 So it was really nice. Four days of rent. We were there before. Yeah, exactly. It is. Welcome to the South Burlington Development Review Board for Tuesday, October 17th. Hope everyone's having a good fall. We're just up in Montreal. Man, rain cats and dogs on Sunday. Directions on emergency notifications. So if there's an emergency and we all have to evacuate the building, you will meet and make sure that everyone is safe and their present account for it. In the parking lot, the South parking lot, which is just behind this wall. So in case of an emergency, that's where we'll all head, and we'll go through the building and make sure everyone else is okay. Additions, deletions, or changes in the order of agenda items? Do we have any changes or other additions, deletions? Nope. Hearing none, comments and questions from the public. Not related to the agenda. Does anyone have any comments or questions not related to the agenda? Hearing none. Announcements. Fall planning and zoning form November 1st, 2017, which is fairly, where is this? The South Burlington. Wow, never a South Burlington. That's great. Okay, so that would be November 1st, which is a Thursday. Thursday because Halloween is Wednesday. Okay, great. Wednesday. Oh, Wednesday. All right, so Halloween is Tuesday. Good, okay. Let's see. Next on the agenda. Any other announcements before we go? Any other announcements? Okay. Final plan application SD 17-23 of Donald and Sandra Rendell to subdivide a 3.92 acre parcel developed with a single family dwelling into two lots ranging in size from 0.93 acres to 2.99 acres at 51 Old Farm Road, who is here for the applicant. So if you'll please identify yourself. Sandra Rendell. I am Miles Wait. Please raise your right hand, and you promised the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury. Thank you very much. Please describe the project. So we have a 3.92 parcel with a homeowner that we lived in since 1993. And we decided that we wanted to subdivide off one smaller acre with the intent that we would downsize from the bigger house to the lot and build a smaller home, either my husband and I or our daughters also interested in possibly doing it. So that was what motivated us to do it, and we worked with Miles on the process. So if we could step through the staff comments. And you've seen the staff comments? Yes, I have. So if you could just address the staff comments one by one, please. Yes. Go ahead. All right. So the first comment was a lot too, building at a maximum height of 28 feet or less. And that's fine with us. Keep in mind there is no plan to build a house right now, no plan to build a driveway. So at some point there will be, and there will be in elevations, elevations and plans that will probably come back to, you'll see again. So at that point, there will probably be the condition of the 28 feet, but I don't think it's going to change our subdivision plans at all. Before we go on, conflicts of interest. Does anyone on the board have conflicts of interest with the applicant? I've known Miles for a long time, but I don't think it's a conflict. Okay. We would all be conflicted out. Very good. Continue, please. All right. The next comment was that the DRB include conditions for the, as you know from one of those plans, there is a wetland besides non-organic fertilizers within the wetlands or the buffer. We have no problem with that. There should be no mowing within 50 feet of the wetlands on the property. Brush hogging will be allowed no more than three times a year. We are fine with that. I think they do it. They brush hog down there once a year? Yeah. Once, sometimes twice, depending on. I'm trying to decide whether to do it for the fall. Usually we do it in the sometime around June or July. And it's on both sides. All right. The next item was that DRB adopt a condition that the wetland buffer not be turned into lawn. We are fine with that. This comment, the board require the applicant to amend the plans to show a split rail fence, line of boulders, or other prominent demarcation measures along the wetland buffer lines. The one thing that we'd like to consider is landscaping, a row of trees, row of arborvide or a berm with landscaping to demarcate that line rather than a fence if they choose not to show a fence or boulders. I personally would prefer to do that just because since this land abuts 116, if you added some arborvides or something, I'd rather have that than a fence because it adds some extra sound protection. It would qualify, right? Just to me. Does that happen when we build, or is the expectation that that would happen right away? That can happen when you build, but it does need to be shown on the plans. It needs to be shown on the plans. Okay. Could you roll the... Number five. I'm moving on to page five. Staff recommends a condition that neither the 30 inch or 32 inch maple along old far road shall be impacted by construction of the driveway. So that's something we need to talk about because if you could bring up that plan that shows the driveway. Oh, I'm missing page four. I'm sorry. Number five. Number five. The board required applicant to amend the plans to demonstrate compliance with article 16 of the LDRs, which is the erosion control measures. Again, that seems to me that if the future applicant would come in with a plan to build a house with elevations and a firm plan rather than just a building footprint, it would be easier to understand how to control erosion issues at that point. So I don't know how we would necessarily do it with our plan right now with showing a building footprint and a driveway. For the board's understanding, the request is intended to demonstrate compliance with the stabilization timelines and topsoil requirements, not the specific location of measure. So staff feels that that could be a note on the plan without being specific to a layout. A note on the plan, just particularly about stabilization. Yep, there's some specific timelines and topsoil requirements in article 16. So that could be accomplished with an added note to the plan. All right. So back to staff recommends the condition requiring a driveway for a lot to be located off Old Farm Road. That's no problem. That's the plan. And finally back to this, no cutting of the 30 or 32 inch maple along Old Farm Road. We had been told that it was preferable for the driveway to be across from the driveway to 51 Old Farm. So that's the way we cited the driveway, directly across from 51 Old Farm Road. Oh, I'm sorry, 50 Old Farm Road. Actually, it's the other one. So we cited our driveway to be as close to across the street from 50 Old Farm Road, which means that one of the maple trees would probably come down. The one on the right. The one on the right. And so we could move the driveway to go between the two trees. But it would mean moving it, you know, further towards Pinesburg Road and not directly across. Was that a recommendation from the board that you heard that? I believe so. I think for myself, I don't remember that. It might have happened at sketch plan, not knowing that there were some trees here. And I think it was described as the intent is usually to have them across. Usually, yes, sometimes we differ from that. I'd personally prefer to keep the trees if possible. Yeah, I think we would, too. But it just means moving the driveway a little more to the, which actually, I think Brian would not, that I've talked to him about it, but if you're coming right out of the driveway, you're not headlights aren't shining right in the house. So that's an advantage as well. Yeah, what's the general principle involved in wanting driveways facing each other? Can you articulate the development reason for that as opposed to stack? Well, particularly, I mean, I can see it where there's parking, because I remember getting my car broadsided by a guy backing out of his driveway across the street. But you're on 116 here, right? Oh, that's on the whole farm road. But there's no parking along there, is there? On the whole farm road? No. So that's not a risk. What's the downside of staggering the driveways instead of having to face each other? Probably not much on a low volume roadway for a single family home. So that's why staff would support relocating the driveway to save the trees. I'm for the trees, too. Sounds good. So we can drop that condition. Other questions, comments by the board? This is a simple. Well, wait a minute. Just as a mechanical matter, do we then ask them to amend the plan to relocate the driveway? Yes, yes. We're not. We're amending the plan already, so we can amend the plan to conclude moving the driveway to save the trees. Great. Other comments, questions from the board? Hearing none. We can, so we close with... Public? Oh, sorry. Audience, anybody in the audience have comments or questions? Hearing none. So we close with conditions, or what do we do? I think these conditions can be... Revised plan, right? Because they don't know what kind of measure they're going to use to demarcate the wetland. Do we continue? Well, unless we wrote... Unless we're very specific on the condition on the demarcation of the wetland, that'll be X number of arborvitae at a certain height. Do you know right now if you want to do a tree or a berm, or a shrub row or a berm? We could identify that buffer area and make a note saying that it shall be demarcated through a fence, permanent run of boulders, or landscaping as approved by the DRB. As approved by the DRB. And that would be, again, that would be something that you're going to see again by... So the board won't actually see it again, just to clarify. It'll come for a zoning permit, which is administrative. Okay. But... So I think the board's going to need to see, is it going to be boulders? Is it going to be shrubs? Is it going to be trees? How many? Where? On the plan. So the board, but that's my... So we'll continue until next meeting. We prefer not to continue until next meeting. So let's start to talk about this now. Just say it's a different owner than maybe in plan for right now. We're five years down the road and they want to... They know that they have a house building footprint and they know that they have a driveway that needs to go there and they know they have a wastewater connection that goes here, but they might want to do something else along that side of the road. Then they can apply to the board to amend this approval. Okay. So... That makes sense. So you would be much more comfortable, staff would be much more comfortable if we asked for quite a bit of specification on the board. Either that or have the applicant come back at a future meeting with the specification so that the board can see it. So it's either one or the other there. Crack the condition that's very specific or continue. So the defense can also have a language of these alternatives. Is that helping you to specify how many trees? It seems to be going to be easier to show here's where it's going to be. This is going to cover this amount and then have that be somebody say, okay, it's either fence or whatever the different options are because you have given those three options. Then the board doesn't know what they're approving and if you pick the option of trees, you could put just two trees along 300 feet. Ray, based on the way that it was written, it says we could do any of those three. Yes, you can do any of those three, but I think it's important for the board to know what the spacing is because if they space them 100 feet apart, you might say, gee, that's a little too far apart. We want them closer than that. For instance. Sounds like a good solution is to make a difference in a fence now. And you tell your buyer, you don't like it, go back to the board and show them your berm with your specific trees. That seems to be going to be easier on it. So could you just draw the fence in and say this is the... Draw the fence in. Period. Say there shall be a fence. Draw the fence in. The buyer comes back if he or she doesn't like the fence. Does it make a difference to the board to go high? Does a split rail fence or a picket fence or chain link fence or... I have enough feel for that, John. You got any feel for that? He has to note the demarcation and not... Is there an ordinance that talks about wetland buffers needing to be demarcated? I'm just wondering. I mean, they've lived at this this property for years, decades with no demarcation and there's been no impact to the buffer. So I'm just wondering whether you're making us do something that is not really necessary. I'll throw it up to the board. So this is a strong preference. If it isn't in the regulations, it has been a strong preference and