 Okay, I am going to get us started. You board and find the meeting to order for Tuesday, June 6. Our agenda is accurate at post online right because I'm having any changes. That's correct. All communications have been posted online. Okay. I posted something for Mr. probably I was submitted. I think it was Friday. It was a self elevation. Of the prior house design. I think. Okay. Great. Thank you. And then minutes have been shared in the last meeting. So we're set there. And then we will go through the public hearing and the order, but it's here. So that is starting with the P-23-33. 120 DEPO streets. Yeah. And you're already in front of anyone else here to speak. Okay. And is there anyone online who wishes to speak? If you're an attendee and want to speak on this item, raise your hand, please. We do have a lease one person. No, there's two. Yeah, Rory Waterman and Sharon Bush are raising their hands to speak. Okay. For the sake of simplicity. I'm going to swear in everyone who's here first. And then we'll do the digital swearing. You can do it. So those of you who might speak. If you raise your right hand and swear to yourself. Just for this first item. Okay. These are the whole truth and nothing but the truth on this matter under the search. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I heard Sharon Bush or said I do. So then you've got one other person. The other individual lower their hand. Okay. We'll take a look at that. I was back up again. Sorry. I guess we're changing minds. Rory has. So Rory. You can be sworn in. I do. Just plain of verification. This is a very strict. There's no development included. If the variants were to be approved. Then an application for developers. All right. So. Showing this firm reference. Okay. So. We have the applicant. That would be. And. We don't have. For a camera today, which is okay. But. Do you want to start? You want your engineers to start to walk us through the project? How do you want to be very high engineers? Okay. I'm me. I saw that. Okay. These year for moral support and to learn a little about what's going on. So. Okay. Why don't you just like us through the. Application. All right. Project. All right. I will do that. Thank you. So. This property has. Obviously been something of interest for. For folks. Including me. And. Finally. Point where I was able to. Consider it. It was. Came back up on the market. So. I. Just trying to give you a little background. So I don't think I'm more like too far off here. But. So I started contract with contingencies. One of those being that I could verify that I would be able to do the type of project that we needed for our. It's a house for my wife and I and our sons. Our retirement. So once I had signed that contract, I met with Scott and folks at. Public works. And. Electric department. Excavators low law to. Make sure that there was a. A viable feasible act to speak and see what we wanted to do. Scott was one of the first that I met with. The time when we met. It was. The 24th of June. 2021. That was Scott. Wasn't him specifically. I came in to find out what was required to do it, but he happened to. Think it's all available to chat with me. So. I showed him the preliminary sketches, which. If anyone's interested, I do have those here. Mostly I was just looking to find out if my vision would. Be something that was likely to. Be suitable. And. As monsters. You folks. And at the time, Scott. Indicated that it was suitable for the cyclists. And. I showed him the preliminary sketches, which. If anyone's interested, I do have those here, but. Mostly I was just looking to find out if. My vision. Would. Be something that was likely to. Be suitable for the cyclists. Pretty much his, you know, he wasn't committing to anything, but he did say that the. Drawing that I presented did. More or less conform to. What might be acceptable on, on that site. So once that and. The. We redid a variance for the setback. The. Providing setback rules. Wouldn't allow the development on the site. So we got that in place as well before I committed to buying the property. Okay. So once that was all in place. I. Closed on the property and moved forward with the. And. Putting a plan in place to get through. Design review board. Now I did not. Push. The process terribly quickly. Because I wasn't planning on doing anything until the next spring. Anyway. But unbeloved to me. The process was in place or was moving forward to change the. The plan. Way the height. Allowance was calculated for. A house on this floor. When I started the process. It was. Based on an average of the elevation around the perimeter of the building. That's giving you some. Allowance for being on a slope. So that. The average height. Was. On the slope as opposed to the, to lower edge of the property. Okay. And that's what I was counting on for. Moving forward to the process because of the. The house that I was. Envisioning. Which. To be honest with is based somewhat on. Some. Design development that a previous. Property owner had. And so. I was not starting from scratch if you would. So I was assigned. A young man to. Be my guide through the process here. And my. And so. All to this process, I was never made aware that the. Changes were happening from. The perspective of the. The calculation of how the height. The billing was calculated. To me code. Okay. And honestly. After the fact that. It came to my attention that the first. The application was the day after I met with Scott. So it was obviously in process by then. Was not anything I was aware of. So. When I. Put my application in. It was. Still. With that understanding. And that was the published. Ordinance was to. Use those. Five points. I forget which one is article five anyway. That. It would be used for that calculation, which would allow me to move forward with the design that. Is similar to what you see on this. The screen. So I talked to the young man is no longer with the. So many department. And he apparently was unaware that these changes were happening. To the article five. So we continue to move forward through. Those. Eight months. With me never becoming aware that there was going to be a. Change in the article. So once I had it. Through the advisory board and had everything ready. You said, yeah, you're good to go. To the review board and we have to them to. Approve the design. And. So we're going to go until I got an email from him the next day that said. I was wrong. The. Way the height is calculated is different now. So. Your design is not going to work. So at that point I asked him what my options were. And I asked him if I could see you folks about. Grandfathering me into. What was the place when I started the process. And he said, no, that was not something that was. Really likely to pass it. Really. I either had to meet the new. The original design in front of you folks. And hope that you would take that into consideration that. This happens during that process. So I wanted to kind of make that clear. Frankly. I feel like. I came into this process thinking it was a. Collaborative or cooperative process where. These folks were helping me to make sure that. You know, we were. But I was meeting the. Requirements and that they would. You know, Make me aware of any issues that would. Not allow that to happen. And the fact that they're obviously had to be aware. And since they're the folks that. Brought up and presented the changes to the board. Which ever one it is that controls the. Changing. The articles. But they would not have brought that to my attention. I don't understand. And that's probably makes me feel like that I came into something that. Turned out to be an adversarial process. If they're not willing to share and be honest about what's going on. And that. There was going to be a change that would have a significant impact on me. And obviously I. Didn't feel that that was right. But there wasn't much I could do about it. So. That being said, I wanted you folks to be aware of that before I started presenting all of the other reasons why. Now that I have to do this variance, which rightly, if I had been told right up front that that was going to change, I could easily. At my. Completed. Application in place. Or. Things changed on April 6th, 2022. Appreciate that background. We have an application in front of us right now. Number of people here want to speak on this side and other items. Sure. Which is. While. Yeah. You're entitled to the variance. Right. And frankly, that's. I find that to be a legitimate part of the reason why I think that. Should be allowed. This variance. In fact, Frankly, I should have been made aware of this. From day one. When I talked to Scott. Since he was obviously very aware, but the very least you should have said. There was a public discussion tomorrow night that you should sit in on because it's going to impact this. Process because he was. Very familiar with this. Take your property and do what was going on with it. So there were no mysteries there. We've heard that. Okay. All right. Well, I'm just covering all the bases because. I'm not aware of. What everyone has. Has not heard. Right. And this is something that's important to me and my family. So I'm not sure I've covered the pieces. Right. So. Moving on as you are requesting. So. We have a letter up front along with talking to Scott. I contacted the condo association behind me and. And I have a meeting with them to show them what I was up to so that we can make that a cooperative process as well. So, you know, I did all of them. I did all of them. I did all of them. I did all of them. I did all of them. I did all of them. So, you know, I did all of my upfront homework. So. There was no mystery to me. And it was obviously quite a shock that. All of a sudden, my design was not going to be. Appropriate or adequate. Without any forewarning. So. There you have it. So the design that. I am asking for it's quite similar to the design that is there now only a little lower to keep under this 60 foot. Limitation that you folks have for anything in the waterfront zone. I think it's under article 12 that it mentions the 60 foot maximum that you folks are allowed to. So, you know, I don't know if that's something that you guys have. Offered for something in that particular waterfront. So, I used to have that. But it was changed in the limit now is 35. Article 12 is the variance article. Whereby. We would have to find. Based on the factors in. 12.1 a through. The unique characteristics of the site. Render development. It's impossible, but for the. Right. My, my intent with this. Re-design essentially is lowering it was to have it fall within that acceptable range. And that I what I'm hopefully presenting to you bill. That one straight that is there. It would be appropriate from a construction level. I'm going to try to ask some questions together. Sure. I need to decide. From a construction perspective. Is it impossible. To build a house. Less than 35 feet. It's a roof height. When measured from the front. Not if you're willing to live in a cave. I believe you folks have. A design that shows that over 70% of the house would be. Underground. So, my understanding is that it's not impossible necessarily that would. That would be the. Perl that each job, but one that is reasonable. To the certain senses, if you would. And so essentially if I'm correct. So these are. We have in our files in 2022 designs. Right. That show the site. The 35 foot house. That house. Sounds correct. As the picture and it shows you that. If you're looking at. This one right here. What's where footage is. It's just under 2,000, 1,900 square feet. And so that house that's in that diagram, you just held up. 35 feet. Plus or minus top. Yes. So you can actually take those top two floors and elevate them on tracks. Which would require us to give you a variance to 60. We have that right. A variance up to 60 feet. Yes. Which gets the majority of the house out of the ground. And their basis for your questions. You'd like not to have. If I look at that. Side view. You know, the below ground sections. For the upper two levels. That is correct. Yeah. So. The design that I'm looking for is in basically. Starting with the same current, you know, concepts. And parameters I was looking at for the original house. Okay. If you were to refer to. The document. Dated for April 23 additional comments. The number four. Analysts the ones that are. You know, little to this discussion that we were just having about being around. It's the house's size to hopefully make it. It's the size of the house. But. Younger son who is. Has challenges. I guess is the most kind way to put it. So he's going to be living with us. For the foreseeable future. We need to have a house that will accommodate. 