 should we we get all moved down one but if we're expecting Frank and Quinn in person okay let's do where we are then I'm gonna go ahead and kick it off okay I'm gonna close the outside door don't forget you're on and this is yes good evening feels like forever since we pardon me last met welcome to the City of South Burlington Development Review Board of Wednesday pardon me September 7th my name is Dawn Filiburt and I'm the chair of the DRB and I'd like to introduce other members of the board who are present tonight John Stern thank you I just blocked on you Stephanie Wyman and online we have Mark Bear and Dan Albert and also from the City of South Burlington we have Marla Keane who's our development review planner and our new zoning administrator is that the right term no actually we've changed our department structure a little bit and Marty is development review planner one for the time being okay Marty Gillis who's joining us tonight I'm writing this down so remember in the future there are three three ways to participate one of which to attend in person as some people are doing another way is online and the third way is by phone if you are pardon me attending virtually we ask that you keep your cameras off and your microphone muted unless you want to be heard during public comment session in which case you can turn your camera on and raise your hand and we'll recognize you and we ask that you not use the chat function if you're online because it's not part of the public record and it makes it more complicated for us to kind of monitor comments we would like to ask you to make sure you sign in and the sign-in sheet up back if you're hi Evan if you're attending in person if you're attending virtually we ask that you sign in with your contact information in the chat function pardon me excuse me it's post COVID hoarseness chat function and if you're on the phone we ask that you sign in by emailing your contact information to Marla Keane at M-K-E-N-K-E-E-N-E at SouthBerlingtonVT.gov and it's important that you sign in because if you ever want to be considered participant for any future act action that will allow you to do so so let's go ahead and start tonight's meeting. Agenda number one hi Frank is emergency evacuation procedures in the back of the auditorium there are two doors in each on each side in case of an emergency just exit those doors and then you can either turn right or left and you'll be outside. Are there any additions deletions or changes in the order of agenda items tonight? No. Okay. Item number three are there any announcements or reminders? Hearing none. Are there any comments or questions from the public that are not related to the agenda tonight? I have one quick question shoot me down if this is rude. Respecting this whole agenda is excuse me excuse me would you please identify yourself? Brian Armstrong sorry about that. Thanks Brian. Resident at 50 Old Farm Road and respecting that this agenda is mainly about the O'Brien's and Old Farm Road I was wondering if there's any chance the DRB would allow me to make one brief statement near the beginning just to say waiting three hours of both your time and my family's time if that can be considered that'd be great if not I respect the rules and rules. Thank you Brian what do we think board is there any is there any reason we can't do that? I think since the hearing's been open the board's familiar with the project if you think you can take a comment at the beginning that's that's fine with me. We'll also open it up at the end in case there are any other individuals but I personally think making him wait for three hours doesn't make a lot of sense does anyone object to that? I think you're right. I'm fine with that. Okay good. I mean one thing Brian sure knows that the other items are either continued or withdrawn so this is the only agenda item we're here. Right. I wasn't sure how long and guys I respect your commitment seeing how you've rided out I've been impressed. All right go ahead tell us what's on your mind. When we get to that item right? Oh I'm sorry yeah sure Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Hi Quinn. Okay number five on the agenda. Oops I think I know my glasses to read this. Continued sketch plan application SD 2211 of Gary Bourne to create a general planned unit development consisting of consolidating three existing lots into one lot removing three existing buildings and fully redeveloping the resulting 1.39 acre lot with a 3500 square foot financial institution a 2500 multi tenant commercial building and a three-story 27 unit multifamily building at 760 Shelburne Road. The purpose of this continuation is to invite any additional public comment. Apparently there was a notice deficiency and we needed more time so I would ask at this point are there any people here who would like to make public comments about that project or any people online. Is that Casey Mack? I think that's people signing in. Oh okay. But Marty anyone indicate they want to make a comment? Any comments? Okay. So now we can close the hearing. It's a sketch so we can just conclude. Okay. We will conclude SD 2211. Thank you. Agenda item number six. Continued site plan application SB 22028 of Riley Cohen Partnership LLC to amend a previously approved site plan for a 13,000 square foot contractor or building trade facility with outdoor storage. The amendment consists of constructing a 5500 square foot additional outdoor storage at 4 Harbor View Road. The applicant is working with the state stormwater permitting department and has requested continuation to October 18th. Do I have a motion to continue? Second. Thank you Frank. On favor of continuing the application to October 18th? Hi. Any post? Okay. The motion is carried. And item number seven. I won't bother to read it because the application has been withdrawn. So that brings us to our main agenda item tonight. Agenda number eight. Continued final plat application SD 2210 of O'Brien East View LLC to create a planned unit development of six existing parcels currently developed with three single family homes and a barn and totaling 102.6 acres. The development is to consist of 150 homes plus additional inclusionary offset units in a single family duplex and three family dwellings on 11 lots totaling 23.9 acres, 18 commercial development lots totaling 39.8 acres and 25.2 acres of undeveloped or recreational open space at 500 old farm road. Pardon? Sure. I just want to say before we start that in in terms of disclosures I purchased and own a property in Hillside owned by the which was owned by the developed by the O'Brien brothers but I don't believe my participation would cause me to be biased in any way. And if anyone has an issue with that just let me know. Okay. Brian Armstrong would you let's start by identifying who's here for the applicant and wearing and haven't been sworn in before and then if you'd like to proceed to comment who's here for the applicant. Evan Langfield with O'Brien Brothers. Andrew Gill with O'Brien Brothers. Do you have any other people with you? I'm sorry what is your name? Thank you. Thank you. Got three folks online as well. Any people online who who need to be sworn in identified and sworn in? Go ahead. Yes. Joe Manchuk with BSB Design. Okay. Any others? Cory Mack with WCG. I think I've sworn in in the past. But okay. Roger? Yes I've sworn in in the past. Okay. All right. Any others? So those of you who have not been sworn in could you raise your right hand please? Do you solemnly swear to solemnly swear that you'll provide testimony? I'm forgetting the words. It's been more than a month. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury? Yes. Yes. Okay. Good. Thank you. All right. Now let's move to Brian's comments. Madam chair. Quick thing. Yes. What's the I forget the protocol on public testimony as far as time limit as well as trying to have testimony address any new comments rather than restatement of previous testimony? Sure. Well, we always ask the people be as brief as possible and that if testimony if what they're going to say is going to be repeated, that people simply say I agree with Ralph that about his concern about X, Y and Z. If we have a room we believe we're going to have a room full of people making public comment. I think then we try to set the limit on the amount of time people have to make comments. Does that answer your question, Dan? It does. It just we're breaking with protocol. I just want to be fair to the consistent with the process so that other people don't say, Hey, can I testify now? Yeah, that's all. Okay. It sounds like Brian's going to be fairly brief. So go ahead, Brian. So first folks, thank you very much. As a comment, I'm amazed at your commitment. And I found myself asking why I would be in your positions. And I realized it's because you guys care. So thank you for that. I also apologize if any time I've been a little challenging or stark you through this process. It's something that I care very, very deeply about both this community, the jobs, the real state, the opportunity for bring, you know, housing to a town that needs it. In the last, you know, few years that's been this project, the time that I've been involved, I have seen an amazing friction that has been created. And I've sought tremendous amount of collaboration between O'Brien myself and the residents of Old Farm Road with the hospital and how they're working to balance everything from the bike and pedestrian needs to the concerns of the neighbor. And it really is an amazing process of collaboration that I'm very pleased to see it take place. As this begins the final chapter, I'd love to ask two or three questions to leave you with. I don't need answers for it. It's not the intent. Would it be too much to ask in the spirit of collaboration, how the neighbors and two major, you know, developers or entities are working to reach or transform this entire area? Would it be too much to ask that the city participate in that collaboration by respecting some of old farm residents' requests that the sidewalk be only set up so it's done four or five years out in the development? I think that would be a win for all the people that are going to eventually use it. I think it'll be a win for the neighborhood and I think it'll win for the developers and it'll certainly exhaust in my opinion other avenues that residents on Old Farm Road, including myself, would explore and channel that. I think it would be the win, win, win. And I really appreciate you guys letting me speak tonight. And again, I'll ask the question, would it be too much harm to wait to the end for this for the sidewalk to go through Old Farm Road? Would it positively add to the spirit of cooperation? And is it simply too much to ask? Because I would agree to back off on any objections, delays, appeals, all that ensures other people would. And I don't say it is a threat. I say that is in I want to see the jobs that it's going to bring. I want to see the units that's going to bring. And I respect that I'm wrapping it up now. Thank you. It's something we love. It's changing. That's just the way it works. Thank you very much for letting me speak. I hope you guys have a productive night. I truly appreciate this exception. Dan, hopefully it was succinct enough. Thank you. Do I may I ask a question of the commenter? Is that appropriate? I have a question for you, Brian. Thanks for those comments. What would postponing the sidewalk installation do? What would be the benefit of that? One, it would be a benefit of the neighbors being having to have the opportunity to start to do landscaping to better screen it at a much earlier stage. Two is it would I think allow the collaboration with the University of Vermont that is working hard with O'Brien Brothers and the nefs myself and Doug Dickey channel paths and access to Tilly Drive. I think it would better align that option. I don't think the hospital and you guys know more of this than I do is slated to begin or planning to begin if everything goes through till the 24. So I'm not sure is another slight question back if the need is there that this be the first project. The other thing I'll remind everybody is the stores not generally open after six or on the weekends. So opportunity to screen a little bit more time for the neighbors with something that they love while not at least in my perspective, any adverse impact to another party in the process. Thank you. Appreciate your may I ask a question? Sure. Just to be clear. So currently, the sidewalk is proposed as part of the initial build out and he's asking. Brian's asking that we allow it to go out for years or something like that. Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Can I ask a question? Sure. What's the why do you want to screen the sidewalk? What's the motivation? I hope you guys laugh at this. I'm in real estate. Real estate has treated my family well. I have loved and cherished old farm road for almost 25 years. I believe it's appropriate that something is going to be taken from me by the same industry that's given my family so much. There's something poetically perfect about that. It would with candor. I don't want to see all these new people walking up and down the street. I've enjoyed so much privacy and I respect that is singularly focused. But hopefully you see as well in my passion for this and is I'm trying to find that win win win. So I'm not saying I mean, again, you guys are eventually going to go without it. I can try to grind it through all it's I don't want to do that. I'm just asking if other neighbors which I think echoed an email of a similar this concur with requesting that it was toward the end. Can we ponder the question of what harm it would cause to honor those requests, not the request of one, several and to further collaborate. You saw me speak up in favor of the hospital last month. I'm trying to work with this town needs this development. Thank you. Any other questions for the and in fairness to any other members of the public who don't want to wait three hours to make their comments will give you another chance. But would anyone else like to comment now? Okay, yeah, I just just to follow up and the thing is, this is an important point of how land use works. And especially you as a real estate professional, Brian, and I'm no disrespect intended. But when you bought the house, you knew where the property right away was, right? Yes. But if we're going to brass tax, I got six weeks notice. And you get a constitutional question there of who the applicant is and who isn't on there. So I absolutely know that doesn't mean as a member of the public, I wouldn't try to exhaust more extensive measures. Why would we do that? We got a chance for a win win win. You got UVM working, you got O'Brien's working, you got the people on old farm road or say, you know, made this request. Is it correct as you are, Dan? What when would that have compared to what wind could honoring our quest have to extinguish the more and make this development more timely? I believe the O'Brien's would appreciate it. The neighbors would. I'd like to interject, I think that some of the board members are stepping over the appropriate limits of questions for people who are making public comments. If the questions are clarification on what they're hoping to achieve, this is not public public testimony. This is public comment, you know, you're welcome to ask challenging questions of motivation and, you know, incentives of the applicant, but that's really not that's really not the appropriate thing to be asking public commenters. What you just said that it's appropriate to ask questions to get information, right? But do you know? Did you know this? I don't. I think it's over the line. You know, I think John's question about what what would it achieve is a clarifying question. I think we need to limit it to that. I just want to say that I think this is a very important issue, but if, but if just to turn in there, if, if Mr. Armstrong is going to bring up indirectly a policy solution because of how Vermont's land use legal frameworks allow projects to be on hold for years, and it's equally appropriate for us to say, OK, well, if it's a policy question, it's that's a policy debate. We're not he's open the door to a policy solution and which means things are played out in public. And so I as a member of appointed by the City Council, who represents the broader public responsibility, if he's going to this is not a discussion over the fine points of a thing in the LDR, then I think it's perfectly appropriate for that. He's he's offering it. It's no different than an engineer or developer saying this is our vision and we can question that. So we're not to be silent in the face of public comment. It is different in that an engineer or an applicant is the party proposing a project. It's the board's responsibility to decide on the weight of the evidence how to interpret the regulations, you know, right? And we will we will do that. But it's appropriate that we can also ask, like I say, he opened the door to a policy debate. And I'm sensing Frank has a comment. Am I correct? If we're if we're done, it can wait. I would like I'll make my comment. Mr. Armstrong started out was saying he had a question. He stated his question. His question has been restated several times. No one's in doubt about what the question is. I take the question