we have worked with other developers successfully for many years to ensure that wetlands are never turned into lawns or play areas. So... But Bill, they've agreed not to let the wetlands turn into a... and turn into that. They've already agreed in elsewhere here that they're not mowing the lawn more than three times a year. They're not using... They're keeping an erosion control later. I'm in complete agreement with you. When you're talking about a large project and 10 homes that are backing up to a swale in the back that needs to be maintained, I totally get it. This is two lots. I don't... If it's for efficiency or expediency to draw a line on the map and say no more than a three-foot-high fence, I don't care. But I think we're sort of pushing the outer envelope in this case. Yeah, that's a good point, John. Other comments? Matt, Jennifer, Frank? I agree. I would move that we close. Move that we not require the fence to be specified at all? No, no, no. That we don't require them to come back with specific plantings. That they allow them to do the fencing and mark it in the plan if they want to come back and change. So you're in favor of a fence. John, you're not in favor of a fence. No, I have no problem with a fence. I have no problem with 35 trees. I have no problem with two trees. I have no problem with this being a two-lot subdivision. I happen to know where they live. I have looked at this parcel. It's not something anybody's going to see. So I don't think there's any downside here. I'm in favor of just doing something as simple as possible, fewest words, and then let leave it up to the next person if they want to change it. So to clarify what we're going back and forth on, the question is whether a condition states that the applicant shall add a fence to the plan or whether we require them to come back for a continued hearing to show the board the fence, right? It should be the first. I'm John's general point. There's a two-lot subdivision. It's not that big a deal. It's short of prevail here. So in Article 9 of the LDRs, it does talk about landscaping or fencing to protect what in the stream are primary and natural community areas. It says the use of split rail or other fencing made of natural materials is encouraged. Chain link fencing is probably prohibited. Do you want to call it a split rail? And we can just say that in the condition that, and then we can close it? It probably doesn't have to be a continuous split rail the whole length. And then you have a space and you have another section here just to sort of create a visual barrier as to where the wetland boundary is. And when they come back or if someone else comes back to propose a home on the site and they want to change that from a split rail to another, that could it be accomplished at that time? To me. Let's just be sure that we're talking about, you guys keep talking about wetland, demarcating wetland. You're asking us to do this on the buffer? Yes. We're going to move that into motion to close. Move that we close final plot application SD 1723 of Donna and Sandra Rendell. Second. Move in second and we close this application. All in favor say aye. Aye. Mark, you there? Mark. Yeah, we got you. Thanks, Mark. All opposed. None opposed. Okay, thank you very much. So we have a motion to approve the application SD 17-18 of South Village Community's LLC for approval of Phase 3 of 334 unit, planned unit development. Phase 3 is to construct the following. 22 single family dwellings, four two family dwellings, two three unit multi-family dwellings and two 12 year multi-family dwellings at 1840 Spear Street. Who was here for the apricot? Dave Marshall from Civil Engineering Associates. Robin Jeffers from SD Ireland and South Village Communities. Patrick O'Brien from SD Ireland and South Village Communities. Neighbors, right? We have some letters from neighbors. Okay. And from a lawyer. Mr. Patrick O'Brien is CC'd on a letter from John Anderson. Very good. Okay. All right. So you're already sworn in. We have already revealed any conflicts of interest. And so if you would describe changes tonight. Very good. The last time we met before the board, we had worked through many of the staff report items. And, but nonetheless, there were still some open items for further discussion, further evidence, further information to be gathered by staff as well as by the applicant in support of cleaning those up. Staff has prepared a report that focuses on those outstanding open items. We'll work through that as a tool in reviewing the remaining items in the application as at least staff in the applicant sees them today. So item one, they aren't numbered, but we'll kind of work through, look for the red items and the associated titles. In this particular case, we asked for, at the last meeting discussed a modification of the condition as it relates to the use of herbicides in proximity to the wetlands or within the wetland areas. There are certain parameters within the land management plan that does call for those particular uses, herbicides under special circumstances as part of the restoration plan as well as there are certain management issues within the wetland permit that was issued by the state. So we asked for that condition to be modified to reflect those two documents and staff has prepared a proposed condition that is acceptable to the applicant. Yep, I see that. That looks great. Very good. Item two is about sidewalks. And South Village was originally designed with the concept of having sidewalks on both sides of the roads where there were homes on both sides. So basically each home had the opportunity to have a sidewalk in front of it and you'd be able to utilize it for those purposes intended for sidewalks. In this particular case, there's a portion on the west end of the site where there's six homes, three on each side of the road. The south side happens to benefit from a proposed recreation path which will be doubling as a sidewalk. On the north side, the applicant had proposed a sidewalk system to service those homes. Public Works has asked that that be eliminated from the project We had a little bit of discussion on where what we could do to basically kind of find a middle ground. As we left the meeting last time, it was offered by the applicant that they would maintain, construct and maintain that particular sidewalk system. And the question at the time was whether there were any issues of a private entity maintaining a feature within the public right of way. We understand that Justin Rabidou is here from Public Works to help provide additional detail in that regard as well as to support their original position. So perhaps now, Justin, is this the time when you would like to provide up to the board? All right. I want to jump in the memory while I continue. Let's have them jump in. Yeah. Jump to it? Yeah. Okay. Microphone. Good evening, Justin Rabidou, from Public Works. Procedurally, I have not been sworn in for this project, so would you like me to? I do. Thank you very much. Thank you. So, I'm going to speak a little bit about this project and a little more globally if you'll bear with me. First, I do want to address the generous offer of others to maintain city infrastructure. There's certainly some legal issues with that. However, 10 times out of 10, all that means is five years down the road, someone is looking to get out of that commitment and they're looking to the city. In fact, there's a development that was built in early aughts who's doing that exact same thing right now. They're trying to get out of conditions about maintenance and ownership. You do this long enough, you realize that that's never a solution that works long term. People always want the city to maintain city infrastructure. So, we would be opposed to that type of agreement. Thank you. Dave is highlighting the section of kind of an orphan sidewalk to the right. You see a hatched area which I believe is environmentally sensitive which is why the overall footprint and impervious has been reduced which is another reason why there's not a connecting sidewalk to the east. Is that correct Dave, to the east? That's correct. I don't know the number and you probably know it just as well as I do, but maybe 30% of South Burlington homes have sidewalk in front of them. It's certainly not half because there are entire neighborhoods that have no sidewalk. Most neighborhoods have sidewalk on one side. So now the notion or the obligation that this is somehow becoming a standard is troubling to us in and of itself. The issue of an area of sidewalk that's just that much more problematic for us to get to and turn around. It's not continuous. It's more time. And here's what I want to speak a little more globally. We have south village phases one, two and three. Sino-Mille phase one, two A and two B, however they're counting their three phases. The O'Brien development, spear meadows help me for all the ones I'm missing city center. Well, I'm talking about ones that are kind of under construction now or in the permanent pipeline. The public does your service departments within the city, fire, police, public works to maintain existing levels of service. It's becoming a losing proposition. In fact, the city council last night issued their budget guidance to the city administration and probably guess what the number of increase we're looking for. It's a low number. State education tax is going up 8%. That's even before it hits the local budgets. We're constantly budgetary pressures on the municipal side of government. I certainly understand that new houses mean new taxes. Historically in south Burlington, all this growth has barely kept up with inflationary pressures and labor contract agreements. So the notion that access revenues from new development will simply pay for people and equipment doesn't pan out. We're at the point within public works where very soon one of two things will need to occur. We presently have three sidewalk routes equipment and people to serve them and seven main truck plow routes. Those numbers need to increase if we're to maintain the existing levels of service. If people tell us that's fine give us worse service I'd be surprised. One if you if we add another sidewalk plow and a street plow and two people to operate those and you amortize those equipment labor costs over 20 year period it's about $200,000 a year which is two thirds of a penny on the tax rate. Police is already talking about the need for their staff to grow because of development. The fire department is talking about perhaps a new shift and or another substation somewhere. These things are all these things all cost a lot of money. So to the extent that we can eliminate frankly in my opinion representing the city is unnecessary pieces of infrastructure to us to maintain it keeps us from that edge. It pushes that timeline further out. Me proposing in my budget this year you know another $320,000 of equipment and two new people and the general fund isn't going to happen and wouldn't be approved. But when these things eventually become public those needs are going to be there. This is what Dave what's the front edge there 150, 180 feet. This isn't the straw here but the discussion is more important. The less connected our maintenance areas are the more problematic it is to maintain the more of them they are. This notion that on neighborhoods that need sidewalks on both sides we certainly have pushed back elsewhere and other recent developments. And we just see this particular section of sidewalk the three lots I believe they're 100, 101, 102. Is that correct? Add another number. Yeah, 101, 102, 103. Thank you. We just see this section of sidewalk as unnecessary and something that would just be a bit of a pain for us and add more time than it would appear on paper because you got to get to it then you got to turn around and connect into something else and the more times we're we're running the places we're running past empty land we'll maintain something down the road that's the more time it takes us to do a route and eventually the math on that you know in your the number of things we need to maintain keep growing on the numerator on the numerator side the denominator is not keeping up so we see this as something you know to use the act 250 parlance would be an undue adverse impact on our ability to provide services to this project and to the rest of the city. That's your question. If the sidewalk are continuous would you have still objected to it? It certainly makes it easier. That's not what I asked. I'm getting to the yes and no. It makes it easier and it's more continuous. I don't think we would we probably would have