20 something along with. His mother. So that is why we are looking to have at least a certain size of the house. And we need to have a space for us to. We need to have a space for us to. Two bedrooms and. Space for us to. Function. As. Adults in our own space. Obviously. I'm not sure that any of the folks here. Would be excited about living. And underground. Some folks are. It's not. Long as good enough for us. But one of the challenges that. Is that. Outside for being around like that is that. It brings all of the living space down. To where it is acceptable to. All of the other folks that tend to be around in that area, which I'm sure everyone's familiar with all of. The folks that live there. Frankly, if we were. You have to build the. Lower house. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure if he has concerns about. Some nature of. During that area. We understand. I want to see if the word has any questions. Okay. Do you want to speak their specific criteria that we have to consider? Absolutely. And forgive me. I'm not trying to be rude, but I just. I'm not, I don't know. I'm not trying to be rude. I'm not trying to cut off. But if you can ask questions that will help me. Better answer your. Concerns that. Please. Three. Okay. We're not here. We'll do that. What are the unique physical circumstances? For conditions of this lot. Question. And how do those create. Unnecessary. Hard. The circumstances that create this scenario obviously are the fact that the entire property is on a very steep, very slow, and if this had been the rules in place when I purchased the property and started the application process, I wouldn't have ever purchased it because this is not something that I would be able to have my family live in. You did get a ten yard front setback, right? A ten foot, yes. You had some designs for the house then, and those were within the height of the house you proposed then. That one right there? That one right there. So where did the designs come from that showed the house partially buried? I just drew this up to match the current Article 5 description of what it had to mean. When you filed for the ten foot setback, did you submit those particular plans? No. There were no plans submitted because it was for the setback, it was not part of the discussion. So prior to the zoning change, there was not an application for this property? It was not. That is true. Did you ask anybody at the city whether or not there were any changes tonight in rotation? Did you ask? Yes. No, I didn't ask him specifically about changes. I met with the folks in his department, assuming that their job was to tell him what things that are going on would impact it. I think that would be a reasonable assumption by anyone that that's why you meet with them. That's why I say I felt it was a cooperative process thought it had a serial one, which when you keep stuff from the folks you're supposed to be helping, that's how that serial game. Do you have a height of other buildings in Annabelle? The one that I care to, which did more or less push me toward this, is the condo building that's not quite directly across the street from me. That was a large troop structure. I have pictures here if anyone would care to see them, but they were right at the top of the depot. Do you know how high that is from the front of that building? What's that like, the terrace? That building is on Spacepair Park. Right, it's on the far end of Lake Bucharest. Do you know what it is from the building? I do not. Right, Scott, isn't the issue here that the front of this building is Depot Street? So the apartment building being referred to from time, technically, where I have it. So it's measured, and it's within 10 feet, so it's measured just from the front. It's 45 feet, right? So 35 to the limit, they got 10 extra feet for the inclusionary. This is sort of in the reverse, right, rather than having the slope go away, the slope goes up. Like if this house was accessed via North Avenue, this would be the rear of the house we're going to be having this discussion. Because the lot doesn't have access to North Avenue. This is the front of the house we have to have this discussion. So the 512-2022 plan here, he said not for construction. Where did that come from? I'm looking to see which one you're requiring, should be here. So this guy right here, it was the original plan. That it was developed based on the original Particle 5 requirements. You got one of these second floor, one of the top floor. Is that the old sidewalk? Do you know how the both of those two are sidewalking? I don't know. I understand which. Being a sidewalk on North Avenue. Oh, the sidewalk on North Avenue. The upper level is, yes. Pretty much, pretty much. It's right on the same level as parking lot at the police station. And so that's all pretty much the same level. So if I was on North Avenue, yes, you would see one story. I would see one story. Where is one of that? Essentially. I don't see it. Like that response. Right there, the atomic relief. Yeah. Sorry, I wanted to make that a problem. I think it might be right. I don't know about that one. I see one story. Yes. This property doesn't fit. It doesn't run on the sidewalk. It does not. It doesn't. It originally, oddly enough, it originally happened on North Avenue. It addresses 31 North Avenue. Which, this is a little odd, since there is really access for it. Does the property line run to North Avenue? No. It ends somewhere. It ends right at the property line for the folks and for the condo association behind us and borders actually on. That's part of the police station parking lot that's along the south border. The whole police, actually, police property line goes right down the side of the line. Can you tell me more about your understanding of what's the difference in height measurement? Because the height limit did not change from the timing. No, it was still 35 feet. And I started, yes. Can you explain what your interpretation was? You know what, where the height would have been measured and what the height of this design would have been? Sure. If it's helpful. I have both the one that was in place when I started and the one that changed just before. I didn't mind. But what it is, a sign of authority, is it was a, you take the average of the elevation all the way around the house. So like at the back, it might be 10 feet and it's going to increase. You know, as you're going down the slope. So on the front, you're on a major, lower level. So you take the average elevation all the way around the house and that average needs to be less than 35. So that more or less means kind of halfway out the slope where the footprint of the house is. So that would be the, that's the, like you would determine as the acceptable height. It didn't have to change yet. And the new one, this was added from the deep, low street side. So you can start right there and you just measure up, get 37. So it doesn't pay for the slope and the desperation at all as a sign process. So there's nothing that would make that but they didn't do much. I have a question for Scott. And Scott, are there any exceptions to height for RM, water park, is there some bonuses or anything like that? There are, there are bonuses. I don't think they affect height and the residential districts. It's a lot of the coverage and units. I mean, there's height, it varies for something like inclusionary, for housing and single-family storage or something like that. No, not even in storage, but it was inclusionary or senior housing. Oh, good. I think those are just a lot of averaging in spring here. That was related to that was the exceptions in the waterfront RM district about being, you vote being allowed to go out to sleep. So that's where my six September came from was that you're allowed to make exceptions up to that height under whatever circumstances you find it appropriate, I suppose. Yeah, I hear if it's helpful or if you want to read it. Scott, the variance for the setback mentions it's based on the average of three properties which all have north have addresses. Yeah. This is a 10-foot. This is the 10-foot setback. And those were used because they also have Depot Street addresses. Right. So the neighboring properties here, Mary and I were just talking about this before the meeting are through lots. So they have runs to John North Avenue and Depot Street. So zoning, they have two front yards. All the buildings are up by North Avenue. Right. So they have fairly close setbacks to North Avenue. What we would call the rear yard is actually the Depot Street front yard actually pretty deep. This lot sits between them and doesn't have North Avenue frontage. So as I recall, front yard setback based on the average is actually behind the rear of other buildings. Right. That's your variance. It's impossible to build in compliance. So that's why the 10-foot front yard setback is granted because you can't have a compliant building envelope. Is there some consideration for how big the building envelope has to be? I think it's like a 200 square foot house. I don't know. So the variance is because you literally built them. There was no buildable area. But there's not a standard on how much buildable area, how much square footage can be built. That's not. Correct. I mean, there's this sort of squishy language about the minimum variance possible. 