 Okay. Well, this is the development review board for April 5th. And I'm going to keep the introduction short because we just have a couple of items that we're going to begin with here. We take up items that they are in on the agenda. And when we call each item, we ask that the applicant and anybody else who wishes to speak on that identify themselves and Scott will admit them. And we also ask that anybody who's going to participate in the hearing, provide a mailing address to Scott. I will say that the, there are two items. One item on the agenda, I guess. Two items actually one third nine Forster Street has requested a deferral. Yes. 164 North Willard has reached a settlement agreement. Right. So those two appeals have both been withdrawn as of yesterday. So if anybody's here for those items, we actually won't be taking them up. We will. So minutes there are minutes from the last meeting that I believe that were posted. We have those to go through. We have nothing on the consent agenda. So we'll get right into. I guess we don't have to do anything with one third and I force this year do we have to officially defer. You do need to take action to defer to a date. Certain. I suggested June seven and my memo to you, but I think that's going to be too early. Okay. So I would actually suggest. I would actually suggest parking problems. And the parking amendment that might make them go away. So I would actually suggest. July fifth. We want to make a motion for. 139 Forster Street. To defer it. I'll make a motion. Okay. So moved. Is that what you're saying? Okay. The second on that. Chase. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Okay. So we have a motion to defer it. Okay. Deferring a 139 force to street to July fifth all in favor. Are you voting on this Jeff? I'm having some technical difficulties. I'm gonna abstain. Cause I didn't hear all of it. Okay. Good. I'm 154 North. We'll. We don't have to do anything with that. Is that true? Correct. The items have been withdrawn. There's nothing to do with them. Okay. Good. application for a team support building. This was previously approved as part of a bigger application, not constructed, so now they're reapplying for it. That's, I believe, the short version of it. We have the applicant here, Brad. I did, this is something that happened after the agenda was set. I did end up recommending consent approval. But your call, we do have the applicant here, Lonnie. So I'll let Lonnie speak. Well, I did see that it was recommended for consent. We had previously approved it. How does the board feel about treating this as consent? Is that acceptable to everybody? I think it makes sense. Yeah, I think so. Okay. Is there anybody in the public who objects to treating this as consent? I'd like to speak on this item. Raise your hand please. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. All right. I'll let Sharon. Sharon, you should be able to speak. Yeah, Brad. So if we should swear the oath, but I think since we all were okay with consent, we should let Sharon speak and see if the applicant wants to respond to it. Okay. And I need to make one disclosure as I do on all UVM matters. Occasionally our firm does unrelated item work for UVM. I don't think it would impact my ability to vote on this in an impartial way. So Sharon, do you want to make a comment or question or something on this application? I had a question, Brad. Do you want to swear me in? I'm not, I don't, I'm not testifying. I'm not, I'm not giving information. I'm asking for information. So I don't know. Well, we're going to see how we, how this goes. Why don't you ask your question? Okay. Okay. So when I read through it, and I know it's, it's limited review because it's UVM. I saw that the stormwater had been addressed when it came through. How many years ago now? Six or more. Five or six years, something like that. Yeah. So did, I didn't see that. That anyone had. I mean, I don't know, I don't know if my, if my, I guess my ankle's beef could still accommodate the runoff. And I didn't know whether. That was something that happened and just wasn't referenced. I didn't see it referenced. There is a water resources review. I'll say pending last I looked that was last week for this item. I don't know if water resources has busted or not at this So you will. So my question then to the development review board is that. You would approve this. Understanding that there would be no fine and significant findings. From water resources. Is that how this goes. There's no condition to that effect recommended sharing simply because. That. That application is already live and the permit system. With water resources folks. Okay. I just didn't know. I mean, when something gets reviewed so many. It's been a couple of years prior. I wasn't quite sure if somebody looked at it again to make sure that the circumstances. Were we're still okay or had changed. And that was my question. I think you've answered it adequately. So thank you. So Derek has his, well, I was going to say Derek has his hand up. I assume that was the engineer. Derek, I'm assuming you're Derek Reed. Yes. Okay. Let me stop for a second. We haven't restarted the hearing yet. I wanted to say we're going to do that. Lonnie. What did you want to say? I just wanted to ask if this is already off of consent agenda. Right. It sounds like we're off of consent agenda. So I'm going to swear in Lonnie and Derek and I'm going to swear in you to Sharon, just in case you add anything else to this. I have two other team. Team members. I can't see them, but I'm assuming they're here. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Todd Merchant. And Alex Blanchard. So both Alex and Todd can speak. Okay. And let me know if any, one of you want to share screen, but Brad, go ahead and do your. Okay. So can I swear in the team plus Sharon. You swear to tell the truth and hold to us on the pain and penalty of perjury. Yes. I do. Okay. I'm just going to, I'm just going to, I'm just going to, I'm just going to, I'm just going to, I'm just going to, I'm just going to, I'm just going to, I'm just going to, you know, it was recommended that way. So I don't know that we have a lot of questions on it. Sharon raised one question that seemed to have gotten answered that it's in the pipeline. So I'm going to allow you folks to anything you want to contribute after that. Be my guest. Okay. Yeah. We generally, for every permit, we get all the storm water and water permits that we absolutely need. We comply with all the state regulations and. We do. We do. We do not. We do not. We do not. We do not act. But I think Derek may have had a comment in addition to that. Okay. I did. This is, this is Derek read them with Krembs and Lansing consulting engineers. We did permit that years ago. But it's, it's in an overall campus