discussed with the developer the need at all for the sidewalk on that side but the fact that it would be continuous is a little bit more palpable to us. I would have been more in favor of it being continuous. I certainly understand environmentally why it's not and I'm not suggesting we put impervious through a sensitive area but the direct answer to your question would be yes it would be more in favor of having a continuous section of road to maintain. You wouldn't be here resisting it if it were continuous. No, you folks don't see me much. We try to deal with our stuff with staff. So you're here on an issue but I'm also thinking you know I want to hear from the developer in a minute but for right now you're here on an issue or principle basically. As you say it's not the straw it's in fact fairly trivial impact in and of itself, correct? This one is and then the next four or five trivial impacts suddenly that's an extra hour of maintenance on a route. But we're only here for this project and I'm reluctant to make these people you know hanging them from the yard arm because of what's going to happen in the future. They're here now with the impact of the specific impact of their project. Now, I need again a little development education. Why is the sidewalk there? And help me understand a little bit what's directly across the street front and what kind of path is that that doubles as a sidewalk? Just to explain, right now there's a recreation path that runs along the south side, a proposed recreation path running around the proposed side of the roadway. What's the surface? Alright and on the other side of the street in the part where there is no sidewalk That would be all green space Anything on the other side? This way? What's that? That's just a green space outside of the curb line north of the curb line. This is the area that Patrick asked me to point out. This is an archaeologically sensitive area. Make the argument for the sidewalk. The south village was designed intended to have sidewalks on both sides of the street and south village phase two went forward with sidewalks only on one side of the street and ultimately that approval was appealed because it did not have that concept of sidewalks on both sides of the street ultimately that was redesigned and brought back to the city and approved in an alternate way that basically provided that particular amenity on both sides of the street where there were homes on both sides of the street. South village was designed as a traditional neighborhood where communication between people on sidewalks and the front of the homes is an integral component of the project and leaving these three homes separate. Let me interrupt you. I don't see these three homes as particularly integral. I don't see this little collection of homes they're sort of off by themselves. They're not particularly well integrated into the rest of the project. It's a cluster of six. If you don't watch that it's still right and you got but it's a slightly different character could easily let me put it this way. It seems to have enough distance and correct me if you really disagree so that it can accommodate without disrupting anybody's aesthetic sense of somewhat different character than the rest of the development which is pretty far away. It is different. It's almost as a separate neighborhood you might say. Sub neighborhood. Yes. Are the houses worth more? They sell for more with sidewalks? I don't know if I'm qualified to answer that question. I'm talking to the developer. I'm trying to get the reasons let me say this I've lived in houses here with a sidewalk and without a sidewalk there's something to be said both ways. Sir. Yeah I mean David mentioned some of the reasons that's what South Village is all about but if you look beyond that there's two reasons. The first one being safety we all agree it's safer to have a sidewalk to cross the street and the second one was as David mentioned in phase two we proposed sidewalks and we were appealed. So as ridiculous as that may sound that's our reality and we could probably get over the safety factor but our concern is it's likely the same person is going to appeal us as silly as it may sound because we don't have sidewalks. Actually the only one that's sounding fairly compelling to me is the safety factor. How busy is the street? How busy will it be? It won't I mean it's I don't know how you define this as a collector or Matt? It's the street that will connect Dorset Farms to South Village as such it will probably have some traffic of people going back and forth between the neighborhoods. Also I would add that these would be the only three homes in all of South Village that would not have a sidewalk in front of them if we did not put a sidewalk there which kind of singles them out. So as your question about value it probably doesn't change the dollar value when someone goes to get a mortgage but as far as the value of being odd and set out as odd it would be very odd for only three lots out of 334 did not have a sidewalk. Okay I'm done. Well I would just looking at all the neighborhoods around me almost every neighborhood in the last 20 years had sidewalks on one side and not on the other. I'm thinking of Nolan Farm Road I'm thinking of Four Sisters Road I'm thinking of Dorset Park I'm thinking of Vale they're all over the place and you don't even notice at all other farms you just don't even notice it you just you walk on one side I'm leaning toward a developer I don't find either argument particularly compelling. Well I do find Justin's argument long term as an issue and we have a historic sense of not doing this this is the oddball situation where we're doing it this is the oddball. Well I get the term argument but I'm willing to make these people for that reason you know sacrificial goats. What do you mean by that? I mean their argument's pretty good there's nothing specific that in the LDR that says they can't have their sidewalk and the fact that the truck has to lift the plow you know for 150 feet just doesn't impress me in this particular case you know we can address frankly they want to address Justin's argument with a better budget or a higher impact fee I don't know in terms of where we were at I mean there's three choices one is no sidewalk second choice is sidewalk city maintains it the third choice is sidewalk the developer maintains it through some sort of arrangement with the I do by Justin's argument that having the private developer responsible for the public amenity is probably I find that persuasive probably not a good idea because of five years time there'll be someone saying the city should be responsible because they'll be derelict and you know I mean I've heard our I've heard city attorneys speak on this before but if they were here they would probably say you can't subjugate your ownership and your responsibility to another party and just waive the liability just because someone else agrees to do it it's still our land we still own it we would still be subject to any type of action for maintenance and we the city have sovereign immunity a developer working perhaps on our behalf or a private entity within the public right of way lacks sovereign immunity and we would probably lose our sovereign immunity if you have insurance never mind the side issue Mark, Jennifer I personally won't miss the sidewalk if it's not there I don't have sidewalks in my neighborhood if I want to talk to my neighbor we just talk in the driveways or cross the street and I live on a fairly busy street one more option is the special tax district we could just charge them more okay bad idea Mark Mark I'm okay I'm okay with just the bike path on one side I mean I live in public farms and I know it's it's not a connected street like we did that now it's definitely a connected community neighborhood but you have three houses that they just walk across the street and you're on a bike path I'm okay with that Mark yeah I would prefer I would sorry go ahead yeah I'm fine with one sidewalk I would prefer to be on the side of the road without a sidewalk personally yeah I enjoy not having a sidewalk in front of my house yeah the safety argument really hits me it's a curve it is going to be a cut-through there are going to be kids that are going to be careening around there and there's going to be kids playing so you know I think it's nice to have sidewalks on both sides but I agree that most of South Portland doesn't have it so let's just go for a vote then I think I've heard the straw vote like one two three four against two if I'm on the two side so let's go with four against two so we are in favor of not having the additional sidewalk I think that's how we come out but that's advised that's a weather report only because we don't announce our decisions in advance exactly right we'll take comments from the questions from the public later you want to go through the rest of them we'll go through the rest of the questions first thank you very much Justin item three so-called talks about ultimately one of the mitigation measures agreed to as part of the master plan approval for the project in which the we won't call it cut-through traffic the traffic that's moving from South Village into the Dorset's farm neighborhood there were concerns about traffic speeds and that there it was appropriate to include some form of traffic calming within the Dorset farms neighborhood the applicant agreed and is conditioned to pay $20,000 to the city in support of those efforts in this particular case the applicant just asked that some additional clarifying language that actually ties this condition which for the first time actually provides a specific timeframe on when the payment is to be made to the condition itself so there's no mistaken on how many times the applicant needs to pay $20,000 item four we'll call it under landscaping and screening requirements staff asked that we provide specific information on the cost of the proposed multi-family buildings we did provide that to staff eventually and it was from staff report indicates that the proposed landscaping is consistent with the LDRs in regards to the minimum required landscaping amount I'll let you do affordability under affordability we've talked about this quite a bit and worked with staff and staff came up with a recommended condition and we are amenable to that condition great, hang on a second I would like to suggest that the two in a whole condition be amended to say applicant to meet the affordability mix and development standards of insert the words and development standards of you see that if you look here two in a whole four in a mix and development standards and development standards of section 8.02 of the regulations that's acceptable you got that little glitch it in front of the mix it's hard to see exactly where I that's on purpose that's technology that's an antenna I wonder he's quick that's the spot okay likes if you guys are done with the affordability I'd like to just offer some information in regards to affordability I'll just read this if you'd like me to give you a copy of it I can Mr. Chairman in an attempt to clarify our stance on the future of affordable housing in south village I think it is important to remain focused on the facts that are embedded within the project master plan approval the south brunt and land development regulations and the applicable statute that grants the DRB their authority well considering this during your delivery of session I urge you to review the following facts one we are allowed to construct 269 units of market we have two we are currently at approximately 150 units built we don't know exactly how much because the builders we sell to may for example have dropped off a couple of permits today so that's why I'm using approximately 150 simple math equates us to being over 100 units away from having to make a decision to build or not to build affordable units we are not required to build any affordable units we can stop building at 269 units we have not in any way shape or form applied for any applications to build affordable units the application before you will not bring the number of approved units approved in south brunington to 269 units the final plot approval already has conditions that spell out the process of building affordable units and this coupled with the reference sections in the LDRs should give this DRB the comfort that they need to approve this application before you without any reference to affordable units in closing we remain optimistic that we will be able to deliver affordable units to future residents of south village but given the number of nuances associated