as one directed to the developer and not to us. And the meat, so to speak behind the request is what Mr. Armstrong says he is not doing, which is the leverage of of further procedural steps. So I'd like to try to end it by saying Mr. Armstrong has made his request. I have no doubt the developer understands what it is. It's for the developer to and since I don't see that we have an investment in the exact timing of when the sidewalk gets built. Well, that's been discussed at previous meetings, and I'd be happy to rehash it. But there is some board written decisions and previous discussions that that are relevant to the timing of the sidewalk. I'm sorry. Can I just lay in a little bit? Can I finish the thought? To me, it's a question of developer weighing the cost of accommodating the request versus what it sees as the effect of the leverage behind it, which of course is procedural delay. And that's all I heard here. And I may have been missing something and maybe Marla knows what it is, but I don't I don't I don't know what it is, why it matters one way or the other. It's a matter of the developers judgment as far as I'm concerned. Well, but the board has made a judgment already in this. The board has in their preliminary plot and in their discussions at previous meetings made a determination on when this path needs to go in relative to the bulk of the. Okay, and then I stand corrected on that. Can I weigh in real quickly? Sure. Do you want to let Mark go first? Let's let Mark go first, Evan. Go ahead, Mark. I was just going to say that, you know, I think Mr. Armstrong has made a request. He explained his rationale behind it. And I think that, you know, this is something for us to discuss further during phasing discussions and deliberations. You know, it's not really a developer kind of request or question. It's more of a board deliberation request. Thank you, Mark. Okay, Evan, go ahead and then we're going to move ahead with this. Sure, I was just going to provide there's there's a little bit of context to because there are two connections to Tilly Drive, one of which I think we're going to talk about a resolution on the the UVM Medical Center property this evening and terms of timing on that in terms of timing on the old farm road sidewalk. So I appreciate what Mr. Armstrong said. We have been in I mean, since the condition was levied upon us at preliminary plot last fall, we've been in direct conversation with him trying to find a resolution to this. We've discussed with staff and we hope to have a continuation of discussion with staff as to trying to find a resolution to an existing appeal. I mean, we're under appeal right now. That's not a threat of appeal. There's an appeal that is currently sitting on the project as a result of this. Okay. All right. Do you shall we proceed with the staff comments or do you have any very brief comments to make before we start that? No, I think we've got three hours to talk. So I don't need to do it. Do you want Frank to move in back of you again? No, I've got a bad back. So I don't know if I could turn around Frank. That was a little creepy all around. Folks, thank you very much. I appreciate your dedication to the process that you're here because you're caring for letting me speak tonight. Thank you, Brian. Thanks for speaking your mind. It's okay. Dan, I appreciate that you added candor. Okay. Comment number one. First of all, I want to thank Marla for all her good work and the way she structured this report. But the suggestion has been made that we spend the first hour and a half going through the staff comments and hearing the applicant's responses to those. And then we take a brief bio break as we decided to call it, I guess, and come back and spend the latter part of the meeting talking about the proposal for the C1LR zoning district and what you folks have in mind. And you can kick that off with a little presentation for us. So I think that's how we're going to go ahead and proceed. So that takes us to comment number two. And this one is about the recommendations of the traffic impact analysis and bike and ped study fully included in the plans. And I guess that's a question to you guys. Sure. So I asked that of Corey and Roger who wrote them who are both here. I guess that they could, you know, briefly confirm what they confirmed to me to you all. That makes sense. Corey was the author of the bike and ped study and Roger of the TIA. So that's a yes. Yes. I believe they are, but they can confirm that they're on the call. In advance of that, does it make sense just to address the conversation that we've been having with EVM Medical Center regarding the teledrive connection as part of that? So that's sort of above in the staff report, like just above? Yes, correct. Thanks. So we have been in direct discussions with them. We've come to an agreement with the EVM Med Center on lot six that they currently have before you guys and a cost sharing agreement in terms of building that. So I believe it's now on their plan. They proposed something to us. We've consented to it in terms of cost sharing and we've come to a conclusion. So I guess it's just before you guys in terms of when they present that site plan to you. That's great. That's good to hear. And that'll be the next DRB hearing on September 20th. I just got those plans this afternoon. I haven't had an opportunity to open them yet. Thank you for your honest work on that. Okay, so I don't know if it's as easy as Corey and Roger saying that yes, but they they're here. So I think Roger's only here for this comment. So we might do you have anything to add, Roger? And no, not at this time. I did review the preliminary plot approval and everything that was in there and confirmed that all the plans reflect the conditions that were in that approval. The one thing that is not on a plan is a future changing up the phasing at the Kennedy Kimball intersection to split up Kimball and Bayberry so that they don't go simultaneously, but rather separately that will improve future level of service and safety at that intersection. It's a very minor change to the traffic signal. It's not something that we would normally have a plan to show, but rather a written specification. I also confirmed that's something that will be triggered by commercial development down the road and would propose that it be dealt with as part of our ongoing traffic monitoring and site plan approval process of those commercial plots. So did you say one of the roads is going to be called Bayberry? No, that's the Cheetop condominiums. Right, OK, that's right. Yeah, OK. Opposite Kimball. Right. So this comment was subtly different than the question Roger answered. There's a traffic impact analysis and bike head study as part of this final plot that makes some recommendations. And the question here is whether the recommendations of those two final plot documents are incorporated into the plans. Yes, OK, thanks. OK, and yes, this is Corey back from WCG and I'll just jump in right after Roger and say that we developed a set of recommendations for bicycle and pedestrian safety throughout the site. And as far as I can tell, everything that we put in there has been integrated into the site as close as possible. So it looks great on my end. Thank you, Corey. OK, moving on to number four. This is about needing a proposal for home expansions because of the the density. Oh, we skipped three and four sort of a little one to follow. The big one is three. Let's go back to three. Staff recommends the board accept the applicant's proposal for a moving portion of the right way lot coverage from the computation of lot coverage within the R1 PRD zoning district. Sorry about that. So this sounds very technical when you read it. But this was the discussion of the zoning district has a maximum coverage of twenty five percent. But because there are so many roads required within that zoning district, they have very little left over to build homes with. So they were asking if they could consider part of the right of way as not towards their coverage. And so they in the board said, yes, generally that seems like a good idea. And so they provided some math and said the the area that they'd like to consider as not counting towards coverage equals the area of things in the project that are not roads and are not homes. So recreation path sidewalks parking areas, that sort of thing. And we as staff thought that was a good idea and we're hoping you guys would agree. What do you think board question has. Have we done this kind of thing before with an adjusted calculation? No, it can never come up. No one has been this. I think it's right before. Specifically, we looked at I'm not sure we're sidewalks in the calculation. Scott, can you use a mic? You have to push the button to turn on. What Andrew and I discussed using was the area of like public amenities that actually aren't in the right way that like cross the lots and then taking that equivalent amount out of the log coverage. So what was sidewalks rec paths. There was an area where for instance the rec path along old Palm Road where we discussed swerving it into the lot. And so that was like adding a lot coverage. So the gist of it was to provide a better site design and provide elements that wouldn't otherwise be required. We're asking for credit for that in the right way. Exactly, right, which I think is, you know, like things like the, you know, the pavilion at the barn lot, like that that roof is coverage or the rec path that crosses the barn lot, or even the I believe we included the alley that serves the homes on Old Farm Road because that added an enormous amount of coverage, but it was done at the request of the board for a better site design to enable those homes to not have garages facing the street. So those were the items we included in that number were basically the things that we were either asked to do by the board to improve the project or which were like a direct public benefit, like a park pavilion or playground or some other form of coverage like that. And does the board have the flexibility under the LDRs to to to do this? It is a creative interpretation that we feel is not explicitly addressed. Okay. Board, what do you think? I'm sorry, what was Marla's answer? I didn't I said that it's it's a creative interpretation that hasn't been explicitly addressed in the LDR. It's not prohibited nor permitted. Wait a minute. Well, there's a coverage standard, correct? Yes. And the coverage standard doesn't is silent on whether impervious services that are within the public right of way count towards lot coverage. I see. Personally, I would and I'm going to I'm going to defer to Marla on this, but having some experience with land use rags, it's. Lot coverage is typically thinking abstractly in terms of here's the parcel. It's this many square feet from corner to corner to corner. And you've got your lot coverage is your house and your driveway and your patio and your front steps and whatnot. And mentally speaking, I don't think I've ever. Heard people say, oh, yeah, but the part of the sidewalk, like where I am over near Rice High School, you know, I've got two side, I've got a sidewalk right on my property. So I kind of like this because especially because that's. That's lot coverage that the owner doesn't really even own. Meaning the street and the sidewalk. So I like this. Hopefully it'll lead to further reform and LDR writing. Then just as a reminder, I pointed this out last time. This issue was exacerbated by the fact that when the inclusionary zoning piece was put into it, it didn't account for the additional lot coverage that the inclusionary units and the offsetting bonus units added to the requirement. So in the in the P one or the R one PRD, we only have 25 percent lot coverage, but we have an additional requirement on the affordable housing piece that we're putting in there and the offsets that it's allowed, but it didn't account for it in the lot coverage. It's been a challenge to facilitate the project. We've we've had a lot of friction with coverage, you know, from everything from that bike path jog to, you know, the extending of the barn road cul-de-sac all the way to the property line, you know, it's gotten to the point where these little things are tipping the scale, right? And so I think the idea here was that those things are clearly being requested by the board. They're clearly a public benefit. And so why not try and, you know, achieve a better design? So we're definitely supportive of it. You know, we're hoping that if the exception is granted, we can add a bit more parallel parking to some areas of the roadways to help, you know, alleviate some parking concerns. We can accommodate the rec path jog, the extension. And we can also leave some room in the PUD for future owners to, you know, put a five foot bump out on their their living room or whatever they might want to do down the road. So it sounds like you don't want to be penalized for adding some of the amenities that we've asked you to add. It's just, I mean, we're like a couple hundred feet from the limit currently to the point where if we jog the rec path, we lose a unit. We lose a unit. We go from one hundred and fifty five to one hundred and fifty four. Ten percent of one hundred and fifty four is fifteen, ten percent of one hundred fifty five sixteen. So you lose an affordable unit if we lose one unit. And so that we're at this point where these requests are just coming to a head over a jog in a rec path or three hundred feet of additional coverage. And so that's sort of the impetus of the sort of creativity. John, a couple of questions. So if we were to approve this extra coverage, does this allow for more homes? Or are you locked into the number of homes regardless? Right. We're not seeking an increase in the number of homes. We're just looking to open the coverage so that those future additions, changes, the accommodating requests of the board. So there's no additional units. But if I may just, you're also trying to avoid losing units. Correct. I think we would even be open to a condition that said no additional units are allowed under this. It's to allow for so you don't have a bunch of angry homeowners in twenty years that are pushing back on this when they're trying to put additions under their decks or whatever. Okay. Second question. This parallel parking. And this may be kind of a strange question, but or absurd, but you're not proposing or would not propose. Hey, we're going to allow parallel parking on the street because we're not putting in driveways in these homes in order to build bigger homes. I'm assuming every home will have a driveway. Exactly. Yeah. We're not proposing any. Right. Exactly. The parallel parking was considered, you know, we could add a few more spaces on Meable Way, which is the longer road on the east side of Old Farm Road just to help with pull offs for the mail truck or, you know, the UPS guy, you know, because a lot of times that's just useful. But it's, you know, a couple hundred feet of coverage on a project that's pinched. Right. And from a kind of a pedestrian experience, you know, the city had requested or staff requested and we propose have now proposed that on the the units on the east side of Old Farm Road that they are rear loaded through an alley and that alley created additional covers that driveways wouldn't have. So we actually created a condition based on feedback that we got from staff that that has actually exacerbated this again, in addition to that jog in the rec bath. I've seen housing in urban areas where there's no driveways and it's all parking on the street. I'm just hoping Vermont doesn't go this direction. We would not be pushing for that. Yeah. Thank you. I wonder if we allow it, whether we can frame it to. There's a language challenge. We could we could carve it in such a way so that we can limit. Put the 56,000 square feet, in other words, in a special category and limit what could be done with it. Is there something you wouldn't want to be done? Well, an additional additional units, for example, that's a pretty easy to condition to write. I think if you start saying, oh, it has to be used for public amenities, you know, then the minute somebody wants to expand their porch or put on a second bedroom because they their mother-in-law wants to live with them and they can't because they don't have the digital square feet coverage. I think that's I don't know. I think that that would be challenging to implement from a from a zoning perspective. You know, when we have these developments where people have footprint lots that go right up to their walls and we have to tell them, no, you can't put on a small addition. You know, it's a pretty miserable situation to be in. And so this additional 56,000 square feet would allow for that as well as these additional minor tweaks that Andrew is talking about. Patios are the biggest one that we see. I mean, in Hillside, since we've sold the houses, there's probably 30 people that have put, you know, a concrete patio off of their back deck. You know, it's just an easy, nice thing and and, you know, to not have that ability. I think would long term, you know, it would certainly be frustrating for folks. But we I think your idea is fine. I think the language is great. You know, what I would propose is we don't actually know the final coverage number yet