watershed model. So every new project that comes forward. model with another project and have upgraded the ponds and outlet to control the stormwater, which does in fact, you know, take care of this stormwater and it reduces the flows even further from what we originally permitted this four years ago. We made the outlet control hole smaller. So it releases the flow even less than when we originally permitted this. So Sharon, that should help answer your question. Yes, thank you. Yeah. Any questions from the board for the applicant? Unless there's something else you want to add at this point, we're going to go with that. That would be great. Okay, I'll close public hearing. We will wait until later to deliberate at this point. So, okay, thank you. So we have one other item on our agenda, which is Cambrian Rise 351-305 North African. I suspect there's a few people as part of the applicant team. Yep. So I have Eric Farrell and Mike Bushard. They want to be able to share a screen. So it'll take a second for me to promote them. Any members of the public here on this one, Scott? It looks like we do. If you were looking to speak on the Cambrian Eyes application, raise your hand, please. I see a few hands up. Fred, this is Jeff. I'm recused from this item, so I'm going to turn off my camera. All right, so we have Eric and Michael joining us as panelists so they can screen share. So hands that are up. Laura Weidlock from our Public Works is looking to speak. Okay. And Bushard is looking to speak, and then we have someone, Jane, and the public looking to speak. So I'll let everyone speak. So can I have everybody, swear everybody in, those Eric and Michael, Sharon, Jane, and Laura, do you swear to tell the truth and hold truth on the pain and penalty of perjury? I do. Okay, well, I'm going to assume everybody's saying yes. So I will note that this is obviously a large project. Half the board that's here now was not part of the original approval on this. So an overview would be helpful. And I guess we'll start with that, let you, Eric and Michael, walk us through it. How do you think is appropriate at this point? Okay, I think I'll give you, so Scott, can you share? Do you want me to click on share screen at the bottom? Yes, yep, a little green share screen at the bottom. Just make sure it's what you want to share with us. Well, I don't know, you know, I'm challenged here. So can you see this screen? Yeah, yes. All right, you see a view of the lake? Yep. Anybody want to make a motion to approve? Keep going, Eric. All right, so this is an overall, I'm going to whiz through this. I'm trying not to take too much of your time. This is an overall site plan, not exactly the one you approve, but the same number of buildings. This is a blow up of it. It doesn't extend down to the lake. Building A is Liberty House, and this is the old Burlington College classroom building in the addition, Cathedral Square, the Shetland Housing Trust. This is a building under construction, as we speak by Scott Ireland. Primarily, we're going to be talking about building F, building E, and building D, which you can't, it's basically doesn't come above this existing grade here. It's three stories below grade. And then Q, there's no change to this building here. It's not labeled, but it's H. There's no change to building P. The only change to Q and R is that it used to be curved, and we straightened it. So this is a view, a rendering of what the project would have looked like per your approval several years ago. It hasn't changed a lot, but so we're going to talk mostly about these two buildings. This is building F, this is building E, and then D is underground. This is what we call the Aurora. And if you look at this view of it, it's essentially the same, this is building F, this is building E, it now encompasses, there's a building I on a separate lot back here. So now Aurora is all three of these buildings, and then it L's over like so. So Aurora is building F is in this location, building E is approximately here or was, and then building I was a separate building, although they were all connected, Liberty House, of course, and then building Q and R is the, well, let me give you the different view. So this is Liberty House, this is the building we completed in 2020, all apartments, market rate apartments, Cathedral Square is completed and occupied, Champlain Housing Trust is completed and occupied. This building here is under construction, we're not proposing any changes to this building in the back, we're not proposing any changes to this building here, building H, there's a small change that we're asking for in this building, and the only change in this building here is it's the same building, it's just straight, it's straight now instead of curved. If you look at the previous approval, it was on a crescent shape, and now it's essentially the same building, but it's straight, and the intention was to open up the view shed even more for Liberty House straight to the lake, which wasn't a zoning commitment, but it was something that we committed to at the outset. This is what you approved several years ago, you can see this building Q is on a curve, building I a separate building, building E at the time had a North-South orientation. Today it's very similar, the same number of buildings, but this building is straight, Aurora encompasses three buildings, actually four buildings, this is a better shot at it. So we straightened this building out for two reasons, one to open up the view shed from Liberty House to the lake, but also to open up the view shed for the South-facing units in Aurora. Again, I'm repeating myself, but this building didn't change, this one didn't change, you can barely see it, this one's under construction. So, and there's Texaco Beach. So this is of course Liberty House, which opened in July of 17, and another view of Liberty House with the street-facing portion of Aurora on North Avenue. A little different perspective of the same relationship between the two buildings. We did have VHB do a historical review of the impact of this building, even though there was a prior approved building here, wasn't quite as large as this one. Impact on historic impact and they submitted a pretty comprehensive study that was favorable, I believe to us, and how we're proposing to move forward. This is, you can see down the alley between Liberty House and Liberty House is still the iconic building on our site, the tallest building on our site always will be. This is a view from the West looking back towards North Avenue between Liberty House and Aurora. If I haven't said so, Aurora is condominiums, not apartments, 192 condominiums. And this is a view of Aurora at the corner of what we call North Road, although it's all Kimby and Way, corner of North Road and North Avenue. And you can see