 Stephanie as well as myself. So we do have a quorum and we can start. And Langen will join us and Dawn Philly, but it's my preference unless another board member feels differently, it's my preference to start now. This conference will now be recorded. I would again ask people who've joined the meeting to please mute yourself until it's your time to speak. So not hearing any objection to starting the meeting and the fact that the recording has been started, I'm gonna get things going. So welcome to the South Burlington Development Review Board meeting for tonight, Tuesday, March 16th. With me as members of the board, we have Alyssa Eyring, we have Mark Baer, Stephanie Wyman. And I do not see in the list of attendees, oh, Dawn Philly Burke just arrived. I don't see Jim Langen yet, but now there are five of us. So we have more than a quorum. There's Jim, so there now there's six of us. Okay, so in attendance as staff for the city of South Burlington Planning and Zoning Department, we have Marla Keane, our Development Review Planner, and Delilah Hall, our Zoning Administrator. The first item on the agenda is any additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items? Do we have anything on that? Hearing none, the second agenda item is announcements. Do we have any board announcements? Again, hearing none, we'll move to, in a minute, we'll move to comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda. I do want to read some instructions, especially for people who have not participated in one of these virtual meetings before. Thank you to those in attendance who's on the phone and those watching online. As a reminder, this meeting is being recorded. Anyone who wishes to participate in the hearing should sign the virtual sign-in sheet in the chat box. Anyone on the phone that would like to sign in and send an email to Marla Keane, her email address is M-K-E-N-E at sburl.com and provide your contact information in that email. This is necessary in order to be considered a participant. Should you want to obtain party status in order to appeal a decision made by this board? You can also submit comments in writing and that can be during the hearing or between hearings. I would ask that you mute your phone or computer so we don't catch ambient noises in the background. Looks like everybody's done that, thank you. And so now I'm gonna ask for comments and questions from the public not related to items on the agenda. Don't seem to have any, which we almost never do. So at this point, I think you can move on to the substantive items on the agenda. The first of which is continued site plan application SP21007 and conditional use application CU2101 of Bryce Memorial High School. The amended previously approved site plan for a 126,875 square foot educational facility. The amendment consists of a 160 foot square feet building expansion to house a new cooler freezer located at 99 Proctor Avenue. Who is here for the applicant tonight? I am Jason Barron. Welcome, Jason. Will anyone else be with you? Our principal Lisa Lorenz was supposed to be on the call but I don't see her and I haven't heard from her so more than capable of moving forward. Okay, good. So this is the continuation of an earlier hearing. Were you sworn in at that hearing, Jason? No, I was not. Okay, so we'll do that now. Do you swear or affirm under the penalties of perjury that the testimony you're about to give is true to the best of your knowledge? I do. Thank you. Let me just, it's my first time reading through these prompts. Land development projects that do not require a subdivision or do not qualify as a plan unit development, which this doesn't, are eligible to be reviewed as site plans. In this hearing, the applicant will describe the project and the applicant and board will step through staff comments but I'm gonna just kind of shortcut that now because we have had an initial hearing on this application and it seems like, Marla correct me if I'm wrong, it seems like we're to the point where we have a draft decision and don't really have any staff comments to go through, is that correct? Mostly correct. This hearing was continued without being heard because we felt the issues could be resolved without the board's feedback. So this is the first time the board's seeing it but staff considers that there's no outstanding issues. Okay, well, I don't feel bad about not remembering this hearing. So if staff considers there aren't any outstanding issues, I would ask my fellow board members if any of them see any issues that would prevent us from closing the hearing. I have none. Okay. I don't feel sorry. Okay, thanks Mark and Dawn and other people are shaking their heads. We don't have any such issues. I would then ask members of the public if they would like to comment on this application. Do we have any public comments? Okay, no public comments. Just reminded me I forgot something earlier. Before we start a hearing on a matter of do disclosures. Disclosures are generally whether people on the board feel as if they might have a conflict of interest or some other transaction has occurred that might make them less than impartial. And not every member is gonna have a disclosure on the item obviously. For me, many years ago, I represented Verizon Wireless in a manner that was adverse to the Catholic Diocese of Burlington, but it had nothing to do with this property, nothing to do with Rice High School. So I don't think that's a problem. I also represented in that timeframe one of the engineering or architectural firms that has done work on this project, Blackwood Design. It appears though that the work they did was revised in 2014. So that's been quite a while ago. So all that's to say, I don't think I have any reason to accuse myself. Any other board members have disclosures? Brian, I'll just say, I don't feel I have any kind of conflict of interest that makes them to graduate from Rice last year. But, you know, it's successful, I mean, you know, so if you graduate successfully, I don't think I can look at this impartially. If they hadn't let them graduate, then there would have been a problem. Yeah, exactly. Okay, so we don't have any board recusals. We don't have any board comments. We don't have any public comments. Does the applicant want to say anything? Have you, Josh, reviewed the draft decision? Jason, I'm sorry, have you Jason reviewed the decision? I reviewed it and it's my first time looking at one of these, but I kind of got the impression that you guys didn't have any issues except for the condition of the C-1 drawing for the next time we do a site plan amendment. Besides that, I think I'm pretty clear. Yeah, and that was the thing that I had highlighted just to make clear that we'll let this one go as is, but the next time you come before us, we're gonna need to have those drawn. Is that correct, Marla? Is it in the convey? Yep, that's correct. And I anticipate that fairly soon the LDRs will be amended to require that anyway. Okay. So all of that being said, I think I would entertain a motion to close this hearing. Brian, I'll make a motion that we close site plan SB 2107 and conditional use application to SB 2101 right from Memorial High School. We have a second. I'll second that. Okay. So it's been moved by Mark, seconded by Dawn. I'm gonna do a roll call just because it's easier to do, I think, that way on this virtual platform. So Jim Langen, how do you vote? Jim? Okay. Mark Behr. Aye. Dawn Fillebrough. Aye. Stephanie Wyman. Aye. Lisa Eyring, the chair votes aye. So close the hearing and for your time, please. Thank you. And Brian, I just get a text message from our principal, Lisa Lorenz. She is on the call. She's been muted. She just wanted to let everybody know that she is here. Okay. Did she have any comments? No, she was, I don't think so. I can check real quick. Nope, she just texted me. She has no comments. Okay. So we're closed. We're gonna move on to the next item and Jason. Brian, Brian, I think I was right. This is Jim, I was muted. I was voted aye as well. Okay. So the record will reflect that the vote was six to zero in favor of closing the hearing. Now the next item on the agenda is a sketch plan application number SD2108 of DS Realty LLC to create a plan unit development on an existing parcel currently developed with three buildings, consisting of an artist production studio and standard restaurant in one building and three dwelling units in two buildings. The plan unit development consists of removing all three dwelling units by demolishing one residential building and converting the other to an educational facility with associated minor improvements and adding educational facility as an allowed use at 916 Shelburne Road. I'm gonna start with the disclosures on this one. I have to recuse myself from this hearing. I assume that Dawn will be chairing. Is that correct? No. Okay. Yes. I am going to mute myself. I will not take part, but I will watch just so I'm ready for the hearing after this. Thank you, Brian. We'll see you in a bit. So my name is Dawn Filiburt. I'm the clerk of the DRB and let's jump into agenda number five as Brian laid it out. Let me just spend a minute talking about what this presentation is. We are at the level of sketch plan. And for those of you who don't know what this process is all about, this is not a formal hearing. This is an opportunity for the applicant to tell us all about the project, what they have in mind, give us a little history of brief high level overview. And then we can walk through the comments that staff has and it will give the applicant a sense of what the board is thinking in terms of how the application conforms to the LDRs and what issues there might be and what more information the board might be interested in at the next time we review this application which will be preliminary plat, is that correct Marla? Yep, that's correct. Which will be a formal hearing and we'll swear people in and whatever. So who is here for the applicant? So I'm Teresa Davis, the owner and then we have a team of people who are also here. Okay, thank you Teresa. I don't need to swear you in but I do need to ask if anyone else on the board needs to recuse themselves or has a conflict that they would like to disclose. Hearing none. Can I ask that the rest of Teresa's team get introduced just so I can make accurate notes? Sure, I can, I mean, I can introduce people or they can introduce themselves but we have Paul Simon of VIS Construction Consultants and he's the landscape architect. We have Catherine Lang from Freeman French and Freeman and we have Paul Guavere with Engineering Ventures as our civil engineer and then we also have Robert Davis who is my husband and co-property owner. Thank you. That's helpful. Okay, would you please Teresa give us an overview of your project, what you have in mind? Sure, thanks for the opportunity to address everybody. I'll just give a real quick overview of my business and also how the property is used. So Davis Studio has been in business for a little over 17 years. We were on Pine Street in Burlington for the first 12 years and then we moved to this property in South Burlington about five years ago. We're predominantly known in the community for our youth art camps and classes and we also have several adult art programs and more recently our educational division has been growing and that includes an arts-based preschool and a small private elementary school. So we're fairly well known and well loved in the community and all of these programs have been thriving and growing even in the midst of COVID, which has been great. We also have great relationships with the neighbors on Lindenwood and many of the children that live on Lindenwood attend our classes and our preschoolers in particular know almost all the neighbors by name and leave them little love notes on their porch. So it's that kind of a pretty friendly atmosphere in the neighborhood. The biggest change that we've had recently due to COVID was that we had a small 25 seat cafe which was a full service restaurant on site and that was called the Starving Artist Cafe which we have now closed permanently. We have however retained the commercial kitchen and are now renting it to Pi Society and Pi Society likely falls into the category of more of restaurant short order or possibly even a food hub. They bake sweet and savory pies and have more of a CSA style direct to customer model with a weekly pickup. And so there's no on site dining anymore at all. They were just featured in stuck in Vermont. So I think that was just like two weeks ago or something. The campus itself is really ideal for Davis studio in many ways. The location is convenient. The big grassy lawn and the proximity to Farrell Park and the wooded walking trails all support our other programming. When we purchased the property we also inherited the three rental units. So the rental units are obviously not part of our arts education mission. In fact, even though we've carefully vetted all the potential tenants the presence makes some families with children a little bit nervous aren't comfortable. As our programs have grown we're in need of additional classroom space for which the carriage house structure is ideal. About a year ago a large pine tree crashed through the small A-frame building doing some pretty significant damage and Robert's gonna address this that issue later more specifically. We explored the idea of putting up additional apartments on the property that were more aligned with our mission by maybe creating artist loss for individuals who could integrate in our community by being artists in residence. But in the end we just weren't able to come up with a plan that was feasible, affordable or mission aligned. We've been working with Paul Simon to develop a long-term site plan. And during this phase one we want to remodel the carriage house and add classroom space. And that's what we're here to address this evening. And at a future point in time we hope to address some parking needs along with additional landscaping and playground design. So that's just kind of an overview of the business and the project. Thank you. Anything else your team would like to add before we start to walk through staff comments? No, I think we're prepared to respond as you address the comments I think. Okay, so let's dive right in and start doing those. Okay. As you know, the staff comments are in red and the first comment is on page four. Staff recommends the board ask the applicant to demonstrate why they believe the project qualifies as a PUD. Given the language of the PUD purpose statement by demonstrating how the property functions as a unified coherent entity and how the PUD is respecting and supporting the adjacent neighborhood as opposed to infringing upon it. Okay, I will respond to that. So the expansion of the existing educational facility used to the carriage house would actually really provide greater unification to make a more coherent entity with just the basic functions and the main operations of Davis Studio. And for the second question this project will respect and support the adjacent neighborhood by operating as it already is. There will be little to no perceived changes from a neighbor's perspective. The only thing we can even think of that might change is they'll probably be slightly less late night activity on site because instead of renters coming and going it'll be quiet cause our classes will have ended. So that was really the only change that we think will even happen. Okay, thank you. Board members, does anyone have any questions about this? Okay, moving on to the second comment. Since the applicant originally was requesting the regulations of the C1, R15 apply in the R4, staff recommends the board confirm with the applicant that they're only seeking permission to allow educational facility