because we haven't adjusted the rec path or we haven't done all that. So I think we can if it's sort of like we're open to this, we can finalize all the drawings. We can finalize the coverage numbers and then whatever excess is there, you know, you can condition to be used for, you know, not developer units or something like that. Can we live with that board? Pardon me. OK, let's move on to number four. What would be the would this solve the issue of people wanting to expand their homes? You know, a sun room, a patio, a porch. Yeah, I think, you know, that was a question for us, you know, how to track this or administer it. You know, I guess what I I would propose is we we could track, you know, there's a lot of things going on in these in this project. So for one, we don't know what floor plan is going on every lot. So there's like twenty three different footprints that people can buy. There's a range of which ones fit on which site. For the purpose of coverage, we've used the biggest footprint available on any lot to calculate coverage that we know that if everyone buys the biggest home that's available, that we won't be over, you know, so that's the same way we approach tell side as well. So there's, you know, there's and that's already the way you're calculating it today. That's the way we're calculating it now. Right. So so I think as the project's built, smaller homes may be built. We can track the precise coverage, you know, as the project is built out. And then we can leave, you know, either the city or I've proposed to put it on the HOA to say, you know, as part of approvals for future additions, which you're going to have to approve anyway, you need to make sure that coverage is available and you need to demonstrate that to the city for zoning permits. And here's how much coverage you have as a starting point. And, you know, something along those lines. But part of what I was getting at is so the first expander, so to speak, potentially is that's that's how I kind of like not just this just have the 56,000 feet out there to be grabbed by the first users. You know, I think that's why it would be governed by an HOA board that's elected by the by the homeowners. Yeah, this is a real problem on, you know, a lot of PUDs throughout the city. The one that comes to mind because it's relatively small is where Jim Langen lives. That development off sort of south of overlook. They have a very limited amount of available coverage within their PUD. And every time someone wants to add a porch, we need to have their HOA around the math. And there it's coming down to who was in first. And that's exactly the point I'm trying to get at, you know, the late commerce will be squeezed down to no flexibility. And I guess I would like to see that prevent since we're shaping something as a matter of unique policy anyway, or original policy. Maybe we could shape it a little further to put ceilings on. I don't have a complete grasp of it yet. I mean, the most obvious example is, you know, you're taking an average of 360 additional square feet unless the first 50 people have used up 90% of the available square feet. You get the drift. Yep, it's really about fairness. So it's just some sort of, I've said it. I don't have the language in hand. Well, there's 150,000 square feet of right away area coverage. So we chose 56 because it correlated with the improvements. You could certainly choose a bigger number that would allow people more flexibility. I think the likelihood of seeing expansions larger than 350 square feet on any given unit is probably pretty slim. And we could look at assigning some kind of coverage expansion on a unit type. You know, I mean, like, if you if you're living in a small town home, you're probably not going to be able to put a 300 square foot bump out on your home. I mean, you know, in reality. So maybe we have to get a little more granular with that. I really hate to go more granular because future versions of you and I are going to yeah, be pulling their hair out. But I wonder if there's something in what you said about each home in your calculation is currently considered the largest footprint. And if you don't build the largest footprint, maybe there's something in there. I don't know. Give it some thought. We'll table it and see if we can come up with something. Yeah, I think that makes sense. OK, number five. Why is there space between garages and homes for those couple of homes? Marty, can you pull up the path? Civil plans. Probably just the overall site plan is fine. We talked about this. Scott and I talked about this a little bit. I think that we can adjust that distance and get it to about 10 feet between the garages and the homes. I think space at all. Well, so it's the same home as the home that's proposed along old Farm Road, right? So we obviously, you know, didn't we didn't want to develop a whole new plan for four houses. You know, this was that area where the stormwater pond sort of crept up on us. It wasn't supposed to be there, preliminary plat. We're trying to keep an alley load situation. We we developed, you know, some really nice three story facades to put on the stormwater pond side facing the four way intersection. And I think, you know, if you look, the sidewalks are a bit back from the arching one and we can expand that to a 10 foot distance. It's just a detached garage. You know, it'd be a good spot to put a little stone patio with some, you know, overhead lights or whatever. I think five feet is not usable. It doesn't make any sense. 10 feet, I think, actually creates a nice private outdoor area where you can have a grill or whatever. So I would think, you know, that was my takeaway was let's push this to 10. And, you know, it'll be a nice feature for folks. Or any concerns about that? So you're going to provide some revised plans at some point? Yeah, we'll we'll or we could possibly probably do it as a condition. Yeah, we're going to definitely have to get you a new set of plans so we can we can incorporate that change to the new, you know, updated plan set before we close this out. If that works for everybody. OK, let's move on to number six. We need an updated phasing plan. There's quite a bit in the phasing section. Yes. So yeah, we we updated the phasing plan and submitted it in the middle of August. You know, it doesn't appear as though the specific updates made it because these comments are from the July hearing, they're just reprinted. So that we do we did make some updates already that we can explain to you guys. But that's certainly not a problem. We we will update the phasing plan before you close the hearing coming up so we can we can discuss that later. Yeah, and this is not. I want to give sort of a I don't know, maybe maybe it makes sense to do it one by one. I intentionally didn't incorporate your comments because I looked at them briefly and I said, oh, these are answers rather than changes. So I thought maybe you would just want to explain them. That's fine. Yeah, we can just walk through the the comments is there, you know, and we can explain what we did to address them in the new plan. Marty, do you want to pull up the phasing plan, please? There's absolutely no issue with updating the phasing plan before you close the hearing. We'll take care of that. We already did it. We'll update it again after tonight. And while that's happening, Marla, on the paragraph in black, the top paragraph next to last line and recommends they be refazed on the rephrase on the phasing. Is that what you intended? Rephrase page five. Sorry, top paragraph, top paragraph next to last line on that paragraph. The last four words rephrase on the phasing plan. Is that what you intended? Not refazed on the phrasing phasing plan. Since the C1LR phases are not proposed to be part of this final plot application, staff considers no additional phasing triggers to be needed for the offsite improvements and recommends they be rephrased on the phasing plan to be indicated as when warranted. And that's correct. Yeah. So the idea is there's a bunch of phases that are offsite and those are not going to be triggered until parts of this east view development that are not proposed for final plot approval are approved. So there's no sense in including them in this final plot approval because they can't do them anyway. OK, but it's rephrased. That was one that we already did. So we. Next question. So if we want to go back, kind of start at the beginning, Marty's got it open and we're talking about phase. Give us an overview. So, yeah, phasing is I mean, I think that this is kind of where we were talking about at the beginning, right, the project is broken into a bunch of phases and the phases include roads and the phases include homes and then the phases include the stuff on the bottom of the page, which is the IC stuff, the industrial commercial zoning district and the stuff on the right hand side of the page, which is the C1LR, the commercial stuff. It also includes the public recreation spaces and those are kind of integrated into the residential phases. And then it includes the roads. And so at preliminary plot, the board had some big picture conversations about phasing. The applicant generally wants to construct the homes first, which makes sense. And then the board had pretty strong opinions that, you know, the some of the public recreation spaces and some of the infrastructure needed to be early in the project, both to make sure that the residents who live there have the benefit of commensurate amount of infrastructure and amenities, as well as, you know, not having those folks live in a construction zone for five, 10 years. And I think the applicant agreed with that, you know, they specifically talked about how they try to work kind of back, you know, when you're mopping your kitchen, you start in the corner and you kind of mop yourself out of the room. Their phasing plan is intended to do that as well. So when we were talking earlier, one of the things the board said is, well, you're bringing in 151 homes, 155 homes. That sidewalk on Old Farm Road needs to be part of that, because otherwise you have changed the character of the neighborhood without the commensurate changing of the character of Old Farm Road. So that gets back to our earlier discussion. Right. So that's sort of the big picture of how the phasing is homes with appropriate infrastructure to go with it and then C1LR and then IC, I think, in that order. Maybe we can wait around. Sure. So I can, you know, sort of fill in a little bit more there. I mean, you know, essentially the C1LR and IC are kind of up in the air as to which I'll go based on demand, you know, but they're both sort of available. And, you know, in total, just to sort of look at it in the big picture, we think that the residential buildout, the 155 units would be somewhere in the six to seven years range in terms of total timeline. So we don't, we're not anticipating this to be a two or three year buildout. The first, you know, the phasing sort of goes in order as it's listed on the left-hand side. So the Leo Lane phase being the first major residential construction phase on the west side of Old Farm Road, sort of budding up to the hillside neighborhood and then proceeding from there over to the Orange phase, Daniel Drive, Barn Road in that area in there and then proceeding from there sort of north along Mabel Way. So building out to the north and then tying in the blue phase on Old Farm Road. And then, you know, sort of the last phase being the uphill townhomes on O'Brien Farm Road extension. So you're basically sort of starting on the on the west side of the road and then looping around from south to north is the general sort of feel for how construction would proceed to see you guys sort of can envision it. And then mixed into that, there are the things that we were requested to do during the residential phase. So you've got the Barn Pavilion construction. You've got the relocation of Old Farm Road. And then you've got the improvements along that roadway. So that's sort of the high level. There's a phase there in blue off of Kimball Avenue that you can see in the IC District, which we're calling like a staging area base. So that's our plan is to stage construction down there. It's got easy access. It's off of the residential streets. People can get in and out without, you know, trucks causing an issue. And then they can use internal roadways to access building sites. That's the area where we're proposing to sort of remove some ledge in order to facilitate construction of the road to store that down there, crush it on site and repurpose it in the roadway construction. And then there's a fill area proposed down in the black below that as just an on site place to deposit fill so that we're not having to truck it. However, many, you know, hundreds of miles off site to approve places. It's just a massive amount of emissions and truck trips for something that we can deal with on site. So we thought that was a good idea. So that's like a high level overview. And then I guess makes sense to dive into the to the open items. OK. Number seven. And I'm going to read this. This is about the infrastructure completed. When will the infrastructure be completed in relationship to the construction of new homes? I can take a little blame for this. I think we got ourselves into a little bit of a mess with the proposal we made of preliminary plaid. I think there's a lot cleaner way to do this, you know. So what happened was we said we're going to start building the barn on the 20th zoning permit and, you know, then we'll finish it. I think I don't think we gave an end date, but we said we'd started and then we would, you know, at the 20th zoning permit, we would start construction of the barn and we didn't give you an end date. And so you said so like the pavilion and the plantings and, you know, the sitting areas and those things. And so you guys had requested, well, when are you going to finish it? Started at the 20th zoning permit and tell us when it'll be done. And that just seems a little complicated. It gets a little messy because if we started at the 20th permit and then the market falls out from under us, we don't have any sales. Say we don't sell another home for two years. And now all of a sudden we're having to construct the barn even though we've only built 20 homes. I think it'd be a lot cleaner, you know, from that to the purpose of this comment. What's an easier way of doing this? And so what we proposed was to just say it'll be constructed by the time a certain zoning permit issues. So not a concern when we started, but at the point that we want X permit, it has to be done or the permit doesn't issue. Just seems like a lot cleaner way to do it. And it gives us, if we know that 100 sales is enough to generate the ability to construct the improvement, we set the thing at 100 zoning permits and we know whatever happens in the market, we've already accounted for that and can proceed with that. So that was our hope that we could sort of look at just an end date rather than a start and an end. And can I ask you timing in between? A question or the next question in my mind, which is when would you then propose to have it be complete? Yep, so I had a chart in the letter that we submitted that sort of outlines key areas. And so what we proposed in the updated phasing plan, it's on page three of the letter that we submitted. There's just a general sort of highlight. I can just tell you, because I'm looking at it. So it's the lot 18 open space, which is the sort of green space at the, that might make sense to actually still leave the phasing plan up. We have the technology. We're gonna do both. I know. It's still that same document. It's just a different page in that same document that you were in. Impressive. Yeah, and then go to the one that says phasing somewhere, that one, 123, that one, I think. Yeah. Perfect. So if you zoom in. So what we were proposing, the lot 18 open space, which is the, it's a sort of open field on the left-hand side of the west side of old farm road. If you zoom in a little bit, you can see it there. It's in the Leo Lane phase, the red phase. We were proposing that that would be complete and open at the 30th zoning permit. So we would seed it, turn it into a lawn for people to go play on the lot 19 open space, which is the natural playground area that's on the west side of the road. So the north end of that block, that's the tree for the slide, the sort of sitting area. We're proposing at the 75th zoning permit. We proposed the barn lot open space at the 125th zoning permit, relocated old farm road at the 125th zoning permit. The open space playground area. This one, you know, it could go either way. We said the 400th zoning permit, although I didn't want to use zoning permits. I wanted to use trip ends because I feel like there's commercial development mixed in there as well. And so it might be a more appropriate mechanism. Which one's that? So that's the big playground off the end and the dog park in the green phase over by Kimball Avenue. So the intention was, has always been that that large park would be associated with development in the C1LR area, right? So the residential development in this proposal at the 30th zoning permit, it has a large green open space at the 75th permit. It has a large park with a playground and a tree fort at the 125th