 This is the December 19th. I'm going to have Chris read the hybrid meeting or Jennifer and Carmina. All right. Thank you. The meeting of the Essex Junction Development Review Board will now come to order. This meeting is a hybrid meeting held both at Two Lincoln Street and on Zoom because there are many technical difficulties or reasons that otherwise prevent or interrupt remote public participation. It is important to note that the open meeting law only ensures that the public's right to participate and comment at a public meeting by attending at the designated physical location as posted in the notice and agenda. If a member of the public or of the public body has technical difficulties accessing this meeting remotely, please alert us by using the chat feature on Zoom or by emailing cun at sxjunction.org. And in the event of a technical difficulty that cannot be resolved, we may continue the meeting if necessary to January 18th, 2024, at 6.30 p.m. at Two Lincoln Street Essex Junction. Please note that all votes taken during this meeting that are not unanimous will be done by roll call vote in accordance with the law. Oh, sorry. As required by the open meeting law, let's start the meeting by taking roll call attendance of all members participating in the meeting and those members attending remotely identify themselves to ensure that they can hear and be heard throughout the meeting, if necessary, I guess. Yes, it is necessary because Robert's is online. All right. Robert's online. Anyone else online? Do we have a four or five tonight? It appears that we have four. Is Dylan around? I don't, there is no Dylan on Zoom. All right. Works better though. Robert, let's just make sure your sound is working. Can you just indicate that you're here? Rob is here. Excellent. Nice. Okay, so are there any additions or amendments to the agenda tonight, Chris or Jennifer? I don't think we have any changes. No. Item two, public to be heard. This is for members of the audience or online that I want to speak to an item that is not on the agenda tonight. Is there anybody wishing to speak tonight? Hearing none, we'll move on to minutes. So we had two sets of minutes. I had no objections to any of the minutes and I had a motion to approve the last two sets of minutes and just so everybody knows there was no actual business conducted at the last two meetings because the item that was supposed to be heard was a table. So does anybody have any comments? Oh, I need a motion. Motion to approve the October and November meeting minutes. Thank you, Maggie. Second. Awesome. Any discussion? All in favor of approving the minutes as issued? Aye. Since there's only four, they carry unanimously. Thank you. Public hearing number one, administrative appeal. Appeal of administrative officers notice a violation at 8 Taft Street in the R-1 District by Jason Struthers owner. I'm not sure exactly what the format for this is, but I guess what I should really do is swear in anybody who wants to speak tonight about any of the topics. So anybody who wants to speak, raise your right hand and answer I do after I read this. I hereby swear that the evidence I give in the cause under consideration shall be the whole truth and nothing but the truth under the pains and penalties of perjury. I do. Thank you. And online, how does that work, Chris? Do they just they're sworn in? They have. They have. That's good. Moving on. So we have an appeal. There's a staff report. Does somebody make a presentation like a regular application? Do you want to walk people through this, Chris, or does the appellant make a statement or how does this go? So I mean, I can give a little bit of introduction as to what this appeal is about. So at the September 21 development review board hearing on the administrative officer's zoning enforcement decision at 8th Taft Street, the DRB concluded that the city may enforce its land development code against Mr. Struthers with regards to his farming activities specifically raising ducks. So this decision is is memorialized in the findings of facts and decision that was signed by the development review board members on October 6th. So staff had noticed that's that's the residents at 8th Taft Street. Jason Struthers has continued to raise ducks on the property since the decision, despite receiving a letter from the assistant zoning administrator requesting compliance, which was dated November 6th, 2023. So on November 20, the administrative officer, who is me, Christopher Ewan, issued Mr. Struthers an official notice of violation pursuant to 24 VSA 4451. This notice of violation enables the city to initiate enforcement efforts against Mr. Struthers with fines of up to $200 per day if the violation continues. I will note that the timing and decisions regarding the city's pursuits of actual enforcement and fines is something that is decided by the city council in conjunction with the city manager. So over here where the job of the development review board is just to interpret the law. So yeah, that's where we are today. This is this is an appeal of the notice of violation filed by Mr. Struthers attorney. So anything else? Any other background you need? No, I had four or five comments and questions myself, but should I just go ahead with those? Yeah, I think that makes sense. One violation of appears to be still in, you know, we're still in violation. We were in violation before the state showed up to say, you know, we think you might have a farm. We were in violation. After that, we've issued our findings at our last meeting and that's been appealed. So I'm wondering how the appeal process mentioned in the in this where it's going already something is pending before the superior court environmental division and and the noticier indicates that that kind of supersedes whatever we're doing. So I'm just wondering how that really plays out. So that's correct. There is there are appeals from both parties right now. Mr. Struthers has appealed the city's decision to the environmental court and Mr. Padnos has done that as well for on the opposing side. We've got I think the Mr. Struthers has his attorneys on online right now. If you'd like to hear from any of them, they are available. Well, I guess my point is if it's true that whatever the outcome is dependent on the courts, because I've you know, we have a part to play in this, but we're only a stepping stone, I would be tempted to allow the courts to make their ruling before we change our minds. But my I don't see any new evidence in in case for us, I feel like our role is to continue to say we told you we thought the first time and we still feel that way. So that's that's how I find this the only I guess moderating thought I have is I think they bring up a good point about the ducks, which is you the the disposition of the ducks if we say, you know, if they actually comply with the with the violation notice and do something with the ducks seems kind of final and it'd be hard to come back from that. So I'm a little, you know, sensitive to that being a interesting plight for the ducks, that if we just wait till the environmental