10 feet. Seem to be reasonable. It could have been 15 feet. It could have been five. Hey, Jake, can I have a question? I have a question with the applicant. I'm trying to figure out how much of this height separation of the top two floors. From the parking garage parking level. Is to gain a better view from the site. Obviously that is a consideration anytime you're in a scenario where you're on the waterfront and looking over the lake, but what more or less control that was getting the upper level. To have access to the back a lot, which is level. And I think that's a good point. Yeah. Yeah. Obviously that is a consideration anytime you're in a scenario where you're on the waterfront and looking over the lake, which is level and also to North Avenue, of course, and to get it out of the ground because the original design. The intent was to minimize the amount that we would be disturbing that whole slope. And with that design, there was the southeast corner of the middle level. We actually, you know, would have to do a little bit of excavating to get that clearance there. But the whole intent was to get it up to where the upper level had access. Obviously we were trying to maximize the, you know, any view if you would as well. It's just common sense part of the design, but the intent was to get it up out of the out of the ground to get it. So we had access to North Avenue without having to go up, you know, whatever set of stairs or whatever might be involved and keep it out of the ground. So this elevation right here, the top level is basically set to line up with the flat area at the top of the property. That is correct. And then the overall height on this thing measured from the way that measuring now with the garage door up to the top. What is that? It was like 62 feet. So I had to, you know, to meet the target that I was putting in place, which was for the, to meet the exception was just a little bit shorter. So I would be a little below the upper level. I think that's very helpful. I appreciate this. Definitely. So thank you for that. I would like to hear some man goes, you know, there's both members of the public here who want to speak on this application and spring in. So we'll give them an opportunity. All right. And I'll be able to come back and add some more after that. I mean, I still have more conversation. I want to have with you folks. I'm going to be directing with you. 40 minutes on a relatively simple request from our perspective. And I'll give you an opportunity to respond to. The neighbors. We understand the issues. And we've given. 40 minutes is substantial. And so I'll give you an opportunity to respond to them. But we have all of your materials. We've read them. It's a diligent board that does that. And I do want to keep this moving. We have other items on our agenda. So I'll give you an opportunity to address what they said, but I will. Make everyone be terse about this. Okay. Just to. Want to find that the last part that I was. Intending to address with you is to go through. My variance responses as. As compared to the ones that were generated by. By Scott that came up with the adverse findings. So. That's the one area that I think is pertinent that hasn't really been totally addressed. We've read both Scott and your filing. So I guess I'd say, unless there's something you want to add. No, just wanted to make sure we're covering all the bases because it may not be a big deal for you, but it is for me. So I just want to make sure that we aren't overlooking anything. We understand that everybody who sits in that chair. This is the most important thing that they currently have on their sure respect that respect that the neighbors. Thank you. Respect. This is important to you both financially and personally. Our jobs to get it right. I appreciate that. So with that, I know we have a number of neighbors. The last. The first person in front of you just said, if you agree, I agree. We appreciate that. So I'll leave it to you. Who wants to start. Thank you. My name is Susan. I'm a step 33 North. To the one of the. You want to sit here and. I'm getting out of your way. I'll just be very brief. I live at 33 North. Which is the. Where's that? It's on the flat. It's on the side. Which would mean it's probably backyard. Is what we consider our backyard, which is it. Okay. And we're in North. I'm a number. Five. Which is the. Second floor. Southern most apartment. I live with my husband. It's a very unique property as stated. I don't know if you folks ever do field trips. Well, I think it would be worthwhile for you to see. Both from Depot street and from our building in the yard. That's all I want to say. Absolutely. I run by it many times and know the view well. It's a spectacular view. There's no doubt about it. I remember when this came up before us multiple times that we've seen this. I think we're all. Okay. Great. Thank you. Thanks. Louie's grill 33 North Avenue. What about solar panels? It's really a question for you. Are you going to put solar panels on the roof or behind it? Yes. And actually that was part of the discussion that. I'm going to put it on the roof. Right about in all of the documents, if it's. It is I similar to this where it's high enough. It'll be on the roof. But if it's the lower one, then I would be. In a position where the only practical places on the upper level. Part of the law up there that I would be doing. Something in that area. So I'm going to put it on the roof. I'm going to put it on the roof. I'm going to put it on the. Drawings that I presented. It would show that if with the lower level. There is a. The pedestals with the. Solar panels on it. Sally. 33 North Avenue. Set. Okay. 33 North Avenue apartment seven. I'm just curious what the actual distance is. How many feet it is to our building. I know I'm asking. I can tell you how far it is to the back line of my law, but I don't know from the back line of my. Backline to the garage. Yeah, I don't know that distance. If I had to. As early guess it would probably be 40 or 50 feet. I think it's, I think it's less. Is it less than that? Okay. I'm just looking at it in my mind. Yeah. Yes, it's right there. Hello. I'm Mark Johnson. 33 North Ave. 11. And I have no. No comms about. You know, Mr. Trombly has, has worked with us cooperatively. I have to say when I look at the plan and I know that. I think that's the right direction. I think that's the right direction. I think that's the right direction. Going this high. This high. Is going to block the direct view of some of the owners of. Of the condominiums. So I wonder. Exactly. What the justification is. I think even if you just look at this. I'm not asking anybody to live in a cave. But I think this could be dropped down. Eight feet without. Living in a cave. Myself. You know, I'm not an engineer, but when I, when I look at this. This extra space, this extra lift. That it looks. Doesn't look all necessary to me. But like you say, I, you know, I feel like. Mr. Trump is going through the process. He bought the property and so we'll see. See what the rules are. So, so I. I read and it looked like the recommendation was not to approve this. Not sure if all those specifics have been addressed. That's the cell for me. Thank you. So. Certainly that's fair. That's a concern that I would have if I were back there as well. Now. And frankly, I. Got in trouble before. I'm not doing this correctly. The trees that were on there were substantially higher than what this building is. So that whole lot was already. Had a much more restricted. View than it will have when I'm. Completed even at this level. It was the trees at the top of the slope there. Or probably, you know, at least 30 or 40 foot trees. So. I don't know if you've ever. View they have, they have gained as opposed to lost with. This process. So. Hi. I'm Jenny Gillespie. Also 33 North. Avenue. I'm unit 16. Your property will not affect my view. I'm on the fourth floor accounting that. The garage and then the three floors. I'm on the fourth floor accounting. I'm. Times gotten away from me, but several years ago. Our driveway totally washed out. And the embankment totally washed out. As we are in. The top corner watching the river. My big concern is. Is this bank strong enough to hold this. Yes. To assure that. And we watched the other apartments being built in the bank. Which was. Engineering defund. I mean, I couldn't believe how they did it. But. That bank is pretty fragile after watching it get washed away. Oh, I would imagine it is. Now, two things, of course, first off. This bank is. The most part been there for. Centering or more, but to answer your question about how I know that it will be okay is we did get a. A soil engineering firm in and. I'm surprised you didn't notice them out there, but we were. But I never saw results. From. From. Yeah, they haven't been posted or uploaded anywhere. But they. Did. The. Both soil sample process. And I've got the engineering report, which I'm. You know, quite happy to share with you, if you like, but it. So it proves that it can hold it. Oh, yes. Yeah. Yeah. Couldn't hold that rainstorm. Yeah. So the runoff of the water and everything, you know, I mean, it was very. Dramatic for everyone. Mark showed me the videos. Being there that night and. And the. Sure. It was. Remind everyone that this is irrelevant to that. It doesn't include any development in this specific application. It's just that variance. Okay. And so with the development. In this specific application, there wouldn't be additional detail. Right. That would address my. Yes. Okay. If the variance. Yeah. I mean. Something should happen there one way or another. So. Given that the. I'm also 33. But no. And Elizabeth Christie. I don't know. I don't know. Given that it's already been stated that he wants to raise this in order to. Get the best view possible. As well as to get away from. The. Public thoroughfare. Of the post street. It would seem to me that that. That would be the case when a building of an appropriate height can be built. On this lot. And it would seem to me to be setting. And this is your business, but a precedent that you might not want to be setting. In granting a variance based on. View accommodating view and getting away from the public. That's absolutely true. The issue that I have is that this process started with a set of rules that allowed me to do this. And then. They were changed. I understand. I heard that. It was changed. You know, in the middle of my process without me being. Notified. I understand. Okay. Yeah, so. And I totally. Understand your perspective from there as well. So that's why I'm trying to. Be as accommodating as I can. And still do what we are in. Original intent was, you know. Okay. I just wanted to point that out. It hardly seems a hardship case. When you bought the lock knowing exactly where it was in the first place. And, and that it was capable of being designed this way when I bought it. Right. All the same team. I'm a different team. We have a couple of folks on. Okay. Let's see. Let's start with sharing. But you're sharing. You're up. You want to speak. Hi. Good evening. Thank you for letting me speak. I listened to this and. I believe that this. Project I believe complies with this, the steep slope ordinance. I hope. But my question was that. When the bore, the soil was tested for stability on the slope. And the reason I asked that is that we all, we are aware that tree roots provide a lot of the stability. That we have in steep slopes. And so I just wanted to understand. When that was done in relation to the tree removal. And now the roots, of course. Are still viable. But as time goes on, they will become. They will rot and they will decrease the stability of that slope. And so I'm certainly, I certainly hope that that has all been factored in because I want it to be safe for whoever. Lives in this house. And for the. Butters that could be impacted also. Thank you. Thank you. So may just also make another comment that. Those are concerns that we would address in the permitting stage of the actual development. We're here very narrow focus is on whether or not a variance to a height of up to 60 feet. Is appropriate. Whether or not the actual structure is permitted or approved. Or would be permanent approved. And so I'm just going to make sure the concerns and steep slows and the erosion. And stability. Y'all something that we'd have to work out in actually harmony construction. It's simply the narrow question whether the height. And I understand that design is for illustrative purposes. Yes. Absolutely. I don't want to call it a cartoon, but it's. It's conceptual. It's conceptual. Thank you. So we have one more. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And you want to speak. Yes. Thank you for taking the time. I'm also 33 North Ave. Number nine. My view would be unaffected by this change. I agree with my neighbors and I am, you know, I think it is an important. Moment to consider why the board changed the rules in the first place and why they would give an exception at this particular point. Even recognizing that Mr. Trombly feels misled in this process initially. I agree with this. You know, I think they don't change the rules. I agree. Other variations. So, yeah, I may. I noted this in the staff report, but it sounds like I need to say it again. The method for measuring the hire you have this. The application I was denied. Did not change. It was an application for a house. Is that applicable? The denial. I wasn't ready to create that. I have a certain. Things that I thought we could. The rules that were in place at that time. The completed applications and change or you're saying. But for that, the change would not have. The amendment that's getting all that air time tonight. I did a couple of things about changing the measurement. One of the things that changed was. So. Other things this amendment did was it pushed 10 foot. So. From sidewalk occur, whatever the case, maybe. To an including 10 pushback to. The application that was denied had a 10 foot setback. It was measured from just the front. Amendment did not affect it. There was a prior amendment. Years before Mr. Conley bought the property. And actually a limited. There was this provision. Which frankly was aimed at what's now Cambrian rise. But it's not. It's not. What a friend. It's a residential. To 60 feet. I went away. I went away. I mean, Mr. Conley is. An adversarial process. I'm sorry for that. But I'm pretty good at what I do. I don't. The high methodology didn't change this application. I would disagree. I've got the verbiage right in front of me here. And I'm not sure how you would interpret one to be the same as the other. So. I know you. I would. You go. I'm not sure I fully understand your. Scott. I'm going to. Why you think the. I believe it didn't change. In the. In the application to the home. It was denied. It had a 10 foot setback. Probably. 10 feet. You measure just the crime. And the vehicle reds. And under the new reds. Didn't change. If his house was proposed, let's say 30 feet back. Then yes, it would have changed. Right. Because the 10 foot just front. Home. Proposes. 10 feet. Right. The old regulations that measure just the front of 10 feet. And regulations push that thing. They say measure. Height of the building at 50 feet. From the property line. The difference was under the older eggs. Within 10 feet of the front property line. Right. And again, She has measured the front facade. And. The amendment. That was. All the way back to. Just. So it has to be 55. Let's say. Before you measure around the entire. I'm saying. The old regulations. The only thing that changed was this one. And what was the basis for the denial. That was the only issue. So you're saying that the fact that it nowhere mentioned the 50 foot. Or is all distance in the. Particle five. Right. The only thing that changed was this one. And what was the basis for the denial. That later application. It was the high. Right. So it's. Or is all distance in the. Particle five that was existing when I started this process. Then it does now that that's not a change. All right. Let me, let me just read something. Yeah. Let's do this. Please read up to those last. When it changed. And then we're going to close the public. Sidewalk is a city of four and a half of the city of four. When can I close the public space? When I started this process. Starting point of the building height. Shall we measured from. The one as God is referencing is there's an A and a B. A public side. Sidewalk Alley or other public way. Where it is within a 10 foot horizontal distance of an exterior wall on the front of the building. Or. all exterior walls of the building. In cases where a property line is within a 10 foot horizontal distance of an exterior wall, the average grade shall be measured between the property lines. Honestly, Scott's referencing the 10 feet from the front of my property line, but it's actually more like 20 feet to the edge of the road, which is how I would interpret that first one is not a property line. That's the public way, which is the street. The new one, the A version shall be measured from a public sidewalk alley or other public way or space where the proposed building street face facade is within a 50 foot horizontal distance of the lots street frontage. There was no mention of 50 foot in the first one anywhere. B, the average finished grade within a 10 foot horizontal distance of the building street facing facade, where the proposed building is more than 50 feet horizontal distance from lots street frontage. So both of the new ones add this 50 foot provision in there. It was in neither of them before. And it was an or, A or B. So B in the originals allowed me to do that. And frankly, anything that had to do with measuring this height, it wasn't brought to my attention. I don't know how you say that was not part of what should have been a discussion from the beginning. That's what I trusted that was happening was that I was being given all of the information so that I could make the appropriate decisions, which would have had that application completed well before the new stuff was published. Well, I appreciate your read. That's helpful. Thank you. I'm going to close the public hearing item on this agenda. Let's back the board. We try to do that and get a decision out quickly. We know it's important. We know one way or the other is important for you to look forward. Right. And frankly, I'd rather have you take a little extra time. It's been a year since we started this process. So I had to wait a little extra. I'd rather you folks have the time to deliberate as needed then. I appreciate it. So thank you. And public hearing is closed on this. Move on to the next agenda. All right. Thank you. It takes a lot. So question. Are we doing right away? You are here for. That's not next. Oh, I thought it was. It is. Yeah. Yeah. 75 Cherry Street is next. Yes. Okay. I thought I was reading the agenda correctly. I pulled it off the web just today, just to make sure. Okay. This is just for the public. Our law firm represented a prior on this property. We have no involvement or ownership at this time. And I don't think our terms prior involvement would influence how I consider this. And I assert myself an objective decision maker and would like no issue. And my firm is previously involved with the prior land. Yeah. They have that city. And I do know Mr. Farrenton from around the way, but I have made objective decisions on this and I'm going to start this. My ability to make a general decision here. Right. Okay. So maybe sit briefly, take us through what you're doing. Yeah. If I can share a screen, it might be actually a little quicker because I can control where we go. And I don't want to go through every, we can go through this pretty quickly. Let's see if I just kind of stretch this out and get the button back. Clean up. Yeah. Review is very limited here. And the reason it's reported is because changes are within the discretionary height. That helps. Okay. It's pretty sure. And it's limited because the city puts it in. And it's limiting because of the district. Most of it is checklist reviews. Got it. So you don't wander off the path. We won't wander. I won't wander either. No, nobody wants to wander. I don't have the ability to do that yet, but as soon as you let me in, I will do that. So I am muted without video and able to share. So and apologies for Lucy's prior comments, but don't let it reflect on the applicant. So yeah, I did not intend to bring her here, but a previous meeting ran late. There we go. So very briefly, the project is adding, is basically changing the use of what was formerly a mechanical penthouse at the top of the building. There we go. And I should have been more patient. That's all. As you know, it's under construction. What you're seeing here is a before and after. This is the original application level nine was a restaurant. Level 10 was a mechanical penthouse. We switched to an all electric mechanical system where most of the mechanical needs for the residential units is contained within the residence itself. So there is no need for a mechanical penthouse. As people are probably well aware, restaurants are closing because they can't get staffed, not an attractive space to lease. So to help with financing the project and getting this built, we changed levels nine and 10 to residential uses. So this linear balcony that kind of differentiates these upper level units from the lower level units was added. And it's approximately where this line was previously. And so it's basically one extra level of the primary mass of the building. And then there's a step back. And at the area where we previously had the mechanical penthouse, those are upper levels of two story condos. So it is basically a change of use and the height change is a good comparison further into this presentation. But this is basically summarizing what's going on. So the actual height of the building, if I move my little window off the screen, is lower than it was previously. This is my computer that's not letting me move this, but so really that's what we're here for is this added height and the change of a mechanical penthouse to an occupied level. May I correct? The height, the total height is less. Correct. The zoning height is taller. The measurement height is different because now we're measuring measuring to occupied floor and not mechanical. Not mechanical. If I'm looking at it, you know, actually technically lower than 40, it's 40 lower. 