Liberty House, of course. We are excited about the fact that we're putting community gardens on the roof, which is kind of unusual if anywhere in Vermont for the benefit of the people that live in that building. We have a sunrise veranda on the fifth floor. And as you move down, this is the north side of the building facing Lakeview Cemetery. This is what we conveniently call North Road for now. There's a, you can drive underneath the building like a Port Cachère and the main entrance lobby to the building is basically in the middle of it. And you enter it from underneath this Port Cachère. And then there's a section of the building that faces on the West Road. So this building faces on West Road, North Road and North Avenue. We have plans for solar panels on this section of the roof. All of these units have very generous balcony space. A high percentage of the units have pretty dramatic views of the lake and some are local views overlooking the cemetery. This is a view of Aurora looking from the Southwest and from North Avenue down to the North Road. You can see the Port Cachère under, I assume you can see my mouse, right? Is it moving around? Yes. Yeah, okay. The Port Cachère main entrance to the lobby is underneath there. There are units here on the second floor. There is a co-working space, basically office use for people who either live in the building or live anywhere in Camry and Rise, for that matter, who want to work remotely but maybe don't want to work 100% in their homes. And then there's parking behind these units because the garage is quite deep and there's a parking level below. There's 350 parking places underneath this T-shaped Aurora. About 70-something percent of our parking is underground and the remainder is on the surface and that's obviously intentional on our part. Here's a sort of, if you step back and look up at Liberty House, this is the central green, which is a separate lot at Camry and Rise to be owned by the Lot Owners Association and its purpose is strictly for passive recreation. And so this is the top of building D with, again, has units here and co-working space below. Then there's a boardwalk on top and even at this elevation, which is basically the North Avenue street elevation, you get very dramatic views of the lake because you're just high enough to see over the trees to see the lake and the mountains. And there's a couple of pieces of this boardwalk. This one here is primarily going to be for the residents of the 300 units that are in Liberty House and Rise building next door and the third building that we're gonna start next month. There's another veranda here for the benefit of the folks that live in Aurora. And this is the rooftop of Aurora on the seventh floor, above the seventh floor, sixth floor. This is a common space with a greenhouse and the greenhouse, of course, will serve the community gardens to the east. And then this is for the benefit of all the residents in Aurora. There are a couple of units that have private deck space because they just happen to open out onto the lower section of the roof. And the building steps down the hill to keep consistent with height regulations in the continuing dropping grade on our site. This is another little bit closer view of the rooftop of Aurora with community gardens on the east and utility enclosures here for equipment, elevator and stairs. There's a greenhouse here that you can't see in this view so much. And then the veranda space and then there's a couple of private verandas here and then solar panels. You can't see it very well here but this is the third of three apartment buildings that we're building in a single partnership that go along with Liberty House and the Rise building next door. Those 300 units are the ones that will primarily share the use of the Boardwalk space. This is a view of building P which you approved some years ago up to five story. We're not proposing any changes to that building at this time. There's another view of it. This is building Q, same architecture. The only difference is this building is straight instead of curved. Other than that, it's the same about the same size and same architecture, same number of stories. You approved it at six stories. Again, back in 2018, I think. This is another view of that building straight on and then a little closer view of that building straight on. And then Aurora up here and you can see Liberty House in the background. So this is a street view of that building Q but we're not proposing anything for that building other than straightening it out. So that's a very fast overview other than we did get approved by the city council to increase our density from 770 units to 950. The only place that a density restriction exists in our zoning district is in our development agreement because we're governed by floor area ratio. And I think we're, I don't have it in front of me but I think we're probably at somewhere around two thirds of what we'll never get to the two times the factor of two floor area ratio which is about a million eight square feet. I think we're hovering around a million three or a little less than a million three and it could change a little bit but we're not gonna get close unless you would like to approve me for like eight or nine story buildings which is I'm not asking for. So other than that, our lot coverage has remained pretty low in the sixties, 72 is allowed. We still obviously have to maintain or satisfy the inclusionary requirement which is 25% in this district for sale units and for rental units. I don't have them maybe, I don't know if Mike has them or Scott but there's a couple of minor tweaks to building M and building C that I actually don't have available myself to show. And if you want me to put something up I can put something up. Yeah, it might be helpful. Scott, anything else you think I had a point out at this sort of a very broad stroke? I think Mike should show those couple other buildings and then we can get into other details that the board wants to get into. Okay. Do you want to stop sharing your screen Eric? Oh, yeah, if I knew how. Oh, stop share, I guess I'll push that button. So you should be looking at the permitted version of building C and the area that we're looking at is this area right here. So there is a deck here that would be retained that the lower deck would be eliminated and this area would just get filled in with additional units. Is in this bunch. That actually is probably the easiest thing for me to do is to share because there were some very, very last minute changes with building M and their updated elevations here. And really this is the street facade. The change on building M is this unit right here was originally a deck. Was a deck at a common space? A deck in the common space, large common space. So this is the north facing elevation