court makes their ruling, then we either have, you know, it's okay or it's not okay. So I'm a little swayed by that. But on the other hand, I don't find any reason to change my mind about our particular position at this point. So what is the rest of the board field? I feel like we should uphold our decision. Right. So that's the part we play and then whatever happens to the ducks, right? Yeah, I'm not sure I want all the ducks to disappear, except if they're going somewhere where they're okay, you know, like they could go on to and the other there was a factual, I think, misstatement in the document submitted, which says that there was no or that the agriculture was prohibited in all the zoning districts. And that's not actually true. It's allowed in the agricultural districts. So, you know, the fact that whole farming operation could exist somewhere else legally inside the city, just not in our one. So I just don't know how to make that correction, you know, it's not my testimony that this is the notice, but that's my testimony that that's how our zoning ordinance says. So anyway, so I'm in favor of upholding our position, all things. I don't sort of know what to do with the rest of it. All right. So do we I don't know that we need that there's no I don't know what testimony happened. I just I don't know who else we need to hear from. I'm not inclined to, you know, waste a lot of time on everybody's behalf if the if the city is going to uphold its previous decision, which I see no reason to overturn. I mean, I think I think this can be treated like other development review board items where they were members of the public who would like to make public comments, generally gets gets the time to do so. And what's our limit on speaking? Everybody gets at least two or three minutes, but so we can all get through this without being here all night. That's that's no filibusters. Can't repeat yourself, that kind of thing. All right. So those are the rules. I will open it to the members of the public that are here on the floor tonight. And then we'll go to the screen. Yes. Say your name for the record and come up to the chair. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Murphy, what can I do for you? I'm here representing the landowner, Mr. Struthers. And I think I agree with you that there's not much to be said tonight. We continue to disagree with the city on its interpretation of its ordinance. It is currently before the environmental court and the environmental court will make a decision on whether the city has that authority or not. And in the interim, I'm not sure if your council has shared with you the fact that there's actually that the that the city has entered into a stipulation that they would not file an enforcement complaint until the court made a decision or until March 15th if the court hasn't made a decision by that point. So I think tonight the only reason for this hearing is if the board wants to uphold the notice of violation, then we will appeal it to the environmental court and it'll be heard at the same time as the current appeal. But I don't think we need to waste any time on testimony. It's still a legal issue. The legal issue is does the town have the authority to regulate farming or not? And we're waiting, all waiting for the environmental court to make that determination. And as we said, we think that legally while it's pending before the environmental court that the city doesn't actually have jurisdiction, but we're certainly willing to let you go ahead uphold your notice of violation and then we'll appeal it and it'll all be back in the environmental court. Very good. Thank you. That clarifies a lot. All right, we're going to listen to a little testimony and then hopefully move on. Yeah, I'd like to first inform the group and show on that I am a farmer. I own a 110 acre property in Westford in addition to my ownership of a property on half stream. And I have a bit of experience with the Department of Agriculture. And I also have some experience with the environmental court. So I'll share with you what I think you need to do. I'm not convinced that the property itself has ever been determined by the Department of Agriculture to be an agricultural property. There are two rules are the things that he's doing qualify as agricultural activities. But before you can perform agricultural activities, you have to have a property that's designated as an agricultural property. In order to have that done, that determination is supposed to be made before the farming operation actually begins. And the process itself involves the town zoning people and it involves input from the people who are on in the proximity of the area. The agricultural regulations themselves are relatively complex. I'm not going to speak to all of them. But I would ask that this group that work with the Department of Agriculture take your questions into them and get their input which will be very valuable in taking this case forward if you have to go to the court. I have found in the past the Department of Agriculture does not flow out with information very readily. But I would make an effort to pin them down. The farm determinations that he has alluded to, I'm not sure that he has earned $2,000. If he has not, that's perjury because he had to certify that. In order to qualify as an agricultural operation, he has to on his tax forms include a 1,040 F income tax form which is a very, it's a separate thing from everything else. But in order to qualify as a farm, he has to pay taxes as a farmer would and so on. I think before the environmental court that all of the answers here be checked. Did he earn $2,000? If you're in an agricultural business, you have to have receipts and your taxes have to reflect what you earned. There are many more qualifying issues to whether or not a farm property is a farm property and what you have in front of you doesn't cut it. There's much more. For instance, he has to go to school to study matters related to wastewater. That's qualified. As a small farm, he has to recertify on an annual basis. I don't know that anything like that has happened. The person who owns the property we're talking about, I consider a friend. I find it very difficult to come to you with this kind of testimony but I don't want to wind up living on a property that has pigs next to me and I wouldn't want to live on a property that has the smell of manure from the ducks and the noise of the ducks. It significantly diminishes the value of the property and I do not believe that the town, I'm trying to think of the term administrator who's responsible, was in any way ever consulted before the agricultural operations began to take place. There are all kinds of things like offsets that have to be considered, not only for the structures. The structures have to be determined as agricultural. I guess I just about got to the end. Thank you. We're not sure about any of that either so I'm waiting to see what happens in court. Even there are considerations in regard to where manure and so on can be sorted and there are specific offsets for that. I