zoning permit. It has a picnic pavilion parking area, sledding hill, you know, open space lot. That is essentially the open space that's associated with the 155 units. You know, I think that's a proposal in line with what you requested. It's arguably substantially more open space than the 125 units would otherwise require. I mean, Hillside has one park and it's 115. So, you know, I think that's sort of where we landed and what we proposed. Sure, John, go ahead. A couple of questions. So the first two are complete at and then the third one is complete by. Is there a difference? No, it's just a typing issue. And then that old farm road sidewalk complete by 400. I assume there's a long sidewalk and you're gonna do portions as you build out the homes. Is that kind of what you're suggesting? Yeah, so there's, so I'll address the 400th zoning permit issue in a second, but there's a portion of old farm road. The majority of the improvements on old farm road are done on our property. And then there's a portion that is the one that is caused the appeal that's off of our property that's up to south end of it. And so that's the portion we're talking. Yeah, that's the portion that we put by the 400th zoning permit. This phasing plan was submitted a while back. We, again, we've been in discussions and negotiations trying to resolve this appeal for quite some time. So we had proposed to push this thing as far back as possible to give us the most leeway in trying to resolve the appeal. I think where we are right now in our discussions with the appellant who spoke earlier is that if we can get this to a reasonable period of time, we're gonna be spending a lot of money landscaping and screening his property and other properties up there to get it to a point where they're not going to be staring at this new sidewalk. But the other piece of this is that, again, there is a separate access to Tilly Drive of which we're also committing to build. So there's been, you know, there's a lot of moving parts to this connection to Tilly Drive that are underway. And there is also a piece that's just pragmatic that, you know, we have 155 homes, a significant amount of affordability included in that, that we're trying to move forward and we're being held up by this one sidewalk issue. So we're trying to work with the board. We're trying to work with the appellant. We're trying to get the houses rolling forward at the same time. And we think we've come to happy middle ground here. I mean, it's up for the board to determine. And I don't think it needs to be determined this evening. I think you would like some more discussions with staff to try and garner their support on it. But that's where we are currently. So I wouldn't necessarily get hung up on that 400 zoning permit issue because that's not our current intention. Yeah. And we had the little, like we had originally used trip ends for the lot 47 and the old farm road sidewalk because we wanted to tie it to the C1LR which has a lot of commercial potential, right? And one of the findings of preliminary plat specifically required that we use zoning permit issuance as the trigger. So that's why we put it on the 400 zoning permit. I think it makes more sense for the lot set 47 open space to be tied to trip ends. So the residential phase like 120 trip ends because if we start developing commercial development in the C1LR, you would want the park to be required at some point. If we build 200,000 square feet of commercial space and not a single zoning permit for a residential unit, a dwelling unit or whatever, you would never get the park, right? So I'm just saying, let's say a couple hundred trip ends, something that we can pick that is indicative of both. If you do residential or commercial, you're going to have trip ends. And once you reach a certain number, you have to build the playground associated with that area. So are you saying that the zoning permits that you have to pull for the commercial spaces wouldn't count towards this count? It's just, you know, it's like, so I suppose it would, but you know, you would only need one zoning permit for a 200,000 square foot, you know, office building. And so, you know, the demand doesn't really correlate necessarily. It just feels like you could wind up, you know, so that was a board condition. And, you know, so you guys have to direct us to say, we'll accept trip ends instead of a zoning permit. And I think we can propose, you know, 50% of the trip ends from the C1LR, we have to build the associated park or somewhere in there, you know, something like that. Quick question on the, what is the, just to put it in context here, what's the total number of anticipated zoning permits in the end? Well, so this final proposal is for 155 homes. I guess the duplexes would only need one. Do you do those as two or do you do those as one? That's one. Oh, this is true. Yeah, we do them as one. So this whole thing would get confusing by that reasoning. Yeah, I guess it was intended to be zoning permits for, yeah, I got a little, as Andrew said, I think we all kind of confused ourselves. The intention was supposed to be the zoning permit for the 30th home, for the 75th home, for the 125th home. So the duplexes would count as, it wouldn't be the number of zoning permits. It would be counting the number of zoning permits that have been pulled for homes, whether those homes are in multifamily or single family or duplex. Exactly, yep. Okay, so then that's the home trigger. So how would we ever reach the 400? So I think Andrew is saying, and we'll keep in mind the C-1LR is, well, we'll hear about it later, but largely envisioned to be residential with some commercial components. So we would get to 400 homes when they started building out the C-1LR zoning district. Yeah, if you think about the, in the hillside master plan with those six commercial lots, we have 458 residential units available to us. And we have a much bigger spread of the same density in the C-1LR zone because it's also 12 units per acre. So that's really where you get there. I'm trying to figure out roughly what 400 zoning permits is x percentage of what final total number of anticipated zoning permits. It's, I believe there's maybe 450 units total in the BUD somewhere along there. So can we start? So your proposal is essentially waiting until we've got roughly 50 minus 45, till we've got 85% build out. Well, so that wasn't my proposal was that you're requiring a zoning permit number and I didn't wanna give one and I was required to in order for our preliminary PLAT application to be complete. So I gave you a high number and asked that we reconsider it to do trip ends instead. So I think, you know, and I said specifically that I thought this number would be a non-starter for you, but I was providing. I'll just agree that it's a non-starter only from the standpoint of the sidewalk is there for the public benefit of the public that lives in the development as well as the public that is walking through public right of way to get to our utopian highly desired goal of more walking and biking, et cetera, and connected neighborhoods, et cetera. So I certainly would like to see a lower number than 400. I don't know what that number is, but yeah. Or some blending, some combination of housing units and or square footage or commercial because yeah, presumably people who work in the building might wanna go somewhere. Is the question of trip end something we have to propose or something that you have to propose? Who has to propose that question? We can propose it. We just, you know, if you're in agreement that that makes more sense as a trigger for the, you know, the, I'm specifically talking about the lot 47 park space. I think the sidewalk on old farm road, sort of its own issue, but our intent was the lot 47 park space should be triggered by some amount of C1LR development. I tend to agree with Andrew. I think that it makes sense for the first three certainly to be triggered by the number of homes for which zoning permits have been pulled because, you know, those spaces are integrated into the single family duplex area. If you guys wanna, if you guys wanna consider trip ends for the rest, I think that's doable because those final plot applications will have to give us a trip end, a TIS update. Whereas single family homes wouldn't come with the TIS update. So it becomes a tracking nightmare. I think that makes sense. And I, oh, sorry. Did that answer your question? Yeah, yes. Thank you. And just to confirm, just because we outlined permanent issuances and preliminary plat doesn't mean that we can't change it to trip ends now. Like, is that dicey at all? Or? No, I think the phasing stuff in specific was here are the objectives, meet the objectives. So it's okay if we change the threshold mechanism. It wasn't a final decision. It was, this is the preliminary phasing plan that needs some work. There are other things in the preliminary plat decision that I wouldn't say that. Okay. Just wanted to confirm. Building on that question, what did you, I think we just talked about home sales as opposed to zoning permits. Well, we don't track whether they sell something. It'd be whether they apply to build a home. And if they sell it or rent it, that's none of our business. Again, in the duplex question, each one, how does that? So you would change the language instead of zoning permit issuance to be zoning permit issuance for the 30th home, 75th home. We can do that is what I'm at. We can do that. Okay. Okay. How do you guys feel about the proposed timing for, you know, call it the first four? Let's table the bottom two. Just, I mean, that's, I guess, sounds like. So largely the last two at the 175th home, sorry, 125th home would be sort of like, most of the homes are constructed. If the market goes sideways and they decide not to build one of the streets at all, you're still getting those open spaces. That's what that 125th represents approximately. Whereas the other ones are more like pretty early and then halfway through. That was our take. I mean, we felt like it was kind of a good balance. It gets something out front, you know, leaves, leaves us something a little bit further out to sort of get some sales. But then it doesn't allow them to like withhold the last zoning permit just because they don't feel like building the park. You know, 125 is still viable. Like they still need to build 126 in order to make a profit or whatever. We still need to build 30 more homes and we're not going to walk away from that, you know, 30 home sites to avoid building a pavilion. And just to let you on the curtain a little bit, you don't make any money on these projects until you get to the very, very end. So I mean. Walking away with 30 homes less is not a viable opportunity for anybody. That's kind of one of my concerns is, you know, if the market does tank at some point, does this run out and then they can just say, okay, we're scrapping the rest of the project. Right. And so the question for you guys is, is two open spaces, Law 18 and Law 19, enough to support 125 homes. And I think that the example Andrew gave earlier about, you know, the number of homes in Hillside and one open space might be a good point of comparison. You could also look at other developments. We could provide you some stats on that if you wanted. I think that'd be, I'm just curious. So I'd like that. Yeah. Would the barn lot open space still be an open space, even if the barn didn't have all the fancy amenities? I mean, it's kind of there anyway, right? Yeah. I mean, the city would have an offer an irrevocable offer of, you know, well, it's not intended to be public, but they would have a, I'm sure as a condition of this permit, you're going to have require us to give you an easement for that public access we talked about. So you would have it anyway, regardless of if something were built. Thank you. And to be clear, again, that it's, the trigger is that it's completed at those. It's not starting at them. So, you know, none of this stuff happens overnight. So the market slows. I mean, we're already underway on building these, these amenities. All right. Are we good to move on at this point? So what I'm going to do is I'm going to prepare some deliberative stuff for you guys on this and I can do that for their next meeting. And so you'll have that information before your next meeting because you're on time and every other meeting cycle. Great. Good. Let's move on. Number eight. I'm going to try and speed up guys. I promise. So that was the hardest one. Pardon? That was a hard one. I think we can get through a few quickly. Okay. So number eight, the applicant objects to this condition for the same reason they object to condition for above and staff's recommendation is the same as above. So just to clarify, the condition that this is talking about is triggers to begin construction of O'Brien Farm Road extension shall be tied to zoning permits for the IC and C1LR districts respectively. So our objection to that is just that O'Brien Farm Road extension has a bunch of homes on it in the R1 district. So it can't be tied, starting the road can't be tied to zoning permits for the C1LR because we have 15 homes on the road that are in the R1. Probably be helpful to pull that site plan up. That was all that we were getting at with that. I think we accommodated it in the new phasing plan. And I think it just is a miscommunication. So I think we should be... I think it was 123 with the phasing plan. So yeah, if you zoom in on the, on O'Brien Farm Road extension, which is the Brown phase, you know, all that we're saying is that we want to build O'Brien Farm Road extension when we want to build those homes that are on it. It's fair that it's also required if we want to build a development on lot 28 or a lot 29 or a lot 30 or whatever. But it also needs to be allowed to be built to facilitate the homes, I guess with what we were trying to clarify. And that's the way we've proposed it now that we can start it at any point in time to facilitate home construction, but that it would be required to be built at the point that lot 27, 28, 29 or 30 was proposed for construction. I may have added 25 and 26 in there, I can't remember. But I think the thinking also is that, you know, if we were starting construction on a lot that was fronting on the Kimball Kennedy corner, that wouldn't necessarily trigger the construction of O'Brien Farm Road if we weren't prepared to do something on the lots that are being built off of it. Right, like lot 22, probably doesn't need to trigger the construction of O'Brien Farm Road extension. So the way that we set it up, I believe it was 25, 27, 29, 30, 28 or any of the homes fronting on O'Brien Farm Road could be the trigger to start that roadway construction. And you understand that we wouldn't accept it until there was a decent number of homes on it. Yeah, it's the story of our lives. Got a lot of roads at hillside with a lot of homes on them that are unaccepted. I have a question for you guys. I just noticing it now. What is the, what's gonna happen to lot 30? What is that about that strange lot that doesn't have a direct connection to a road? And what's that doing? So we're gonna talk about the C1LR quite a bit and this lot configuration is a little bit up in the air given that conversation. So it might be good to, this lot configurations are represents a site plan that we developed before we redid the whole thing to accommodate a bunch of feedback from staff and everybody else. So that lot wouldn't be there under our current proposal because we've improved it, I think. So it might make sense to just table that till the C1LR. In other words, don't take that configuration seriously. It's really, it's really that lot but the second half of this hearing was devoted towards discussing it. They're gonna show you a new concept in an hour. A lot of people didn't like that lot. So. Where would you show me where that lot is please 30, I can't remember. This irregular thing right here, what is that doing? Well, it was, you know, there was a little bit of space there that could have been like a small, you know, like a small, like a Starbucks or something, you know? It could have been a cafe in the middle of because you had larger multifamily buildings or a hotel there and then you had this kind of smaller commercial retail. Oh, that was, all right, designed as a little commercial. Yeah, a little island there for people to kind of. In between the residential. Well, there, or is that all commercial? We're showing our city streets here. We're not showing private streets that provide the traffic flow in between. Well, in regardless, it's all thrown out. Yeah, it's all. In an hour anyway. Sort of unnecessary to talk about. All right. So it sounds like we're good on that. We can, you know, in that context adjust the phasing. So just a time check. It's a 24, we spent a lot of time talking about the bike path or the restroom path. We are not going to get through all of your comments in the first half of this meeting. What, what should we do? Should we continue to go through the comments and get to the, to what would have been the second half of this meeting at the next meeting? I think it'd be great to get to the second half of the meeting. But we've still got, if we consider that we go till 10 o'clock, we've still got half an hour. We could do the, what are your burning