that's facing Cambrian Way. This is the west facing elevation that is facing towards the lake. So this would have been recessed more on this elevation and you wouldn't have building here on the north facade, north facing elevation. Mike and Eric, I did include the originally approved rendering of building M. So that is in the staff report. If the board members wanted to scroll through the staff report, those changes to M were noted with images. I also have the prior building M in the board packet and it's noted as prior amendment for buildings M, Q and R. Yes, that's it. I'm not certain if it's the most recent amendment of this afternoon, Eric, but that reflects your new volume on the top of on the northwest corner of building M. Correct, there's two units that we added. And I think the picture below is the prior approved, right? Right. Yeah, so it was previously a common space and then fronted by a large deck area and that's been eliminated in favor of two additional units, which also have pretty generous decks, but not as big as the common deck would have been and that top floor street facing, the north facing section of it is set back or has to be set back 10 feet, I think to meet the requirements of the height bonus. Eric and Mike, so just to sort of summarize the height issues that you're looking at now, all of the buildings M and C, I don't know if I have all the termination, the overall height of those buildings is the same as it was. You've just added filled in some space that was open deck on those buildings. Is that accurate? That's true of building C and building M, and I don't know if it made it to this meeting, Scott, there's a request to increase the overall height of the building by a little less than four feet. That was for the structural things, right? That's because they're doing red iron construction, yes. So then the real height, the ability that has a height difference in it is that, again, I don't, F, E and Y, Aurora. Right. Okay, Aurora. D, E, F, I. Wow, that did originally, right? I mean, doesn't it go from 258 to 296? I can't, it goes to 296. I can't tell you up top ahead what it was before. It was essentially maybe a four-story building before, maybe five, and now it's right up to the height limit. Right, so I think, at least what I was looking at on the original plans had it as 258. That was in one of our packages that was given here originally. I don't know, I believe you. Okay, it was four stories near North Avenue and five stories for the West. So that's a significant change, right? Well, those 950 units gotta go somewhere. Right, right. Right, I'll just mention it is a significant change on North Avenue. Yeah, well, yes, and we hired BHB, Rititone at BHB to really, there's been a couple of historic reviews of this project along North Avenue and there's a couple of other significant structures on North Avenue with a chapel to the North being one of them. And so she's very competent. She did a comprehensive review and I think the way man's conclusion is that it doesn't detract from the prominence of Liberty House. And of course, when we set sail on Cambria Rise, it was intentional that the ordinance was rewritten to, and the heights of regulations were established to allow us to do what we're doing. That was in part compensation for the fact that we sold 12 acres, a third of our site to the city. And I said, hey, I'm happy to sell you a third of my site, but I don't wanna lose development opportunity as a result of it. So they rewrote the height ordinance. And so it's always been my assumption that I could build what the ordinance allows. And the original application and review, there was a lot of discussion about streetscapes and things like that. Yeah. Yes. Are you trying to tell me in a roundabout way how spectacular you think this building is? We'll go with a roundabout way, sure. So I don't, I don't know if there's more things you wanna add. I just wanna clarify that one thing. Do you have more information you wanna, because I know there's a few other things in there. I thought the, well, I'll let you continue with your presentation. No, I didn't wanna, I didn't wanna drag you into the weeds. I think I just wanted to give you a cursory overview and then respond to any questions you have. Okay. Well, there were a couple of things that I just wanted to ask about that maybe other board members have other questions. One of them is phasing, which I think it was a comment that you're not planning to change the overall phasing as 10 years, but you're five years into it and a lot of it. So do you really, are you still planning on completing it in 10 years? Well, yes. You know how old I am, Brad? Yeah, I would like to be done in five years. Thank you very much. That doesn't mean that we won't come back and ask for an extension, but right now I think we're on a track where we could be done in five years. So I don't have no reason to ask for an extension at this time. Okay. One of the comment just, the trip generation decreased. And that was comment basically because of a decrease in commercial area. Correct. Where was that commercial area that decreased? Where was it located? Yeah. Well, how much decreased? I guess I missed that. Oh boy. I think we had something in the order of 100,000 feet of commercial space at the outset and I don't know what I can tell you in a minute what it is now, but it's substantially less. Here's the use mix in your packet for board members, total commercial space. Where is it now? Well, it has individual square footages. I don't see a lump sum, but it's substantially less than it was originally. 40,000, I think. Yeah, it sounds about right. Can you just talk briefly about that, the choices of commercials and space? Mike, can you follow up on that? I'm sorry. What's the question again? How did you choose the number of square feet? I saw you dropped the convenience store. I'm just curious a little bit about your thoughts on developing commercial along with the residential portion. Well, and so before I answer that, round numbers is about 20,000 square feet of commercial space, not counting the hotel use. So we haven't had very much demand for commercial. We are going to do a cafe on the corner of the Rise building, which is right across from Cathedral Square, adjacent to the bus stop. Yeah, right on that corner, we thought that that was a very critical use for us. The convenience store, because we're trying not to build any more parking than we absolutely need, because we don't think there's really any, no demand has surfaced for a convenience store and it's pretty impactful in terms of traffic and parking. So we abandoned that use. And frankly, we've shown a lot of, talked to a lot of commercial prospects and not getting a whole lot of interest. So we're going to focus on uses that we think would