don't know if the town has any information on that, maybe you do. I'm coming into this late. I apologize and if I've covered something that you've already covered, forgive me please. We have a much simpler thought process which is it's not allowed in our zoning district for that zoning district so it shouldn't be there. However the state came and did, it happened after it was illegal. So it doesn't have any reason to be there. We think it should be gone. You're absolutely correct. In order for that property to be determined an agricultural property, you first have to look at the things that are conducted on it but then there has to be a form submitted for the determination of an agricultural property and the town has to be involved and the people living next door has to be involved. I think he's in a situation where a order of cease and desist which I think you've already done is an order. Awesome. Thank you. Did you get your name? Ron Fry. Thank you. Anyone else in the Mr. Chair, can we ask the witness to just identify where he lives and how it relates to the location of Mr. Struthers property? Just for the record. I live on 16 Taff Street about three properties down from the property involved. Thank you. Down the road there may be other requests that will involve whether or not agricultural activities can take place and down the road I'm afraid that my property could be pulled into this situation. Thank you. Anyone else in the audience here? Yes, sir. It's even really bad notice at 6 Taff Street next door. Yeah, I pretty much agree with everything you said. I think there's a little bit, so a couple of things, details here. The issue before the Environmental Court, where both Mr. Struthers and we have appealed because it was a split decision, that's actually for the DRV decision, not for the notice of violation. So it's a silly to split, but the notice is not before the Environmental Court. The decision that enforcement should happen for agriculture and shouldn't for cannabis, those are before the Environmental Court. Yeah, sorry, I'm an engineer. We split hairs too. So the actually the stipulation that Mr. Murphy referred to, I believe it hasn't been accepted by the court yet. It's proposed. It was a proposal that was drawn up between the city and Mr. Struthers attorneys, although I'm not sure that our input was considered. We had actually proposed a similar stipulation. So the thing about that is that the Environmental Court, they may issue an order, they may agree to that stipulation at which point the city, through Chris and Regina, the manager, would choose to schedule enforcement as they schedule it, as you said, Chris. But this, I think as pretty much everyone has said, your decision is still, I think, the same because the facts haven't changed. The one fact that has changed is that now, apparently, there are about 50 ducks instead of being about 15 or so of a year ago and maybe 30 a few months ago. That number doesn't come from me counting that comes from another filing with the Superior Court. So instead of slowing down and realizing that there's a conflict, there's litigation or that there is something happening and kind of slowing down to see where things go, Mr. Struthers has decided to increase his operation from one dozen to four dozen ducks from about 20 cannabis plants to about 100. And now the ducks which he raises for meat and eggs, again, according to a statement to the court, these are farm animals, they're not pets. And I agree that it would cause harm. And so I feel for the ducks and for the impact that destroying them would have. So I can accept a delay. But as has been pointed out, this has been going on for four years. And Mr. Struthers first asked for variance recognizing, which implies that he recognized that he was in violation in March of 2022. It's been nearly two years. And at that time, he said he needed about two years to move. He just wanted a temporary extension, basically a temporary permission, so that he could move to a place where farming is allowed. So it sounds seems like it's about time for that. And it sounds like something's happening by March or in March, which I'm sure isn't soon enough for some people. I don't know what the feels like my hands are somewhat tied. So I'm going to let the courts play out. I'd like to make our determination and findings and move on because I don't think we can do anything the court. Till somebody tells me I can and I'm just going to continue to say that it's not supposed to be here. It's not allowed in this zoning district. It is allowed in another zoning district. Let's move on. All right. So anyone want to make a motion? I'll do it. I'll make the motion. Yeah, girl. I motion that the DEAR, the Development Review Board uphold the administrative officer's notice of violation for the unlawful condition of property on 8 Taft Street issued on November 20th, 2023. Seconded. Any further discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. She cares unanimously. Thank you. And we appreciate the testimony from everyone on this matter. It's complicated. It's a pretty interesting situation. There are a lot of lawyers and people that need to sort out before the rest of us get to continue on again. So let them do their thing. We'll keep moving on. Item two. Thank you very much. Thank you. Item two tonight, Public Hearing's final plan for a two lot subdivision, lot one to retain existing single family dwelling lot two to be a single lot at Two River Street in the R2 district. Is the applicant here and would you like to come up and present? How are you, Brian? Good. How are you, John? But on my provide your name and you already testified that you'll under open all that. So go ahead, but want to just state your name and so forth. Okay. Brian Currier, Hillary Berksville Associates. Your name, Liu? Yep. So we're back after a couple of continuous requests. Thank you very much to the city staff and the board for granting those requests. We had some health issues in the office that we're hampering getting the plans turned back around after the engineer's comments. So the proposal in front of you tonight is very similar to the sketch plan approval. It's essentially a three tenths of an acre existing develop lot in the R2 district. We're proposing a simple two lot subdivision, both lots, lot one of 7500 square feet, minimum lot size in the district is 75. In lot two, just over 8700 square feet without a proposal in front of you tonight, a single family or a duplex could be pulled with the simple zoning permit. Anything more than that would need to come back to you for site plan review. So we have provided a plot and a site plan. We've answered the engineer's comments. Would you like me to jump into the staff report, John? Or would you like? I didn't see a whole lot in the staff report that requires comment. I think, you know, we got the basics. Are there any items that you want to highlight that you don't agree with or that you won't be complying with or are you pretty good with that? Nope. I think the only comment in there that we've already complied with is the