in the R4 and they would be satisfied with the other provisions of the R4 district continue to apply. Oh, this is Paul Simon. I'll respond to that one there. I think we will be agreeing with staff that educational facility use for the carriage house and can fall under conditional use review instead of a split lot extension providing that we can still have the parking there. I think that this is stuff we still have to work out with staff. I noticed like on page 235 of the regulations regarding offsite parking that, there's a statement about offsite parking and loading space for any non-residential use can't be allowed I guess in the R4 but I'm thinking that may have to do with offsite parking that's off the site but offsite parking is sometimes defined as off the street. So we have questions like that. We just wanna check and make sure that everything that we're proposing to do here for an extension of into the R4 would be allowed. Another one that comes to mind too is the fact that there's a variety of uses that Theresa mentioned that they do here and teaching the arts is what they do mainly but there is a preschool education aspect to that. Now under commercial one R15 if we were able to do split lot zone extension childcare facilities allowed but the regulations do not allow childcare facility in R4. However, educational facility which we believe meets the broad term of what is allowed for what Davis Studio does falls correctly into allowing the preschool use. So that's a question I guess we have for the board on that front is that plus we also understood through the initial staff review that the GIS line it's a split lot so there's most of the site is 1.32 acres of it is in the commercial zone district. A back sliver of it is in the R4 district. So there is a split lot zone extension that we could do which requires a PUD review to ask for 50 feet to go back towards the east and then fall under have the carriage house fall under the city at the commercial zoning allowance which is what we could pursue instead of asking conditional use I guess in the R4. So we have either option to listen. Can I hear you laid out three things? Can we go through them one at a time? Would that be okay? Sure. Okay, so the first one if R4 does prohibit off the commercial parking it would not be considered off that commercial parking associated with the educational use. So that's not an issue. If you were to, you know, put, if you were to propose like all kinds of additional parking in that area more than would support the use in the R4 portion of the lot we'd probably have to look at it more closely. But if you're, you know, as you have proposed today I don't see that being a problem. Could I ask a question, Marla? When we had, as we've thought about this going forward we'd really, at one point you had suggested that where the playground is now which is back on that southeast corner would be an ideal place to add parking. We do need to add parking at some point. And that we agree with you that that is actually an ideal space to add it. And we plan at some time in the future to do that. So we just want to make sure that that wouldn't be prohibited in the future. Okay. Yeah. I think, yeah. So that kind of gets to Paul's second point. And I think that this maybe wasn't clear in the staff comments because the staff, the point that the staff comments were trying to make is that your request to allow the C1R15 zoning into 50 feet into the R4 doesn't get you there because the line that you've shown on your plan is inaccurate. The portion of the lot that's in the R4 is up to 65 feet wide. So if you only, you're only allowed to extend it 50 feet. So you would still have 15 feet left over that's in the R4. So getting back to your question, Robert. If you were to apply the C1R15 regulations 50 feet into the R4 then you could use it as commercial parking for the rest of the beauty. But that's not what you're asking for today. So my suggestion, and we can work on this offline, is that for the purposes of this, and it'd be good if you could answer the question, are you okay with the limit of your ask for this application being conditional used to allow educational facility in the R4? And then at the time that you're ready to do the expanded parking, then you'll be looking at a PUD and doing that split lot provision in the LDR. Well, a question with that ask is that when you mentioned educational facility in the R4, are you talking about the building or are you talking about that area? Because the functions aren't gonna really change. I mean, they use the site at the playground and the lawn area and everything for the children today. And that's not gonna change. But that use, that educational facility use is not limited to the building is what I wanna say. Like they teach outside, they teach in the playground. So, so is that right? Yeah, so I think that it'd be reasonable. And board, I'd like to get your feedback on this. If they, if you allow educational facility as a conditional use in the R4, we're allowing it across the entire R4. It's not just, I suppose there's no reason, not to, right? Board? He wouldn't be saying you can only do, you can only have the conditional use in the building. You would be saying you can have the conditional use across the entire zoning district. Board, any concerns about that? Make sense to me. Yeah. If I could just explain a little further, maybe it's already been clear, but in case it isn't, one of the things that I'm concerned about with the two different zone issue is that the different zones have different allowable uses slightly that cross, like, and we like to use our buildings, you know, like it may be used for children during the day, but in the evening it's used for adults. And is that then, oh, this is childcare and this is educational and you can use it in this building and not that, but you see what I mean? And I think, I think we'd like a harmonized use for the two buildings just to help our, the way we function since, you know, sometimes you have summer camps, sometimes you have adult classes and, you know, that sort of thing. Yeah, that's something that was Paul's third point that I did want to talk about. So we have a similar situation at the schoolhouse on Capcom Drive. And I don't know, Mark, if you were part of that decision, but they have sort of a split, they're in the SEQ, so it's super weird, but they're half and half preschool and childcare facility and educational facility. And I know that the decision on that was a little bit convoluted because in a residential zoning district, I don't know, it's very complicated. I don't really know how to deal with that fluidity. Mark, do you have any idea of that and how to form all of it? Or should I just kind of dig into those records? I would give them those records because I don't recall the discussions in the schoolhouse. People, if they're friends, there's a lot of background noise. Go ahead, Mark, thank you. Sure, I was just gonna say, I don't recall the specific discussion over, you know, the mixed-use usage in a residential district. It was more sort of that project that I remember more like the details of the site plan discussion, not the logistics of the mechanics of the zoning district on that project. Okay, that's a tough one. I guess I'd like this juncture. Delilah, can you chime in a little bit about the legal difference between a childcare facility and an educational facility? I can get you the definition, but I'm not, yeah. The childcare facility with six or more students is a certain definition under the state in our regulations, educational facility has the definition of educational facility. A facility used for or in support of education instruction or research in any branch of knowledge, including private and public elementary schools and secondary schools, colleges and universities. Yes, that's it. Childcare facility is a very, very long definition and it says to provide care protection, supervision and education for children under the age of 16 outside of their homes, for periods of fewer than 24 hours a day. And then it goes on and on. I mean, it seems like, I don't know, I'm not allowed to have opinions. My opinion is that it seems like a lot of bureaucracy to distinguish between the two, but I'd have to do some research onto what the regulatory parameters are. What is the board's general sense of the direction I should head with my research on this? Offs in the board? Like, should we try and find a way to keep them as two separate uses or should we try and find a way to define them as one use? Why wouldn't we try to define it as one use? I don't know. What's the downside of that? Well, it's more like, it's not necessarily this scenario. It's more like, I know we don't really do precedent, but what if this were a different applicant and they had nefarious intent, what would go wrong? Is there anything that really could go south if the Davis has moved on and somebody came in that wasn't as willing to work with us, I guess, and took over the same property? Board members, thoughts? Well, Marla, with conditional use reviewed, does the approval go to the site or the applicant? The site. Okay, so we wanna provide control not knowing what's down the line. Yeah, and I'm not, I can't think of a downside off the top of my head. I just wanna make sure that there isn't one. And then I guess the other option is that we spend a little more time researching this and have another conversation and a continued hearing. Well, I think we want, my thought is we want to avoid unintended consequences at any cost. So taking our time, there's gonna be more hearings about this, why don't we do, my suggestion is why don't we do that? And Paul, if you're raising your hand. Yes, one thing to help with that. I don't know if you got the new C1 existing conditions plan we sent today, Marla. And maybe you could pull that up. But we took a look at the, where the line was placed. Originally we thought it was about 50 feet from the property line anyhow. And with the split lot zone extension, right? You can extend the use from one district to another only up to 50 feet. So we took a look at that and Marla's right, we did not locate the line, right? It's actually further west. However, there's also an assessment on the property for C1 R15. And that assessment that's been paid on the taxes is 1.32 acres. So we actually did this line today. That's the old C1 plan that we sent, an update I believe this morning to show based on the 1.32 acres that are paid for the commercial parcel, you can actually locate that line specifically. And with that said, when you extend that over 50 feet, it doesn't get to the property line, but it does encompass the entire carriage house building. So that is an option I'd like to throw out there that we should perhaps review because that's real. That's what the Davis has been paying is, it's a 1.62 acre lot, 1.32 acres is zoned commercial. The other balance is the R4. And so that line can be specifically placed knowing that. Yeah, so our assessor does not govern where the zoning line is. If you've been in assessed incorrectly, then that may be an issue and we can work on that. But the zoning district line is where the GIS map says the zoning district line is. And that may, well, you may be right, it may be at the edge of the carriage house, you may be in the same situation, but I just wanna make sure we're clear. It's not what the assessor does. It's what the GIS map says. So Lila, there's a second thing in supplemental called being a plan or something like that. Not in the packet that I downloaded. There's only their photos and that's the Davis student. I didn't save it, maybe I exited out of it before I saved it. I can only have the document with the photos as a supplemental item in the plan. Okay, I can share my screen briefly. Okay, let me unshare. Do you know about that, Paul? I'll just look over there. Okay, so you're showing it, yeah. So I think this is consistent with what we saw, actually. So this probably is right. So this line, I don't know how you do this, this is crazy. This line is what you're showing is the 50 foot and then the property line is here. So yeah, that's pretty, I think that's consistent with RGIS. So that sounds like it's right. Yeah, so it leaves you the sliver that can't be C1, R15. Right, and what we did was you could use the C1, R15, R15, R15, R15, R15, R15, R15. And what we did was you can see on the left, we placed the GIS line, which is just in front of the carriage house. And that's the offset that you drew first and blue. But then we also did the calculation, which is the second, it's like the larger dash line that is just into the carriage house a little bit. It's a few feet in. And then if you offset that, it doesn't get to the property line on the east, but it gets close, there's still three feet or so. But it would, that 50, the 50 feet extension of the C1, R15 zoning uses can be used there. And that includes both educational facility as well as childcare. So that's the point we like to make, is that the commercial district allows the childcare. It's weird to me because you can have childcare in people's homes, and maybe I guess in a residential district. But like, but, but you know, it's basically not allowed, I guess in the R4, but you know, the big picture educational use is something that they're doing. And the preschool functions are preschool education. So. Okay. So I think that the bottom line is that we have to review this a little more. I understand that your request is only at this time or the site, all the functions of the site to be allowed across the entire parcel. Right now you're not asking for any other provisions of the C1, R15 to apply in R4, like setbacks, rights or law coverage or anything. You may ask that later. And not asking that now, it's fine. You can, you can still ask it later. Okay. Okay. We ready to. Whoops. We ready to move on. Definitely. Staff. I'm sorry. Thanks, Don. That was a tough one. Staff recommends the board asked the applicant to describe how the proposed educational facility will use use will differ from the current use to allow review of this criterion. The applicant should testify how the building and the area around the building will be used, what will be the hours of the use, what noise will be associated with the use, what landscaping buffer exists or is proposed. Staff considers the location of the educational facility within the side yard setback to be a potential factor in determining whether the impact is undue and adverse. Okay. I'm happy to answer. This is Teresa Davis. So as far as the expansion of the current use to the carriage house, there will be no difference in any change other than the current program and activities that we already have going on in the main building. As far as how the area will be used similarly, it will continue to be used as it has been. There will continue to be parking lawn landscaping and play space used. Some things that we do plan to improve would be ADA accessibility with the parking in that area. So most of it will be maintained exactly as it is currently, such as the playground space. Our hours of use in general are occasionally as early as eight and as late as 8 p.m. I do want to note that our pickup heavy time is between 1.30 and 3 o'clock. So it's very, you know, our traffic is more minimal in those four to six hours. Four to six p.m. The noise associated with the use would be the exact same as it is today where children are playing in the playground or teachers are working with groups of kids outside. So no change would occur. That's different from our current programming. And then the landscaping buffer is, there's already a quite heavily screened landscape buffer that exists and that will be maintained. So no changes that would reduce the existing landscape buffer. And I think, I think we put some photos of the East buffer screening to just illustrate that. The file that was added today of East buffer screening, just to show that buffer that we were talking about. Yeah, there you go. That behind those buildings is the buffer screen. You can see it's quite robust. What kind of traffic coming and going is the, what's the name of the pie place? Pie society. So they have offsite pickup. And then one night a week when we do not have after school classes, they have on site pickup that evening. I see. So there's not traffic coming and going all the time picking up pies. No, not at all. It's just one time a week for a limited period of time. The way that it's like a CSA in a sense is people order, order their pies each week. And then they pick them up either at a different site, totally away from here in the North end, for example, or one night a week, they pick it up here. And we've coordinated that with a time when we don't have classes. Okay. Thank you for addressing that. Other questions from the board. I have a question. It's more of just a curiosity question. Okay. So what's your, what's your, what's your, what's your plan on your site plan. Behind the carriage house between the carriage house and the A frame that's being demolished right on the property line. You have something labeled. Wooden platform, but this picture seems to depict it as. Like a little structure. Yes. So that little structure had been a playhouse that we think was built, you know, probably in the 40s. And then we just placed a flat wooden platform that the kids uses a stage. So in that location now, that small structure that you see, this was taken last summer, shortly before we had that removed. Okay. So the plan is accurate that it's a wooden platform. And this picture is out of date. Correct. Got it. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Ready to move on. Okay. Okay. So the plan is the board directly up against you. Prepare an assessment of the trip generation. Of this site prior to the next application for the project. And authorize technical review. If the trip assessment is necessary. Of the trip assessment, if necessary. So we're happy to do this. And we're happy to provide. data and a traffic memorandum to support the next preliminary and final application submission. I was just talking with the engineer who did the original one when we moved in about this. What I want to note is that, you know, it's that peak hour evaluation for trip ends that is of concern between four and six p.m. and our greatest traffic as Theresa mentioned is really before that one thirty to about three to about three with with a lot less traffic occurring in the four to six. And then I think we already talked about pie society. In other words, this is currently zoned our current traffic allotment included for a cafe standard, which has a lot higher trip generation than what the pie society is generating now. And we're happy to work with staff on this to sort of figure out the best approach. Do we use it as a short order restaurant, you know, which a bakery could fit under or even possibly the food hub is possible, although, I don't know, we'd have to explore the details of that. But the point is, when we look at our trip generation data, not only did the square footage associated with the restaurant increase decrease, which significantly because there's no longer a dining room. So that right there decreases the traffic allotment. But then it changes categories, which I think is a lower category of use. Yeah, I think that your point is completely valid because the point that we're making here is that it's complicated. Yeah, exactly. The staff comment is that it's complicated. Please put some effort into it because when we first pass that and I said, gosh, we could look at this seven different ways. It'd be great if they could make it, you know, an argument in favor of the one that they think is most appropriate, because you guys, you're the ones that own the property. So you know what's going on. We do. And we know pretty tightly exactly like when our customers come and go. So I have that down to a science because I have, you know, I have parking space spots, but a small spot. So I schedule everything accordingly to make sure we'll see that at the next stage. Thank you. OK, the next comment. There appears to be a discrepancy between the civil and landscaping drawings as it pertains to proposed parking lot layout. Staff recommends the board ask the applicant to clarify what is proposed and to further clarify the proposed use of the area indicated on the plans as quote gravel parking area, quote, and quote, which appears to be an abandoned driveway. Right. This this is Paul Bovair. Yeah, the gravel area we're talking about was a driveway serving the A frame. At this point in time, we're just planning to leave that in place. That's what that hatched area is extending between the buildings to the north. Another discrepancy I did see is the area by the ramp kind of so you go in front of the carriage house and go a little bit to the left. We have a we have a hatch layer that's kind of covering covering information that is shown on Paul's plan. So yeah, the line striping. I think that's probably what staff is referring to. So it's, you know, it's just it's just not showing that striping is not showing. So which is correct, the civil drawing or the landscape drawing? The landscape drawing in that area has, yeah, the striping and the line work there showing through is correct. Thank you, Paul. Any other comments before we move on? Questions? Would add one more thing. I think the had the hatch shown on the landscape plan for seeding is something we're not showing. But again, it's not it's really an overseas for the most part. There's some small limits of grading north of the carriage house. But generally, that area is just being shown as receding, otherwise being changed. Thank you. And the intent is that's overseeding to it. We're not changing any grading or anything like that. So it's just to be adding, you know, seeding just to help make sure it's dense enough. OK, thank you. I have a quick question. So by keeping that gravel in place, is there going to be any sort of barrier to keep people from driving and parking in that area, you know, as additional overflow and then kind of backing each other up or so they can't exit? We do have a curb plan for that edge. Again, shows better on a landscape plan. But you see, we drive over the curb to get up on that. Any other questions from the board or staff? I would just note, I guess, Paul, to Paul Bovere's attention in the comments of the storm water section that you have more than half acre from Pervious. So that gravel area may be your friend. Yeah, but I think for what we're planning at the at the moment, the looks like there's an exemption in 1203. It's 1203B exemption. If you're redeveloping or adding less than 5,000 square feet, which I think is applies here because we're opposing 3,346 square feet in new redeveloped surface and actually in net reductions. I think, you know, for this this project as it stands now, I think we would fall within that. I mean, let me know if you disagree with that. But yeah, I think you should probably coordinate with the storm water section prior to your next application, just because that wasn't totally clear. And I'm happy to. Yep, no, I can call Dave. Yeah, Dave, not reviewing this one. Emily is OK. So that brings us to the end of staff comments. And I'm wondering, board members, does anyone, before we turn to any public members who want to comment, does anyone from the board have any questions at this point? Yeah, I have a question. Sure, Mark, go ahead. I guess it's kind of a question for Marla or Delilah. I know that this existing carriage house is pre-existing and un-conforming because it's into the 10 foot setback. But the new addition, the dormer on the second floor, should that be within the should that be outside of the 10 foot setback? Any new construction addition work, typically, in my experience, needs to meet the setback that would setback. Give us a minute to find it. So if you slide over to the right now, it says it's setback eight inches, but the site plan looks like it's further back than that. And I'm just curious about that issue. Who could respond to that? Dormer shown on the little drawing, probably not. No. I don't know what it would be. So you're adding the same floor space with that dormer. Do the carriage house structure. I'm sorry, I didn't hear your question. Let's take a question. Adding additional square footage to the building with the dormer. It's more that it's light. It's adding light into the space. It doesn't change the footprint of the building at all. It just adds light. The overall square footage of the building is increases slightly with it. Because of that entryway. Right. But that's not in the setback. No, I know. And that's why it was a question for staff, because like I said, the building itself has already into the setback. And in my professional experience, if you do any new construction, it needs to meet the setback. Well, this is more, you know, you wouldn't have in mind. Yeah. You do have to meet new. Yeah. You're correct, Mark. Okay. I mean, I don't know what that distance is because of the, the site plan doesn't have. It looks like about two and a half feet. Something like that. And I'm not. Yeah. If you're, you're having new structure. Into the set that. Be an issue. So you're saying the dormer would have to end before the setback. Because that's what I'm understanding. Yeah. Okay. And I know we're not in a design review district here, but I would just say like, you know, I'd prefer to see the, the shed dorm or glazing. Sort of more be in line with the rest of the glazing, you know, have some divided life right now. It seems like it's all just single life, you know, play class. But it's just a comment, but because we're not in a design review district. Any other questions or discussion. Yeah. Yeah. I have a question before we ask for public comment. Yes. Paul. Yeah. I had a question about. Photometric requirements. I don't think we have that requirement. We're not adding any parking lot lighting at this time or pull lighting. To the site. We're going to maintain what's there. But there are four existing. Like little tiny wall pack lights that are on the carriage house. And then we're going to remove and then replace. With. Downcast lighting that are just small little wall packs at these door locations. So I. I wouldn't think that requires photometric analysis, but it's a question that we, we have for the board. So the, the application requirement is that they provide automatic drawings for any new lighting. The board has the authority to wave application requirements. I will take the board's position on this under recommendation and I would agree with all that it seems a little excessive. You'd agree with Paul that what Marla? It seems excessive to require photometric drawings for a couple of replacement wall packs. I would agree. Especially if he's replacing it with compliant downcast shield at life. Does anyone disagree with this position? Okay. You're just going to have to ask for a waiver of the application requirement when you submit your application. That's a waiver, but the board has already given you feedback that they're. Likely. Mr. Davis, did you raise your hand? I did. I wanted to bring up the issue of the, the section 1803, which addresses the loss of the residential units. And I guess there's a couple of things I wanted to just discuss with this. And when we provide, when we, when we file our formal application, we're going to, we want to, we're going to think about this and decide whether we want to use, in other words, the requirement to replace the housing that's being lost. And so we're going to decide whether we want to use that 25% value determination or whether we want to replace these two units within a two year period. But before I, so I guess I had a couple of questions about that. One is in reading this section when I, I think it's on page 320 of the LDR, going down to section H, it talks about, it talks about the housing, a city of South Burlington housing authority. And I guess I just wondered, is this, is there this, because I wasn't able to find it in just searching. And does this entity to exist or is there another, as the statute or as the regulations read, is there another sort of bona fide, qualified nonprofit organization that is approved by the city to administer that section? That is a great question. We actually, Delilah, do you, have we had any, folks choose the buyout option yet? This is a, this is one of the newest things in the LDRs. Not since I've been on board and since this has come into the LDRs, most people do the build a replacement housing and two experiences that I've had with it so far. We're built it within the two year period. Okay. So the answer is no, we don't have one yet because we haven't had two. But I think that will probably fall to the affordable housing committee to get started when, when we need to. So, so there's not an entity right now that, that has administered this. Right. Okay. And, and so there, so there's no regulations or rules or anything that we could consult. No, if you had specific questions about what's in the, I don't think that anything, I think that the LDRs are intended to stand alone. I don't think you should have to rely on other external things in order to execute it. Okay. Okay. Thank you. And then what I wanted to, if Delilah, if you could pull up those photos that you were scrolling in the very beginning when Teresa was talking. And then we did a lot of the. I'm aware of the, the A frame because of the three dwelling units, when we purchased the property to, as Teresa said, we inherited these three apartments and one of them was the A frame. And about almost exactly a year ago, if you go to the very first one, Delilah, that shows you the, the, the building as it stands. And if you look at that pine tree in the front corner when you see what happened. And it really kind of crushed. You can look at the following buildings to get a sense of this scope of the damage. And my point is, is that it really, our insurance company declared it a total loss. And as we consider trying to, is this, could we replace this? What do we wanna do? Is it habitable? At that angle when that tree came down, the construction guy was like, you would think that tree would have glanced off it, but it turns out that this old A-frame, which was built decades ago as a playhouse, not really meant to be a permanent structure, that roof was so soft that it literally went into it. And then we realized that whole roof is moist and not in good shape. And furthermore, that it doesn't even have a slab under it. In other words, there's dirt under the wooden floor, which was creating that, which explained why we were having problems with pests and spiders and rodents and things. So I think it's, I wanted to show you these pictures. And if I spoke with Terry Francis about this, and actually Theresa even spoke with some, with a fire department official about whether they wanted to do a burn exercise here, and they were pretty excited about it. And Terry Francis was said, I told him I was gonna be talking to you guys because it came up whether he needs to actually certify this is uninhabitable. And I wanted to show the board the photos and tell you about our insurance company and that and ask if you would like us to go with a formal bit of having Terry Francis come out and whatever. Certify something or whether you can accept, I think what is fairly obvious from these documents. Carla, what are your thoughts about that? This is entirely up to you guys. Okay. You know, I'm no architect. Maybe