benefit the people that live here, cafe being one of them. We're kind of holding out for a small commodity store, basically like a grocery store, not a convenience store, but a small grocery store. And maybe some service uses, we think the 7,000 feet of co-working space would be very beneficial to the folks who live here. But in terms of trying to attract offsite commercial demand, I think that's not what our mission is. Are there questions from the board? So we're sort of in that phase right now or the applicant? Yes, I had another question. There's your question for a parking waiver. I was just hoping you could discuss that a little bit. Well, so we're asking for a waiver, correct me, Mike, if I'm wrong, about 20%, is it? Yeah. Yeah, so, I mean, we have very good records. We've done a lot of surveying on other buildings that we own, some in Burlington and some not in Burlington. Got a pretty good handle on how much minimal parking we need for a particular building to be economically feasible so that I can get it financed. At the same time, we are doing everything we can to get people out of their cars. We put $450,000 into a climate-controlled bus stop, which is not opened yet, but it's right on the corner of the Southeast, corner of the Rise building. We put bike wash and bike storage and facilities in. We have bike share, we have car share. So we're doing everything, we're gonna connect to the bike path. We're doing everything we can, but the interesting thing about people who choose alternative modes of transportation, most of them still own cars. They may not drive them, but they own them. So they got to park them somewhere. So I wasn't interested in committing financial suicide by not having enough parking. But I think we're at the minimum of what we would need for this to be a feasible project. I'd be happy if people don't drive their cars, but that's a cultural change that will take some time. I can't see how the board members have a question. Yeah, Brad, I just have one. So when we've seen this project on multiple iterations, but most specifically in the beginning, one of the issues we talked about aside from phasing which Brad brought up, well, there's two issues actually. One, internal street construction. We spent a lot of time with Eric. This doesn't affect your timelines or your internal street construction obligations. I know we spent a lot of time talking about that. Is that right? No, the city has a covenant on against the land. And so when we build a building that requires a particular section of street, we wanna build that street. We gotta get the city to release those affected lots and we do that by, we have to post a bond for that section of the street. So the street will be built and we've built two sections, both what we call South Road. We built halfway down so that Cathedral Square and CHT could occupy. And then we bonded for the rest of that street down to the bottom so that building M could be built and that as we do Aurora, we'll have to bond for North Road and parts of West Road. So we're building it as we're building the buildings. And we have a pretty, we have an obligation to the city to bond whenever we ask them to release a particular lot from the operation of that covenant. Okay, and then the second question is we spent a fair amount of time talking about public access to the lake and those things. Again, no effect on any of that. No, there's two primary ways people can get to the lake. One is they can go right down the bike path because we're gonna make the bike path connection. We're working with parks in rec, they have funding for about half the cost of the connection. So long story short, we agreed to pick up the difference. And then the other thing we're doing is that so that folks who for lack of better way of saying, if someone's in a wheelchair and they wanna get from North Avenue to the bike path where an eight or 9% slope might be too great for them, we have a route that will get them the full distance. And part of that is as you see Mike's path there, there's an elevator, there'll be a public elevator right there that will help them traverse 20 feet of dropping grade. And then so basically you can get from North Avenue to the bike path at no more than a 5% grade. So that was a commitment we made early on hasn't changed and our bike path connection, we made a commitment early on it has not changed. Issue, this was a comment from DPW Eric. Originally, I remember there was some comment about when I don't know the right terminologies, but infrastructure would get completed at the intersection where you're building that bus thing for a signal and other road changes. And I think the intention was that would happen by now and it hasn't happened and DPW is asking for that to happen within the next series of construction. Well, I responded to Laura about that this afternoon, copied Scott in so one significant thing that happened after you, this board approved this project originally, we went into discussions with DPW that for several months, maybe a year or more, about reconstructing the entire frontage of North Avenue consistent with the North Avenue, I forget what they call it, but upgrading all of North Avenue consistent with the North Avenue plan. So we're widening North Avenue to put parking on the West side. We enlarge the intersection. We created a pull-off lane for the bus. So all of that infrastructure affected that intersection is not practical. We can't put a traffic light in until we do those improvements. And those improvements all have to be done at the same, you know, as one consistent project. So the other thing that I, in my response to Laura was that we have not met, we're not even close to meeting the warrants for a light. I know DPW originally wanted it to blink for a while. So it's not feasible for us to make those improvements by June 30th of 23. I think we can make them by the following year. We're basically gonna do them at the same time we're building Aurora. And as you can imagine, all of these public improvements get funded by us building buildings. So the more we build buildings, then we build more and more public improvements. And the one thing that we said we would do this summer or this spring or summer is put up a controlled pedestrian crossing. We actually ordered that equipment we already received it. We're waiting for that concrete basis so that the crossing that's in front of Cathedral Square where people go over to the convenience store is uncontrolled. And I do agree with Laura that that crossing needs to be controlled because there's more pedestrian traffic crossing North Avenue in that location. But it's not possible for us to make the entirety of the North Avenue widening improvements by next June. It's just not, it can't happen. But you're okay with it happening concurrent