50 feet lower than the 2017. But it was counting. I've done a lot of these reports. It's the visual. Can you go back to the visual? Is it just that it looks higher because there's no longer a step back in this last two. There was a step back that was essentially two floors high. There's now a step back. There were, yeah, there were basically two step backs. There was a step back in front of the restaurant and there was a step back to the mechanical penthouse. We needed to do the step back for the mechanical penthouse to count as a mechanical penthouse and not be subject to the high rules. Mary, doesn't the form-based code require some of those setbacks? The setbacks, yes, are required and they are in the right optional places. I shouldn't say optional. There is a range where they are required and it does meet those. Well, I've lost it in the restaurant, but I understand it. Any other questions from the board? Any members of the audience here to speak on this one? No. Okay, we do have someone on Zoom. Sorry, you can speak. I'm Sharon Buscher here as a hand up. If anyone else on Zoom wants to speak this item, raise your hand. Sharon, you can speak. Hi, and I understand the parameters of this. I just wanted to speak to the fact that I feel that I understand the need for, well, what motivated the change in use. I feel that a high-end restaurant on top of a building that has a wonderful view is very different beast than some of the restaurants that are street level. I think that's maybe going to be a misstep. I'm not sure why the observation, the public observation component, was eliminated. First of all, in Moran, there was going to be that opportunity with the ice wall and it was going to be an observation area public, open to the public, and then in this structure, there was going to be public space. I know that that's an amenity, and I realize it's being swapped for an essential, which is restrooms at the street level, which are certainly needed. I feel that there's a big loss to the public. I'm mentioning this at the DRB because I feel someone should be watchdogging all of this, and I'm terribly disappointed in how some of that space wasn't retained for public access, and I needed to state that. Thank you. Can I say something? Yes, hey, Sharon. This is Dave Farrington. We still do have the public assembly space inside the South Building. There's a bunch of meeting rooms there, really flexible rooms with catering kitchens and all that stuff. We were just getting a lot of heat from insurance review people about having just a public observation space, and it was going to cause us to have to almost cage it in so somebody couldn't try to fly. We'd be back here again looking for some sort of change and they probably wouldn't like what we'd have to do to create public space up under roof. I understand. Thank you. As far as the restaurant goes, we're looking at probably close to $5 million in expenses, and after talking to about 30 different restaurant people who say how much you have to charge for that space, and it's two or three times what they're paying now for rents down at street level, and they're barely making it as it is. It was an automatic lose-lose situation. Yeah, I just, the public access, and I thank you for addressing my concerns, and I appreciate the liability. I still think it's a loss for the public, but thank you. Thank you, Sharon. Scott, anybody else on Zoom? Nobody else. Okay, with that, we'll close a couple of drinks. We'll be right along. Can you? Thanks. On the giant page, that's our star manager. They're awesome reviews, they're worth reading. It's that role. I mean, Kistar and Mark, that's fun. Next slide, please. We do. Sandy, do you guys, does anyone need to be panelists to share screen or are you guys okay? Yes, if we could get access to share our presentation. Karen sent off from BHB. So Karen should be made panelists. Yes. Thanks. And Josh Katz is on the phone. Does Josh need to display too or no? No. So I have Sandy, Josh, Karen, does anyone else need to speak for presentation? Nope. I think just me on this one. All right. Is there anyone from the public? There is. Do you want to square everyone in collectively? Yeah. Okay, so if you want to speak to this item, raise your hand, please, and I'll enable you to speak for swearing in. Awesome. If you are testifying on this item, please raise your right hand and swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth under the ANA panel. Let's meet up for a jury. I do. I do. I have to make a discussion. Do you're being sworn in as well? No. Our firm occasionally represents UBM and UMMC. I don't think it's related to land use and permitting parking issues. I don't think that work is very occasional for the new ruling objectively on this request, but I suppose I can see if there are any concerns. Okay. Over to you, Karen, if you want to start and walk us through this. Okay. Actually, if I can just do a quick intro. Okay. Yeah. So my name is Sandy Tebow. I'm Executive Director at Katma, the Chittenden Area Transportation Management Association, and joining me tonight is Josh Katz, Katma's analyst who's been leading this five-year joint institution parking management plan project along with our consultant, Karen, sent off at VHB who will lead the presentation. And I did just want to thank the city planning staff and the planning commission and the public for their input and feedback on this report and all and our annual updates. You know, we've continued to work on improving the content of the plan with the feedback we've received. It continues to evolve and particularly over the past few years, this particular five-year update is reflective of the city's amendment to Article A, eliminating the minimum parking requirements, which both Scott and the planning commission described in their memos. So we have submitted the plan itself and I just also wanted to note that there is a supplement with this plan that basically includes the data pieces that are mentioned in the plan. So just want to thank everyone for their questions, their input and comments to continue to improve this document to serve the best purpose that it is supposed to do. So with that, I will turn it over to Karen. Thank you. Thank you everyone and I'm just going to take a moment hopefully to share the correct screen here. Hopefully you all are now seeing a set of presentation slides and I'm going to try to get your faces back here on my other screen so I can actually see what's happening in the room. All right. I really appreciate your time this evening here to talk about the 2023 to 2028 Joint Institutional Parking Management Plan and as Sandy said, this has been in development certainly under our purview here with a lot of support and guidance from a multitude of folks but has been an evolving plan over the course of its existence and so can appreciate coming into this process and sort of building on the shoulders of many others and jumping into this. So really the process that we're in today, we're here in this sort of third box that you see on the screen where we're presenting to the Development Review Board and have gone through two rounds of talking with the Planning Commission on this and discussing the details and you all have seen the recommendations from the Planning Commission regarding both the plan and its supplement and we really wanted to highlight this evening some of those key discussion points, places where maybe there was some additional detail that we would provide and hopefully have a discussion around that this evening to clarify a few of those points. With the development of this, we aimed as Sandy said, both to be responsive to the changes in ordinance so sort of a shifting and evolving beast here and also address the DRB approval of the 2020-2022 GIP, so that was a two-year GIP, really in those findings from 2022 it indicates the intent of this to be a five-year plan and have a five-year approval timeline. That's also consistent with the recommendations that you see in the memo from the Planning Commission and with the ordinance, the Article 8 ordinance. A few key areas of discussion that were highlighted in that memo that we wanted to bring forward and speak to this evening as we present some of the high-level information coming out of the plan here. The peak parking demand margin of error want to address that piece of this and how we both are looking at it in this plan and in this iteration, but also how we're planning to step forward and hopefully mitigate any issues around that in plan updates, annual updates and future plan updates. The future parking projected deficit for Champlain College in particular, speaking to that and I think that is closely related to the peak parking demand calculations that we want to speak to this evening. Then the TDM strategy efficacy, really speaking to how effective are these TDM strategies that are being put into place by the institutions. I think we have a lot of opportunity in terms of with the TDM planning effort at the city level and all of the efforts at the institutional level and collaboratively across the institutions. I think we have a lot of opportunity to gain better understanding around the effectiveness of these strategies. We'll highlight a few of the things we can point to today, but also our plans in stepping forward and addressing that into the future. Then event parking management, certainly the key concern around UVM and their events and the way they're managing parking around those events. We'll address that piece with some more detail here. We took two methods to calculate the current demand and really we're viewing this as the opportunity to provide two bookends of what we believe to be happening at those peak parking times on each individual campus and across the footprint of the institutions. One of the methods that we have implemented here and started back in 2019 is the approach in which we're actually doing standardized lot counts across the institutions across their parking capacity. Each institution is conducting those quarterly counts. They do the same dates and same targeted peak times and that way it's consistent across every institution. That data really is informing our utilization trends and gives us that ground truth number to go by in terms of what's happening in the current condition. We'll continue to occur on a quarterly basis and inform those annual updates to the plan. The other method was to lean on the survey that Katma conducts every fall with their membership and so in this case for this plan process we leaned on the survey that was conducted in October of 2022 and we have weighted that survey data to represent the populations across each of those institutions and one of the key things that I highlight here with the stars you see on the screen there are around both the solicitation and responses from UVM in particular and that's really what's feeding into those larger margins of error than we've had in previous iterations of the Joint Institutional Parking Management Plan