minimum lot size when we're working out the ratios. We were a few square feet shy on lot one. So that's been adjusted and reflected in the sheet or the plot that's on the screen right now. I think the only other item to discuss is the three options for the sidewalk. That's in the staff report. Okay. Where's the driveway for the second? Yeah. So the site plan shows an approximate curb cut location. So it's furthest from the intersection on the right side of lot two. So we have that area right over there. Yeah, that's it. Oh, okay. All right. So did everybody understand three options? I guess. So here's my the crux of it for me is the subdivision regulations appear to require sidewalk and in other places like Williston, you know, we've watched them build their sidewalk system in a patchwork fashion where whoever comes in to develop something to sidewalk in, we don't care where it's got to go. And it looks kind of funny for a while, but eventually it'll all be sewn together and it'll look fine. Right? So in theory, that's kind of the baseline for me that it's supposed to be there. And yet we got a situation here where there's some other things that appear to make sense. But the one question I have is which we didn't know last time, we didn't know that the city had a master plan that included which side of the street the sidewalk was supposed to be on. So we kept wondering, you know, well, does it go on? What if it goes on the other side of the street? Maybe there's something to that. So since we're only doing a sidewalk on one side of the street, and it's now been determined that it is proposed by the city to occur on the north side, then now the whole sidewalks and play again the question in the options is where does it go? Did they build the portion that's in front of the two lots being subdivided? They build a different portion of the equivalent length. Do they provide a payment to the city so that when the city ultimately does the sidewalk, they've contributed, right? So if they weren't doing it, like the only question I had was if they aren't doing, if the applicants weren't here, would the city pay that anyway? And how come nobody, you know, like that would just be in the capital plan and it would happen, right? So now you'll have an applicant who's doing a project. We're saying put the sidewalk in because that's what the regs say, but we've now given them some options. So explain that part to me. Like, why are there options? So, I mean, these are options for the DRB to consider. These are not really options for the applicants. All right, so hold on a second, because, well, we did get a letter from Diane Clements who's on the planning commission. And I think her take on this is extremely germane, which is we're all aiming for more connectivity. We all want more walkability. This is a thoroughfare down to one of our major employers. It should be there. I tend to agree with that. And I don't know why I have options. Like, why is the city willing to cede the creation of the sidewalk? I don't think the city is willing, is really willing to cede the creation of the sidewalk, but what I was hearing during the last, the conceptual subdivision plan hearing was that the DRB had some reservations about requiring this sidewalk, but I know that new information has come in. And that's why the option one is kind of the difference. The reason why is at the top, and it's considered option one is because it is what's a straight read of the land development code would yield. All right. Anyway, that's my only question. So does anyone else on the board have a question about the option? I mean, option one is preferred and we need to have the sidewalk there. Well, for me, I don't know that option one is the default. Option one is already a twist because my read of the straight requirement is they would build the section in front of their land and not have to get into whatever's curved or whatever's happening up on then. So it's a different, you know, like they build the one in front of them. And when anybody or the city wants to finish it off, they do. To me is that that's what we're supposed to be doing. And then that would be option three. Well, actually that would be... That's option zero. That would be option zero. I was trying to simplify this based on what I heard during the last hearing. And it was confusing because we really didn't understand whether there was any previously conceived plan in this area. So we found out two things. One, yes there is. Two, it's on that side of the street. So now option zero is you build it. Any other option is a twist on that. And I remember from last time, the lot one, is there states to build the sidewalk in front of that because that's right up again. It's very close. It's close. So it's... And that's obnoxious, but that's... Okay. That's the deal. Can I... Yeah. So I think my read of the staff report is that the sidewalk's in the capital improvement plan. But to say that there's a definitive plan of what side of the street it goes on is based on a planning commission discussion from 20 years ago about Riverside of the Village carrying a sidewalk down to River Street. And that just happens to be on the north side of the road. You know, there's a wetland crossing over there that's under consideration. Getting a permit to cross a wetland for a redundant sidewalk connection that, to be honest, everyone coming down River Street is going to take a ride and go to Park Road. That's not really minimizing impact. Might be a difficult conversation to have with the wetlands folks. IBM's over half mile away. You got to go through a booth. I don't know if they're inviting, pedestrian traffic anytime soon. Or sorry, global foundries. So I think there's a little more gray area there than straight up. There's a scoping study that shows this is what we want. This is how much money it's going to cost. And this is our time frame to do it. We've already proposed the easement. We think that is in line with the scope and scale of our development. There's two lots being proposed. 