questions? Question. Okay. And then maybe skip back to nine if they don't have anything. Okay. I don't know. So let's, let's do that. I'm conscious of the time. So we are, let's take a break from number nine where we're leaving off. And in order to help you folks, are there any burning questions that you would like to talk to the board about and get some feedback about before we go back to number nine if we have time or proceed to talk about this to the second half of this hearing. Yeah. So I think 50% of trips, otherwise the metric will be, I think that on number nine, I think we already dealt with it. The rec path, we propose something that's going to work for that. So I don't think we need to talk about that. I think the staff reviews our new proposal. We've tied it appropriately. We fixed the issue. So I think it's all set. So I'd say let's just skip through that. Comment number 10, I'm just gonna, I'll just give you, you know, our high low view. I think we've addressed it. I think, you know, Scott's here, we're getting a stormwater permit and we're going to have to accommodate that permit in our phasing. I don't think there's any issues with that. So I have a question. I don't recall ever asking an applicant if they had a construction general permit. Have we? I mean, is this a new thing? No, the question here is because the construction general permit on a project of this scale, typically limits, it's not made if I say anything wrong, typically limits the open area at any one time. So, you know, a 100 and whatever acre project, 102 acre project, they're gonna say, the state's gonna say you can only have 20 acres of land disturbance at any one time. And in order to open another acre, you have to close an acre. Okay. So the question is whether any of their phasing is gonna be incompatible with what the state says their maximum area is gonna be. Our feeling is no. And you know, so I think we're good. I can talk about it a little bit. We have a plot where I'm working on this permit now. And we're gonna be getting what's called individual construction general permit, which gives us a lot of flexibility in asking for how much area is gonna be disturbed. And I've talked to the likely contractor for this project. And we were thinking along the lines of asking for 10 to 15 acres total, but like five in like any one place. So that we might have, you know, five over here, but five over here with a total limit on that. And he thought he was comfortable with that. And that's probably the way we're gonna be moving forward. And that big construction staging area isn't more than five acres all by itself. So once that's gonna be, that staging area will be all gravel almost immediately, which is immediately. They won't consider that open. It can still be stabilized. Okay. Thank you. So we think we got it. I think we can get through these comments actually. Okay. In a half an hour. Let's go for it. I think we're, because I think they get a lot easier than where we started. In number 11, I think there's a missing word. It says staff supports this comment and recommends the board require the applicant. What is meant by, I think there's an infinitive missing to explain or to. Well, you can guess what it should say. Can you? To explain? Sure. Okay. Yeah. I think. Describe. Okay. Pick one. Great. You know, we can change that wording. It's included on a couple of phases that are residential phases. And I was just including it to try and reiterate that like, if the phase is just homes that we're trying to sell, we should really be able to start it, stop it and it sort of as we are doing the project, you know, without a lot of restrictions, right? So like all the public improvements have their own face. The, you know, the, the parks, the open spaces. This was included to say, Hey, if I want to start the 12 homes on old farm road, you know, we should be able to start them if it works with our stormwater permits and phasing and home sales and everything. That was kind of the point and it could certainly be. I think the concern in creating these was that, you know, you don't not, I don't expect you guys to do this because it's not economically viable. But the thing an unintelligent developer could do is they could sell whatever home somebody wants and they could sell one home on Mabel Lane and one home on Leo Lane and one home on O'Brien Park from road extension. Then they build all this infrastructure and then they go belly up and then we're stuck with like one home on a big long road and then another home on a big long road. So that's why there was some degree of like, you know, get somewhat through one before you start the next one. But I think that you guys would do that anyway. Yeah, well, what we also try to do is offer a variety of different home types, but we try and do it by opening up the most minimal amount of infrastructure possible because it's just, yeah, it's not sustainable otherwise. So I think it is self-governing. Does the phasing not address that? It does, but they're kind of asking for us to get out of their way and just let them do business the way they do business. And what do you guys think about that? Which was the case at Hillside that we didn't have these restrictions and we proceeded through it logically. You know, it just, that's kind of a good summary. You're very reputable, you have a lot of experience. It doesn't seem like you would be foolish enough to do something other than the way you've been doing it because that works. And as you said, the financial viability issue in terms of the infrastructure is real. So I don't have any concerns about that. Other members of the board? I mean, if there's some clarifying language that could be put in there, it might be good. Management might change. Maybe they're not so intelligent. That's true. You know what I mean? You set the bar high. Anytime prior to or after completion of is completely meaningless. It means whenever. When you feel like it is, there's all it means, right? Well, and I think the concern here is that if we need to open up a phase to get to a market segment, we need to be able to do it. You guys want parks, you want roads, you want these things. And if we need revenue and sales are slow on two different products and we want to open up a third phase that has a different product, like that's a business decision. And I think getting into that, it sort of risks the viability of the whole thing to sort of be hamstrung on business decisions. So there's some trust there, but that's the hope. I think there's also another piece of this which is just over-regulation and over-management by staff. I mean, are we over-regulating something that doesn't need to be regulated? Look, there's a general problem with the project of this scale. And I think you guys have been fairly patient. On the other hand, I think so as staff and the board, which is that there's an inevitable conflict when you have, quote, planning versus on-the-ground practical decisions that a developer is making. A lot of it, in fact, depends on the skill and experience of the developer. But that line drawing about where to draw a hard line from a planning perspective is very difficult. We all, I think we all recognize that and we're trying to work with it. But, you know, in the deliberative process, we'll just have to decide where that comes out. And I think your advantage is we know who we're dealing with. I think we're comfortable on this point. I think staff kind of understands us and understands what we're getting at. Can I ask a question? Just out of curiosity. So when they open up a phase, are they required to build the entire road and all of the infrastructure for that entire road prior to constructing like the first or second home? Or are they able to kind of piece it and say, okay, we've sold the first five homes on this road, we're gonna put in the infrastructure 50% up and then not construct the remainder of the road until they know that they're going to sell the other units on the other half of that road. Like how is, what's the phasing with that? I would say it's a little bit of both. Sometimes, you know, the utilities have to go in for the entire street section, but at the same time, you don't wanna be putting inside walk and curb that's gonna get run over by excavators. So it's sort of a balancing. And those are the kind of the decisions that need to get made on the project side. And I don't know how you really can effectively regulate that. Yeah, and the tool that you use to regulate it is that we bond for the cost of constructing the entire road before we build the first unit on it, right? So each of these phases is its own bond. And so if we were to start a phase at our discretion and the city would have a surety that would enable them to fully construct the phase, should we go belly up or management change or we walk away from a half-built road with five homes on it? So I think there is that security. That's the sort of thing that, you know, gives you guys the assurance the whole road will get built. Okay, any other questions? Number 12, this is, and I have a question about this. This is about constructing the sidewalk concurrently with the old farm road improvements. When you, the sidewalk, is that the lower part that our discussion was about? Okay. I think, yeah, I think 12 and 13, if we could table that, like we were talking about earlier and revisit it after the, I think we'd like to circle back to that the next meeting. Let's move ahead then. Number 14. This is about redesigning the central common space and relocating the utility cabinet. Oh yeah, that was a good one. Yeah, I think these last two are kind of the two that we would actually appreciate some guidance on. And so we can get through these and then that'll be the full report and we can... Let's see, is there a good plan to show this? Does show up in the phasing plan, if you... Yeah. There's a better one though. Oh, try L100. I have a question. Well, Marla and Marty are looking for that. The homes on the west side of old farm road will go up to the hillside property. Is there gonna be screening between the back of all those homes so that the hillside homeowners aren't looking at the back side of the west side? I forget the name of the road. So you're gonna have two rows of homes in different developments. Will there be screening for visual division between? No, there's a good plan to show it on. Yeah, there's quite a bit of space there. I don't think that we've proposed any firm screening along that line. I don't know, I think we have another hearing where we might be talking more about the details of the landscaping plan where there was no comments specifically to that, landscape, budget, values and all that, that might be a good time to sort of get into that. I did look at it a bit. I didn't have a lot to say about it. Mostly looked pretty good. Yeah, we didn't propose screening in that area. We are a few hundred thousand dollars over the required landscaping minimum already in what we'd proposed. And so there were some choices to make there. There's quite a bit of grade change between the homes. And what's not shown is all the footprint plantings, right? Each home has like, like home, you know, you're road addendrons and you're whatever, right? Yeah, I mean, similar to the hillside plan on the backside of the homes. I mean, on the single family cul-de-sacs where they're tiered, each of them has a planting plan that backs up to another home. Yeah, okay. Thanks. So this document. There are some trees that you can see there. There is some limited screening where the homes are tighter. You can see the screening there. So we did, you know, try to put some in where we could. It's, I guess, really just the north end that doesn't have it. All right, what are we looking at here? If you go back to the L100, sorry, up at that top corner. So this is the, this is that kind of cottagey area. And the board's direction at preliminary plot was to arrange these homes around the central common element. You know, our take on this when we were writing the staff report is that the central common element is sort of this lawn area between the homes and the street, but also, you know, they are arranged around the street. The problem that we saw, and this is like super fine detail, but it seems like there's, they are arranged around a utility cabinet. If you zoom in even more, there's like a little square in there. Yeah, that guy. So can you just move the utility cabinet down the street? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I think we can. We might need two, one at each end, but you know, like there might need to be one. Or make it like the world's most fun utility cabinet. All the children are gonna want a climb on. We'll get Tim Barrett's wife to paint it, like she's down to the rest of them. I think there might need to be two, one over by Old Farm Road and one over by the rec path that comes up between the, from hillside, but you know, to facilitate the conduit runs at the appropriate distance, but we can do that. Okay. Good. Let's move on. Next comment, number 15. This is the habitat connection. This comes down to the habitat connection versus a separate rec path. Some people want to see habitat connection there, but there's also some interest in a rec path. Yeah. So you like my crazy color diagram here? So we had proposed an alternate layout here with the new rec path alignment. It might make sense to look at, I believe on the 19th, we submitted a new landscape sheet. I don't know if Carolyn knows the number, but it would have been one of the exhibits that we submitted on the 19th was an updated landscape plan just of this spot. Oh, it looks like it's L111. It might be in the packet. I don't think that we saw that, but Marty, you have the landscape plans open, right? That's one of those things. Maybe it's, well, it was just a single sheet we submitted on the 19th, I thought, but it would be, there was a civil plan in that area that showed it as well that we submitted on the 19th. Oh yeah. Is that the revised one? Yep. Okay. No, I don't think we saw this. So with the rec path moving up the page, we re-oriented the running trail and redid the planning plan to accommodate that orientation that brings the rec path to the hospitals project and the new orientation. I thought it was pretty successful. I mean, do you guys want to speak to this at all, Carolyn or Jeff? Do you still have a sidewalk and a rec path next to each other along Potash Road? No, so the rec path is up at the top now and it's just the sort of gravel path that you can see. And there's a sidewalk on Potash Road on the other side or is there? Yep. So like the upper side of Potash Road, there's no sidewalk. No. Got it. Hi, Carolyn. Hi. Yeah, I mean, I think you've already discussed that the trail has just been reconfigured so that it kind of manders through and then the rec path connects back up to Philly. And there is a wildlife corridor in there and we've got a lot of native shrubs and trees that we're putting in there. Pollinators, trees and shrubs that attract birds, berries, yeah, all natives. Good. Okay, anything else about that? Board members? I think the short answer is we tried to do both. You know, we had direction from the board to have the two paths. We had direction from the committee to do the pollinator plants and keep the wildlife corridor. So we feel pretty good about it. Okay. Do you guys feel good about it? I want to know why those wild turkeys aren't coming around anymore. I don't know, you might want to talk to the resident trapper there. Okay, number 16. This is regarding the specifics of accessibility on areas where there are stairs. Yeah, we looked at this. You looked puzzled. I think if Corey's still on the call, you know, Corey looked at this extensively, could speak to it if he's still there, but I think we've covered it. There he is. Yeah, so as we all know, the site has many paths throughout the whole site and most of them are accessible and they've been designed to be accessible. There are various features along many of these paths, many of these so-called pause places with benches, quiet, introspective, low traffic areas that really capitalize on the viewsheds to have a place to stop. And those are all accessible. There's some of the larger parks and those all have accessible features to them. There's a couple of places where there are stairs, but that's really just to integrate the park features into the hillside landscape, really capitalizing on the actual landforms. So I think that accessibility has been provided throughout the site and in an intentional way. Thank you. Does that satisfy us, board? Yep, okay. Number 17, I'm gonna read this. Staff recommends the board discuss with the applicant whether there should be temporary overflow dog park parking available in the C1LR district as overflow from the dog park will likely occur in that area once it is constructed. Does that make any sense? Now that you write it out a lot, I'm like, oh, that's not as clear as I meant. The idea was before the C1LR is constructed, maybe there should be like a little gravel area that people can park. Yeah. I see. So it wasn't. That didn't make. It wasn't a permanent. You were just saying prior to that build out of the parking areas. Okay. Yeah. I think, yeah, that's reasonable. Well, we know South Burlington loves its dog park, so. Yeah, I