Mark, you can weigh in on this, but I think given what you've said and given what it looks like, I'm willing to take your word that it's a total loss and uninhabitable. What think the rest of you? I concur, you know, the fact that it doesn't even have a slab underneath it and the damage that was incurred on it, I don't see why we need to discuss it much further. Other, thanks Mark. Other board members? Can you? Okay. Any other comments from the applicant or members of the applicant team? I have one more. Sure. I think the project is gonna be pretty straightforward when we prepare the next preliminary submission and our concern is still timing. If it's gonna be educational use and up and running by September, one of the thoughts we have if staff feels that the application is very complete, we were curious about whether or not the board ever combines preliminary and final together and if that's an option for us considering the school schedule in the fall. We do, but I'll let Marla speak to that. Combining preliminary and final is the technically the option of the board. And Paul is like one of the best about reading the fine details of our regulations, which is probably why he's asking a question. I have to say Paul, no one ever asks. Is that helpful? I'm still, I still don't know what to do. No one ever asked, but it's up to the board. So it's the board, I guess I'm asking the board. Would they be comfortable if we have a complete application for preliminary that it's combined preliminary and final in effort to have this up and running for September? Members of the board, does anyone, is anyone opposed to them combining preliminary and final plan? Well, Marla, isn't it true that we typically say it's up to the applicant to submit because they're kind of, they have to submit everything then that's not an incremental submission. They've got to get all their eyes out and all their teeth crossed. And so they're spending all of their soft costs ahead of time without, so we may have comments that make them have to go back and spend additional soft costs that would have been picked up during preliminary. So I thought we've always told the applicant it's sort of at their risk. Yeah, it's technically the board's authority, but like I was saying, the applicant usually doesn't even bother to ask, they just go for it. Yeah. Does that give you the information you're looking for? Yes, it does. Thank you. Any other comments from the board or applicant? Questions from the applicant before we move on? Okay. Hearing none, let's move on to public comments. Are there any members of the public who would like to comment on this project? I received a letter from Sarah Bretzman who lives on Morrill Hill Drive. I'm actually here. Okay, then I won't read your comments. Thanks. So I'm actually on Brewer Parkway, which is a property that borders the playground area for the most part. Sarah, may I interrupt, please? Before we take your comments and we're, we look forward to hearing them. Does any, who else has comments tonight? Public comments. Ray? Okay. Anyone else with public comments? I just, it helps us to get a sense of how much time we have. So, okay. Thank you. Sarah, go ahead. So I think, you know, we're probably gonna be the most affected by some of the changes that would happen in the property. And so I did have some questions about the proposal. I guess one of them, I think I understood tonight was that if it does become an educational facility that it has a grace period of two years where it could change back into an apartment, rental property, is that correct? Am I correct on understanding that? Marla, do you know the answer to that? I was gonna let Delilah respond. Delilah? Well, with the removal, if they remove housing, they have a two year period with which to replace the housing with housing of the same number of bedrooms or more or they are subject to the paying into the housing preservation trust fund. It doesn't mean it's, doesn't mean that they can just switch it back. It doesn't even require it to be on that property. It just means, so I guess the short answer is no. They couldn't just switch it back. The housing replacement is unrelated to the application for this parcel. It's more like you have to provide replacement housing or pay into the fund as sort of a separate project. So paying into the fund, I guess that's something I don't really quite understand. But, and then I guess my other question is the parking lot area that Paul, you brought up as being a potential place being, right now is the children's playground that is enclosed. The projection is to create parking there eventually, which would be right up against the property. More parking. Right, so they're not like that was a down today. Okay, but this, but the approval of this would kind of begin that process of changing the, no, okay. Okay. And then also I just, my concern was about the tree line that goes, that separates the property. There's a pretty nice blockage between the properties. And it sounds like, and maybe looks like those trees would be taken out with this plan. Is that correct? It sounds like they said they do not plan to take the trees. Yeah, there's no, there's no plans to do that. Yeah, Paul, go ahead. There's no plans to take the buffer trees down at all. Oh, great. That's excellent. Well, I'm excited about the potential for a new educational facility. And I look forward to hearing more about how it all develops. And I guess that my big concern was the space right behind us that's between the neighborhood and the tree line. So if those two places were maintained, I was a little concerned about the second floor, the dormer, but it sounds like that's just an opening for light, which sounds great. So congratulations to Davis Studios. It sounds like an exciting project. So thank you. Thank you, Sarah. Mr. Gonda. Yes, I happen to notice a series of plants, pollinator plants listed on one of the design, one of the graphics. And I simply want to commend you folks for your choice of pollinator flowers. They're native and they're really excellent for wild insects. I guess they're all wild in our face. Thank you, Paul. Paul's helping us with that recommendation. And we definitely want to have something that encourages insects and wildlife to support what we can. Mr. Gonda, do you have any other comments? No, thank you. Any other public comments? Okay. It looks like we can conclude the sketch plan review. Do we need to vote for... Yes, Sarah, are you raising your hand? No, okay. Do we need to vote to conclude this, Marla? No, not a sketch. You just need to include. And we'll work with the applicant on the question of educational use versus childcare facility. I cleared up before the next application. So I guess that concludes the sketch plan review. And thank you, applicant and team members for participating. And we'll see you again soon, I'm sure. Thank you, Steph. Thank you, board. And now I'm going to hand it over to our acting chair, Brian Sullivan. Hello. We are on to agenda item number six, which is the continued preliminary plaid application, SD2040, of O'Brien ECU LLC, as described in agenda item number six. I'm not going to read all of that. Located 500 Farm Road. I understand that the board member has a disclosure on this. Yeah, this is Stephanie. I have a conflict of interest with this project. So I'm going to recuse myself. Okay. Do any other board members have disclosures? I have a disclosure. I actually own a town home in the hillside development owned by O'Brien. And I've participated so far in all the hearings related to their expanded project. And I believe I can do so without bias. And if anyone has any concern about my ability to be objective, please speak now. Okay. I'll participate. Good. Any other disclosures? Can I just ask a procedural question before we start? Since the only thing after this is minutes and other business, do you want to cut Stephanie loose? I don't see why not. That's traditionally what we do when someone's recused from the last agenda. Great, thank you. I will leave the meeting. It's a courtesy that we extend. And it's been extended to me a lot, so I appreciate it. I certainly appreciate it, so thank you guys. You're welcome. Okay, so back to housekeeping. I see that there are people here for the applicant. I recognize some of them. Are any of the people who are going to speak for the applicant speaking for the first time this hearing, or were they all sworn in last time? Because if anybody will, I gotta do it now. I believe I was sworn in previously. Yeah, I think Scott Homestead from Krebs and Lansing also was. Yeah, okay. Is there anyone else who will be speaking on behalf of the applicant that has not been sworn in? Okay, good. So we have a memo, and Marla, you'll have to walk me through this. A memo kind of on the order of inducting the remaining review, that memo's got today's date on it. It refers to a number of items as SC, I assume it's related to staff comments. Is that what the FC is? I figured that out all by myself. Okay, so we've got those. I don't wanna take the time, as it is creeping up on us. I don't wanna take the time to read those all out loud. So I'll ask the applicant, if you can take a look at that. And let us know whether you have comments, questions, or any reaction at all to the text that comes after SC1 Ray Basin. So if it, we didn't actually spend a lot of time reviewing these comments because there were, I think 40 or 50 staff comments in the first round that we had, I think gotten through 15 or 20 of and then we had stopped. And so we were sort of hoping that we could, we could review these comments and respond to them sort of in line with the next hearing and maybe continue through the first round at this point. You know, we certainly can read these through with now and over them, but like we sort of, I think our would be to just respond to these and writing, you know, in time for the April 15th hearing, which is also scheduled or any questions at that point. Yeah, I mean, it's fine with me. Frankly, my preference is to have as much done offline as possible to conserve precious time. But I wanna ask Marla, the first sentence of the third paragraph that memo, are you saying that the two notes in red should be discussed now or are you saying that all of the SC comments should be discussed now? My thought was that the two comments in red in the cover memo would be good to provide the applicant feedback on before they go and start making it into their own. All right, so let's confine what we're doing now to the two comments in red. We turn on page two of the memo, the first of which is recommended to the board to invite testimony from bike and pet. I think we have a representative here from the bike and pet committee. And unless someone of Jack's, I'm going to turn it over to that representative. Does anyone feel that we shouldn't do that? Yeah. Brian, I just have a quick question going back to what Andrew just said. Andrew, did you see the next, the hearing on April 15th? Potentially it's the different date than April 15th. But I think the point was that at the last hearing, we had discussed the shared use path. We promised to provide you guys with more information, specific proposal to address the sort of requests that we'd received, which we intend to provide here in the next week or so, and time for that hearing. Oh, okay. So I just have that. I have another 20, but thank you. Sure, that's likely the right date. It's whatever the third Tuesday in April was. Okay, so let's hear from, I think it's Catherine Frank from the bike and pet committee. Yes, that's me. Oh, actually, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I have to do this. Anybody who's going to speak is technically offering testimony. So I do need to swear you in. So Catherine, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth as far as we know? I do. Okay, thank you. Please proceed. Well, I guess the only thing I wanna say at this point is that the committee feels, let me start backwards a little bit here. With 155 new homes going in and other homes already built, this community is gonna have a range of people, both older people, younger people, kids, families, whatever. And to facilitate their getting around in something other than a vehicle, you need to have, I think, the best, the most comfortable way for them to do that. And a bike path, a shared-use path, is far more comfortable for people that are on bikes or whatever than a sidewalk, which usually just accommodates walkers. And the shared-use path is far more far safer and more comfortable than bike lanes for people. And I think this would be a major route going towards Heinsberg Road. There's more development at the bottom. So there'll be people going in both directions. So the bike path committee feels strongly that the safest and most comfortable way to provide that is through a shared-use path. But without hearing what you guys have to say in April, I can't speak to any more specifics than that. Okay, so question for the applicant, are you prepared to respond to that tonight or do you want to wait until the April 20th meeting? I would say that we would like to respond to that at the April meeting. When we spoke with you guys at the last hearing, we presented the problem with the rec path on Old Farm Road intersecting with the existing homes, front yards, garages, parking spaces from existing residents on Old Farm Road, fences and things like that. And I think that we all agreed that that sort of was problematic. And we've hired a professional consultant with VHB and we're working with them on an alternative plan that we think will achieve all the goals here and keep everybody pleased, including the neighbors on Old Farm Road. So we hope to get you guys that in time for a conversation in April. Feel that it's best to sort of have all that new information at that point and discuss it then. Okay, thank you, Andrew. So, does any board member have any comments on this particular item? Can I ask one question? With those proposed designs be available to us to look at before the hearing starts? Yeah, absolutely. I think the submission requirement is two weeks prior. So we'll, unless I'm wrong about that, it might even be three weeks prior, but we'll get it in by that deadline. So there should be a few weeks before the hearing is available. Okay, thank you. Okay, so it sounds like we're set on that. Then the second comment in red, recommend the board revisit the question of what additional guest parking should be provided and direct the applicant to significantly increase on-street parking at this hearing. Marla, could you explain the context of this comment? Yeah, Marla, can I share my screen? Yeah, you should be able to. Are you not? Oh, can I just take it right over? I thought that you had to let go first. I guess you did not. Pretty great. So there have been some discussion about providing additional on-street parking along Old Farm Road. There's this lot of 18 open space. There are people who may or may not have enough space for visitors. I'm gonna zoom out a little bit. Project. And we sort of tabled this discussion at the previous hearing because we were talking about the layout of the roadways. So I just wanted to revisit it and see if the board felt that there should be additional parallel parking along the project portion of Old Farm Road to accommodate visitors. Because I think that information is gonna be helpful for the applicant as they get ready for the next hearing. Okay, so you're soliciting board comments to when board members have comments? Yeah, Ben, I'll weigh in on this. I think that we've heard testimony that the units with just having two parking spaces could potentially create some traffic issues. So I'd like to see a proposal with more on-street parking to allow for