160 feet of sidewalk is a substantial impact to a two lot subdivision. There's a large multifamily building, you know, easier to stomach. But for a two lot subdivision, and you know, we just feel it's overkill given the scope. And I think we're doing our part by keeping essentially all options open to the village in the future. That's all fair. That's also all fair. I would ask for more information from my board members. My thought is that land development code was kind of written with the idea we are going to be more bike walk friendly. And that's what we'd like to do. And so with this subdividing section, the idea that if you're subdividing, you're going to like create this space and we can wave it if there's an alternative which provides equal or superior pedestrian access. And I just don't see that. And I think what we spoke about last time was if the sidewalk took a different route than it is superior to essentially giving nothing. So, you know, just to go through the options with option one, we wouldn't be interested in as you spoke. There's, you know, there's a lot of vegetation. There's a traffic poll in the way. Surveying the abutting property would be an issue. So option one is considerably more expensive than just doing in front of our lots. And then option two, the pay in lieu fee, you know, seems like there might be some complications there. But in my opinion, the budget for the in lieu fee is substantially more than what the sidewalk would cost by just building it. So we wouldn't be interested in option two either. So as you know, we've stated, I think option three is a is a fair middle ground. You know, in my opinion, the subdivision standards are there for, you know, building new roads. I think we're, you know, if we were building a new road here, there'd be no question there'd be a sidewalk on it. No doubt about. Any other, Rob, do you have any any comment? No, not really. I drive down this road every day. So I know how tight it's going to be to get a sidewalk in there. But you know, you got a big apartment complex down there on Franklin. I could see it definitely being useful for folks to have a sidewalk. But we're not talking about sidewalk all the way to Franklin. We're talking about just what's in front of the property. Yeah. And the 400 units in Riverside, we understand is a large user, but the southern most units, if you've ever been up that back entrance that kind of snakes up through there is there's a retaining wall. Other entrances go to the front. Do you think anyone there is going to turn around and go down an entrance, go down River Street and then take a ride to the five corners? I don't think so. And that's a tough conversation to have with the wetlands program too. So can I ask of the city staff what the real I mean is what what is the real status of of this connection piece envision for this street is it does it exist on paper somewhere as a line if if the city really was going to engineer something and build it would it would it really go on the north side? So this is in the capital plan in two parts. The section between Park Streets and Stanton Drive is one piece and they from Stanton to Franklin is another piece. It's on the capital plan. It is not it is not certain when that will be when it will actually make it to the top of the list. But all the assumptions have been that it is on the north side for and that is really based on connectivity to the population center over here. This is Riverside by the Village is the densest part of the city in terms of population per square mile. And yeah in terms of connectivity I just see the north side as as the most plausible location where where we'll have the future sidewalk. Also if it's on the south side you would you would have to cross the street again right here. But it doesn't it hasn't been engineered it's like not it is not developed to the point where somebody you know has a plan that shows show that that's correct um yeah that's um all right uh I'm gonna go to the audience for comment from the audience is there anyone Steve yeah uh yeah how do we do that I think it would make sense for you to speak. Thank you so thank you for allowing me to speak. So I've commuted on this road for 28 years. I was on the board of trustees when we first looked at this engineered it. I was involved in the planning commission decisions. Riverside and the village it's always been the north side of the road. The part in front of these properties is absolutely the most dangerous portion on that road. People walk daily to global foundries. I've almost hit people because there's nowhere for them to go. The lighting isn't great and it's scary when you're driving home and it's a 35 mile an hour road. I don't think we necessarily need like a five or six foot grass buffer to the sidewalk and all of that. We just need a sidewalk. I know there's you know not a lot of space but as you're approaching the cars people racing to get through the light before it turns red it's just a really dangerous area. Again I've walked it, run it, biked it you know everything as and when we talk about walk ability in the city plan it's not always just to like get somewhere. People want to go for a walk they're going to take a loop or something you know it's not always like I have to go only from point A to point B. Creating this connector here creates a big connection through Riverside and it's something you know and right now we haven't had a lot of money for the capital plan in recent years that's why we got the lot passed. There's a dedicated thing for sidewalks so you know the hope is that over time you know my hope is that now we can start funding some of these sidewalk projects and stuff that haven't been able to make it because you know we've got the culverts on Indianbrook or the waterline you know a lot of other super pressing issues and we can start tackling these and anything we can do you know it's we're allowing the applicant to subdivide the land and all of that you know and there's a cost to that sometimes and we and I agree we want to you know we don't want to put people out more than we have to and maybe things can be done to again not put the sidewalk so far away from the road and I know there's an easement discussion but the right of way of that road has got to have plenty of room. It's just my guess I mean it's a two-lane road with a micro shoulder on both side the right of way has got to be 49 and a half feet which is 25 feet either side of the center line lanes are generally 12 feet so you've got 12 feet on the other side of that white line on a north side there that we can find good sidewalk in and so maybe the way to reduce the cost is to you know maybe not have a Cadillac sidewalk but just have something that's safe and and will help people and like I said that the bus I don't know if it goes there at all now but it always sometimes went but not always so people take the bus they get off at that intersection and walk to global founders I had friends that did that and it's it's scary and not everybody has carters like I said I rode my bike for 28 years down that road and so I'm speaking from experience and hopefully some of that background on why we did it on the north side it was as as the development director said because there's that big triangle you come to and it would be unsafe to have a crossing there because people tend to drive speed limits 35 people are doing 40 and more on that street and so you want to limit the number of street crossings that's why riverside in the village put the sidewalk down there and we know it's a long-term project but anything we can do is great did you have any other questions for me on background or anything no I think that's been helpful thank you all right thank you um anyone else in the audience on this topic anybody on screen uh for this topic wait how many people do we have left this rod wow um and you know I think it should be stayed where we're obviously not against pedestrian connectivity yeah I don't want that to be the conversation here I just think actually building it is you know it's been that way for a very long time does this one house make unsafe condition where