that we had changed the approach in solicitating responses from UVM based on some changes to their sort of approach for survey methods on campus and as a result just had fewer responses to lean on for informing both that current demand measure and then informing the future demand measurement and with that you know we have implemented this new approach of also conducting those lot counts and having that information to feed into this so although we're sort of limited in the response that we got from the survey method this time around you know there is that other data to lean on that other book and to lean on in terms of understanding what's happening in particular on the UVM campus let's go around. The other thing to note here is that CATMA has been working in close partnership with UVM to figure out you know what is the next step what is an improved approach for the annual survey that they produce but also sort of stepping forward and making sure that those survey methods are in place and we're not running up against this sort of larger margin of error than we're accustomed to seeing for this process. So Karen I don't want to move you ahead but you know the DRB is seeing a number of these over the course of time. Yep and I wanted to try to focus our conversation on a few of the issues raised. Sure. And you've seen the staff report right. Indeed. So one of the things that concerns me is the imbalance projected in Champlain College between peak demand and spaces available. How does the joint institutional parking management plan address reducing demand? It's a great question. So when we calculated those demand projections we're basically taking that assumption that what's happening on the ground today is consistent with what we anticipate in terms of sort of that modal split will be happening on the ground in five years with the full understanding that we're sort of missing the effectiveness of those TDM measures that are going to come into play in that five-year time period. A couple of the ones that you know I can point to immediately and we can speak to now and we do have some data to support if we were to apply a quote unquote TDM credit to you know Champlain College's you know demand future demand is the electric assist bike share system. So that is one component that you know we we don't have a bike share system on the ground today. Katma is working working like mad to get that system in place with in partnership with the institutions with the city and you know that is that is an opportunity to reduce demand for parking on campus by enabling a system like that and so I think there are some examples of how we can implement those you know other TDM strategies but we have not in in this case with the data that we've presented taken any credit for those TDM strategies that will continue to be effective and you know above and beyond what what they're able to do in terms of mode split today. Yeah I can jump in here this is Josh from Katma Program Analyst working with Karen and Sandy on this project. Yes that demand number shows that Champlain College has a negative number of spaces but we also have been conducting quarterly lockdowns since 2019 which give us I think a better picture of what is actually happening on the ground and although our survey data and this demand analysis is saying is giving us the higher end of what the demand to possibly be we have these utilization in lockdowns that are showing that Champlain College has a plethora of parking spaces on the ground right now during those peak times. Yeah I think in general one of the goals of these parking management plans should be to reduce the need for parking through transportation and management programs as opposed to make sure we have enough spaces to accommodate continued car usage at the same level it's being used today. I know that was a planning commission concern just take a minute and walk us through the overall demand management that's incorporated into this plan a little bit more than you already have. Can I follow that up by asking I think both the staff report and the planning commission notes indicate we need more information on this and I'm interested to know what data you're tracking with respect to participation and the transportation demand management strategies we're using and how you propose as part of this plan to track those important pieces of data going forward so that you can show your measures are being more and more successful over time. So I will let Josh jump in at any juncture on this but you know I think there are and maybe I should skip ahead because we do have a slide that speaks to some of these collective TDM strategies so you know the strategies that are in place today but I think more importantly sort of thinking about the efficacy of these and how we are planning for you know monitoring tracking those into the future so we could certainly like I sort of spoke to already we could lean on how these have been researched in the past or in other places and apply those and sort of take some credit for those TDM measures when we're doing those calculations out into the future. So two examples here for car share, car share Vermont puts out a factor basically saying that for every pod that they add every vehicle that they add it's it's reducing 15 vehicles from the system with the electric assist bike share system which we know you know we're hopeful that that's coming online very soon certainly we'll serve the institutions in a similar fashion or a more robust fashion than it has in the past in previous iterations and if we look to other places you know we're talking about 10% reduction in single occupancy vehicles certainly going to have an effect on our our parking demand across the institutions. The other thing the other the other conversations that have been happening in the background as as we have developed this plan and and those conversations continue is really improving the use data that we're getting through partnership with folks that are providing you know those those resources so green mountain transit but a ridership data improved ridership data from from those folks with car share Vermont their usage data drilling in and you know getting more information about the membership from the institutions that are utilizing those vehicles and making trips by those vehicles as opposed to parking on campus. Other other strategies for for sort of monitoring in the future is you know Katma is working closely with UVM on updating the survey instrument so that there are some more targeted questions that really drill into the effectiveness of these strategies they they do a great job thus far with with the survey instrument they have but making sure that those improvements are in place so when they conduct the survey in the fall and and continue to do that on an annual basis that that information is readily available to us on the back end to be able to track and monitor institutionally how effective some of those strategies are. And then and then the one other thing to point to is you know Burlington has is is kicking off or has kicked off I'm not 100% sure what this what the status is of that project at the moment a TDM study looking at transportation options and I think that's really going to provide some great context for us in terms of you know at at within the city and within our context what what is sort of effective in terms of TDM and the strategies that are in place and and how can we improve upon that. Yeah and just to add on to Kara I would say specifically thank you for that Karen I would say we will on Green Mountain Transit because it has been free we haven't been able to get the same level of data from our programming there and that we've gotten in the past in terms of exact ridership so when fairs resume on in 2024 we'll get improved data similar to what we got in the past so we can track who is using the bus and how many folks are using the bus from those programs and also lecture by chair system which you helped on the ground this this summer hope to have some news for folks soon on we'll get improved data from that as well and always continuing to lean on our survey modes with data which we do every year which shows us what how folks are getting to work. This is Sandy here thank you just a few more points to add on the TDM measures there is a regional microtransit study here in Chittenden County that the regional planning commission is embarking on microtransit is a sort of an up-and-coming transportation demand management measure it's a on-demand shuttle that has been operating in Montpelier and Barrie successfully so I'm optimistic that this microtransit option will be implemented here in Chittenden County in the next year or so and I also think there's new parking rides coming on coming out on the ground the Williston one I think there's another one planned for Colchester so if we can have transit serving these parking rides that's another TDM measure that I think we'll be seeing become more active and in addition to the city of Burlington's TDM study the regional planning commission is conducting a TDM study as a result of the I-89-2050 study so I think there's a lot of activities and initiatives related to TDM that are coming on board and will be updating all of these measures and our annual updates you know we'll be collecting transit data when as Josh and Karen mentioned when the new fare boxes are installed so we'll have that data which I think collectively with UVM and Champlain is about pre-pandemic was about 300,000 trips there's off-site parking and shuttles so there's a number of TDM measures that we can better highlight and provide data and the next annual update. Sam, do we have anybody from the institutions on Zoom? Thank you all for that summary that's really helpful. One of the things I'd really like to see I know you are doing a lot of work in this area but in terms of this report and the annual reports being useful to us for tracking whether you're really meeting the requirements of the ordinance I think we need to see from you all a proposed matrix of measures that you are proposing to track each year in the transportation demand area and I think that should include data on the number of people that are participating in each program the amount of resources each organization is dedicating to each program and the reduction in demand that is anticipated from that level of participation we're not going to start to make meaningful progress until we track and report specific data points so we can look back and see if you're measured accessible and I see that you've done some summaries of that so you have some information on percentages of people participating in summaries or the numbers of people participating in car share for example but I'd like to see something that looks like a chart where it's got metrics we can understand how they relate to what you're attempting to achieve in terms of transportation demand management and then each year we can see if you're being successful or not and we can have a good conversation as a group about what you might do to be more successful yeah so I'll hear that I feel