overflow parking to prevent sort of that congestion when people have visitors coming. I don't think I want it to be something where it becomes literally like just both side of the street parking and it becomes like an urban core. It has to be well thought out. It has to be landscaped and it has to be logical. But I definitely think that we do need to see some more on-street parking. And it's up to the applicant to show how what they're providing achieves the desired need for visitor parking during sort of, I guess, peak times. Thank you, Mark. Any other board members with comments? Negative hand motion. Yeah, I agree with that personally. I think it's good to have the overflow parking on the other hand. I would not want to see old front road turned into something that had parking on both sides of the street. What does the applicant think at this point? I think generally speaking, we're fine with taking another look at it. And I think the balance is key there. So we can go back to our designers and have them take another creative look at it and say, this is the direction that we've gotten. And I think we'll ask them to increase but keep a nice balance there. So we're not creating more of an urban streetscape when it's really a neighborhood style street. Yeah, just right now, it doesn't appear thought out. It appears plugged in, sort of like they just kind of said, let's stick some on-street parking here in some places. I think it needs to be believable. Yeah, and I think that this is all sort of in context with the next submission where we have the HB taking a look at these streets and the bike lanes, et cetera. I think it's all kind of in context. Good. Okay, sounds good. Any other comments on that? Hearing none. So Marla, where did we leave off in the staff comments on the February 17th memo? This is where I was super clever. The end of memo is the end of what we got through. So that means the memo on staff comment 15, which means we got through 15, but we just pick up at 16. Okay, and again, I'm gonna try and, this is an experiment. I'm gonna try and hopefully save some time here. I'm not gonna read out the comments. Applicant and anybody else who's interested has had time. We can even read it now if they want. What does the applicant think about staff comment 16? Sure, so I can hopefully address this. I think that sort of timing in this process is always a little bit tricky. There's sort of a lot of moving parts. We're kind of seeing here that we've got kind of multiple mission timings. I would say that we could certainly prepare some road sections for the roads that are proposed for you guys and get those in. I would likely say that that would be something we would do prior to the final hearing of the project. Potentially not in time for the April hearing, just because we have kind of a lot of new stuff coming in for April. So I certainly think that getting the road sections done and in during the preliminary plat process makes sense. There was some talk in this, I believe it's in this comment about roadway striping plans and signage plans. And our sort of preference would be to leave that for final. I don't know, having a sort of understanding of signs and road striping in turn lanes is sort of something that we think it's necessary at this point in time. That would sort of be our proposal if it works for you guys to get the road sections in for the different roads proposed and to sort of table the striping and signage plans until final plan. Hey, Marla and Delilah, what do you think? I guess in terms of the striping, I think the point is to understand the use of the different portions of the paved lane. So if you can demonstrate that through a cross-section that's more like a graphical cross-section than an actual cross-section, I don't think that the striping plan is necessary, but it's, as it is, you're showing 28 feet of asphalt about any sense of what it's going to be used for. I think that's the purpose of this comment. Sure, that makes sense. And if we discuss those roads or get to them and in conversation, certainly bring it up because we don't want to build a road. I know that some of the roads may be complete with the sort of standards in the regulations which are wider sometimes than you see built. So we're happy to have that conversation as we walk through the comment. Okay, any board comments on item 16? No, okay, any public comments on item 16? Okay, item 17. So this is a staff recommendation to the board. I think before hearing the board's response, I'd like to hear what the applicant thinks of staff's recommendation. I think, Andrew, if you're trying to speak, you're muted. So with regard to comment 17, I think that we have part of what we're going to be submitting in the next week or so is that we've been sort of listening to the feedback we're getting and we have some sort of some plan changes that we're hoping to propose. And we've found some ways to save on lot coverage. Part of the reason we were not including a road with a separate sidewalk was to try and reduce lot coverage in that area. That in line with some of the modifications that we're doing, I think that we'll be able to make that roadway be the 20 foot wide road with a sidewalk and to find the coverage somewhere else. So I think we're on board with this and we'll be presenting those at the next hearing as well so in this packet that's forthcoming. Any board comments? No, any public comments? Okay, let's move on to 18. And this is staff recommending that we, the board require the applicant to do something. What does the applicant think of the proposed quarter? So I think that just sort of backing up a little bit, there are a couple of comments in here and we had one noted in our slide deck that we had sent you guys today at slide six. Is another comment, I think sort of gets at sort of not knowing or not looking to approve the roadway for construction at this time. We're not knowing the details of the roadway. At a high level, like I just think that that's an important conversation to have because our aim here is to construct the roadways and there are prescriptive requirements for roadways and the zoning regulations that we've used as a guide and which are the guide for sort of when you don't know what the uses will be around. So I think that that's a larger question that is sort of informative to this specific comment and staff comment 18. You know, we like the cul-de-sac road which is the source of the comment. So if you go down two slides, I think you get to number eight or so, slide nine, the specific comment. So here you see the first sentence is that no concept of the commercial lots was provided. So we are working on a two-dimensional concept of the commercial lots. We had provided you guys with a three-dimensional rendering like a photo rendering up over there. We are going to get that to you guys. Propose this road with a cul-de-sac at the end, you know, sort of straddles two zoning districts. You go back one slide, you can see the different zoning district lines that we're dealing with. So either red line is the R1 land and the purple one is the commercial one limited retail. And road sort of comes in, separates the two different zoning districts. We've made use of the uphill side of the road with three-story townhomes, which are the same homes that we're building at hillside currently, which are also the sort of bridge between the residential and multifamily areas. Side of the road, we've set up some development lots where the intent would be to have, you know, large or multi-story, multi-family mixed use stop sprunting on the new city street. The cul-de-sac is sort of viewed in our end as a future. You know, there are a number of environmental issues at the end of the road. So we go back down to slide nine, you can see highlighted sort of amalgamation of issues that you run into if you try to extend that road. I'm highlighted in purple there. You know, we're proposing a park at the end of the road. We're proposing two large playgrounds, a dog park that's fully fenced in. It's the trailhead for an exercise loop with different workout stations. We sort of are considering this a destination and we think the cul-de-sac's a nice feature. We had asked for a waiver actually to plant the interior of the cul-de-sac with trees or landscaping to sort of enhance it as a destination. Not sure if that's allowed under the rules or if it needs to be open for fire trucks or whatnot, but that's sort of how we've been viewing this road. And from a cross-section perspective, I think we're open to the board's feedback. We don't have a crystal ball as to exactly what the commercial development will be, but we're certainly open to putting, you know, more or less parallel parking or widening the road or narrowing it. You know, I think that your guess is good as far as to some extent, and there's plenty of room to sort of be what people think makes sense. At the previous hearing in February, Andrew, you said that you were going to be able to provide a concept of how these lots would lay out. If you can do that, I think there's more room to, there's more backup for your proposed design. As long as you still can provide a concept of how these lot could lay out, we can review the road in conjunction with that concept. Absolutely. Yeah, that's part of what we hope to submit here the early part next week. So the 2D concept for this whole area and for the industrial commercial lots under the road reconfiguration designed to address the Tilly Avenue connection and some of the comments that are raised here tonight. So yeah, we'll definitely be getting you those and that sounds great. But we're leading toward consensus. Do any board members have comment on this? No, any members of the public? No. Okay, so comment 19. Prairie gravel parking lot and extension of the walking path. What does the applicant think of those suggestions? Yeah, so staff comment for one, I believe in this report that we talked about last week related to phasing. We have been working on a proposal of, sort of solidifying phasing and when we think things can be constructed and when they need to and we'll be submitting that as part of the response to the criteria. So I think that we're certainly open to access to this amenity and we're open to a conversation about when we construct the park amenity. I think that it's sort of best viewed in the overall phasing. So I'm not saying that it's... So I guess the answer is we're certainly open to this. We're not opposed to building the parking lot if we need to, but we sort of wanna look at what's going to be built when and how different things are gonna come online and what triggers make sense to get this all been run. And we're gonna do that holistically in this phasing overview. That makes sense to me. What do Marla and DeLore think? Good. Good. Okay. Any board members have comments? Any members of the public? Comment 20. Shifting the east, west, sidewalk, no city too. So let me ask, since this is a little abstract to just read on a sheet of paper, is there a plan or other illustration that we could look at so that we understand where these lots are? Delilah, are you looking at the pocket from February 27th? If I give you a pocket document name and page number, would that work for you? Sure. I can open that. Which one? The one in the five. E. E? Yep. Page eight is gonna be sort of the overall plan and what we'll probably use. Hold on a second. Okay. Are you going to share the screen, Delilah? I am when I get the document. Give me a second. All right, so page eight. So I'll put a little dot and then you can erase it in this area. If you can zoom into there. So this comment is Shifting the east, west, sidewalk on lot 32 south to be along lot 3233 property line, design the homes to have the appearance of fronts on the sidewalk in order to have this be a community area rather than individual yards. So that would have the sidewalk coming up this way rather than where it is. OK, Amber, what do you think? I feel like I sound a little bit like a broken record and I promise that I'm not just trying to make the 15th hearing a total or April 20th. Sorry, Don, hearing a total nightmare for everybody but what we've been doing since March when we met with you guys is trying to respond and come up with solutions for comments provided of which this was one. And so we are looking at different options for the barn lot that might involve reducing some of the planned structure. And so we're working through sort of what makes sense here and we would have an alternate proposal for this lot to you guys to address this as well as other issues in the development plan and sort of trying to pull this whole thing together. So I would say we've heard the feedback and we're looking at it and we hope to get you more information and a different layout for this lot to review it at the April hearing. OK, anything more to be said, Marla? No. Any board members? Public? No. OK. 21, what does the applicant have to say about comment 21? So we had, if you went to our presentation to slide 13, there's that picture of the elevation that the comment pertains to in that bracket. Comment 21 is relating to the garage side or the meadow loop side of the three unit town homes proposed. You know, I think we took a look at this. The way that the town homes work, the way that we typically build them is that there are three different units. So you see the different unit names, TH2221, H11. Each of those homes has two elevations. That'll be constructed. So it's the exact same interior unit, but it's a different exterior treatment. And we do that so that the streetscape varies as you go up and down the road. So there'll be a TH22A and a TH22B. And the unit, the triplexes themselves will be sort of an amalgamation of the different elevations and units. So you might get a building that's a TH21 on the right, a TH21 on the left and a TH11 in the middle. And they'll have the A elevation and the right will have the B elevation, something like that. And on another building, you'll have TH21A on the right and the A on the left, you know, and the TH1B in the middle. Basically, there are six different elevations that'll get sort of mixed and matched along streetscape. And we're happy to include in those elevations the split garage doors as one of the suggestions. And we feel like, you know, given the fact that there's about six different varied elevations and a number of different building configurations on top of that, that it'll result in a pretty nice and varied streetscape. So I think it's also important to remember that this is the loop side of that road, as opposed to the main frontage, main elevation, which is fronting on old farm road. So this is essentially kind of the back of house view, although what we try to do, which I think we were successful at is creating some interesting architecture because this side of the home is also basically another home on the other side of the loop. But we chose the old farm road side as kind of the primary frontage and elevation. Yeah, and that's what this comment is trying to get at, is that the acknowledging that this is the back, but that these homes should, you know, if there's any little tweaks that can be made to make them play more nicely with the homes immediately across from them, you know, creating like a feeling of a yard, it just, you know, just be cautious of it being really a back of house feel. Yeah, we understand the sentiment of the city or the city staff. And, you know, again, we try to make them attractive on that side. I think we were successful, but we also understand that, you know, maybe there's some improvements and we think that, you know, breaking up the garage doors in certain instances would help and, you know, maybe there's some other things we can look at. I think there'll certainly