that sidewalk no but you're you're you're you're gonna have to help it fix it to do your thing that's helping with the knees um I I guess I'm you know I I'm sensitive to a couple of things one is um it's it's clearly supposed to be there two is we want to make sure that it's integrated properly into the ultimate uh final city plan um you know I guess if we're gonna tell the applicant that it needs to be there somebody better be sure that's where they want it and they better figure out where this piece is gonna fit in because uh you know we're we're poor and concrete as they say right um and you want it to be in the right place so um I guess my feeling is that if if you want to accept the easement and and you want to work on the fee it may not be the fee that you're showing there there may be other factors related to what that fee really is but um I don't think there's any question from the board that we want the sidewalk and we we wanted to line up where the city says it should be and if if that information suggests that that's where it goes then we want it there and I don't know that I want to leverage any more than that but you know it should be fair to the applicant because it is a fairly small development uh but they definitely need to play their part in making this happen can you work with that kind of a authorization yes all right um how do we make a motion out of that we do you have any other questions on the subdivision by the way anybody I'm sorry I'm not clear what I haven't made it yet so okay yeah we're just trying to get the the wind sent here uh anyone else do you have any other questions on the subdivision I think we only had the sidewalk really as the issue so I'm gonna make a motion that that we um approve the subdivision with the stipulations and conditions in the staff report and that we approve it with option 3a which is they get the easement and then if you want them to build anything you've got to provide direction to them on exactly where it's going to go because it see if you let them build the sidewalk then they are telling the city how the plan's going to go I don't think that should happen you you have a master plan with capital waiting to be spent at some time in the future you should be in charge of where that sidewalk goes and I'm assuming it goes on the north side but what I'm saying is if if they're engineering for a sidewalk and I would think that needs a curb so it's not you know so the cars are protected pedestrians are protected from the vehicles right that somebody's gonna is that all in the handbook if we we're gonna you put a sidewalk in it has a curb it has a sidewalk it goes this place these specific requirements for a sidewalk and the technical specifications are in the land development code not all sidewalks require a curb if there is a space between if there is a green buffer and actually that often makes it cheaper if you don't build a curb yeah um so I mean I I I didn't really understand what what you proposed motion is well you know they're gonna give us the easement right because they that that's a thing right and so the question is do they build a sidewalk or do they give you money that's the next class so if I can get if the city if the city engineer signs off on north side being the side to go with would you be happy with uh with the applicant building the sidewalk there I would okay and and you know so if the sidewalk isn't worth whatever you've calculated and you can build it for less then that's fine but I I want I don't want the applicant wondering what they're building because the city hasn't figured out what they want yet I want the city to be involved in telling the applicant this is the sidewalk that we're going to connect a year first piece in the future and it's all gonna come together you know and argue our argumentation that being placed before we submit not kind of make it up as we go you know I mean it's kind of I'm happy to let you guys work it out I I'm not trying to tell you where to put your sidewalk either I'm trying to tell my city staff to get there and have a sidewalk plan in place so the one I tell you you have to put it in you know what you're doing understand yeah it's even I think the city engineer drew it all out way back so it should be a matter maybe they just need to double check it but it should all be there I mean because they can't cost it if they don't you know yeah have some idea I think the plan's all there like I think we're I hear people wondering if we have like specifics yeah I believe it's very there's enough there to excellent your point so uh I'm gonna I'm gonna continue my motion with option 3a that says the city is going to provide some direction to the applicant on what's supposed to be there as part of the approval but the sidewalks supposed to be there I still he's picking option 3 which is the most lenient and then I don't feel like the add-on statement is really encompassing what I want it to encompass I feel like it should be option 3 with the understanding that working with the engineer either fees to pay for the sidewalk or they will create the sidewalk themselves will happen that I thought that's what I was saying because it's 3a right it's not just three you get the but there's a stipulation that they have to work with the city to me you've got the easement done deal and then you have to either build it or you'll have to give them you have to provide funding for the city to build okay one of those things has to happen to get a right we are we're taken three already you've been a little nebulous in my opinion but I'm on board now okay I think you can ignore the options altogether in particularly you know what what the requirement I think that that's the most important clarity we need here whether or not like ultimately the the applicant is required to you know to build the sidewalk or fund the sidewalk upon confirmation by the city engineer that that side is with where um let's speak hearing the long decades of history of the need for the sidewalk I would like to see it built myself and if the city somehow can't manage to provide that direction for whatever reason then then I would accept my toward building it but I don't think the city should be you know dragging its heels you have a great opportunity here to make it happen so how do I'm okay all right so we have that emotion I think that we have a question oh yes I just have some clarification questions so when we're talking about building a sidewalk um I don't think it's reasonable for me to build the connection um um you know my neighboring property to connect to park street it's not no we're not saying that okay so so I'm just just in front of your property okay um which is dumb but that that's how that goes yeah and then was the the easement of building the the sidewalk was the instructions from the city engineer should we put a time limit on that like um like they'll provide the instructions by I don't know if I can I don't know if I can do that because what I'm really trying to do is get my city to take care of this and and I there's no guarantee that they will even