typical landscaping, and then maybe the buildings have more relaxed architectural to it, but that the site design is actually tying it together. I'm not sure what it is, but I'm just trying to envision something that gives you the freedom to go out and explore the tenant options, but gives us some confidence that it's going to have a cohesive feel to it. Yeah. Can we live with this, Marla? An applicant? So what other board members, I mean, it kind of took a left turn from what the staff comment was. So, you know, Mark had suggested some parameters. So the comments originally they asked for a waiver, staff said you don't need a waiver, you're already meeting it. That's what Alyssa said, but they're now talking about providing some parameters as part of the next application, the final plan application. This is one of those things of like, when we see a proposed building, we'll know, we'll know whether or not it's compliant with 14.06B, you know, to paraphrase the famous phrase. Yeah. Right, exactly. So we don't want to make your life easier. You know, but so it's one of those things, and I don't know if it's, if the board's ever done this before, has the board ever made a finding that recognizes the challenges implicit in a regulation? Or do we not like to talk about our dirty laundry? And I get it if you don't worry, but I mean, all DRBs probably know that there are some sections of the bylaws, which could be better written, but they're kind of stuck or they made, they always make work around. No, our regulations are perfect and exact. And short. Very short. Yeah. Right, exactly. So that would be something where maybe the board makes a finding about this section that says we understand these challenges. We will, we encourage the applicant to comply. And the, you know, I don't know. I realize you don't want to tie a future board's hands, but at the same time, I think we want to be cognizant of the challenges caused by this regulation. Well, can we actually try to run with it? Okay. Yeah. Sorry, I didn't hear that, mom. I can run with that. And a draft finding, it can basically provide guiding principles to the future board when they're reviewing individual sites. Yeah. I think that that's, that's what we're looking for. I mean, honestly, like, you know, the, we always hear, you know, what's the board in eight years going to do? I mean, it could be eight years from now that we're coming in here with the, you know, the proposal for one of these lots. And, you know, it also, you know, to the, to the point that Paul was making earlier about clarity to the neighbors, you know, I want this permit to, to spell out that, you know, to that folks should understand that it is an industrial commercial area and that the development has intentionally given them a buffer and given them a road, but that they shouldn't be expecting, you know, that the homes will be architecturally, that they'll be architecturally similar buildings in their view shed, right? Because it is going to be in folks view sheds. And I think a finding that says, Hey, this was intentional. There's a buffer. There's a setback. These uses are a little bit incongruous. And while they need to have some design sense, you know, they are necessarily different. And, and, you know, I think that that would be great. Yeah, because I think that, you know, it's just exactly the example of Meadowland Business Park and Noel Circle, you know, looks down into Meadowland Business Park, but no one expects every building in Meadowland Business Park to be, you know, sympathetic or relating to, you know, Noel Circle, which are all single family developments, you know, it's recognizing that there is the buffer and there is, you know, it's, they're like commercial buildings that something like that sounds great. Okay. All right. It is 10 o'clock. And so it's fitting that we've finally gotten to, to number 50. Marla, is there anything at this point in time that we need to talk about before we, we're not closing this hearing? We are, I guess we have to have public comment. Are there any members of the public who would like to offer any comments? Okay. Everybody's gone to bed. So Marla, is, Marla, is there anything that you need from us before we conclude tonight's review? No. In all my free time, I'm going to start on the decision so that when we come together on July 6th, we're almost done. We need a motion for that. He said, optimistically. All right. I make a motion that we continue SD 2040 500 Old Farm Road to July 6th. So I hear a second. Okay. Good. Second from Dan. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? We'll see you on July 6th, guys. Well, thank you, guys. This was, I feel like a really productive meeting. We really appreciate it. Thanks for all your time and efforts. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Good night. Okay. Yes. I'm going to ask a question. We have some minutes we need to approve. Remind me, Marla, can we do them in one batch? We have to do them separately. I believe you only have the April 20th minutes. Oh, okay. All right. Would anyone like to move on? We don't have May 4th. Okay. Sue got them to me. I did not have enough time to get them to you. Okay. But they've been posted somewhere. Yes. That's a good point. No, that's a good point. Did not get that. Sorry, I shouldn't have said anything on the public. I'm pretty sure they're posted. It's the May 18th. Quite posted. And I'm sorry, I should have put the May 4th in there. I don't know why I didn't. No, it was more the public. Never noticed requirement. That's all. No, you're right. 72 hours. Dropped minutes. All right. At minutes, any, would anyone like to move approval of those? I'll move approval of the, I'll move approval of the April 20th minutes as drafted. All right. Second. Second. Good. All in favor? No. Okay. So we are, we are done. We are done. And Marla, are you still alive? And with us, I know you're incredibly busy right now. Yeah, I will never suggest a special meeting a week after we have the hearing again.