with Aurora. Correct. We are content with happening with tying it to the occupancy of Aurora. So Brad, we have Laura Wheelock from Public Works on the call. Do we wanna entertain comments from Laura at this point, Brad, or now? This is what we're talking about. Laura, do you wanna weigh in on this? Sure. And I do wanna acknowledge the extensive work that we've done with the applicant on North Ave and the improvements will be significant when they're completed. The fundamental concern that DBW has and that we've been receiving from the residents who already live here is the state of the crossing to be able to use alternative transportation both for bike infrastructure as well as transit. And the intersection with the South Road is left in a little bit of a construction state and it's going to still have to undergo construction. And we wanna find a way to support the probably hundreds of residents that already live here and kind of continue along the goal that the applicant has with supporting the alternative transportation but in a safe way with some infrastructure to support them. What that infrastructure in the memo talks about the light flashing at this point and I think a turn lane too, am I right? No, it speaks to the rapid flashing beacon to help with the crosswalk only and the signal which was the original request so that it was there, it was in flash and that should pedestrian crossing need to be actuated it was there and ready to go which was the reason for the original request back in 2017. So, I'm curious why is the flashing pedestrian signal happening however many hundred yards south of that intersection rather than at the intersection? The rapid flashing beacon is exclusively for crosswalks so it's like what you would see on Pine Street it's not meant to control vehicles. Right. We could do one of those at the south road crossing in the interim until a signalized intersection is placed to help facilitate pedestrian crossings at that location but the original request which we didn't wanna alter too much had basically had the signal in there as a fail safe so that it could be turned on if the pedestrian warrant was met not just because of the project's traffic. But would it make sense to put that in now when there's so much more infrastructure to happen on North Avenue that isn't happening yet? The reason why we requested a date or connection with an occupancy is that leaving it to the term of phasing has resulted in us being in this position five years later. I acknowledge we did lots of work in that solidly related to the delay but it felt like we needed a hard goal to tie the signalized infrastructure improvements to. So is completion of Aurora such a condition that you're looking for? We can be amenable to that. And we agree with Laura in terms of pedestrians because as we all know, not all drivers are respectful of those crosswalks. So I think having flashing lights and we don't care where it's put. I think our Laura, I don't know whether it's supposed to go where the existing crossing is which is directly to the convenience store or farther south. I suppose we could put it at the intersection but I'm thinking that we should put it where the existing crossing is but I don't think it makes much difference to us where we put it. Yeah, I would be supportive of that in the interim until the roadway construction is complete because you're gonna still need people away from the center of the intersection and that's where the existing bus stop is now but we really wanna see assisted crossing for people pretty immediately. Thank you. Any other questions from the board, Laura? Okay, any other questions from the board before we open it up to the public? There is public speaking. Scott, are there members of the public who are asked to speak here? Yeah, we still have Jane with her hand up and Sharon for sure with her hand up. Okay, Jane, would you like to speak? Sure, this is Jane Hagen. I live at 372 North Ave right across from Building B. I originally had questions about parking. I think Eric, you've answered most of those. It seems like there's still not enough for residents there but also had questions on the parking trying to get the name of the CR Transportation Demand Management Plan. It identifies that parking will be, what's the wording? It will be unbundled from residential leases and deeds so it sounds like if you're renting at any of these buildings you're not guaranteed a parking spot. It's free for all for lack of better term. And no parking spaces will be available to off-site users. I just like clarification on what that means. Either is there no guest parking or how do you, if there is commercial space, how do consumers access those spaces if they don't have parking? I can speak to that briefly. That's a standard in Article 8 and it basically means Eric isn't running parking lot for off-site users. Got it, thank you. You want me to address Jane's other questions? Yes, please, Eric. So the concept of unbundling, when we went to the city council to increase the density to 950 that was a condition of the amendment to our development agreement that we unbundle. And all that really means is that they want renters, it doesn't apply to condo owners, but they want renters to be conscious of the cost of owning a car. So the minimum unbundled cost was $50. So in our case, we instituted a policy consistent with that requirement so that if you rent a unit from us, you can have one surface parking place. You have one car. If you don't have a car, we'll deduct $75 off your rent to encourage you not to have a car or reward you for not having a car. If you have two cars, then you pay an extra 75. And that's all the council, my understanding was trying to accomplish. They wanted people to understand there was a cost of car ownership and to reward people for not having cars and discourage them from having more than one. And so that's all, that's the long and short of unbundling. We will have, I don't might get answer the question, but when Cambrian Way is complete, there's a fair amount of public parking on the street, which we don't control. There might, you know, up top of your head, how many public street parking spaces there are? Roughly 120 are being created. And those will be metered spaces. Is that included North Avenue? That includes North Avenue. We do not envision that they would be metered. That would be a choice. That would be a choice the city could implement, although I don't, this would not typically be a zone where you would. So the other thing about, even though we don't have a lot of commercial uses, won't have a lot of commercial uses, typically commercial uses like daytime uses, most half the residents in our experience are, you know, drive their cars away from the site. So that you don't typically have to provide parking for