though they now have a piece of the pie right piece of the puzzle well I I am confident we would be able to respond in a timely fashion well how but but what about the piece between park street and oh well that might not be connected I think yeah so the point before was that there might just be a gap but in terms of providing direction on where this current p uh this the required sidewalk has to go uh I I'm confident that the the city staff can provide that direction in a timely fashion okay so who wants to read the motion back is that can we do that we have the stipulations and conditions that are already on here and um the last one needs to be modified um to provide an easement and a portion of the sidewalk in front of the on on the applicant's property um or sorry continue all right well we have to modify the fourth proposed condition because it relates to the sidewalk so we're approving it with the stipulations and conditions with the modified applicant shall provide an easement of the city for future construction of a sidewalk an easement of the city and construct a sidewalk along river street and and if it gets bartered down to a a payment because you couldn't tell them how to build a sidewalk then that's that's up that's your problem I have faith that the city will deal with it in a timely fashion it will happen there's a lot of culverts to fix out there still have faith all right so then can we lobby the we need to go to the capital projects meeting don't um all right so we're approving the final subdivision plan with the stipulation that they put a sidewalk in front of the year property well it's yes if they provide the easement for the sidewalk only and then the two tiered option no they're they we're really saying they need to put they provide the easement and build the sidewalk on their portion of the on their on their in front of their portion yeah up there in front of their property I mean have we been in motion yeah that's a motion do I need a second I think it's easier to build it yeah so we've approved the plan with stipulation and stipulation that they build a sidewalk in front of their property it's like very simple yes um yeah any further discussion all in favor hi hi motion carries unanimously thank you better about motion I know it was so easy at the end all right but we're gonna get to see Doug Henson somehow out of all um all right application number three conceptual site plan for proposed mixed use development to construct a five-story building with two commercial spaces on the first floor and 52 apartments on the upper stories at 17 park street in the uh cv district bc bc bc yeah okay uh by my my lot real estate agent for handy hotels and rentals llc owners we have applicants here introduce yourself please for the record and i'm a record basket my lot real estate and i'm greg dixon with krebsen lansing consulting engineers all kinds of people in the audience did everybody get sworn in that's planning to say anything okay okay um good uh a little bit of a presentation and i'll listen to staff and the board yeah so we're here do we have um anything that we can put up or no yeah i uh whatever you you need that you've already said yeah my uh site plan that's the first site plan okay okay c 1.0 this this uh don't you reckon let me go down one two one left there we go this one goes so we're here this evening so uh my lot real estate is obviously it's the applicant here in the site and we actually will be purchasing uh the property from handy's hotels and rentals uh in in the future and so we're here tonight to give you a an overview of of the project and a site that has been sorely needed to be redeveloped for quite a few years uh there was a previous approval on this site quite a few years ago for a smaller project um roughly three three stories in scale and obviously since that was approved oh somewhere around seven or eight years ago there's obviously been quite a bit of redevelopment specifically my real estate has been involved with both the four pearl street project and 11 park street which have been completed the 11 park street project was completed roughly approximately two years ago so what we are proposing now on this site um is a as described by staff is a we're looking to take advantage of the the new regulations that were passed in the spring time what we are proposing is a five-story building um and I think the the benefit of what we're doing here and the ability of to propose what we're proposing to you is we're going to be leveraging quite a bit of the infrastructure that was already put in place with the 11 park street project so the the building as proposed is a five stories 52 units a mixture of studios micro units full one bedrooms and two bedroom units with also approximately six six thousand roughly six thousand square feet of commercial on the first floor parking is going to be provided in even though there is 90 minimum parking standard now in the new regulations we are actually going to be providing three levels of parking on the project one is going to be underneath the structure and that will be accessed through the ramp for 11 park street so we'll be essentially be combining the foundations underground there will be um a parking deck similar to what you see on 11 park street whereas we'll be utilizing the existing ramp for 11 and as you come up the ramp if you're familiar with the flow of traffic for 11 park as you come up the ramp right now you hang a left well now we'll be able to hang a right as well uh and so that structured parking which will be tucked in behind the building we're providing for approximately 19 parking spaces and then underneath the structure itself similar to 11 park street uh there will be another 27 spaces and that will be accessed off of the uh is there a name for but the school street driveway right now that provides access all the way up and around and back out to park terrace so the the building as proposed will be a flat roof building I don't know if we want to put up Chris we can put up the I guess the architectural design do you want just yeah that probably that's probably fine for now and that is basically a the preliminary design of the building showing the five stories with the commercial on the first floor the building is kind of broken up um a little bit of relief uh in the building itself we're showing some decks uh as well as as you go to the back of the building you'll see that it is it is raised up on that one section and there will be parking underneath that and then that'll tie in with the parking deck that'll be behind it but you cannot see on the uh the far side to the left is there is going to be some uh outdoor space at that upper level as far as community goes and then I think overall generally this evening we're looking to kind of just as I gave you an overall description of the project is to kind of go down through some of staff's comments discussed a little bit farther in regards to the board's general take in regards to the building I mean oh there was some comments in regard from staff in regards to colors and and and materials