be landscaping and things like that as well. Okay. Mark, were you gonna say something or? Yeah, no, I was just gonna, I agree with Evan in terms of, I do think they have done a pretty good job in terms of an interesting architectural feel to be in it. They definitely don't have your sort of prototypical triplex feel. They have good scale. I think, yeah, splitting up the large garage doors in some instances is sort of desired. I don't think you wanna split every one of them because then you end up with the opposite effect of just lots of little garage doors running down the line. I think, you know, sort of trying to mix it up a little bit so that that's another way of varying sort of the same floor plan by having some be split and some be large, you know, only increases the sort of the scale of it. Yeah, we're fully on board with that. And we can, you know, at the final plat, we'll have both elevations to provide to you guys so you can see that, you know, that we'll, and we'll just look at doing the variance of the units shown here as double, you know, two single doors instead of double and then we'll be able to mix and match them on the different buildings. We've also dictated and managed that on the existing hillside development too to create architectural variety. Okay, any other board members wanna weigh in? No, anybody from the public? Comment 22. Let's hear from the applicant about comment 22. I think we, you know, so we read this and I gave you guys a screenshot of the cottage cluster. You know, I think we're fully agreed that landscaping and sort of common courtyard feel of the cottage core is sort of what makes it, we're fully on board with that, you know, the landscaping plan will address, you know, those plantings and things like that. And so, you know, I think we agree, particular cottage core, you know, we had sort of, we're trying to get doing something creative in this space, you know, it didn't lay out perfectly. We have a lot of great issues on this site. I don't know if I've said that a couple hundred times, but there's, it's certainly not just a flat field where you can just drop anything in wherever you want. And so that kind of becomes problematic, but we're able to sort of get that central courtyard feel and we feel good about it and think that the homes and porches and things, you know, sort of facing in on the sidewalk are gonna have a really nice aesthetic. So, you know, I think we're on board. The sidewalk question, I'm not sure that we a hundred percent knew what the issue was. They are connected to the sidewalk, but I guess maybe we could just get a little bit more detail on that. I mean, we felt like they're connected to the sidewalk and folks who live there can pretty much walk wherever they want. Yeah, so what you have up on the screen, okay, I think that we sort of missed when we were reviewing this that there was a sidewalk perpendicular to Old Farm Road. However, the sidewalk that comes up from hillside, this kind of lands on nothing. So the comment was really about that sidewalk that comes up from hillside. I'll draw on it. Here, oh, that was terrible, that finger comes up around here. And then where do those people go? So is there a way to connect that? I think we were, I think we've missed the central one when we looked at it. So either connect it to that or have a sidewalk. On the other side of the road. Could we make like a crossing point? I mean, that corner. I mean, I think that we'd have to, you should propose something. Okay, yeah. I mean, we'll probably look at trying to make a crossing point just because we are sort of really tight on lot coverage. So, but yeah, we can look at that as part of the sort of, I guess that would be part of the road stripping plans at that point, but you can certainly look at trying to create something there, maybe reorienting the driveway or something and giving a little bit more space to make like a, intentional area. I'll make a note for the, for the landscaper. Okay, Marl, are we good on that? Yep. Okay, any board comments? I noticed that, that Dawn has left the meeting. So we're at the bare minimum of support members to conduct business. So if anybody else has to leave, we'll have to wrap up the meeting. Comment 23, what does the applicant have in response to that? Sure, so this was the draft elevation provided for one of the types proposed. This specific home type, I believe, would be located along the east side of Legacy Farm Road. It's more set back from the street than some of the other areas of the project. These are sort of larger lots and larger homes. The two elevations proposing are shown here. In each elevation, it is correct that the garage is protruding slightly from the front porch. I think it's only a matter of a foot or two feet. We had some challenges making the floor plans work and facilitating everything in the dimensions on the lots that we had. So, I think you could view the staff comment in two ways. One way is to say it is true that this is the only home where the garage protrudes slightly from the front of the house, but it's also true this is the only home out of dozens proposed where that is the case. And so we liked it. We tried to dress the garage up with some roofline changes, some different materials, shingle breaks, some stonework on the craftsman style. And I think this kind of speaks to the point that Mark brought up earlier where, if you go too far in the other direction, maybe you're actually reducing the architectural variety and because the vast majority of the homes proposing don't bump out at all for the garage, we think that this is a pretty acceptable level. And in fact, it might actually add a little bit to the architectural design of the overall neighborhood. It would be a very, say that this is a snout home, which I think is what the regulations is, especially in the Southeast quadrant, try to protect against. This is not all garage with the main entryway tucked way behind. I think this has a pretty nice elevation, nice architectural feel to it. And it just happens to have a slight bump out for the garage. How many of the 155 homes could be this unit? I think it's like 17, so it's not many. Believe this is, is that right? I think there's 17 of these. And it's 16. 16. So there's 16 homes total or lots total that could accept this home. And there are three, four different homes that are designed with 16 lots. I think the chances are that this would be, likely, at most, five to eight homes. So given that context, what's the board's feedback? It's hard to envision it in 2D. I mean, I can because I'm not a architect, but it does have a good breakup. I'm just looking at the floor plan in the package for it. And sort of trying to say if I was tasked with how to make the garage not be proud of the house, do you just go through the exercise of making the front porch deeper? I don't know if that sort of successfully solves your problem. It's kind of like, you're saying there could be potentially up to 10% of the houses could be the layout, be proud of the front of the house. In front of the house? Those are the types of lots that this style of house could be on. But like on Hillside, we created a condition that we pushed architectural variety and we managed that process. So the intent would not to have this particular home on all of those lots. It's just available on those lots. Right. It doesn't bother me so much because typically when you say the garage proud, garage proud of the front of the house, it was a response to not wanting to get a big white envelope on the front of the house. And secondary is the actual functionality of the garage being front of the house as being a negative. Elevation-wise, architecturally speaking, these don't bother me because they definitely have done a pretty good job breaking it up. They've changed up the materials. They've put some roofline changes. They've had one, a gable with tucked into over one of the garages. It's not a deal breaker, especially since they aren't really in the southeast quadrant. So it's not part of the zoning regulations. And I kind of follow the, I adhere to the regulations when I'm reviewing a project. So I think they've done a pretty good job of meeting the regulations, even though they don't need to meet that proud garage type of issue. Yeah, I'd agree with Mark and also defer to Mark because he's an architect and I'm not. Do any other board members want to chime in? I like Mark's suggestion of pulling the porches out a little bit if that's something you'd consider. I think it would be a nicer look, but overall I really like the designs of these if they're not going to sort of overwhelm the project. I agree. You can take a look at the deck and certainly ask the architect if that's something that can work. Yeah, even if you don't end up pulling like the whole front porch, maybe what you do is you get like a bump out that gives you another gable on the front of the front porch that pops out a little bit, that you're not having to change the whole roofline around the porch. You can bring out the other elements, which maybe brings it out a little bit past the front of the garage and changes the front line of the house. Okay. Okay, sounds like the applicant has some good guidance. Are there any members of the public that would like to speak to this comment? I meant 24, so the applicant may have on that. So this is about homes. Well, if you could switch to that page eight again. This is about these homes on the bottom right. And I'm sure that Andrew has put some images in their packet, but I just wanted to give you the context. So those ones on the cul-de-sac. Yeah, so the plan, so the homes that are provided in this location are the same homes being built in Hillside, which you can sort of see, potentially we scroll up a little on this page. I don't know if you, is that in this plan? Oh, it is, yeah. So along O'Brien Farm Road that you can see right there, there are a number of places that lead the way over to the multifamily buildings that are being permitted. And this is the same unit type. It's a unit type that was designed for Hillside as a three-storey town home. It was designed to be built into a really steep Hillside, hence the name of the project. Cracking myself up over here. And so it's sort of what, she was a home that was sort of a three-storey walkout on the front built into a hill, two stories at the back with a yard grade off the main living area. The Hillside neighborhood, a very similar grading situation exists to what exists here in the Eastview neighborhood in the location where these are again. And so the staff rightly points out that there's gonna be a small backyard and then behind the backyard, there's gonna be a steep retaining wall, which is retaining the homes up above. That's the exact same configuration that we have at Hillside, except that it's the city park that's up above in the walking trails and things. So in our back that we had sent you guys on page 17, we provided some elevation of the sort of escape at Hillside itself. Here are those with you. I don't know if, yeah. So here you can see what the homes look like. So that's a snapshot of where they're proposed in the Eastview project. And you can see the renderings that we submitted with the Eastview project are the blue and the white smaller image. The larger image is actually an image of Hillside of these homes where they've been built in the sort of streetscape and street presence, which is pretty much would be mirrored here in the Eastview project. And if you go to the next slide, you can see the way that the homes are built into the hill. You can see some of the challenges with the grade that these are dealing with. And you can also see the rock walls in the backyard and the small backyards created. See how it sort of retains the ground and then how it, the walls retained banks up above. So, you know, we designed these units in this condition. We think that they have a great street presence. We think they have a great aesthetic appeal. They've been really well-accepted by the market. The owners really like the stone wall in the back. Actually, a lot of people have really saw a run on these homes of people trying to get where the wall was tallest because they look and in fact, their kids climb up and down it and people have planted flowers and things to grow on it. So, we don't feel at all that the layout of these homes is challenging. We think that they'll be well-received just like the Hillside one. We've also, the same is being proposed on this as that we did on Hillside, which is that we've tried to create architectural variety by not having them be symmetrical. So, they kind of look like, I remember four and a half years ago, Andrew went on a vacation to, I think it was Portsmouth, New Hampshire and looked at some of the older multi-family homes down there that kind of evolved over time. And so, we actually provided some images to the architects that we wanted to look more organic than just cookie cutter, as a result, I think it breaks down the mass, but it also breaks down the streetscape as well by providing different forms. Yeah, and you get that same amplification of the different unit types because we're in a duplex format and we've been able to put, we essentially have two different units and four different elevations, but then you can put each of those elevations together with a different elevation or a different unit in pair with them in duplexes. So, we haven't seen of the long road at Hillside, there are not that repeat buildings that aren't mirrored or otherwise sort of differentiated and that would be the intent here again. Okay, Marla, do you feel that the applicant has sufficiently addressed your comment? No, but this is a very subjective comment. In this slide and in the previous slide, my reaction is, wow, these homes are sterile, but that's subjective. If I walked my dog down this neighborhood every day, I don't know that I would ever meet the people who live in these homes because they don't have of outdoor space. And so that's kind of what we were feeling when we looked at these elevations, homes don't have an interaction with the street. Though they may be attractive, they're facing away from the neighborhood and maybe they don't have a face at all because the back is a rock wall and the front is garages. Unfortunately, this is one of the situations where I don't have a better suggestion, but also it's subjective. Oh, I know what the board thinks. You know, I think in regards to this, this is a big enough project that we're gonna get a wide variety of housing types and they've certainly presented a wide variety of housing types. And not every one of the housing types is gonna achieve it because it's going through such a wide, use the word wide variety, but a diverse topography and type that some of them are gonna achieve some things and some of them aren't gonna achieve something. I think the applicant has, some of it's gonna be driven by market demand and they have a proven market product for this type of area. And they have more prototypical single family for other areas, you know, the triplexes, the duplexes. It doesn't bother me as much just because of the fact that it'd be one thing if we were looking at a development of 15 houses and all of them were just this and that's all that they were doing. That's kind of what they have, right? This is 14 houses in a row and nothing in the other houses on this street. I totally get that. I'm talking about if this is the only development and that's all that was happening. We sort of, I see what you're saying that it's sort of like a strip of houses. I guess I kind of look at it as it's a strip of houses that sort of in response to the site. And they have tons of other varieties at other parts of the site. Again, that's a subjective comment