with how it is all going to work financially for the project we are not yet willing to come forth with the application yes we are close we have worked with staff for almost a year on it but we can't put this cart before the horse we do not want a condition that mentions anything about affordability that is for you to think about during collaborative session Ray would you like to copy of this sure Robbins you just said that you were okay with this if you are going to condition us we are okay with that condition but the point is we would like you to discuss the merits go ahead I guess the issue I have with not even addressing or discussing or saying that we even need to have the discussion until we get to unit 278 is that we are looking to approve phase 3 and 3 phases that include the density bonus for affordable housing so we are looking at I forgot what is it 338 units I forgot the total number but we are looking at the overall community design of that many units that so we have to look at how that many units impact the design but you may get to 270 and say we are done here and if we knew we had 270 units to look at on a master plan basis it would look totally different so where the hole is going to be if you hit 270 and decide you are going to stop because either the market says 35 units of 33 units of affordable housing and 33 and the 32 additional market rate because your economics don't factor in the financial performance doesn't dictate that half and half to build 32 more units so where the hole is going to be and I would say it is disingenuous to say that we shouldn't be looking at 300 35 units of master plan and that is where I have an issue with saying we shouldn't even be discussing where they should go or how they are going to be allocated and how you are going to meet it when you have asked for this many units in your master plan thanks Mark that is exactly how I feel so I appreciate your comment but it does seem to us as though this condition is a responsible approach to where they are going to be cited because you all want and we all want you to build the hole 334 units we want this project to be a success we want the traffic to be calm and we want everyone to be safe and this just my wife and I love walking in this neighborhood so we want this to be a real success so I hardly endorse politicians speak hardly endorse Mark's comment rest of the board I endorse Mark's comment I would not have not going to re-argu it for this project I might re-argu it later just put a marker in the book I don't agree with the concept if you come in as for density increase you can defer building affordable housing until you get to unit 270 I understand that's what happened here I'm not going to contest it now I agree with Frank but I'm saving it up for the next one rest of the board I agree with I recognize the points that you read I just think my concern is getting to that 270th unit and there's hasn't been any big picture thinking about where those are going to go and it's going to be like oops let's just stick them here and we can't do that that's just my concern given the interpretation we've adopted so far they have a right to stop at 269 whatever it is and I don't think that's disputable under the construction we've put on it thus far which is not the construction I would have put on the question that we've put here I don't think is overly onerous and it understands exactly what you said which is you can stop at 269 and we understand that completely okay and that is it for staff comments right bicycle bicycle yep go ahead oh that side I like your solution go ahead so there were some clarifications provided to staff in regards to what the intent it appears that we're now on the same wavelength so we're happy for all that I think staff is happy too but I can't speak for the consent decree there was a concern from the public last time that the application as presented to the through the city was inconsistent with the consent decree that was entered into as part of the settlement on both master plan and phase one ultimately once staff and ourselves had the ability to share information it actually indicated that not only were we depicting the no development areas accurately as well as the limited development areas accurately but actually what the consent decree had shown was a portion of this lot being in the no development area we actually tucked them all inside the development area so if there were no issues in regards to anybody's implied use of the no development area as part of their own property so we just tried to skirt that all together alright other staff excuse me other board comments questions before we open to the public okay so before we open to the public we have a note here we have a I know that several people are concerned that we are limiting discussion to phase three not phases one and two we have asked our attorney city attorney and he came back and said you can't open it up to talk about phases one and two that would be it would be a bad thing we had a very nice little word for it but basically it's something we just don't have the authority to do and we are not able to discuss phases one and two but we're happy to take comments on phase three several people have questions please identify yourself I should point out that there hasn't been a sign in sheet and so technically I'm not here it's over there on the piano so for the benefit of the sign in sheet and for the board you'll probably hear me again I have two comments if that's okay with you my first comment is I'd like clarification in words of the public would understand about the affordable housing and the proposal that is in front of us just now that the developer seems to be accepting I'd like to understand that in words of one syllable for me what I believe I'm hearing is that phase three will be approved as long as there are six affordable units in it and that before any changes are made to phases one and two a new proposal will be brought before the board which will have a detailed plan of all the affordable housing in phases one and two that's what I believe I'm reading but I'd like the board to confirm that back to me so that I understand that staff, do you agree with that? I mean it sounds right to me but I want to be sure that you can nail it Stuart thank you but the six in phase three do not necessarily have to ever be built right the six in phase three while the approval will call for that if they don't get to those last six they don't ever have to build them out so 54 could be built I think it's so we could build the whole 60 because the 60 79 is the magic 270 for the whole all phases one two and three three phases in aggregate have to get to 260 so my key thinking as you said Mr Chairman we're not allowed to talk about phases one and two which are my primary concern so what I need to know is that before anything is done anything is proposed in phase one and two we will have a detailed plan and phases one and two and a detailed plan may simply say as I forget this guy's name there may be no affordable housing but we have been led to believe by other members of the development group that they must have 334 units for their developer I expect 334 units I'm hoping there will be a plan this might help you have clarity about your concern the reason we can't speak about phases one and two tonight is because a discussion of phases one and two haven't been noticed to the public there was no public notice conversely if and when we're going to talk about phases one and two if anything is going to happen to one and two there has to be a public notice thanks for that okay thank you very much next yep identify yourself oh just a second mark is going to ask a question public comment yep I have a question so one thing that I'm wondering about maybe if my audio gets a little garbled from time to time let's just say they move on to phase three and they build what is it two multiplex buildings in phase three yep because the market says there's a strong product right now to do rental of condo or whatever but building those two units doesn't trigger the 270 you know doesn't bring them over to 70 because they haven't built enough townhouses and single families but our phase three condition says that they have to have four portable units in those within those two multiplex buildings how does that how do those two contradictions are you know interested in the balance they don't have to be contradictions if they were not condos as an example and they were rental housing which they have out there now they still would have control of that housing and have the ability to convert it and they have the ability also to buy back parcels or buy back property and make sure that the mix works so it's not necessarily contradictory okay so they could build but so we they don't have to convert it or buy it back until they go over 270 right because of our we are our unit our condition says that no more or four units in those two multiplexes they have to be affordable so effective on the 270th they would have to find a way to do that but they also have to find a way to proportionately distribute units in the other two phases right these are happening simultaneously where they're building on phase one and phase two in order to get to the 269 while they're it's complicated it's one of the problems with what we allowed and letting them get to 270th first place without going on so I apologize please identify yourself I'm sorry I live on North Jefferson Road I just was at a meeting earlier I believe it was the September meeting where one of the things that you the board asked them to do was to come back with the master plan of all three phases before you were going to approve phase three did I not hear that at that meeting I recall something about that but so what staff where's the order procedure on that I'm not sure if that was at a sketch plan meeting which case there was no decision made it's just discussion between the applicant and the board also the board at that time did not have the benefit of the legal opinion that they weren't able to go outside of phase three I think we all expressed a desire to know where these affordable units were going to go and then we were well it isn't even just the affordable it's all the you know it's the whole master plan was changing under her eyes and so you know and it seemed that you all heard the same thing and we thought we were going to see that I think we will we didn't require them to do one before the other and just to clarify any changes to parcels that are currently assigned in phase one or two do have to come before the board and there will be public notice for that changes to the master plan you will have an opportunity to talk about those at that time and has been many times over we see footprint lots all the time right Frank working please identify yourself my name is Nick Andrews I live in South Village I have a few questions I wish Justin hadn't left because I have a couple of things for him so my understanding of plowing the streets in South Brooklyn is that when they come through phase three they will be plowing the other side of the street and they will be plowing everything to the east of that they just won't plow those three houses if that sidewalk exists is that correct so they will go across the street and plow those three houses and then they'll move up to the corner and they'll plow everything else but they won't plow those three houses is that correct plowing sidewalks not streets right sidewalks so if they if they build the sidewalks the city wants to I get that because I don't think the contractor should do it they out plow sidewalks I get so but they're going to plow the three sidewalks on the other side of the street but they're just not going to plow if there are three sidewalks on the north side of the street they're not going to plow those three is that what I heard if there's a sidewalk they'll plow it yes he's in the right but they're going to be plowing three on the south side of that they're plowing the whole rec path right and up around the corner but if those three houses were there they couldn't possibly plow those sidewalks because that would be some sort of inconvenience is that is that what he was telling us hang on a second that was his argument the straw poll here is worth it which is I like your opinions on these things you're the one that got this position in lieu of me and I appreciate everything you say in here so I thank you well I am thrilled alright so are the rest of us I think Justin is saying if you put it in a sidewalk I'll plow it please don't put it in a sidewalk the sense of the board is