to be blunt like I'm being told a lot of stuff it doesn't have any empirical data behind it a and b anyway for me to confirm it next year or in three years when this comes up again um I see the numbers on the ground anecdotally it doesn't seem to match the numbers and you know well all the TDM strategies theoretically beneficial but I think all of us feel like we have this informational deficit that says more of these actually working and I'll just tell you how I feel I'd like to before I take action on this see that what Jeff just talked about didn't really click in my head to the set it see sort of that okay how are we going to track these demand management strategies what's specific and they're really going to be and how are we going to track them because you know I'll be honest I'm not ready to approve this until we see that because I think if we're going to shift towards demand management planning commission indicated we should focus on and I agree with Ben why don't we track that I mean we've had other people come in and provide noise tracking those things and we understand that this is something I don't think we have a good metric for it I think to build on that idea you know we were talking about the projected utilization of the parking spaces and and you've admitted that's without the TDM so it's like what is our assumption with the TDM included so then we're also measuring are we meeting our expectations for all all of those elements coming together to actually achieve the production in demand and utilization coming through in the survey and in in the parking lot studies because I think that's part of the gap to and and comma if if all of that works out that we don't need as much parking that let's not build it right like that's the other aspect to us well there's also the aspect where I saw one you know about event management what are some of your ideas around that you have sudden influxes of people sporting events graduations what are the ideas there right what are the ideas for transportation event management so I guess where I'm out on this is I would ask that we continue this and get a proposal for tracking demand management that we could consider any corporate interest yeah I'd like to see that I mean I you all have done a lot of work on this yeah I really appreciate the report and I think it goes a long ways towards addressing the questions we have the last time we saw a proposal absolutely but it also we're shifting how we're approaching this so the ordinance has changed we now have a maximum not minimum parking there's a greater emphasis on TDM part because of that but in part because of greater climate goals so I think we need to start to put as much time into the data tracking on the TDM side as you all are clearly putting into tracking each individual parking space right we've gotten good at that because that's what it was focused on for many years I think what we're asking you is is to try to get as good on the TDM side at tracking and reporting useful metrics to us as you have on parking side right so do members of the board know I do though yes um forgive me and see um I believe many nurses for the hospital they park offsite and are shuttled to site yes um is that there any plans on changing that in the future um changing it um uh can you clarify uh I don't know adding more spaces or finding other other options other other other parking lots um uh do you proceed shoveling back to family Allen for the foreseeable future I would say within the five-year timeline of this plan we did not receive any indication that there was going to be a significant change to that satellite parking and and shuttling service that's provided right now for the UVM Medical Center all right thank you who is you are you okay I'm Nick Anderson I I saw what I've swam in okay I did go ahead and Nick Anderson director of planning at Champlain College was the director of transportation for many years now oversee it still um I just wanted to highlight to the board um one kind of important evolution that this joint institutional parking management plan has had um having participated in many of them at this point um is that we we got to a point where there was too much information in the plan and it needed to be pared down so previous years we had bus ridership data for every single trip of every single student employee we had our shuttle ridership data 175,000 students using our shuttle back and forth um you know it is easy enough for us to track all those things because we already have that data um but we're actually asked in the previous versions of the plan to get rid of all of that information and focus on parking lots right so you know I think it is a direct uh this plan is a direct reference to how you know it has evolved over time and I'm hearing pretty loudly Jeff and Ava that we want to go back to you know flicking those different pieces on the TDM measures right because those are the important TDM measures um and we do I'm not saying we need like a detailed appendix with every rider we can do that I'm sure what I'm saying is I would like to see a one or two-page matrix that says here are the important metrics with respect to TDM we're going to track each year right here are the numbers for this year year two year three we can see trends we can see whether whether what you're saying is being effective yeah I guess I'm what I'm saying is we don't have to start from scratch today those trends already kind of go back in previous gypses for the last 10 years yeah so we'll be able to kind of pick it up where it left off and that may be helpful historically but what we care about now is how is it working well continue to see it grow I think that's what we want and then the one thing sorry Karen just jumping is that there's one kind of I think really important metric that isn't showing here is the boom of e-bikes um e-bikes really are changing the game when it comes to being able to choose a different mode than a car and we're seeing that at Champlain I'm seeing faculty members and students that I have never heard of riding a bike in the 10 years I've been there are oh yeah I can get to work on an e-bike now because it's easy and I wonder you know is that while it's not a program or tool I see that that is going to be a key differentiator in the next five years of how we move and I think some way of tracking that and and maybe that leads to that kind of five-year demand not counting any of these TDM measures that I think of the TDM measure that's going to see substantial growth as we go which is why I think it's both things it's like individual elements of the TDM grade but then it's how are we tracking overall against not just looking at the detail but painting that against the overall picture here is that we're reducing demand for parking and so we need that to be one of the KPIs too if we think all else equal we're going to be here and we can judge you as successful if you're below that number yeah something like the e-bike like if you got a program they contributes x amount to employees purchase that bike I'd love to see how many employees are taking advantage of that what the cost how much Champlain is contributing there but we also need them to use it instead of a car we do so there's a different metric that I agree I think it's being thoughtful about the metrics that will help you all and us understand if the measures you're putting in place are successful or are you going to need the correct whole work sandy sorry so with that uh i'll make a motion i'll make a motion that we can continue yes sorry interrupting a couple folks online have their hands up believe me public um this is sandy um I just wanted to sort of echo what um next set about if you let me hold on a second um so not just the yeah we have Sharon Bush wants to speak who else uh anyone else from the public wants to speak to this raise your hand now or forever with your piece still next to members so we can continue yeah we can see Erin's the only one with their hand up let's hear from Sharon okay now we have Jamie Smith all right uh excuse me Sharon you're up thank you um I'm supportive of the recommendation that is going to be made by the DRB um what I had wanted to state well first of all I used to work at the hospital um and the when you're talking about nursing evening and night staff were able to park on site it's the day staff that has to park on satellite parking so just so you know so that's a difference in that facility versus other the other institutions um but I wanted to just talk about the fact that um I agree with you that there's no way the margin of error was so broad um that it it's sort of invalidated the predictability of the plan before you um there was no way to figure out if indeed it would reduce the number of cars coming into the city and these are the these are the um the graphs that you're looking for now there's no way to tell from this this plan uh whether or not it takes pressure off parking in neighborhood streets and it also didn't talk about as you said um whether or not their TDM plan which they've already highlighted needs some help um was effective one thing that could be monitored is single occupancy vehicles that percentage has remained stagnant for a while and so that's something that could be tracked to see about the effectiveness of any TDM measure you put in place um and let me just say one other thing um some of the information is confusing in the plan because it talks about the lofts as being um off-campus housing yet it's on campus and the parking lots are on UVM campus so there there's some accountability there's some flaws in this plan that really need to be addressed um and I totally agree that um I I don't feel that there is a lot of confidence in whether or not the measures that UVM and the hospital and Champlain are taking will be effective ultimately it would be good to know if they were going to consider policies at these institutions that would reduce the number of cars coming to their campuses period um and so I think that's another measure that the gentleman from Champlain spoke about maybe there would be less vehicles and more e-bikes in the future which would help with all the congestion and all the parking lots so thank you very much I look forward to seeing what kind of um graph gets developed and how the DRB will review that I believe you're reviewing that now on an annual basis not a report but you're going to be looking at this information annually and I think that's very valuable so thank you so much um somebody else yeah jimmy smith is the director jim well jimmy has a hand up can you hear me yep okay sorry had headphones in i'll spend something related to that uh just briefly um I just would like to note that I think one of the biggest drivers at and and full disclosure I've been on the job for about nine weeks now so I'm probably the other side of things from from my counterpart nick over at Champlain who has much longer history with all of this I think one of the biggest drivers in reducing parking demand and you know seeing lots that are not full which is reflected in the lot counts that we have