on my part as well. Yeah. Yeah. The way I feel about it is it wouldn't be my favorite, but I don't feel that I have the expertise. And I wonder if the board has the authority to impose our subjective preferences on the applicant in this case. So I would not favor taking any further action. Do any other board members want to weigh in? Yes, not. Okay. Thanks, Jim. So I'm guessing not, unless there's a member of the public that wants to be heard, I think we've covered that comment. Thank you for your time. Let's go on to comment 25. We can just touch on that. We had included this just to say that we're happy to look at planting, to planting a sort of dense buffer in the, as recommended here by the Natural Resources Committee. That's the only response was included. Okay. Marla, does that address your comment? I think, yeah, if they're willing to work with the committees, I think this comment can be looked at when they have proposed. I think we should table this comment until they have revised their plan. We'll have Paul Simon help us pick out some pollinators. Yeah, I think, you know, we obviously that area, so like if you're looking at our slide, you know, the next slide showed sort of area being discussed. We had set that area aside in the interest of creating a corridor where wildlife would be able to still cross the site and get from point A to point B. We talked about that at the last hearing. You can see here, you know, I actually cut it off, but where it says connection corridor and there's an arrow in the middle of the big green planted bar in the middle of the page. You know, that was the intention was to allow for a sort of way across the site. Was always the intention there and there's plenty of room to plant all kinds of trees and pollinators and things in that area and our landscape plans will allow for that. What I will say is that there also needs to be an accommodation for the recreational amenities that are planned in that area. That's the walking trail, loop thing. And so, you know, we would just coordinate, you know, having some dense plantings and areas along the recommendations of the NR committee comments with sort of balancing that with the needs of the walking path community and that we think it can be really successful and we're looking forward to presenting that, so. Board members, any comments? Members of the public and especially, yes, Ray Gonda from the network resources committee. Yes, I think we'd be very happy to work with the developers and making recommendations for how to deal with it. If they're willing to do that and if it's legal for us to work with it. Yeah, I encourage to communicate with the applicant and some of these things before they move forward. Yeah, we're happy to accept your comments, Ray, and take them into consideration. Good. I have a good question. With the culver under Kimball, you know that, I guess you're saying would say, so you're saying that this human rec path that's going right across the middle of the property north to south, you're hoping we'll meet the needs of any wildlife that historically use this. So, with the culverts that are still under the road, would any of this impact them? It just seems to me like the focus is mainly human recreation and I guess I just want to assert that we've documented a lot of wildlife using this area and we're just really concerned that they're not being considered. I'm just going to give you a second. Drew was on the Natural Resources and Conservation Committee. I don't think the board knows Drew yet. Okay, so yeah, that's what I was trying to establish, Marla, is what Drew's interest in this is and when you say- You find it in the chat. Okay, okay, hold on. Yeah, so sorry, Drew, Ray didn't introduce himself because we all kind of know Ray, but it's difficult for the board to read the chat. I apologize for that. My name is Ray Gonda and I'm the chair of the Natural Resources and Conservation Committee. I see it in the chat. I see that Drew's name is in there. Yeah, it's difficult for the board to read those things. So if you are speaking up on the behalf of the committee, just introduce yourself if we haven't met you before. Yeah, I probably should have sworn both Ray and Drew in, but it's kind of beside the point now, so I'm not gonna worry about it. Does the applicant continue to feel that they can work with the Natural Resources Committee on this? Yeah, I think that we provided a rather large area here. I don't know what the scale of this plan is offhand, Scott might know, but that area is likely a couple hundred feet wide and the rec path is eight feet wide. So I think there's plenty of room to accommodate some sort of infrastructure trees that can allow for the animals that are using the area to sort of have a place to hide and then also getting the path through that's currently planned. So, right. And I would just add Andrew's right, this is a very wide spot several hundred square feet and I would just add to address the specific comment about the culvert, the culvert drains a wetland that we are not touching at all. There's no wetland disturbance and that wetland also has a 50 foot buffer around it on both sides. So you're talking just the wetland and well in buffer alone you're talking about a 130 foot swath through there. So, I think we definitely can accommodate the requests of sort of trying to plant this densely and to allow for pollinator plants and things like that. And hopefully we can make it work in a way that everybody feels makes sense. You know, I would say that that would be specifically part of our planting plan which is a requirement of the final plant. So our intent would be to sort of work through that in our final process and leading up to finally those landscape plans. Okay, any other comments? So we'll move on to 26 which raises the rec and parks mission. Do we have a representative from that commission here tonight? Yes, not. So Andrew, what do you think about 26? Sure, so we had looked at 26, the comment specifically pertains to ownership and arrangements for the park space being contemplated in the project. I think we're certainly open to the discussion of public ownership of the green spaces. Our suggestion would probably be that those conversations would be best had in the context of an approved preliminary plan. Now we're still sort of reclining green spaces and we're sort of trying to understand what the parameters and projects are. Where are the units? Where are the roads? What sort of solidity are we getting with the plan? What roads are being allowed to be built or not? There are sort of a lot of open questions and all of that is solidified in the preliminary plan process. Our intent would be to engage with the city with the recreation folks with any relevant committees and to establish a proposal for all of these green spaces considering all of the elements listed here and to come up with a plan that we would present a final plan for approval. But it seems like it's quite an undertaking to produce that and to have that level of discussion about land that may or may not be permitted to have, you know, through the preliminary plan process. So it just felt like it would be best done in the security of that framework knowing that the lines as they're drawn are relatively solid. That makes sense to me. Marla, do you have any thoughts? I'm just skimming through the recreation and parks committee comment. Yeah, I guess there's really no reason it needs to be done before final. Okay. Any board members want to chime in? Members of the public. Okay. And we're going to move on. Comment 27. Parking at the terminus of O'grain Farm Road. Sure, this is another one that I think we can table until we get our package to be submitted. So, you know, in being in response to this specific comment about parking, sorry, I'm still on number 27. Yeah, we're on 27. Okay, sorry, the screen's moving around. This particular comment was about the parking that was located in front of the barn and the pool amenity and whether or not that constituted a public use under the regulations and therefore the parking in the front yard would be allowed at trying to redesign that potentially remove that parking area. And so I think that it would be good to look at this in the context of that redesign. This might become irrelevant. Okay. And when will the redesign be presented to us? Hopefully, you know, I've got to get some clarity from Marlon to headline, but for the next year. Okay. Okay. Sounds reasonable. Any board comments on that? Public comments? Okay. 28th. Andrew, tell us. Okay, I'm used to you guys reading them out loud. I'm getting away from there. It takes up too much time and I don't have enough voice to get through all my time. It's all good. So this comment in particular was about the height of, I think it touches on, it's going from memory here, but I think it touches on the single family homes and duplexes and triplexes proposed and saying that, you know, those all look good and that the staff is fine with the height on those. And then it talks a little bit about the waivers for the commercial retail subdivision. And, you know, this is a really important part of the project for the applicant for us. Those 10 or so lots that are created surrounding the reconfigured Old Farm Road, the new four way intersection with Kimball Avenue, sort of intersecting with Hillside and the phase one multifamily project. That area of the project is receiving density from the R1 areas that we weren't able to realize. It's sort of the planned commercial and residential hub for the entire development. And, you know, the height limit in that area is challenging to achieve the densities and sort of vision of the project. And so our hope and we're really sort of encouraged by this comment is that we're going to be able to present a framework, give you guys information to sort of understand what our vision is for that area. And we're working on a plan that will sort of show, you know, required frontage percentages for buildings. It'll show setbacks. It'll show parking lines and things like that that will sort of, without committing to what the specific building will be, hopefully provide enough information that a framework can get established that would allow for increased height out of future hearing if those parameters were met. And so that whole plan is going to be the next submission and we'll be able to be commented on by staff and then by you guys at the next hearing, hopefully. Okay, that sounds sensible to me. Any comments and response? Not hearing any. We're going to jump to 29. Applicant is okay with this condition. That's what I love to see. So do we need to talk about it? No, we don't. Okay, does anybody feel the need to talk about it? Good, let's move on to 30. So just before you get to, I think, I think before you get to 30, so these are the waiver requests specifically the section staff comments about waiver requests. So waiver requests one through 10, a slide for it, slide 27 for the comment on... Oh, did we, wait, did we skip 29? Oh, I'm sorry, I skipped 29. Was your okay with the condition related to 28 or 29? I think it was related to both, but yeah. So on lot 29, we're fine with that. I think we just would look for some guidance from staff or if somebody just wants to show us where they'd like that you meant we're happy to put it on the plan. I'm not sure what is behind that lot that we're connecting to, but that's all fine, perfect. Yeah, so it's actually the opposite. The pedestrian easement exists today. So you should, since you're building, when you build out the lot, you should be building the pedestrian access. Okay. I think that we were dedicated to the city ages ago. So again, I think maybe we would just need to know where that is and what it's accessing. And we can, basically the first 100 feet of the lot are steep slope, and then the back 300 feet all the way across our class two wetland and a floodplain. And so our understanding is, we can't really build much in there, but we can certainly facilitate access to that wetland edge wherever it was intended. Okay, we'll work with you. There's a lot of parcels in the city just for the board's background that have sort of like a 10 foot strip along the edge of them that is pedestrian easement. So the purpose of all those 10 foot strips is not to actually represent like a straight line pedestrian path along the edge of parcels throughout the city. It's something that we acquired at the time of subdivision to sort of symbolize that there should be pedestrian access somewhere across the lot. So this is one of those lots that has that placeholder linear easement. And so as that lot gets used, that pedestrian access should be accommodated. I think we're fine with that. I guess we would just need to know where to put it. And then obviously we'd have to be able to construct it under the rules that apply, which we wouldn't be able to get involved in anything in the wetland or the floodplain. Yeah, the wetlands program just released guidance on building trails. So that'd be a good thing for you guys to read. State Wetlands Program. I mean, again, we're happy to see wherever the trail is meant to go. And once we get that ironed out, let's figure out what we can come up with. Can that be handled between meetings, offline? Yeah. Sure. Good. So the next series of comments all relate to waiver requests. Does it make sense to have all the comments together or should we do them separately, Marvel? Yeah, so there's a bunch that are not about waiver requests afterwards. Are you suggesting maybe do a little break to take public comment in general and then if we still have the energy, go back? I was thinking, if we're looking at comments 30 through 34. Yeah, they're all pretty different. Okay, so you think we should do them separately? Yeah, but if we, I mean, just a time check, if there's gonna be time for public or committee feedback, your point is well taken that this is a good break point to do that and then we could go back to waiver requests if there's still time. Okay, yeah, cause we're gonna conclude the meeting by 10 and the meeting includes us doing the minutes and I think we're gonna vote on the item closed tonight. So at this point, do we have any public comments and that can be from an individual member of the public. It can be from a representative of one of the commissions. Does anybody from the public wish to be heard at this point? Not hearing any. We're ready for comment 30. Let's get through as many as we can, right? Yeah, okay. What do you think? So just a quick, a quick on the, let's actually. I should say something about committee comments. I did talk to Sandy Dooley. He was on the affordable housing committee and she was torn between whether to attend this or the planning commission. I said, we're probably not gonna get to the affordable housing but she does have comments that she'd like to make. So just if we happen to get that far, know that there's other comments coming. Okay, well, we'll remember that. So let's stay on 30 and Andrew, go ahead. Yeah, can we, so just to clarify on the, right before 30 waiver requests one through 10, Marla, we, or the board like we had provided a chart essentially there's 16 or 20 lots or something in the development. And a chart going through lot by lot with a side rear and front yard setbacks. It is complicated. It was tedious to create the chart. We're certainly happy to give the board four numbers that are the setback waivers, but just wanna make sure we do what is necessary. I mean, I think the cleanest thing would be the chart which looks at each development lot and then gives a lot by lot waiver for, but if we were to just give you waivers that applied holistically to all the homes, essentially that's just gonna be the smallest setback for front rear side. I mean, it