was gonna say in the context of a comment, when I met with the dog park committee about the park, parking came up and the idea which I explained to them was this is more for people who live here than for folks driving in. And so I think there is a limited amount of parking there, but it's not really meant to be a destination dog park for the city. It's meant to serve the residents who can walk from their office, apartment, house to the park. And so we had seven parking spaces previously. We now have three, which I think are ADA accessible. And we added four on the street spaces on O'Brien Farm Road to make up for the other four that we lost. So we still have seven adjacent parking spaces. So I think, you know, in the temporary lot, it makes sense for that seems fine. But we can definitely accommodate that. Okay. Thank you. Number 18. But wait, sorry, just thought going back to phasing. If you're not building the dog park until you start building out the C1LR, maybe this is... I guess it would depend what, where the development was. You know, if there was a bunch of development on the north, you know, Kennedy Kimball Corner and C1LR, it could still be available and, you know, an issue. So... Sorry, thanks, Don. If there's a big field there, we are happy to have a gravel parking lot in it until there's not a field there for it anymore. Okay. Number 18 really invites a presentation about the C1LR. We're gonna put that off for the second half of this meeting. I think that's it. This is, yeah. Yeah, when you say that's it. That's the beginning of the second half. Everything after that is second half. Okay. We did it. Perfect. Nice. What about 19? Have we addressed that? No, so that's C1LR. Everything 18 and later, C1LR. Let's take a three to four minute break and we'll see you back here. So I'm gonna start by asking you or someone from your team to give a little overview to this whole issue. Yeah, we can talk about that elephant in the remnant deliberations, but the school district has... And we will be stopping at 10. How's your summer? Good. You? Yeah, good. A lot of travel. Been away a lot and it's been great. Glad you'd be back now though. So where, so my question has always been, why would anybody travel from Vermont in the summertime? Well, that's a good question. And it just so happens that the traveling I've wanted to do, last year I went to Switzerland for two weeks. I missed a lot of the good fall and this year I was away in the spring so my garden has really suffered. So it's just a choice, you know? Because although I don't think Vermont is so great in July, I think it's too damn hot and humid. I loved it this year. Oh, did you? I did. I'm at a point where the heat, the heat agrees on me much more than the cold does. I like to move south for February. You need to resume recording? No? Okay. Okay, so start back up again. Thank you everyone. We're going to really focus during the rest of the meeting on the C1LR district and I'm gonna open it up by asking Andrew and Evan to give us a little overview of what the issue is, what the plan is. I'll just introduce Joe who's on the call who's our planner extraordinaire. And I think we're gonna have Joe and Jeff sort of talk about the concepts. You know, maybe if you just skip to the next slide I can sort of introduce the area. So this is a rendering that shows sort of the neighborhood that's proposed for construction and these fields that are in the lower part of the neighborhood that don't have anything shown. That is the C1LR area. And so I think the staff board did a great job of introducing sort of the challenge here which is how is this area eventually going to take shape? What are the parameters that we're putting in place as part of this PUD overview? And what work have we done to sort of ensure that there's a viable plan here that works to develop this integral part of the project? And so I think those sort of questions are good ones and we've put a lot of time into this especially over the past two months we've worked with staff quite a bit over the past two months refining what we submitted back in April when we filed this final plat. And so I think we've gotten to a good spot we're excited to sort of share it with you guys. And so I'll just kind of kick it over to Joe to sort of introduce the current concepts that we're sort of framing the development around and then we're gonna have Jeff and Carolyn speak to sort of aesthetically how we're gonna integrate all of this together through the landscaping and sort of site appearance. And then there's a little bit at the end about regulatory next steps which unfortunately is the part that I get to talk about. If I may for the purposes of orienting people this road here on the right-hand side, nope, further over the far right, yeah, keep going. I don't think I can. Okay, well that's Kennedy Drive. And then the road that kind of swoops down from the left to the bottom is Kimmel Creek. Exactly, yep. Okay, and the reconfigured hillside is the one kind of in the center. Relocated old farm road is in the center and the old orientation is where those trees which are, you know, exist. I'm sorry, which is old farm road? Old farm road is the one that goes right through where it says O'Brien in 2022. Okay. And the old orientation of old farm road is where the mouse is now. So that's showing the new orientation. And then the existing hillside residential phase is the upper right part of the picture, the larger multi-family buildings on kind of the mid-page right are lots 10 through 14. 10 and 11 are the two mixed income buildings that Summit is teed up to a break ground on shortly. And then 13 and 15 are the horseshoe shaped and boomerang shaped buildings along Kennedy. And then there's 12 and 14 are the two remaining just to the north of them. This is very helpful, by the way. It is, yeah. We're trying to see this. This is a city. Okay, take it away guys. You still there Joe? I'm here, I'm here, I'm ready to go. Do you hear me? Yes. Excellent. Well, if you can move it to the next slide, I agree, it was a really, really helpful slide to orient everybody and it also somewhat depicts some of the challenges we have on the C1LR. So we started this process, well, a couple of years ago, actually, and started looking at different concepts and different ideas. And we always had the challenge of what do we do with the topography? If you can move to the next slide, we'll show you the concept that we arrived at. Just to orient you guys again, north is at the top of this map. So yeah, so that's the corner of Kennedy and Kimball. And then as you move down to the lower right, as you move kind of down and right, yep. That's right there. That road there is Old Farm Road that cuts off the new orientation of Old Farm Road connecting across Kimball into the office parks to the north. So the darker orange part of the map is, we'll just start referring to that as, we'll just call that a lot one at this point. I didn't know it's not very glamorous, but that's really the town center. And that was where really our main challenge was and where we spent a lot of time working through how we handle the topography. How do we handle the connections, both to the neighborhood and to the, to the largest community? And how do we work with the regulations and kind of the multiple goals on presenting to Kennedy and Kimball and also to the new alignment of Old Farm Road. We went through a lot of different concepts about two months ago. We met with planning staff and it was really, it was really a good discussion because where we were always at is kind of looking at this as separate lots and kind of the commercial viability. And how does this, how do we take this thing down? And how do we create as a really a dynamic core for the neighborhood and for this, this part of the community. And as we were pushing buildings around, running them on the Kimball, running them on Kennedy, we're always stuck with this very large parking area in the center of the site that was essentially tiered like rice pad with different parking areas. And it just, it just wasn't coming together. And a couple of months ago when we met with staff, the question was asked, well, what's your concept? And so we laid out our conceptual goals, which were creating a vibrant town center, a diverse mixing uses, multiple connections to the community and a viable destination town center. And it was clear we didn't have that with the earlier concepts. And so we put our heads together and thought of this area, both the town center and then the more of the yellow areas to the south and organizing it around what we call a living street. And that's the street that parallels Kimball, that it's at the dog park at the stop. And then as your hand goes up to the north, it discriminates on an axis for our, essentially our anchor commercial space. And so in looking at that, we were able to break up the parking zones so that we didn't have one big massive parking in the center. And then we started looking at what does the periphery look like? What is, you know, what are the goals of the parking regulations? And, you know, how do we present this to Kennedy and Kimball? And we arrived at the fact that we're about 20 feet above the corner and you're not going to see any of the cars. And there's already a really nicely vegetated slope there that we could essentially enhance with additional landscaping and Jeff and his team will get into this in a minute, but we can really present more of a naturalistic soft edge rather than a hard urban edge at corner. And in doing so, we were able to focus all of the attention onto that living street, which is in the center of the plan. And what that does is it really creates a dynamic commercial space and a residential space to the south with pedestrian zones and outdoor cafes, multiple uses of the both retail and multi-use buildings with residential above, all organized around a central Plaza that could serve as a vent space perhaps for art fairs or craft fairs. You can convert some of the parking areas to expand the fair idea. And so you really start to create an exciting space that's flanked by multi-use buildings with residential above, retail below. And in the case of where your hand is right now, that building and the building at the corner of old farm in Kimball could also accommodate parking below. So subterranean parking in the case where your hand is now, we'd have retail facing the living street with a parking garage at the back. So we'd be able to screen all of the garage parking from that central core. So, and what we did was what this plan did that really made me happy is that we were able to create not only a pedestrian living street that connects the dog park and the regional trail to the south, but also we're able to connect to what we just talked about lot 15 as far as phase one in the whole cycle. So we're able to create a pedestrian connection to that area and then also do Kennedy and the areas in the downtown. So you could essentially walk along Kennedy, walk up to the space, you could drive into the space from Kimball to an old farm road. Now the dynamic edge that we're looking for is primarily on old farm road and at the corner of old farm in Kimball. And as I said, we've got a softer edge along Kimball and Kennedy, which would be heavily landscaped. And we'd also have pedestrian connections that would need to switch back up to the parking area. And Jeff has come up with some really cool ideas on how to do that. Moving south to the other side of old farm road and the other side of the living street, it becomes more residential, right where your hand is now, we've got what would be a semi-mixed used building. There would be a potential to have either retail or community space on the first floor of that residential building. And what that community space could be, it could either be co-working, which is really popular right now. It could be retail space if that's become viable or it could be retail space and community space. Maybe there's a room that could be, that could be reserved for neighborhood meetings or anything like, you know, any kind of more community event space. Those are also multi-story buildings parking underneath. There would be parking exposed to Kimball on the lower level that would be screened and adorned properly to the standards with glass and brakes and exposure to pedestrian exposure and pedestrian entrances to Kimball. And we're looking at probably four-story buildings above the parking with more of an urban space on the living street side and a softer edge on the Kimball side with landscaping where your hand is now is a detention facility. So that would be planted with native grasses and things like that. So the edge along Kimball, again, is a very soft, more of a landscape edge. The edge on the inside is more urban with urban pets and urban with urban patios on the first floor of some of the units as you move south and then urban plaza about where your hand is. And actually where that urban plaza is is where that funky lot 30 was to give you some orientation and that happened earlier. So instead of having that as a separate lot, we've included that into the residential development and created an urban plaza to create a place for residents to gather. Again, it could be a spot for pickup music or something like that, any number of things, just providing a space for the residents to gather at the outside. Between the Orangie residential buildings and the yellow, there's also another pedestrian trail that, yeah, right there. And as you go south, there's another pedestrian, I'm sorry, if you go south, up behind the yellow, the brighter yellow, there's also, there's some open space between the yellow buildings and the orange buildings with another pedestrian trail and pedestrian connection that connects the secondary connection to the dog park and the town center and the areas to the north. Again, the garages are below the buildings and what we've done here is, is tried to create a design that was practical and functional but then also picked up a lot of the grade here so that we're not, so we're essentially tucking the garages into the hillside and moving up. And so as you're on the residential side, you see just the residences and then the parking areas would be exposed on the north side. What I really like about this plan is that where your hand is now the yellow, those are row houses, essentially townhouses that would have a lower level garage facing the higher density residential and having a two story facade on the residential side on the two brothers. Is that two brothers or O'Brien Farm Road? That's what that is. So they would have a two or potentially three story elevation on O'Brien Farm Road and a lower level garage in the back with an auto court that faces the green space and secondary trail that connects all the area up. The imagery below, just below that with the two story, three story row homes facing the residential. We've got contemporary style. We're looking at, but it could be anything as we go. Some of the other imagery that's shown on the board, lots of outdoor cafe space, treating this as an urban town center, but really being attuned to what the space between the buildings is. So how do these things all knit together? The pedestrian space on the living street is there wide enough? Yes, it is. We could have cafes in front of the spaces or like a bookstore with sales out in front. So you can really start to utilize both the indoor and outdoor space. The plaza right where the Kennedy label is is blanked on the south side by a, what we call, it's essentially a small retail. It's like a pop up retail. Could be anything from like a seasonal use perhaps, maybe in the winter, it's a ski shop in the summer, a bike shop could be any number of things that just adds a vibe to the, to the streetscape. We have lots of other imagery as well here and future slides. I don't know if it makes sense to advance a little, there's plenty of other photos and stuff. Can I just ask that you make sure you talk about what of it is what you're proposing and what of it is an example of what might be proposed and maybe that's in here. I just want to make sure. The photos on that first slide are potential. This is really more of a graphic imagery the spaces themselves are defined by the, by the living street and the, the footprints. The, the character images are on this slide, our character images. And Jeff and his team have been really, really diligent and done a great job of, of hashing out what that space between these buildings can be. And I guess I'll hand it over to him at this point, him and his team to describe how these, how these areas are designed. Yeah. If you go to the next slide. So we took and now we're turned around again. North is down. Sorry. I just, I'm so used to looking at this plan with Kennedy and Kimball where they are on this plan. But so basically we, we zoomed into the west side of old farm road just to kind of see what the detailing might look like for this. And you know, we don't know what retail is going to go in here, but you know, we're kind of setting the stage for a successful commercial and residential street. So we're making sure that there's sufficient sidewalk space. So we've got a generous sidewalk space on each side. We're, if we started at old farm road, there'll be kind of a special intersection with