commercial on top of residential because they're a unique use time function. So we think we have enough parking. We don't think we have too much and we don't think we have too little, but it's not quite an exact science. I think the biggest concern was when you said that A, B, G and C were all using the same parking area that had about 300 plus parking spaces where C itself has 300 units. So I think that's where the kind of the flag rose for me. And of course, adding another 200 units overall, that was one of my initial concerns. Actually, so a correction. So C, so A, B and C will have 170 units total and building C, A and B will have 170, C will have 134. So there's 303 or 304 units on all three buildings, but building C residents will park west of the building where is the A and B residents will park between them and building C and D. Also, by the time C is done, there'll be some structured parking that's complete. And we expect that many of the renters will elect to lease a garage space. I also wanted to call out, I see that there's a reduction in the green space that the corridor that was originally there and added a parking spot, parking lot there, just above that center east of that central green that you're hovering over there. That's a new, is that correct? New parking. Yeah, we reduced the green space there and increased the size of the central green. We basically wanted to consolidate the green space into one location that was more approximate to the public park. And then I also wanted to call out, Brad, I appreciated your comments about building F seeming quite tall in comparison to Liberty House and how the original conversation for North Ave buildings was to not exceed that. I haven't read the historical survey that you have, I see it in the documents, but I did not read that beforehand, but just wanted to voice that as a concern as well. That's such a beautiful building and it really feels like it's starting to encroach on North Avenue and rise over the Liberty House as well. And that's no question there, just a statement. And then finally, I'd love to see the new or whatever the North Ave corridor revamp. I've seen plans before Cambrian rise. I haven't seen any plans after Cambrian rise. I know before, when we were looking at them, they did not have any effect on our front yard on the east side of North Avenue. And so I'd love to see how that affects me for the revised plans. And I saw that, I did take a screenshot of that one that you, yeah, exactly. That's- Before you go, I'd like to see if there's any other questions that Jane has before you. Done, that was it. Thank you. Was that it, Jane? Yes, that's correct, that's it. So for the record, the widening is happening only on the west side and the parking is being added only, all the improvements are happening on the west side, the bike path and the bus stop and the widening of the road. So we're not changing the curb line on the east side of North Avenue. Great, I'm sorry, Brad. Can I just make one more comment? I'm happy to have increased housing options. I am concerned about what they're gonna cost and wanting to make sure that there are availability. Like you said, the 25%, that's great, but also just market rate working people right in there so that it's affordable for regular old Burlington, Burlingtonians, thank you. Other stuff? Little, are we getting some feedback somewhere? But I have one follow-up question right now because it seems relevant, Eric. You're talking about having the completion of Aurora trigger some of these things. Is Aurora the next building you're building? No, the next building we're gonna start is Building C approximately the 1st of May. We're supposed to start Building C in March of 2020 and you can probably guess why we didn't. So we're finally getting to build that building out. Aurora hopefully will start in the fall. So it could be three years before that North Avenue stuff gets addressed. Well, Aurora will likely be occupied in two phases. The first phase would be occupied somewhere between 18 and 24 months after we start. So if we were to start, say in September, October of this year, it would be occupied in the spring of 24. So I think that maybe I don't want a hard day because I'd rather have it tied to Aurora, but June 30th, 24 is more realistic than June 30th of 23, but I'm comfortable with you tying those improvements to the intersection improvements to the occupancy of the first units of Aurora. I think that would be fair. As long as we continue on there, I think I know Sharon Pusher was asking to speak. As member of the public, Sharon, did you have comments? Scott, can you, and you're muted, Scott. Sharon, you should be able to unmute yourself. I am able to, thank you. Most of my questions were answered by the presentation. I very much appreciated that overview, Eric. It was really hard to follow all of this. I really miss the in-person meetings for big projects like this. And it was hard to determine what had changed. I read the words, but I just was trying to see it visually. Does Aurora have any commercial space in it on the first floor? It does not. The only commercial space, well, it has the coworking space, yes. The 7,000 feet of commercial space, which is on the ground floor of building D underneath the boardwalk. Okay, okay. I was reading the original proposal that was talking about vistas from North Avenue and talking about if indeed commercial space had some big windows, there would be more opportunity to see. Of course, you wouldn't be able to see through it because Aurora is such a big building. You wouldn't have space from the beginning of North Avenue to the end. And I get that, but I just wanted to understand. So all of Aurora is residential. Correct. And in that building, could you just tell me one more time how many units there are in Aurora? There are 192 units and there are three basically hotels, hotel rooms, hotel suites. They're basically units, but they're for rentals of friends and families of residents of Aurora. Okay, okay. Thank you for clarifying that. No, everything else was answered. Once again, I know that this is a project that is bigger than Burlington has seen and I share some concerns about it, but I think what I've seen done is really well done meeting the needs of the people who occupy those spaces. I'm glad there's a mix of owner occupied. I believe the condominiums are going to be owned, I hope. So I'm hoping that there's that combo because I think that's a better, healthier mix. So yes, Eric, the only thing I ever wanted was more open space dedicated to the public, but you held firm on 12 acres and I'm okay with that. So thank you again. I appreciate it, Jared. Thank you. Yep. And Scott, I think there was nobody else in the public. Is that right? No one else had their hand raised. That's correct. Okay. So