Justin is going to get his way and therefore it's likely I'm guessing because we haven't voted yet there's likely not to be a sidewalk and therefore that side of the street you know the area where that sidewalk would be it won't be plowed or it'll be plowed as street I don't know I don't know all I'm saying is it just it appears to be such a minor thing for the city that they're going to be over there anyway they're going to drive their little bobcat across the wetlands across the bridge they're going to do those three sidewalks on one side of the street they're going to move up to the next corner they're going to do all those other sidewalks but they can't possibly do the three sidewalks on the other side of the street that to me just seems a little ridiculous and I think the person who was here at the last meeting represented this case and who was the one who took us to the Ireland's task in phase two you know we've now I've lived in this neighborhood I've paid taxes now I used to be a watchman a long time ago I hate it when people bring this up but I've paid taxes in this community I've been paying taxes now six years I've paid with taxes and fees and my sidewalks are done by our homeowners association and the developer right now I've paid probably $40,000 in the last five years I've been dedicated to the city I get police and fire protection and AMS protection I get that I understand that but the city has now collected from me probably $35,000 in five or six years maybe $40,000 and I haven't seen any plowing from them so they probably owe me a little bit and probably by the time those three houses are built and that is all dedicated to the city those people who own those houses in the neighborhood of $18,000 to $20,000 so they probably they probably deserve a little you know sidewalk plowing me, just saying so I think Justin's argument if the city doesn't want to plow sidewalks then don't plow sidewalks, I get that and they could set up an ordinance and say okay from now on everybody plows their own sidewalks can we find you if you don't plow them and you know whatever the deal is but they agreed to plow sidewalks and the developer has agreed with the residents of our community to build sidewalks and the board approved the building of those sidewalks so I don't get this change at this late date so that's the sidewalk thing so as far as this idea of affordable housing is probably the same you know I disagree with Patrick I think that the intent and the spirit of the development plan originally was that there would be integration of affordable housing within the entire community it wouldn't be that you build 269 houses then you start thinking about whether you're going to build an affordable house or not so I disagree with that I think the affordable plan call for that the topic's been on the table since the plan was since the next plan was approved 10 years ago so it's not like this is a revelation that we're all coming to here in 2017 the consent decree was accurate I made some notes to my neighbor because she wasn't able to be here tonight and that was one of the things I had to tell her okay so the only other piece I have to that is that I think the promise of conversion of condos is a question that the board should keep the developers speed to fire us if they're going to build apartments then they're going to build apartments which they've done so far every one of the of the multiple units in the development as an apartment if they're going to build condos and those are going to be called units for the purposes of affordable housing then that's accurate and that should be those units won't all of a sudden be converted to apartments it's going to be a condo and it's going to be affordable and it's going to be counted in the town otherwise in that phase 3 where there are 12 24 multiplex units then a portion of those and that would be about 3 should be considered 2.5 should be considered as affordable units under the plan the way it exists right now it's they're 24 or roughly 10% so those are my those are my concerns and I thank you for listening to me and I appreciate you letting me grant a little bit and thanks again thank you very much comments, questions, yes please identify yourself I'm Amy Teresak and I live on the Jefferson Road I originally came here to discuss concerns over adding houses, affordable houses to phase 2 but in the discussions on the sidewalk proposal in phase 3 I find it a bit perplexing that nobody has mentioned that there is a nature path that that road is the condo it to right now we walk on the place where the road will be I'm a mother I know that there will be a lot of children walking back and forth between South Village and Dorset Farms because that will connect it I know that there will be cars using that as a connector to Dorset Street from Sphere because these schools for South Burlington are on Dorset that's where we get to school a lot of people like to bypass the stop lights because they can get congested also I think that there will be a lot of pedestrians going on that route to get to the nature trail so I do believe that's going to be a pretty significant area for pedestrian traffic and I would think that continuing on with the tradition that's going on in South Village keeping a sidewalk there will handle that excess traffic and it also is a safety concern that the children are involved I was just perplexed as to why the nature trail wasn't brought up as part of the attractant to people walking on that street Amy can you point out the nature trail? I don't we're at the crest of the there it starts it goes we need to pull up it's past it's to the east of the houses there's kind of a hump that goes along it comes in at the circle you're going to need to know up more that's it that's the quiet path okay so it is on the map it's not an informal nature no it's a formal path it's marked tree lines, trunks and right now this is how you walk now I know that once that opens up there's going to be a lot more people walking to it but there won't be a connection between this sidewalk if it were to be built and that the connection would be here right? I believe most people walk this way I'm not sure if they continue that way yeah the point she's trying to make is existing quiet path in phase one that circles throughout the phases so if you were to come out here you cross over if you wanted to go over the quiet paths over here there's another quiet path system here that goes for phase three okay yeah the background on why this portion of the path is in place today is this is actually the water main route that comes from Dorset Farms and comes in all the way along this proposed roadway and feeds into phase one so that was constructed back in 2005 and that's been a convenient place where the grass is not grown up and people can still walk out there and you can actually get to as Patrick points out the quiet path the remaining quiet path system that's within the phase three area but this particular roadway basically follows exactly the original master plan and of course we had to because the water main was already in place so in order to basically stay consistent with public work standards for alignments that's a little bit of how people currently access the interior areas of phase three let me sit down yeah so yeah quiet path so existing quiet path proposed is going to come off of the sidewalk around one on one each side of the road but there is a path that goes into the woods here yeah there's there's a path there's an illegal path that goes into the woods that's illegal informal or illegal I'm Jim Gross I got you Jim Gross Jim Gross I'm not sure whether we're talking about this area here where there is that path that goes in that's where we're maybe discussing right right and so that's here this is here where the road bends okay yeah I think just not show there as any the forested limits generally occupy this rise in the land form it's rocky and that's why the farmer never chose to plow it or to basically hay it mainly there's too many rocks so anyways that's why it's now forested today under existing conditions okay other comments from public just please in holly again sorry so I have a question about the multi clutch units and you brought it up in terms of the fact that at this point the ones that are existing if I'm not mistaken are almost entirely rental apartments now rather than own condominiums I don't know the answer to that I actually wrote a letter asking that question so if we continue to build these if they haven't sold as owner you know owned units in the two existing phases why are we continuing to build them if nobody wants to buy them I guess that's my question is it seems to me that we are adding buildings that are not in demand unless you were saying apartments are in demand and that's what we're building but is it am I not correct that these are supposed to be built to be purchased as condominiums that is irrelevant to use a word that I love that is beyond the purview of the board because the character of the ownership is irrelevant we don't put restrictions on ownership yes we don't put you're right we don't put restrictions on who owns the units that can be rented or an affordable housing standpoint even though I am quite skeptical that they'll ever be able to meet the actual affordable housing requirement put that aside it can be met legally either as rental housing or as a condominium there are different requirements for each but we you know the market decision to build the units and how the market then is strictly to developers decision not ours questions from the public please identify yourself I'm John Anderson and I wrote you a letter that you refer to because you refer to the letter I simply want to comment that our concerns have been resolved through an agreement that we're happy to share with you or not share with you the hours late so we'd certainly understand if you didn't want to see the agreement but basically we're we're agreeing to that the bike path can be moved and there'll be additional restrictions limiting further protecting the the green the greenness of the limited development and the whatever the development corners thank you very much other comments questions from the public yes please I'd like to understand the difference between an affordable rental unit and an affordable condo for the sake of this phase 3 if you could help me with that okay can an affordable rental unit be considered one of the affordable units for the sake of this project? yes is the answer any comments questions from the public a ready to close do we have a reason to continue? I move that we close continued preliminary final plot application SD1718 of south village communities second this is application we'll favor say aye thank you thank you very much hearing none we're closed we're closed that's application SD 17-24 of Milot Larkin partnership LLP to amend a planned unit development consisting of 210 residential units a 60 unit multifamily dwelling with 17,976 square feet of commercial space a 20,000 square foot movie theater building with a thousand seats a 22,500 square foot restaurant medical office a 3,500 square foot restaurant with drive-thru services and a bank with drive-thru services the amendment consists of constructing a four-story, 48-unit residential building at 7 Fayette Road who is here for the applicant Joe Larkin David Roy, Wiman Lanfair architects gas plan applications so we don't have to swear you in conflicts of interest does anyone have conflicts of interest with the applicant? I've seen a lot of Joe we have that's a good thing please describe the project so we are proposing this isn't a commercial one automobile district it's one parcel that's partially developed of a planned unit development approximately 40 acre parcel in total we're proposing to add 48 units of affordable housing to the site it is a four-story structure parking parking will be on-grade with a main entrance level on the first level and then three levels of affordable units above we've got 33 studio units 12 one-bedroom units and three two-bedroom units there are three things that we are requesting as part of the sketch plan application that we'd like to discuss one being the setback waiver requirement which is to propose an 8.5-foot setback from the property line it is similar in context to other properties in the area we also would like to look at a front yard coverage requirement that is about 8% higher than the 30% allowable within the front yard and a total building height waiver request to go to 47 feet from the 35 feet required I think predominantly due to the parking underneath well