might as well just say five feet throughout because that would apply universally and be, so I guess it's just a matter of preference. What would, you know, our theory was you'd wanna be more specific than not, but we can certainly just find the minimums and give you four numbers that, you know, alternate. Maybe we can just say that the setbacks shown on the plans are accepted and leave it at that. The big picture comment we had about waivers is that waivers shouldn't be a problem if everything else is satisfactory, right? If the plans look great, they're showing the requested waiver and so it should be a foregone conclusion that the board will grant the waiver. So my position is that why not have a blanket waiver because you're proposing a specific development plan and, you know, if it looks good, then you don't need a million details about why it looks good. I don't know, what is, I mean, the board with experience with like other big projects like South Village or Sider Mill, we've never seen 16 different setback waiver requests. Well, just some background. Waivers, as such, did not exist in Vermont's owning law until the legislature created them, I think about 15 or 20 years ago. Before that, you had to apply for a variance and the Vermont Supreme Court read the variance statute to say it's basically impossible to get variance. So with that catch 22, the legislature created waivers. You know, I remember exactly what they provided for in giving towns and cities the power to allow waivers, but I had to, I have to think that it's more than just, you know, we waive everything. So I think there has to be some analysis done before we grant waivers. Does that address your point, Marla? Yeah, so the statute that pertains to waivers is actually in the statute that allows planning and development, which planning and development allow the appropriate municipal panel to amend the regulation. So that's where the waiver thing is enabled. Right. Yeah, I guess I'm not suggesting that we just waive everything, but it feels like it's a lot of work for Delilah to, you know, check the table and then check every single building against 16 different things, I don't know. Yeah, I would agree that it's a lot of work. I mean, it's certainly a lot of work in administering the zoning permits from our side too. And so I think simplifying it makes sense. And maybe we can just put our heads together on what that looks like. But we did provide a chart. It's one of the exhibits that goes through lot by lot at every single waiver being requested and sort of we gave some color in our narrative, which is unfortunately long. It's like a 50 page thing, but each waiver was discussed in detail as to why we felt it was appropriate to give you guys the information that you would need. But, you know, I think probably 90% of the waivers being requested in this project are internal. So it's a waiver for a structure to be close to a lot line that this project is creating. And so, you know, in that regard, I think there's not a lot. There are not a lot of instances where we're looking for waivers to a pre-existing lot line. And so I guess I should just clarify that my statement about consolidating waivers is only applicable to waivers one through 10, which are specific setback waivers. You know, I wouldn't consolidate screening requirements with setback waivers, but I would propose to consolidate setback waivers for the entire project. Okay. I think Andrew's point's a good one though, because I mean, you know, with a new project that's kind of being created out of whole cloth, you know, we, for instance, on the Hillside project, we go out of our way to communicate to potential buyers what's coming after them, because we don't want them to be shocked. And so it's different than building next to an existing structure and having a setback that's, you know, adjacent to an existing building our own. So I guess, I guess maybe we can circle back on this and come up with a proposal that makes sense. Staff and us maybe can just talk through it and get you guys something that's a little more streamlined for the administration of the permits, but perhaps a little bit more detailed than, you know, just a blanket. So why don't we do that offline? We can keep it. Okay. Sounds good to me. Any other board members want to be heard? Big no's. Some big, big. I found it. Yeah, I'm just saying this was the laundry list, Andrew. Yeah. So sort of potentially- Yeah, I just look at this and I said 11 feet on this one and 10 feet on this one and 13 feet on that one. Like really, it seems like an administrative nightmare. Also, you can't get a one-foot-front setback, but you know that. Yeah. Brian, I'll offer a really quick comment on this. I totally get where Marla and Delilah are coming from, you know, in terms of not wanting to have to basically, because of the two-percent state chart and have to check every single thing and see one foot here, two foot there. You know, but at the same time, I don't want to give a blanket waiver. And then we end up with a condition where they push the envelope on every single lot because we've given them blanket waivers for a setback. I think, you know, I'm not anticipating that because I think what I've seen from a planning standpoint, but you know, I think the plan should speak for itself. And then while we grant an overall blanket waiver from a setback, you know, the plan should also dictate it. That works for us. That sounds good. Well, what if, okay, I can talk to Andrew about this. I have an idea. Yeah. I'll write it down. I'm comfortable as long as staff is comfortable with whatever they're sort of taking that offline. Me too. Anybody object to that? Good. Okay. Are we ready to move on to the next comment? Yeah, we sort of already touched on this and we appreciate the sort of opportunity to get you this framework and we're going to get you the framework for the height waiver. I think it's a really interesting suggestion by staff here that we could look to sort of create a framework which if satisfied would result in the height waiver. And I think that's great. It gives everybody some sort of assurances and we're hoping that we can be successful at it. So we'll see at the next hearing. Okay, next comment. What does the applicant want us to hear? Well, for some of these waivers, I think it goes to the point that I was making before which is that within this PUD we're sort of laying out expectations right now. And I think this particular regulation was waived in Hillside in phase one. Essentially what this is saying is that if we put a non-residential use within 50 feet of the boundary of a residential district, essentially, many of the commercial and residential C1LR lots in our project are budding, they're all budding, there are one, right? The industrial commercial lots are budding, there are one. That programmatically, you then just have to have a 50 feet, you'd have to have a 65 foot buffer and 50 foot of dense planted evergreens. And I think what we're saying is if there are areas of the PUD where the board thinks it's appropriate to have heavy screening, let's address those now and approve now and then let's not have this 65 foot automatic setback be something that we need to deal with in the future. The plan is here for the making right now. So we think that we've addressed sort of congruousness between the different areas and like to not have to sort this out or have a mandatory 65 foot setback be kicked in because we're proposing something on a lot that we already had approved in which we already discussed the screening between R1 and that area, if that makes sense. So this standard that you're asking for the waiver of it says where a new non-residential use is adjacent to or within 50 feet of the boundary of a residential district. So you have, Ms. Laila, could you go back to that exhibit where we're looking at page eight and flip to page? If you go to the next slide, it has the overall plan with the zoning. I was looking for the zoning district, Juanilla, do you have that? Yeah. Okay. My question is, the roads count as part of that 50 feet. So if you're buffered by a 50 foot right of way, you're there already. If you had our presentation. Yeah, Delilah Andrew was saying he had the page we were looking for in his presentation. Sorry, we kind of... There you go. So I mean, my feeling is that the purple where the purple and red lot is on the corner. Can't point to your screen, but where the residential one and purple lot are cross-pollinated. And then where the IC lots are abutting the already 200 foot buffer that we've put in with the wetland corridor and environmental corridor, there'd be a buffer added onto that. There wouldn't if you've already got it, you've got it. If it's not on the lot though, right? The way the lots are drawn. I guess what I'm saying is if there are areas where we think that we should have a big buffer and plant trees, we'd just like to identify them now and then waive this provision for the future. That way there's certainty where the lot lines are, where the buffers are or where we need dense screening or planting and then we can just have a plan that's sort of solidified if that makes sense. Well, I personally am not seeing any area where the industrial commercial land abuts the R1, we certainly are looking for that dense buffer and we've provided it already in that wildlife corridor. And so I think in that area, we've already got the screening and in the area where the purple and red are meeting, our intent there is to have a community, to have multi-family and commercial style buildings that all relate to each other, not have a hedgerow. What does the staff think about that? Well, I think we need, this is the situation where we need the board's feedback, but I'm happy to read out the applicable standard if the board is at all confused about that. Marla, could you repeat that? You were working out the word. Oh, sorry. So I think this is the situation where we need the board's feedback, but if the board's confused about what the question is, I'd be happy to read out the relevant standard. Do we have any board feedback at the moment? I'd like Marla to weigh in in terms of giving us better direction because I'm a little confused right now. Okay, so the standard says where a new non-residential use is adjacent to or within 50 feet of the boundary of a residential district. Keeping it head. The required side or rear setback shall be increased to 65 feet. Within that 65 feet, 15 feet shall be densely landscaped. No light fixtures can be in that 15 feet. Or you can reduce it if adequate screening is provided. So basically this is saying that the setback for the commercial locks would be greater than the standard setback where they abut the pink area in the plan that Delilah's showing now. They're asking for a waiver of that requirement. What, how much of a waiver being requested? They're asking for it to be entirely waived so that the setbacks are just the standard setbacks in the commercial zoning districts. And Andrew is saying that they would like to, instead of have a larger setback, they would like to review it on a case-by-case basis and have the board say whether additional buffer or screening is needed. My opinion on this is that there's a reason that this is a standard now. And, you know, asking to review it on a case-by-case basis. I'm not sure what the benefit of that is. And Andrew is willing to create a distance and landscape buffer between residential and commercial. Yeah, I think that what I was saying was that, you know, we're creating, you know, if you're looking at this plan, we're creating the purple lots that abut the red lots and we're creating the green lots that abut the red lots. And our intent is to build the uses that are permitted on those lots. And I guess what I'm saying is, you know, in the area where the green and the red are meeting, we've provided a couple hundred foot buffer. The buffer happens to be on the lots that are red. And we came in to permit one of those green lots. We would have a 200 foot buffer on the red side and then a mandatory 65 foot buffer on the green side on top of that. So I think in that entire area, we've sort of already provided the buffer and would make sense for the waiver. And we're pulling red lots are meeting, is meant to be, you know, a planned unit development. I mean, it's meant to be residential, mixed use development that's integrated. And I just don't know where in that scenario it would be appropriate to have a 65 foot edged buffer. And so that's sort of why we were requesting the waiver. And my point was just that if we feel it's appropriate to add the buffer somewhere that our preference would be to add it now, put it in plan so that everybody knows that it's there, you know, and not have it be a surprise in the future. And I think on the conversion from the R1PRD to the C1LR, where those three-story townhomes, we are trying to create transition. And so we're, you know, shifting from the lower density, smaller homes to the larger dense or higher density, larger townhomes, and to the larger commercial buildings. And I think all we're asking is, you know, for the DRB to give itself some flexibility in terms of what is required for screening when we're doing some architectural transition work anyway. In the IC zone, what is the, what is considered sort of like the current setback of incorporating the 65 foot setback that has the differentiation between residential and commercial? Any questions? Hold on a second. So it's 953. IC setback is 30 feet, 30-foot front yard, 30-foot rear yard, 10-foot side yard. Yep. Correct. Okay. And the base setting for essentially having of the whichever setback is going to be adjacent to the residential. I mean, I see like right now I'm looking at exhibit 6G, the master plan, which does show like, you know, open space zone three is part of the red district, you know, on the plan. So they do kind of do have a built-in buffer. So in that circumstance, I am kind of in agreement on that. I'm looking at like the C1LR zone, which is adjacent to the green residential zone five. We don't have that built-in buffer. You basically have a Brian farm road each. Yep. So that's more of an area that I'm not, I'm more inclined to say I'm not as supportive of it. But I do see the, you know, the IC zone as being one where you do, it's kind of designed into it. And I would be more supportive of a waiver from the 65 to the 30 or whatever, you know, the district setback is. But again, this is something that goes to, you know, it's hard to respond to these without saying like the test development, you know, even just the two-dimensional plan, which I know you're kind of attached to 22. You want to know whether you can do 30 or 65 before you do a test case, but, you know, I think we need to see it sort of proven to us. Okay. So it's nine to five. I think we're going to have to stop here. And I think it's probably appropriate to stop because this is a more complicated discussion. And I think we really have the bandwidth to resolve at this end of the evening. So unless anybody objects, I would call for a motion to continue the hearing to April 20th. Yeah, I'll make a motion that we continue for this site plan, master plan number is to be the next hearing. Okay, that one. Do we have a second? I'll second. Okay. Roll call votes. Jim Langton. Aye. Alyssa Eyring. Aye. Mark Barrow. Aye. And acting chair votes, aye. So with that, we will close the public part of our hearing tonight and we'll continue on with just the board and the staff for the minutes and potentially to vote on the item that we closed earlier this evening. Thank you all for your participation and for the team on the O'Brien project. We'll see you on April 20th. That's good. Thank you all. We appreciate your time. Thanks everybody.