the only comment I have, Eric, still is, I don't quite know how to chew on this, but the 30 feet higher on North Avenue is somewhat troublesome, you know, in proportion to the... Oh, we're not proposing 30 feet higher on North Avenue. We are still stepping back away from North Avenue. Well, if I'm reading your plans right, the original roof on EF was 258 and your current roof on EF now is 296. Yeah, that's set back further though. This front portion is lower. It's five straight and five story facing North Avenue and then it steps back. So what's... And it was four stories facing North Avenue. Can you give a number on that? Yep. Just give me one second. So this roof elevation is 287. So what, like I said, it was 258 before. That's almost 30 feet higher. I don't think it's, I mean, I'm curious to... And then this corner down here is 274. Yeah. Let me find an order height, and then I can do a comparison. And of course, Brad, you know, the part of the reason for that is that the, not the reason, but the ordinance, the way it was written, encourages us to be close to the street. I understand that. I'm just going back to the original conversations that we had about streetscapes and building heights and things like that. And this, you know, these were comments that were made before. And I think it was, there was a tension paid to the relative height between this and the Eve on Liberty House. And now that's not happening anymore. So that's... My only comment, Brad, would be to say, respectfully, I don't think anybody could have been more respectful to Liberty House than the mountain of money that we've boarded to restoring that building. And it's still the prominent building on the site and people love living there. So I agree, this is a taller, a tall building next to it, but I think that's okay. If I may, before you jump in, Michael. Okay. So section 9-1-12 of the ordinance, and I can do a quick screen share if need be. But what it says, it says that any projects with inclusionary housing units shall be entitled by right to an increase in the maximum lot coverage, density and density, and where applicable height, allow for the lots in which the project is located. And that was intentional wording put in place by the city council when Article 9 was reworked a few years back. You're saying by right, Scott. That's what it says. Well, that quiets me, Eric, but it doesn't change my opinion. No, listen, I respect your opinion, Brad. I do, I really do. Yeah, okay. But you know, the only thing I would say is if you can't live with the one that you love, love the one that you're with. Thanks, Eric. Okay, so let's see. I think we covered most of the questions here. We had, that I can see on this. Are there other questions from the board? I can't see. Maybe we can not do the screen share and just show the board again, Scott. Yeah, so any other questions from the board on this application? Maybe we could just quickly go over the full scope of what we're being asked to approve. It's a great big project with lots of pieces and this is an amendment to the project as a whole as a plan unit development. You're being asked to approve the increase in dwelling units, the physical building changes, the fairly inconsequential as my editorial changing commercial space and the maximum parking waiver. And your decision should address public works concerns about the infrastructure. Questions from the board. I suspect we will then deliberate tonight on this. Eric is not on the screen anymore, let me see that. Sorry, Greg, Eric's good at his handout. Yeah, I have one qualifying question. Yeah. So, Scott, given that there's no density in this district and the density is controlled by my development agreement, are they technically, is the increase in density really what they're reviewing or is that? Yes, is the short answer. I'm sorry. I said yes is the short answer. Okay. And now we're approving the buildings is what we're being asked to do is approve the buildings, which include the density. I appreciate that you're approving the buildings and all the technical requirements surrounding them. I just wasn't your density was really a factor in that. But just a question. More housing, more housing. Well, Bill did, Eric. Okay, unless there's any other questions, any else you wanna add or Mike or Eric? No, I'm good. Okay. We'll close the public hearing. Thanks a lot. And thanks. Thank you all. I appreciate it very much. Good to see you again. Yeah. Okay. That is our last agenda item. Unless there's any other business that we have. It's not other business, but one thing you have it. Your first meeting in May, we have on the schedule to do a training with Vermont League of Cities and Towns in addition to a couple of small projects, but mostly training event with them. So I mean, we get pizza? Yeah, virtually maybe. You have pizza in your living room. I was gonna be a virtual meeting again. This was a tough project to review virtually. I've got two iPads going and looking at different things at the same time. Okay. First meeting in May. That's month away. Okay. Scott, have you introduced our new planning technician? I did, before you arrived and joined us, Mary. Welcome, Joe. Joe or Joseph? You're muted. Joseph to the general public. If I go by Joey around the office, it's a pleasure to meet all of you and it's been quite an education so far because I sit in on the DRB meetings on my local board and after seeing this project, it's blows away anything we would ever see on our local DRB. It's a little unusual here too. Okay. Well, welcome. And with that, we're gonna close the DRB meeting and we will go into a deliberative session. So on ZP-22-88147 Spear Street, I move that we approve the request and adopt staff's findings and recommend their findings and conditions. Second on that. Chase, thank you. Any discussion? All in favor? Okay. It's approved. Thank you. 351-375 North Avenue. I move that we approve the application, adopt staff's findings and recommendations with a couple of clarifications. One is that the applicant agrees to have the new signal and intersection improvements as discussed with DPW have them operational when the first phase of Aurora is occupied. And the other thing is that they would also agree that they will do a, I don't know the right terminology is a signalized pedestrian crossing or flashing lights location to be determined by conversation between the applicant and DPW in terms of location. But that should be constructed within the next three months. I think that's, that's what I've got on this thing at this point. Any second on this? Broke second. Okay, discussion on this. Okay. Well, and maybe all in favor? Opposed. Okay. Well, Cambrian rise lives. And rising. That's it. Our job is done. That's it. Till next time. Thank you all. Okay. Good night. See you later.