for the most part yes the site is in behind the I'm going to call it concentra health care building there's other establishments or commercial entities within that I would call the property fairly underutilized there's currently surface parking very rarely are there many cars if any and who utilizes the parking now the people in the concentra health care everything in that entity to what's the Asian we have zeng gardens theater on busy nights it's a shared parking agreement so the idea is all people can use the parking we would propose to have 24 spaces of parking still available under the building in the same footprint as the current existing parking lot so we're not increasing coverage and we are proposing to the north a location which will have a flat area an open space area for recreational purposes and to the west we would have a small little patio location for the direct use of the tenants within the building some bicycle storage amenities outside as well as looking at some interior storage requirements possibilities for bike storage where's the the recreation area I see the stormwater pond could we use a different site yeah different there you go so there's a flat area to the north of the building west of the parking lot that can have it's a stormwater retention area but it'll be no it's actually to the right there's a little triangular space right in there that will be level or plain so that you can actually walk on it but there'll be stormwater retention below and that's just outside of the stormwater okay perfect so yeah right in here will be a little open space recreation area you're going to use a stormwater retention pond as a recreation area I prefer to my Krebs and Lansing for the description of how that will work it's not a pond it's a subsurface device with a cap on the top of it oh I see that'll have grass on the top of it I see so it's just absorbing water in that location it's collecting water and holding it in there in a gravel structure underneath and it's capped with a grass surface so you'll have a level surface with which to occupy that area level what kind of surface the grass surface yeah just help me out with the dimensions of that little triangular area there's what you're talking about right yeah that little triangle is probably I don't know it's probably about 60 or 70 feet in that direction probably about 60 feet that way something in that order of magnitude and the base of the triangle or the top of the triangle is what the top over here is probably another 60 feet roughly in linear feet well it's going to be right out the back so if you look at the next slide that shows the layout that's going to be kind of the back out the dining room or it looks like a bedroom on a bedroom on a dining room right outside there's on-grade parking so there's a level below the occupiable units so there won't be anything from the first level of residential units you'll be up a story from that back grade parking garage will kind of be right next to the playing area on the existing grade of the parking area that's there currently there's currently a parking garage below or whatever the group is so this is sort of a parking garage except this is a little lower is this downhill or is it still relatively flat? this end is probably a foot or two lower than the actual parking structure over here just because grade is tapering off this way and it actually continues to go down as you go westward and we would maintain that slope so that the water drains that direction so the parking structure I'm going to say it was I'm going to say there was nine foot clear opening here but as you go further down it gets to about 11 feet of ceiling height because the grade of the parking structure or the parking lot below the building tapers down I have a couple of questions one so this concentrates all the affordable housing for this very large PUD in this one four storey structure these are this is a didn't you say it's all affordable house? yes so this is a concept which my developer here believes is a meets a market demand there's small micro apartments there are about 400 square feet plus or minus each I'm just talking about the distribution across the PUD I could take this so we are not asking for a bonus density we are not treating this as big I guess when we talk to to staff we're not treating this as big affordable this is going to be market rate affordable we haven't set the pricing here but we think it will meet the price point that defines affordable as we all discuss it so this is not affordable housing as defined in the LDR this is affordable housing as I attempted to define at the last time we went around we're coming right back to where we started that's the last conversation so now we're just talking about 48 units and let's talk about for which the let's not confuse ourselves the the label affordable housing is kind of irrelevant to what we're doing we're talking about 48 units a four-story 48 units apartment building it's irrelevant to the discussion of a density bonus because it wouldn't qualify well and it's market rate market rate market rate forget affordable housing could you explain because it's confusing could you just explain one more time what the the what's the word not the layout not the physical layout the distribution of units studio one unit and how you came to that there are why it's that way there are 16 units of housing on each level three total levels there are 12 single bedroom units there are not 12 sorry 33 single bedroom units 12 studio units and then there are two that have a two bedroom component or three that have a two bedroom component so these are generally unsuitable for families right you got a couple of two bedroom units and the rest and that's a market judgment about what the market wants is that right that's right this is I think a similar layout to the to the units that had existed at Larkin Terrace as far as square footage and in a lot of ways that they're very similar units so we think that market still exists we think we're trying to serve that part of the market very strong market we believe there's a demand for like a millennial generation looking for places that are close to close to public services small in scale and low energy burden low energy burden yeah absolutely Frank I was pushing for all studios I was told I could be wrong with going that far so we added some you asked how we got here we added two bedrooms and three bedrooms sort of as the design went I was pushing for an all studio building and the the middle unit so going back to that layout the middle units they're kind of blue and green are the studio units right they are yes yeah there's 33 total of the studio units so those are all along here the one bedroom units are back in here so there's a bedroom which is separated off from the main living space and then I think the two bedroom unit is there they're all one story right all one story yeah they're flat yeah I assume there's an elevator well they're very there's they're a small unit type even for the two beds right I mean I'm looking at a 661 square foot absolutely that's a that's a tight little two bed yeah I can see how it would work yeah so so we dive into staff comments other comments before we do that okay first first comment is the building height if you'd step us through the staff comments please yep we are we're proposing a four story building total building height is to be 47 feet allowable is 35 feet within this district we had I don't know if you have the view from Shelburne road intersection of Fayette Drive and Shelburne road the picture yeah so that's this is a picture taken of the location of this rendering so you'll see pretty loose rendering but this is the line of the and Zen Gardens is right here and we will see portion of the top floor of this proposed apartment building from the intersection taken right here it's all dug up at the moment but the intersection where the signage is from Citizens Bank location and McDonald's but it's pretty screened with trees so it's hard to get a good visual from that perspective this is probably the most representative of from a public way I would say so we're looking from in front of Zen Gardens so to speak the Zen Gardens entrance is right here it's the end unit of the commercial building and then you'll see just the upper part of this or the fourth floor of our proposed apartment building above that behind that is tree line if you go to the picture up above just scroll down just there yeah I mean there's actually trees in front of it which are represented in our graphic but this will actually this tree isn't going to go anywhere and it's going to screen much of it anyway so you want to go 12 feet higher than currently about that's what we're requesting as I read the staff notes it does seem to make sense to staff because there's kind of a drop off and so it actually isn't that much higher than where Shelburne Road would that's part of yeah part of our calculation as well any other comments from the board on building height waiver looking at the Google Street View and it's pretty well landscape including out front by McDonald's all that so frankly I can't see those buildings from the street so I think you'll see them on Fayette but I don't think it's significant that's exactly why we took the picture straight from the street the Fayette Street it's the only place you could see it worst case space these coverages are within the allowable range so I think we're okay on that parking and circulation do you want to talk about the front yard setback and front yard coverage waiver requests yep are you talking to me Marla okay collective view collective view okay yeah in order to stay within the coverage requirements in the existing parking lot footprint we're proposing that the building itself front elevation be 8.5 feet from the property line there's adjacent buildings in the area which are similar in nature in terms of the respect their respect to the road and we also are there's a 30% allowable front yard coverage requirement in this area we're at 38% coverage 38% for total coverage within the front yard setback so those are two things that we'll also have to discuss we think it's more progressive approach having the building up towards the street frontage tree lined areas being proposed as well as a sidewalk in front which connects properties to the north as well as back towards Shelburne road and we have an entrance off of that sidewalk into the main building into the lower level here we're also proposing screening for the parking lot on this lower level as well are we looking at from Fayette street here yes it is we're on the kind of the opposite side of the road the palace nine side kind of from their parking area how far will the first floor apartments be from the street if you get your eight and a half foot setback I'm going to say probably a little over 20 feet maybe and I'm not absolutely sure about that there's a little bit of a green space buffer and a sidewalk and I don't know exactly where the property line context fits within there I'm sorry Sam? we'll have that preliminary yeah looking at the plan it looks like the property line is about the same distance from the road as it is from the proposed building so I'd say probably if it's eight and a half from the building to the property line then it's eight and a half from the property line to the road and so the building would be 16 feet that's I'm not too comfortable with putting those first floor apartments eight and a half feet from the street they are up one level maybe 16 feet from the street eight and a half from the right away the first level is the garage first level apartments okay so the living areas are not the parking itself is on grade and the first floor level will be 11 feet up 11-12 feet up I'll help you understand Sam four-story building if you count the parking area how many stories of units do you have? three stories of units yeah based on the scale it looks like it's about 25 feet from the edge of the street to the edge of the building we'll get to an actual dimension I just thought you might be interested Frank there's a lobby on that three-story floor I'm alright I don't need a stadium between the street I believe in urban closeness and you run into a wetland buffer rice to the rear if you back up to this we're right up against it with the stormwater retention area in order to really facilitate this infill you've got to be fairly close to the road but the benefit is that you're running up to lots of excess green space in the back more comments on the setback thanks Mariah missed that no more comments alright next second consideration