crosswalks to the east side and a change of materials. As you enter this new living street, we've shown kind of a gateway feature in which we'll have to figure out exactly what it is. You know, it could be an archway, it could be just some columns or, you know, maybe that's where some of the signage is for some of the retail that's down the street. But what we want to do is kind of break up the space materiality, you know, maybe have different material for the parking spaces to break down the roadway. This would also lend itself to what Joe was saying, if there's, you know, some of the parking spaces that are going on or if God forbid, we have another pandemic and they need bigger outdoor dining areas. You could kind of take over some of those parking spaces on a temporary basis. But what we really wanted to do was create this special street that went east west. And, you know, we've got I think 15 foot wide sidewalks with a collector strip. Now we're in the weeds. There we go. You can zoom into the street. That's great. Yeah. So basically there's a collector band, well, there's a 15 foot wide sidewalk, you know, between the building facade and what I'll call the tree band or collector band. So it's a generous sidewalk with, you know, since we don't know what businesses are going to go in here, we don't know what sidewalk use will be like, but we want to make sure there's room for cafe tables, merchandise, you know, things other than just people circulating by and then a generous kind of amenity or tree band where there'll be street trees. You know, we're going to make sure they have good living conditions. That means soil cells or structural soil. So that we get a nice tree canopy on the street. And then as I mentioned the parking, the angled parking on both sides, you know, maybe a different material could be pigmented concrete. So it just starts to break down the roadway width and make it feel more pedestrian and more user friendly. And then if I think Joe mentioned the kind of special retail area, we're looking to create kind of a gathering space adjacent to that with some sort of central feature. I won't say fountain. I won't say sculpture. It'll be something, you know, that we'll, we'll figure out when we get into the, the further design of this area. But I think it's nice to have that adjacent retail. You know, just, it just makes it more active. If it is a restaurant, there can be tables and chairs out there. We'll have some raised planters to kind of define that space. And then if you continue on that street over to the west, to the right, it starts to connect down to Kennedy, which I'll get into on a later slide. So really just trying to show some more detail for this area so that people get a sense of the, the character. So on this slide, if Marty were to zoom all the way out, would we see Kimball at the bottom right corner? Yes. Yeah. So this is the corner of Kennedy and Kimball. Yeah. Yeah. So it kind of reminds me a little bit of the movie theater in Williston in that whole area. A little bit. It's going to be nice. The bandstand. But there's a lot of vacant property there. There is. Yeah. So. Yeah. So, you know, I think, you know, this has the benefit of all the development that's coming before it. Sure. Very close proximity. So, you know, I think that was maybe a little bit of the cart before the horse when they developed that first and now Finney Crossing and everything has started developing. I think what this does nicely is it has a combination of parking orientations to whereas, you know, not to integrate another development, but that is entirely focused in with the parking all on the outskirts. Yeah. This has a nice combination. So it doesn't feel like you're just approaching a massive parking lot. You don't realize what it is until you get inside of it. Yeah. I agree. So. Probably skip ahead. There are other detailed. Yeah. There's some renderings as well. So this is. On the top, there's a section through the main street and it shows kind of the generous width of the sidewalk, the kind of tree band, collector band where bike parking and things like that, and then the street parking and what were proposing is bringing in some catenary lights, which are kind of like commercial versions of backyard overhead lights. They're actually light fixtures on metal suspended cables. So it just creates this kind of nice feel for this kind of special commercial street. If you scroll down, there's just some examples of some of those lights over streets. And then we also are interested in integrating stormwater practices and some of the islands like we did on St. Paul Street there, you can kind of see. So really integrating everything together. Quick question. In the upper right corner of what I'm looking at right now, is that a biker next to the cafe? Oh, yeah, he shouldn't be doing that. Can't stop these people. Yeah, and I guess, I mean, I get what you're, I don't really have a magic, I don't really have an answer or it's not a strong criticism, but it's interesting when I look at, you're obviously trying to create a community space and have wide sidewalks for room for tables or putting merchandise out. But at the same time, it's still servicing car culture. And I'm not saying get rid of it because it's not my personal inclination, but it's trying to thread the needle a little bit. And boy, it's the kind of thing of like, well, put it this way. At some point, somebody made the decision to create Church Street Marketplace, right? Yep. And we have a great asset in the city of Burlington for that. And maybe this isn't appropriate, maybe that's gonna happen more on, you know, 40 years down the road when everybody's screaming out about the traffic over on Market Street, there'll be a call to make a pedestrian only. But I just, boy, it's all the stuff of like, it's almost a thing of like if there's enough of these things where this is a truly a destination, you know, it does work at over at the Majestic Theater and all that is that you, well, back before COVID, you know, you would park a half block away or a block away to walk to Majestic 10. So if this really becomes happening and vibe in and all this stuff we're talking about, then the cars really shouldn't be there. There should be a hell of a lot less of them because you think of the cars backing out and people are trying to crawl through. Yeah, I think it's like this. And then, but all this vibrancy and people are walking back and forth across the street. That's actually, it's really interesting that you're bringing this up because we had a pretty lively discussion about all this internally. And it's why I keep referring to it as a living street. It's a concept that could allow for the street to be closed down or at least parts of it. And what Jeff has done with kind of changing the pavements at the crosswalks and at the parking areas, you can easily be the auto parts of this living street, whether it's temporarily for a craft fair or if it becomes so just in five years when this or 10 years when the last building permit is full, that there's such a demand here for outdoor space. It could easily be converted part of a plaza space. Church Street started out as an experiment and then they made the decision to permanently make it pedestrian. So I think, I see the street more like St. Paul Street in Burlington where they close it down for special events, but on a daily weekday basis, they allow it. Well, the other thing that makes Burlington work, and I know I shouldn't be saying this, I've been working for Chinook County Regional Planning Commission, but it's got parking garage. And we're not here, obviously. It's not 40,000 people with all these tourists crawling through, but eventually you want to get it to a situation where people go, you know, I'm not going to try to find the perfect parking space. I'm just going to go to the garage that's a half a block away. Well, Burlington, you're in a combination for that. Yeah. If this really becomes a destination place. Burlington's lucky to have one of the handful of the successful truly pedestrian streets. They tried it in a lot of cities and it didn't work. Yeah. But is there, is there a place off site and then I'll stop on this point, but is there a place half a block away where people would park instead of trying to find the perfect space? I mean, there is a lot of on street parking throughout the neighborhood. Well, I think it's also worth pointing out that we do have a bunch of structured parking underneath the buildings. So it's not just street parking that we're providing here. There's a lot more parking than it's shown. Right. And the question is, can that accommodate visitors? As opposed to, as opposed to assigning parking spots for a resident. Yeah. We, well, we believe that the, the uses and the parking proposed in the concept are balanced. So the parking sufficient for the uses that are there and, and, you know, and for the future, you know, full development of the site. So I think, you know, that would be the answer there. There wouldn't be a need for a parking garage because there wouldn't be any more space to develop beyond, you know, what is there and what is there is parked, you know, in our, in our opinion sufficiently. I think it's also worth pointing out that, you know, this zone is the commercial one limited retail. You know, so we are working within a construct of an existing zone that has its limited retail. Yeah. And that's what I was trying to get to is that retail, like office use, there's no restriction on size, I believe, but retail in this zoning district is limited to 5,000 square feet per tenant and 15,000 square feet per, per building. So, you know, you can't look at these buildings and say, Oh, they're going to be, you know, whole foods or they're going to be a majestic theater. They, they, that wouldn't be allowed in this zoning district. Yeah. And then I don't know how this works and what are traffic planners and urban planners doing, but where are all the e-bikes going to park? Generally, I've figured out in the, in the final proposals. Yeah. Well, and that's where I want to talk about what of this is conceptual. And I'm kind of trying to pull on you guys to talk about, you know, one thing that you told me is that, you know, the orientation is you're committed to, but maybe the building exact locations are not. So I want to hear more about that. I think if we kind of, you know, maybe spend about a half hour on this, if we did, there are a couple of renderings that probably make sense to look at and then I can touch on some of that. Frank had a question. Yeah. I want to generally support the spirit of what Dan's been saying. I found the, the angled parking jarring. I find when I'm in Burlington, for example, angled parking is objectionable. Every place that exists. I also, if these are, I'm not sure what the difference between a living street and a complete street is. I mean, I saw your bicycle where you acknowledge it didn't belong, but I don't see where bicycles do belong on the street. And that's, you know, this is a early, early, early concept. We haven't integrated it fully into the whole transportation plan. So I would sum up by comment, by saying get rid of the ankle cars, hide them somewhere else, put in some bicycles. If we go to head in parking, I mean, we wouldn't get enough parking spaces with parallel. And if we go to head in 90 degree, we're going to lose sidewalk space. So. Well, I wasn't talking about that. And I was saying, you know, parallel parking. And I'm gathering that the idea of a parking garage is not in the picture. No, it's a parking. This is not going to support a parking structure. I think, you know, the trade off is you have a massive parking lot. Somewhere down the road and everybody walks into again, sort of a maple tree place situation where you, it's surrounded by a sea of parking, or you have it integrated here into what we think is really attractive and, and well, position, but again, the purpose of this is it's not going to be built exactly like this. We're committing to certain skeleton. As opposed to a specific building or specific. It's not going to be built exactly like this. It's not going to be built exactly like this. It's not going to be built exactly like this. It's not going to be built 100%. This would be a road with parking on both sides. This may complicate your thinking on this a little bit, but not all members of this board are in agreement that you shouldn't have angled parking because the parking, for instance, in St. Auburn's works beautifully. Yep. And I lived in a certain neighborhood in New York. Where that parking actually enhanced. It was one of the riskiest places outside of New York where there was a lot of parking. And I believe that kind of parking works in, in this sort of environment. Just so you know, so we have some discussion ahead of us on that. Yeah. And just one point of clarification between a, a living street and a complete street. There is a, there is a, some kind of nuance. There's a nuance of difference between them. Complete street provides. A separate zone for each different use. So pedestrian bike cars. And then there's a pedestrian street. Where as a living street essentially creates an area that everyone is allowed. So it's, it slows everybody down. And that it's, we chose that approach because of the ability to be able to be nimble and, you know, maybe close parts of it down for events. And other things. It's also called a Wuner. It's a Dutch, a Dutch word for a, a living street. And have you, have you thought through any accommodations for the theoretical. Electrically powered. Public transportation vehicles that are going to be on this living street. Yeah, yeah. I can't wait to get into that kind of detail. We get that part. There's plenty of spaces for whether they're divvy bikes or e-bikes. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, there's, there's, we, we've set aside and one of the comments earlier is just, you know, really being attuned to the space between each of these different buildings. And how we can activate them. And one really good way to activate them is providing areas for, you know, the divvy bike or an e-bike or E. Could I just make a suggestion to that? Could we just get through their presentation and then we can ask questions? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We can just jump. You know, I think if Jeff, do you have other specific things to touch on? There's one more. There's a blow up of the. Access down to Kimball. And on the next. Yeah, I think that's really important because that really sold it for us as staff. So one more page, I think. No, that's it. Okay. I was talking about the cross-section. Oh, well, yeah, I think that's next. With the parking. Okay. So what we're looking at is access from 25 feet down at Kennedy and Kimball. And you know, it really didn't make sense to have that, that circulation at the corner. It was constrained and kind of hard to, to navigate. So we decided that we would tear the landscape at the corner, providing some retaining walls and then maybe some public, like a sizable public art piece, but then have kind of a switchback off of Kennedy, which it just happened to work out mathematically to get ADA access up. And then we were able to integrate it with the landing of that stair that lines up with the streetscape. So it seemed to kind of work, work well in this location. And then there's some images of what that might look like on the left is a stair and ramp I did in Cincinnati a long time ago, where the ramp meets up with the stair landings at each kind of interval. And then that other plan is the enlargement of that plaza retail space. Just kind of showing a blow up of that area that we would have built in planners, built in seating, some sort of central focus. But, you know, it's a place kind of off the beaten path that people could hang out in. And if that little retail building turns out to be dining, I think it works really well to have that kind of juxtaposition. Well, with the development of this size, is there a need, maybe this is a separate topic and not part of what we focus on. For instance, where would the fire station be that would serve this? I mean, is that going to be part of this area? I think it would be able to be covered by the municipal service. I think that would be, you know, all the roads would have to accommodate that. The fire department has reviewed these plans and doesn't see any issue with ability to serve from their existing stations. Thank you. We hop to the next slide. Going back to that, the thing labeled retail pavilion, the previous item, at first I thought, gee, maybe what he's got in mind, instead of retail pavilion, I was thinking theater slash bandstand. Is there any, do you have in mind, it seems like an almost ideal place for some sort of public performance space rather than a retail area. I think it can be sort of any of the above. I think that, you know, a pavilion, kind of an amphitheater, that's a concept. So that thing labeled retail pavilion, you're not married to any particular thing in there? No, I mean, it could be a pop-up thing at one point of the year. It could be, you know, community bandstand at another point of the year. You know, it's, I think it's a variety of uses. It's just meant to say this is kind of the central gathering space and there's some