um is telework telework is something that has really become a new phenomenon driven by the pandemic um you know since the last iteration of the gym and um I think that that's you know that's probably one of the biggest factors to reducing single occupancy vehicles and reducing parking demand on campuses so um you know I think that there's probably places where we can make that reporting more robust going forward that's it thank you um so with that I'm going to make a motion that we continue the review of joint institutional parking management plan review of proposed 2023 2028 plan and ask that the applicant bring forward a how would you describe it jeff patricks of tbm strategies and tracking suggestions okay uh any second for that motion jeff seconds all members of drb in favor thank you all right um we'll continue it until you submit it we look forward to it don't take this negatively we just it's a new focus on demand management as opposed to just how many parking spaces there are and so when you send us too much information and we tell you that you can blame jeff thank you all for your work on it so far thank you all right last item our agenda 655 spears tree university of ramon state agricultural college proposed construction of a parking lot following a demo brad yeah you guys now are is there a claire there now yes now i can hear you apologies your god just said you don't need this project is that right so filling in the space so please space no do we have that right we've earned a little background on the project do you want to make a thing to describe it um no if if adam or derrick filled you in they probably gave you the details but let me know if you have any questions uh we we're um so i think jeff had a question i was just asking about the need for this new parking lot and given the discussion we just had at the joint institutional management plan parking tell me a little bit more about how you analyze this amount which is pretty significant amount of new parking area is needed and and why here sure so in our campus plan we really try to put parking on the periphery of our main campus whenever possible um in order to make the area around main campus you know very pedestrian oriented so this parking lot the intent is to use it primarily for fleet vehicles so it will allow us an opportunity to consolidate and to streamline a lot of the fleet vehicles and the buses here um to really help us with that process um it also will free up some space around campus for some flexibility for possibly some future development such as housing so we're just looking at opportunities around you know properties that uvm already has right around main campus and this was a great site for us to to locate our fleet vehicles and also an opportunity to put in a lot of ev spaces and a lot of ev um infrastructure for this type of um this type of use so i think that's that's the main the main purpose um and jamie smith hopefully is still here as well he can chime in as director of transportation and parking services as well do you think you want to add jamie jamie is jamie promoted it's got jamie can speak can you hear me now yes um yeah uh you know i've being only nine weeks into the position obviously i've kind of come into this project midstream what i can say is that you know from an operational perspective i think there are a fair amount of advantages to moving a fleet that is currently scattered across campus to one centralized location it also potentially creates opportunities you know for shared use of vehicles um potential fleet reduction through shared use um and then of course you know the aforementioned electrification and you know installing an economy of scale with charging stations in one location for that purpose i guess two follow-up questions will go where will there be shuttle service to this lot from the main campus so as of right now it's not intended because what you described is the parking here is to pick up it's for the driver most most of them are driving and i believe we haven't come up with the policy but some will have the ability to keep their vehicles next to the clock in if first say they don't have transportation to get out there those are scarce apart between them okay but i mean this gets the exact issue we're just talking about what about the person who takes an alternative motor transportation to the university center and there is a bit needs to get a fleet vehicle so they don't want to drive their own vehicle to campus correct they biked they rode the bus they're on campus it seems like we're now just encouraging people to drive their single used vehicle to go get another vehicle so tell me about how you would manage that we are planning to put bike racks just on the lawn out there for parking of bikes but there is a bike path right there it's less than a mile from campus so we bikes at that point extra two three minutes to get down the road okay but there's not a need in your view for shuttle service to be the campus that's right now no because then we'd have to consolidate somewhere on campus the employees coming into work then bust them from that location to another turning there's something else you asked for a waiver of shade trees we have um i would really need to do a waiver of shade trees we can't have more shade trees i might interject here from the agenda where it describes uh 162 spaces in a revision that was reduced to 157 right so the staff report reflects that yeah the shade trees plus existing trees that were there met the standard the storm water plan here on the lower left of the screen is requiring the removal of four or five existing trees because of the outlet and the collection basis so in the original application it looked like it satisfied the tree shading plan the storm water plan required the loss of some existing trees and that's why their plan is a little short right so let me be short let me make a short we all focus on a lot of things i focus on the urban heat island element of that can we add a couple more trees sure yes it just takes up parking space that's we're on the edge or somewhere we i don't have the plan but we have the bottom where the shade when the sun's coming from the south we've sort of lined that and we actually lined the east but it doesn't do much to provide the shade um to the to the parking so it's primarily relying on the island so we'd have to i'm not asking you to lose parking but can we just since we're losing four on the edge can we find a space for a couple without producing parking or should i make you come back certainly play out their peripheries but i think they're saying is it may not attain the goal while you're losing something periphery perfectly put some back on the pick you're good i'm good it's good it's not me i'm a barbarian some of us forgot to be there this is the landscape plan here you can see that the trees are all organized around the periphery of the lot where they will create shade right they all cast shade in the upper right direction i don't know if you have l one point because we're south here right so yeah yeah it's facing pretty much worse do you have no one point one chance i don't know i'm sorry okay i'm not initiating plan yeah that's that way but yes we can ask by the subject yes yeah we did it but they didn't no no claire did you did you guys do a traffic demand did you look at the traffic uh changes on spear street at all no we did not we didn't we don't imagine it will be a very impactful for traffic a lot of the um a lot of the employees that would be using the fleet vehicles operate um pretty early so usually i think like seven a.m to three thirty so the they're not usually in the typical peak hour so we did look and and looking through state permitting we've reached out to the state um to chris clow and he has told us that the impact there we don't we don't require a traffic impact study for the for the state so we at least know that much um so just because of the hours we don't think we'll have much of an impact well if most of these vehicles are dotted about the canvas now they're all going to be here it's going to be a quite a bit of permanence and whatever a bit of coming you're going the slot are we thinking i would also know what would what would the minimum spaces for or triggering an impact so you'd be 75 normally 75 a traffic study is predicated on at least 75 new peak hour peak hour based on trips here that's usually p.m peak this probably doesn't trigger that because i just they're all running just to file on what claire said like do believe the state was reached out they knew that wasn't giving us new trips because they already generally exist within the area it's on the 111 side right not the active 50 side that's on the uh defi is that on the state that's on the state 111 permanent side yes that's on both sides so we looked at both the act 145 as well as um act 250 requirements these sleeping vehicles typically once out once in they're constantly going back before typically they'll go to their shops but what happened now is essentially the vehicles are out their shops and then the personal vehicles are parked next to it so generally twice the number of vehicles but now it'll be just the one that'll be at their shop and then at the end of the day to go drop off their keys clock out in theory they shouldn't be out there right just understand what you pivot this to the joint parking management plan is there any issue with us approving this for joint management parking plans approved so this is under the prior management plan that's the short and tidy answer because the previous plan is still in place the previous plan has been fired at this point but this application that we did what I was still active I guess um any more questions from the board like to close this talk about it all right well without a close of public hearing on this and I suspect we'll deliberate briefly on this one tonight and we have other business tonight no yeah that's better all right that wraps up our public hearing so thanks everybody thank you I assume we want to stick around and deliberate board members on zp-23-30 which is 120 Evo Street I move that we deny requests for variance understanding there's a lot of history here but based just on the language of the ordinance at a minimum it was not either the requirement or the need there was no possibility that the property can be developed in a straight forward way to do with this a second another discussion all those in favor all right sorry I was wrong like that six zero seventy five we'll be approved the application how's that going to adopt steps okay one seconds all those in favor I don't know this leaves out so that's everybody five zero Brad yes yeah I move that we continue all review the application and ask that the applicant supplement its materials for further review with a brief summary of their trip generation and how they get to the analysis there's just not more than 75 peak trips and a better understanding of how this parking lot fits into the new joint parking management plan currently under consideration all right let's get seconds all those in favor that we are