wide curve that provides shared access to the existing so the current curb cut if we can zoom out to the overall just this she is fine zoom out so you can see that the concentra building and the parking and the proposed building will share a curb cut the city is very interested in seeing the configuration of this be sort of fixed so there's not the safety concern we've discussed with the applicant and they've indicated some permanent concerns about this I guess any new impervious is going to trigger an amendment to their stormwater permit so we want to be sensitive to that and also sensitive to the fact that this PUD is undergoing some pretty major improvements right now so maybe this application isn't the time to address the curb cut but we wanted to sort of check in with the board to make sure that we're on the right track in bringing this up and it's something that we want to track maybe not now but as a later part of developing this PUD where's the curb I'm sorry I'm where's the curb cut could you pan just a little bit down further to see this area here so part of that discussion was to have this entrance into the parking garage underneath the concentra building kind of opposite the entrance to palace 9 and provide kind of a separate one in one out curb cut for the parking for this development and the back part of this parking area back here so it would have entailed creating a green space here there's some permitting issues which I think Krebs and Lansing could probably get into more so than I but we felt it be a potentially safer application in terms of separating access into here and here rather than having one very wide open cut accessing the Fayette Road Fayette Drive so it's just it's something that's worth considering I think it actually reduces the amount of impervious area but there's some stormwater calculation issues which make it a little bit more difficult to be clear on this so we share the staff's belief that we can improve there's a lot of ways to improve that access the challenge there has been a technical challenge and we're happy to have our engineer discuss that and to the extent we can find a solution that doesn't lack of a lack of open up Pandora's box of our active 50 stormwater permit that we're happy to explore question from the board on that great next comment sorry can I ask the question of the board so is the direction that you're interested in is the direction to staff that you're interested in looking at this okay yeah as you described having a separate green area in the middle move the move the move that one closer to more opposite to the theater park and have a separate one way in one way out that sounds great if we can get that with overcoming the technical active 50 stormwater stuff that'd be great understanding that that may not be this application it may be the next application that's part of this PUD we're not putting a condition on this project right we're on the right track to look at it exactly you want to comment on that at this point well everybody's got it right there's a stormwater issue and it shouldn't be part of this application because I think it muddies this application but it's a good idea as far as geometry goes flow goes that kind of thing but there's permitting concerns that would just not be a good idea right now great thank you very much okay next staff comment landscape there's another plan here but there's a lot of existing vegetation on the site as we just discussed so one thing we've talked about with staff if you could weigh in whenever you'd like we'd like to obviously count a lot of the existing vegetation that's on the site currently we've got a proposal to put additional trees along the front streetscape of the building I guess my first inclination is the fire department may have some say on where those are located but I'm not sure at this time we're just proposing them and it's going to be very very difficult for our application on this site to have enough trees to meet your requirements your typical requirements so we may ask that we look at landscape opportunities in the greater PUD which help us achieve the total landscaping requirements for this project so we might want to spread the landscaping out greater PUD I mean someday in the misty future or to be done now as part of this to do now to satisfy the formula but where to locate it we haven't defined yet some day no it's part of this it's part of this project maybe a few months from now there's a dollar amount by the formula that we have to satisfy it's just hard to fit it all in you can't spend enough money in that small yeah exactly you'd like to spend it somewhere else on that property there are better places where we could spend there's a color plan that I thought was part of the what is it is it possible to see do you have a a site photo showing the existing vegetation in this packet I do not I've got a Google map that would be easy we'll get to it later I mean I don't drive with that proposed yeah I have a site plan I have the color site plan I swear it doesn't have a virus on it I can't guarantee that oh really we can put it on yes this has both the existing and the existing so where's our building area here this thing here right there this is the concentric well oh alright okay I see actually that's a good place pretty over yeah it's perfect so this shows the current configuration of the street curb cut and proposed vegetation along Viatt Drive and here and again just trying to get yeah go for it so to fulfill the landscape requirement we would be putting a lot of landscaping in front of the building and then also putting planting against the bare wall of the back of Seven Fayette and then that is the grassy area that's on top of the stormwater and then there's a small patio for use over in that area I know this guy Keith Wagner who likes to put sculptures how about sculptures do you have any cutting ounces of landscaping can landscape the board could I think the board could give some credit for other site improvements that would sort of do the same thing as landscaping so the board would have to decide that that sculpture is sort of a landscape feature maybe so yes it's possible I kind of like the idea more trees a couple of months from now so the applicant is suggesting maybe putting them elsewhere in addition to what you see oh this doesn't even get there I don't think we can I don't think we can so if we can't get there on this lot because the street trees don't count you know we're stuck with just landscaping here and over here if we can't get there we would be looking to plant it you know perhaps across the street in front of the theater maybe somewhere else do you have any plans for street lighting in front of the building there's existing street lights what big stuff it was built in the time what it was built in the day well how do you feel about taking it down and putting up the kind of stuff that's on Odell Parkway for example like a ballard lighting like lower pedestrian yeah lower example yeah we have that on the building that's being constructed right now we'll add that to the next version yeah because I think there's only one light you know it's a tall one right out in front front of the idea of being down the sidewalk make it pleasant to walk down the sidewalk we're going to do that is the board open to allowing the applicant to place required landscaping that cannot be planted around the new building elsewhere in the PUD and if so does the board have any suggestions where or do you want to let the applicant propose and then you can review it at the next level the applicant is busy looking at this PUD as a whole and I think they'll be best suited in terms of telling us where that might be a possibility I'm sure Frank will have an opinion but I agree with that as a general proposition I'll save my opinion of what he actually does till I see it I think that's a good idea I want to talk about something else because it's with this case Jennifer and Mark I like that idea I do too Mark Mark are you okay with that yep okay alright Frank I want to raise another issue would you review with me again the size of the units yeah there 400 square feet roughly is a typical single bedroom unit how about the studios just slightly under that I'm going to tell you what I'm talking about here there is a I mean that's really small yep there is a housing housing that's the term I'm looking for housing quality standard that HUD enforces that I'm sure you guys must be familiar with that is the minimum qualifications for any subsidized housing for tenant based vouchers this would not qualify that's correct it would not meet the HUD funding requirements for the size of the unit subsidized oh no I get that I'll try and put you in a position I'd like to see the building in a position where it could be and I'm resisting your 48 units for that reason and only for that reason you know or if you want to state it dramatically there's only a few people in the room you're below the standard that at least the government thinks is safe in the housing that is there is a threshold that HUD has established under that rubric there is also exactly there is also we feel a need in the community and that people I'm not going to say a need but there's a market demand for this style of tiny home that we feel we can meet I heard you the first time the size of the unit itself allows it to be a more cost-effective approach instead of a work closet it would be still more cost-effective it would be yes so we've gone through and actually built a unit there's a mocked up unit within another property of this base model here we've gone back through it physically it is a small unit you can look at it in context of a hotel room size unit but there are amenities within there's small kitchenettes there are amenities and built-ins that we have to accommodate that type of usage I guess I'd like the board to think about whether that's keeping in mind what the standard is without so much with a little less regard for the market and a little more regard for I'm sorry Frank so a studio apartment size is required at what level what's the size? I didn't have it in mind they might have the number quicker than me I knew it sounded low the one bedroom unit through a HUD standard 650 square feet is there a studio standard for HUD? I don't recall it I think there is so that's a broad not to be answered tonight the broad question I would put to the board is do we want to encourage something that falls below those standards so this is a that's all I just my thought is this we have studio we have relatively new studio apartments that disappeared instantaneously at $1400 a month I get that we're in a distorted market that's clear well it may be a distorted market but the point I'm trying to make is if you want these to be little affordable meaning somebody who can normally afford $1000 a month instead of somebody who can afford $1500 a month they may have to get smaller on square footage and while that doesn't necessarily fix somebody who's coming in with a voucher it does help our market as a whole it makes it more affordable so it's you know it's their risk these are very small units it gets you out of the rain that's right and you can be I don't want to get in a soapbox I don't want to get in a soapbox in a very convenient spot honestly I mean the market is opening up down Shelburne Road there are people who are going to be working there they can walk to the grocery stores they can walk to the bank they can walk to food options it does change things pretty dramatically if it's a local commuter kind of thing I just got off an airplane from you know from Iceland five and a half hours economy class and by God it wasn't that expensive you know what I'm saying seven weeks at the chiropractor was a consequence you'll have a chiropractor here right? Jennifer I missed what you said I mean I don't I don't want to really make light of it I think it deserves some consideration the market the market is not an all-purpose justification that from a profit standpoint it is one attitude is if you want them built this is the price point otherwise you don't get them built you can say if you want them built you build them junky if you want them built you build them small there are standards to be enforced sorry Jennifer my comment was it it sounded like you had fairly high occupancy in what was taken down a few weeks ago so if we just you're kind of somewhat replacing what was taken down and if those were occupied I believe these will be occupied I don't doubt they'll be occupied and I think the market needs it Mark we feel there's a market demand for a certain