pavilion there. So this section just illustrates the grade change from Kennedy up to the parking lot up above. So this was what allowed us to have technically parking facing the street, but you can't see it from anywhere unless you're on it. Right, so this is in the staff report. This gets a little tricky, but when you have multiple buildings on a lot, you can have parking to the side of buildings that's equal to no more than under the rules that these guys are under, half of the building width at the street. And so the question in the staff report, which we may or may not get to tonight is whether the board would consider the C1LR blocks, the orange block and the yellow block as a lot, even though it's not technically a lot. It's a PUD. So it's like four or five blocks together. And if the board weren't able to consider all of those together, then this parking along the street, which really isn't visible from Kennedy Drive because it's 20 feet up, would be allowed under the rules. Yeah, if you skip forward a couple slides, there's a great rendering of that corner. We can skip that one for now. That's the corner of Kennedy and Kimmel rendered out with the buildings and the wall and the ramp and the art and all the other sort of. It's a really important point to make this space work because as Joe mentioned, we did a variety of different iterations earlier on, but it was always kind of constrained by the fact that you had these shoulders to the street to create that border of building. And then you had to see a parking that serviced and didn't really create a sense of space or sense of place that we were trying to. We think we've kind of threaded the needle here nicely. Yeah, if you go back a couple from this one, you can see we updated the aerial rendering to include all of the conceptual elements of the plan that Joe was speaking about. And then, yeah, tomorrow's point maybe we can just jump into sort of what are we seeking here with all of this. And so if you skip forward a couple slides, unfortunately, that one is a rendering of the corner of Old Farm Road and Kimmel Avenue. Obviously, the buildings are going to look a bit different when they're not gray boxes. Looks like a penitentiary. It's just meant to kind of show the scale and form. You know, those buildings are similar in size and further back than the ones that were recently approved for phase one of Hillside. So architecture doesn't matter. But it's also important because this area of Kimmel, you know, Kimmel is a commercial thoroughfare versus when you're on the Kennedy side and you're facing, you know, there's the condo complexes that are further back. So it sort of makes sense that these are proud and they're facing commercial buildings. But that's Old Farm Road coming toward it, right? That's correct. Will the design of these buildings be up to the commercial entities ultimately or to you? Well, we're putting some parameters in place as part of this structure to create, you know, some sort of parameters. Sort of akin somewhat to a form-based code system where there are certain architectural requirements that would be in place to kind of give you guys the security that you need to grant us some of the things we're asking for. So the main sort of highlights of that, if you skip ahead, I can touch on really quickly. And we provided a regulatory framework. So these two pictures are that framework. You don't have to read it all here. It gets into stuff like, you know, the first floor, floor-floor height, you know, what should it be? What percentage of that first floor should be glazing versus another material? How many doors should you have on a public street, right? Like what's an appropriate number of pedestrian entrances over how many feet? We talk about things like overall glazing from the, you know, for the entire primary facade. There's some staff comments, you know, sort of going over what a primary facade means. You know, I think we can talk about those when we get there. But essentially we're seeking to put in place this regulatory framework that you guys, you know, can review, which sort of details these little aspects of the building, right? What the glazing, the storefront, the entrances, where these things can work. And the second piece that we're looking to get approved is on the next slide, you know, was our first attempt at laying it out. But if you sort of skip ahead to the next one, you know, what we've sort of tried to do is say, a lot of times you guys will give us a permit that has a bunch of goals in it, right? So the next project that's proposed should do these things. And that was sort of what we tried to lay out here with these nine items. You know, so the project would provide a central, pedestrian-oriented streetscape to foster community, create a sense of place within the C1LR, design elements to be of similar aesthetic to outlined in exhibit 15, which are the images that Jeff is presenting to. So basically saying the project, if these waivers and height adjustments that you guys are putting in place are to be honored, the projects that come forward have to do these things, is essentially, and this was our first list. You guys could suggest additional items to it. I thought it did a pretty good job of sort of summing up what we were able to commit to, to Marla's question. Is this new, or is this in the original application? This is new, so it was in the August 19th letter. Okay, cool. So I'll just make sure the board really looks at this in detail before your next meeting. And that would be, you know, so that the project features a central design element, plaza, or gathering space in the spirit of the images. It focuses on services, commercial development on the Northern Block and residential senior housing hospitality on the Southern, right? So it's, that concept plan has a bunch of buildings on it and concepts on it, but whether those buildings are the size they are in that concept or they're a little bit smaller or they're not, it's saying these are the sort of overarching concepts that are gonna be there. Like that central organizing street, if these things are going to be in effect and these height waivers are granted, you know, that needs to be accommodated. I mean, does it shift, you know, could it have a little bend in it? Could it be oriented a little differently? Yes, but conceptually, that would be sort of how future projects would be sort of looked at. By the way, just dimensions trying to visualize, what's the curve to, well, I don't know if there is a curve, but you know what I mean, what's the traveled way of the central street, the central organizing street, you know, the dimension? The street is 24, do you mean from building to building? No, I mean the, I'm talking about the central, the living street, what's the width of that living street, the traveled way? The road is 24. That doesn't include the parking spaces. No, the parking is in addition to that. So you have 12-foot lanes, basically. Sorry, go ahead. I was just gonna say to finish it out, the sidewalk is 15 feet, I believe this tree band is four or five. Do you need 12 feet to accommodate the angled parking? 12 is big. Oh, you mean for the travel way? That can probably go down. Scott, do you remember what it was? Between, I've got it open here. Between the buildings, from building face to building face, it's 98 feet. From the curb to back of curb. So that would include the parking lanes, it's 57 feet. All right. And Scott, do you remember? We might have got that. A lot of the lower density residential stuff, the 10-foot lanes, typically when we get into commercial, we use the 12s. Unless it's only one way. So it's a practical matter. The thing about, as difficult as diagonal parking sometimes is, it allows us to reduce the travel lane, because you're not backing straight out, you're backing out at an angle. So you're able to ratchet down the width of the drive lanes. But at 12 feet, you also have actually ample room for bicycles, for example. Yes. You could have an informal bike lane along the, or formal. Absolutely. Well, I don't know if it's a good idea to bike along the back of angled parking cars. The beauty of this design is that it is a living street, and it is an organizing spine for the development. But the axis on the south is the dog park, and on the north is a building. It's not a high speed through drive. And the intent is to slow down traffic as much as we can, because you want people to stop parking, you want people to see the activity. Kind of balance Frank's comment with John's comment. I think in the Burlington scenario, where you're driving down Main Street, yeah, the angled parking is really challenging, because you have a through road coming and that's funneling all traffic into downtown Burlington. That's really problematic. But if you go over to St. Paul Street, where there's more of a street presence and pedestrian presence, it actually works a lot better. And this is a much, this is even a slower speed environment than St. Paul. Yeah, so it's not as objectionable in St. Paul's that is on. So just a time check, it's 947. And I still want to open it up for public comment. But is there, are there any before we not close, but conclude tonight? Are there any comments or things you want us to go away with? Yeah. I think two final things is obviously what we're trying to do here, which has been a common theme, you know, in all the years we've been in front of you guys through permitting is balance the security that you guys need to make sure that we're providing you with a high quality product when we're asking you for a variety of waivers. And we're trying to balance the fact that we're committing to a tremendous amount of infrastructure and setting aside green space and all these public amenities. And so there has to be some sort of balance, you know, you're making commitment to us or making commitment to you. And so we're trying to balance that. And then the second point I'll make is that this is really the kind of the culmination of the vision that we've been pitching for, you know, seven years now, which is a variety of living styles, a walkable pedestrian oriented development that has, you know, for sale ownership, apartment rentals, it has town homes that has this transition town homes. And then you have the higher density piece, as well as the retail and amenities to support it. So it's really kind of the vision coming to fruition. And I think, you know, I'm really excited. I think we're all really excited about the way this is panning out. So we appreciate everybody's patience and getting to this point. Anything else? Any parting comments before we conclude? Let me just reiterate or clarify again. I mean, the essential, you know, the biggest aspect of what we're seeking at this level is to secure that design guide, which includes height allowances for buildings to be up to five stories over parking with a step back for the fifth story and proposes those glazing standards and some setback reductions. And the question then is that list of nine or 10 things, the central organizing feature, you know, maybe they're saying we need to adequately accommodate for bikes or for, you know, in future applications, other things that have come up that you want to, you know, add to this list. But how do we evaluate these future plans? You know, in order to grant this waiver now, if you want that waiver secure in the future, your project needs to achieve these goals. And I think because the waiver is important because the height limit in this area is like 30 feet and the level of infrastructure investment that we're committing to in the, for the 155 homes far exceeds the ability of those homes to fund it. And so the ability to develop this zone in the manner that we're showing is important to the project and that's the piece we're seeking to solidify now that height waiver, the setback waivers, and then what's the framework that makes all that work. And I think that the only sort of remaining question that would be great to, you know, the parking issue that Marla had brought up the frontage and viewing it block by block. I think if there was one last thing that we heard from you guys, your opinion on that would probably be helpful just in terms of finalizing the proposals. Okay, great. So I'm going to open it up for public comment and one more quick sure, go ahead. Question for Joe, is there anything about the, again, this is conceptual that is unique to, I'll just call it winter cities, urban design. There's ways of trying to expand the envelope into the winter months for a vibrant pedestrian environment. There's other examples of things that you've incorporated that are unique to, you know, obviously this is at Minneapolis with the sky bridges or Montreal with the underground, but is there any features that can be drawn in to expand that use of the zone in the winter months? Yeah, there are a lot of things that we've learned a lot actually since COVID and how to really create a 12 month outdoor zone out in front of these areas. And we haven't gotten into detail about it, but with some of the overhead perhaps there's pergolas that could be outfitted with heaters, things like that. But nothing more than that. I think the most dynamic spaces that we've done and I've seen are the ones that are essentially convertible states that people are creative and figure out a way. When you try to force a design like Minneapolis, it took 20 years to figure out what to do with them and they're still trying to figure it out. And I think being flexible too, I think what we've learned is you don't design a space for one purpose that you design it to accommodate a lot of different activities. Thank you. Thank you. So we're going to go to public comment, but am I correct in thinking they're back here, not at next meeting, but the meeting after? That was going to be my suggestion. Okay. Does that work for you guys? Okay. Let's open it up for public comment. Are there any members of the public online or on the phone who would like to comment? There are no members of the public online or on the phone. Okay. And there's nobody here. Okay. All right. Thank you for your patience. Thank you for being here. And we'll see you back here in about a month. So we're going to have to take a motion to continue. Yes, we are. I moved to continue this application. To October 6th. Okay. Oh, second. Thank you. Any discussion? I'll in favor of the motion to continue to October 6th. Say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? There. Okay. The motion is carried. Thank you all. And we have a set of minutes to review. Thank you. People had a chance. Thanks to everybody. Thank you again. Have people had a chance to look at the minutes? I did. Would anyone like to propose? Just remember you have members online still. Pardon. Just remember you have members online. I have to hear you still. Okay. Yeah. Do I have a motion about the minutes? It's the date. I know I looked at them, but August 2nd. Motion to approve minutes from August 2nd. Okay. Second. I'll second. Second. All right. We all second. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. The minutes are approved. All right. Did you want to do another business? Oh, for me. I am just curious for an update about the dog park. It's got a lot of coverage. A lot of people are talking about it. Yeah. In the context of Don's question to me was, you know, people are blaming the DRB. And we thought it might make sense to kind of explain what it happened and what the DRB's role is. So when the DRB review in the dog park and, you know, if this might be, we might all already know this. When the DRB reviewed the dog park, the DRB's authority was limited to the wetland impacts. The dog park is largely a fence. And the fence, fences in South Wellington that are under four feet are subject to our rules, but not to permitting. So when they went out there and they installed the fence, not in the location that was on the plans, that's really incidental to the DRB's review. And so we wouldn't have them come back for a new permitting because the fence is in a different location unless the wetland impacts were different. I've seen the field delineation of where they actually installed it. I've seen the Aspilts. The wetland impacts are different on one side, not on the other. We are not taking any enforcement action on that until they kind of decide where they want to go from here. They may be modifying it to go back to the originally proposed wetland impacts. And if so, then there's nothing that you guys need to do. If they end up keeping the impacts, they might come back for an after-the-fact permit to modify their approved impacts. But the portion that was the largest change is actually outside of the DRB's jurisdiction. And the change that's in the field has nothing to do with your decision. Thank you. And who's they? The dog park committee? So it was designed by the dog park committee, but when DPW staff went to install it with the help of surveyors, the surveyors found that the limits were within an easement that immigrated the common roots. So they had to squash it north somewhat. And then I think there were some topographic challenges that squashed at east to west a little bit. Yeah. All right. Well, thank you for that update. So don't take any blame. All right. Good night, everyone. Good night. Thank you. Thank you. Good night.