segment that will like this type of unit I understand it's not for everybody I get that my question is should it be for South Maryland? I don't think we have so go ahead Mark Mark we can hear you go ahead Frank in terms of the fact that these are very small units and there are some standards but the standards need to be applied to public housing where you are getting subsidies and you're providing quick housing or low income subsidized housing with a big A affordable these are market units it's something that's going to be new to this market and I think it's a good product because I think it's the best attempt to do a market rate product that provides a little affordable product to a market that needs it and I think they're innovative certainly innovative and unique and I'm interested to see what the market tests out at you agreed I agree it's a four and a half tatami mat size in terms of Japanese living I mean we've done a little bit of research into these they're popular in the big cities I take San Francisco for example and they have a enormous housing affordability crisis where these are becoming quite popular and there's certain key things that you need to do to make them comfortable to live in they actually have a quite comfortable ceiling height lots of glass per square foot of of unit and you have to look closely at the built-ins it's fine tuning the amenities within the unit so the square footage that I think about common space and communal activities that people can access they need a relief valve they need a place where they can go to get out of their apartment and you're right and we've talked to staff about where we can provide that we haven't defined that clearly in here but having a common space not only that but the outdoor space as well I don't see any room for comments there isn't we've had the discussion with staff with the opportunity to look at possibly replacing this end unit on the first level with a common area space that could provide a relief valve for getting out of your unit could you do a roof deck we could elevate our access up to that roof deck and stare access and such there's an outdoor patio space over here that was the direction we went better idea for fire is this pet friendly I thought about it but small pets really small pets on wheels bike storage of course will do that stretch energy codes all that stuff that's the plan good quality just small we don't have any control over quality here I try and influence him wherever I can so sometimes he listens sometimes he doesn't all rental all revenues okay I have a question from the board I would just say this is a I think this is a very good infill project I think it's a good spot to put it I agree that we need to think about size and so forth maybe it's maybe it's too many units for the square footage but I like it I don't argue with the location it's a good idea to put something that's been a dead spot for a long time it's good to do something with it just that was a long trip from my I don't know if you can discriminate on height or no size of the person I would not be allowed height won't be a problem it's probably earth can we invite the board to the model unit that's entirely up to you guys model unit open we appease we're trying to get as many perspectives on this as possible so we would encourage anybody to look at it we can set up a it's on shelter on the comfort suites we have a meeting room down there but we built a foam corridor amount of and it more or less gets it right yeah it'll give you a real feel for the context the size of it let me ask you just off the wall hypothetical question I don't know the economics of it but would you trade more height for bigger units what if you what if you went to 60 feet because frankly I mean you know based on the site and what I've seen so far I'm not sure I see the harm in that yeah I mean you're building more building so the cost per unit will will go up it's just I I know where you're what you're saying it's I don't know if it it maintains that small a affordability model when you start increasing it and I like that you don't really see it from Shelburne Road because of where it's hidden now it's getting another however many feet above that might be a little more obvious comfortable with so yeah if we could drop by and take a look at a mock-up that you've got I think a lot of this would be interesting to know the possible it exists now it does yeah at the comfort in comfort suites on the show just walk in and ask or there's a 24 hour lobby and I'll make sure that the desk clerks know that we're having walkthroughs what do you have there a studio or one baby we need to knock for several reasons we need to knock for several reasons and we'll give notice yeah so comfort suites comfort suites well the same as the sunset baller same as the sunset baller other comments from the board guidance on a sketch plan level thanks to staff very much for what you did on this great so I think I think we're done, we'll see. Oh, very last, this is a true addition of 48 units to what was your existing PUD, right? So we haven't touched at all on traffic. Is there any, does staff have any concern about traffic? Not at this point, they're going to be updating, they're going to have to update the traffic study that they presented for the Larkin Terrace building. Also parking and traffic, those numbers will have to be updated. So we will have that information at the next level review. So on notice, that's a concern. Our questions in public, comments, questions from anybody? Thank you very much. We won't have to close this, so we're all good. Thank you all. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, that's a great, good idea. So I saw minutes. I did not see. I saw minutes. Oh, not that one again. No, no, no. Yes, it's probably five. Okay, very good. So I think that is the end of the meeting. We are hereby adjourned at nine. Don't waive it, other business? Other business, thank you. Other business. The planning committee, the Joint Planning Commission or the Planning Commission consideration of the amendment was postponed until the 16th but since I had already, I had set that time aside so I showed up anyway and I had a conversation with the three planning commission members there. I made my argument, I'm hoping you will show up on the next, give you a long song and dance. Bill knows where this is at. You've been following your emails? I haven't been copied on them. I don't think I've been copied on them since the discussion. I haven't had anything since last Tuesday. We saw it was canceled last Tuesday. I've been having a back and forth with Paul. I thought he was supportive by the time we got through. It's a little bit like Donald Trump, you know, it's a move in target, man. So next Tuesday. I've gotten a little pushback in a case that he says adds another level of complexity, supposedly that he got from legal counsel, well he'll have to check with Mr. Dorn, whether I get to speak to legal counsel, but he wanted to have a small meeting with him and legal counsel and me and somebody from the planning commission. Yeah, I think you already got that. Didn't he already say it was rescheduled? Yeah, I haven't seen anything. I haven't seen anything. Well, this is notice. Okay. Can I bring up one other thing while we're on other things that probably should go in front of planning? We hit it today perfectly. This city has lots of trees in certain places and in lots of cases, older projects have grown up and the trees that started, as Ray will attest to, start as little two inch trees and end up as 14 inch trees. And the deal is if you have to cut down that 14 inch tree, seven two inch trees, which is fine until you run out of room. We actually on a project last year ran out of room and we put them in the right of way of Market Street. Well, what stops two seven inch trees? Cost. Cost. And honestly, if you look at the projects and said what's approved, approved was a two inch tree. So you should be able to replace it with a two inch tree. The question, right now the planning. I don't agree with that, but go on. Okay, well, that's fair, that's fine. But if a tree dies, if a tree is undermining a building, if a tree needs to come down for whatever reason and you suddenly go from, let's say you had a big tree, you got a 30 inch tree and now you got to spread around 30 inches of tree, it's a real problem. It's not an easy thing to fix. I can tell you, I've run into it all the time. And we have projects that are completely covered with trees that frankly would look a lot better if they weren't. They're getting too strangled. And I think there should be something in front of, in front of, in the same manner as people are coming to us and saying, can't we get credit for saving the trees that we have and not necessarily have to put every last tree on as long as it's well landscaped? Why shouldn't we? And I can tell you the reason why. Planning hasn't approved it, so. An alternative mitigation effort, not saying you're not gonna do anything, but you're saying rather than fill 14 trees to replace whatever you could do. I don't even know if you need to mitigate it. If it's already, if you've built a project that is well covered with landscaping and is attractive, there actually comes a point where it's too dark. You're making a mistake. The project gets hurt by it. There's any number of reasons not to do it. And so. Before you're adding trees where it might affect traffic. So what I would suggest is we've got an arborist. There aren't a lot of towns that have an arborist. And if an arborist came out and said, yeah, this is a well landscaped site, plop one here, one here, and one there, and we'll be all set. We should give the respond, in the same way that we give the fire department or the police department or whoever the ability to look at something and say, yeah, that's enough. We should be able to do that with the arborist. I don't disagree with that in principle. Okay, what I'm suggesting is that we should bring this in front of planning in principle to get them to figure out in detail how to deal with it. Because it's not our job to write it. It's theirs. But there's a problem right now. And it's not a problem every day. But how many times a year do you think you run into this? A few, half a dozen, a dozen times a year. Trees die, trees get to fall, get a wind blown over. Does the arborist, do you guys routinely ask the arborist to look at these things or is it irrelevant because it's just in America? He reviews all landscaping plans. He does, but the purpose of his review is primarily to look at the trees that are being selected to ensure that they're compatible with the setting. If what John is saying is that we should expressly or the planning commission should expressly give some weight to the arborist's opinion about what's appropriate, I don't disagree with that, but it shouldn't be the arborist's said. I think it shouldn't be that cut and draw either. I think administratively, we create too many headaches, too many things that need to come in front of us every time. But I don't have, that's not my biggest problem. I would be perfectly happy to come here and show you. I got way too many trees, let me show you where I wanna put the three or four. But I am of the opinion that our staff is perfectly capable of saying, yeah, I agree or I disagree with the need to, take that next step, but. But the decision is not a staff decision, ultimately, that's all I'm saying. I'm saying it could be. I'm saying it should. Okay. That's the planning commission thing. That's the planning commission thing. All right, well, I agree. I think we should bring it before the planning commission and see what they say. I understand they may not have time for it this time, but I think it should get on the list. Yeah, not it, cool. Meeting is adjourned at 9.19. Thank you all. Thank you. Good night. Good night, Mark. Thank you, Mark. Oh, yeah. Oh, forget we had it. Yeah, I don't think so. Sorry. So this was the new staff notes format for 7.30. The project history and context and yes, more readable at all. Yeah, it was so absolutely. Whether, well, I'm concerned about what you're doing. Did you even notice? I noticed it was good. I did notice it was different. But you know, I thought that was okay. I didn't look. I'm not looking. I'm not looking. Awesome. And there's all sorts of 300s. There are books. And I want to go up there with you. Let me take this for you. Good to see you. The tenements in New York and the tenements on the Valley Street always found a market, too. What did you think? Say this, but what are we talking to? Yeah, I hear you.