and that's all for discussion this this evening those are very easy to actually to modify and change based upon comments from from from you um and then we can also go in and discuss a little bit more in regards to staff's comments in regards to the general uh circulation in regards to pedestrian access uh how the buildings uh are going to relate to each other and uh I mean obviously Greg Ravadu is here this evening to my left who is actually his firm has actually done the design in all three buildings that we basically own or built here at Five Corners uh and then Greg is here to discuss specifically the site work can I ask a parking question yep um so Eleven Park just took is the box car bakery building yes correct okay sure um in that parking in the back is public parking yes it is okay um and then so are you so this building anyone who was in this new building are they going to be you said they're exiting on school street underneath underneath but they'll come out on school street and then they'll either go to um Pearl Street so so you have so just like so as far as the circulation goes just like you have from Eleven Park right so you can access Eleven come out of Eleven Park all three levels can as they come up can go left or right so they can access out on Park Street or they can come left and come out and come out through school street that's okay I mean it's very difficult to make a left onto Park Street so for the most part I mean if you live there you're probably gonna go up Park Terrace and come down and make a right onto Pearl people access the the circulation is all you see people access you ever try to make a left out of I'm I'm through here every day multiple times a day it's kind of difficult and and so well you're also looking as part of this project too is the reduced flow of traffic that and design the crescent connector is going to provide for but so they'll come out and they'll either go left and then right out to school and back down or left to Pearl there's there's three ways to exit this project one is going to be Park Terrace one is going to be hanging a left and go up Park Terrace and out and then the other is to come down school street come down school okay and then go that's yeah yeah from out of the school it's not called school street so it's school school street school streets up top yeah that's called the school driveway I got it now but you'll go out and make a left onto Park Terrace make a right on school if you want to go out that way yeah if you if you want to head west right onto Park and make a left yeah if you want to if you want to head west out to Burlington yeah then the the shortest route is going to be Park Terrace left right on the school street left onto 15 which is which is rough which is rough which is rough or you can go down to or you can go out to the light I mean it's that's a lot more value of people trying to do that well but they won't so the the point is they'll they'll find an easier route which which probably has them cutting through indian acres are going down to the next light and all the way out to west west street yeah so yeah um currently right now that your whole five corners is zoned for this kind of density in this type of redevelopment and and and it basically takes into account that yes you may have to the timing of the five corners I would assume that once the crescent connector is completed next summer and that traffic is taken that diversion of traffic is taken into account I would assume that five corners that light is going to get re-timed and that's going to be all do you adding a light to school so I just was yeah there's a lot going on there and and there've been multiple um options surfacing including closing main street which has you know for that little section which turns five corners into a four-corner intersection and um there's a traffic study which shows that actually improves traffic in all directions at five point what was five corners uh so uh but there isn't a whole lot of um support for that until the crescent connector goes in because nobody wants to dream of what really happens there until that roads in place and you can try it yeah so um it is a game changer to get the crescent connector in place and to watch it function and and I the the the strong uh hope is that that really cuts down on the amount of traffic going through five quarters from at least the park street side it it should cut down dramatic um so uh I had a number of um comments mostly related to pedestrian activity uh and and then I I just um it's nice that we can kind of see the whole thing because because the presentation focuses on just the one proposed building and it doesn't really put the whole package together there so as the project um goes forward into the next phase I think we're gonna want to see that you know just remind us how it all comes together to have four pearl and 11 pearl and this one right yeah and we can discuss because that that was part of staff's yeah comments and we've actually already kind of thought about that a little bit and we're actually really as what we're doing in regards to the parking as far as combining all the assets basically we're looking to do that as well as on the front of the of the building as well and so it we're actually looking to if we go back to since we're kind of on that we can jump around if you guys don't mind um since you brought that up so if we go back to the site plan there were some discussions about the space in between the buildings and we're really you know and I wasn't necessarily really happy with this additional design either because I think the the space between the buildings that you're seeing there I think is a pretty valuable area um to to develop more as a pedestrian friendly type area that can serve because we do we've already had a lot of interest in regards to the commercial on the north on that in that building itself um and so we really see that space in between the two building is that really being kind of an outside terrace type area that can be utilized by potential right now we have two restaurants that are actually interested one is in the uh the 2,500 square feet and 11 park and then we also have some interest in the uh the other the northern space in the new building that we're proposing um and seeing the basically be able utilize that area in the middle as basically outdoor type seating terrace type area in order to maximize that or utilize that we're actually looking to connect um to have the sidewalks actually connect all the way up through so that all of that area right now since the two buildings from an elevation standpoint are going to be at the same elevation so 17 park and 11 park will basically at the same height that to have a sidewalk that runs since there are and there are some discussions about the two levels of sidewalk unfortunately we don't have any choice but to kind of continue that through um and because it's been something that's that happened here it started with four pearl because of the elevational change from this corner to that corner is actually multiple feet of drop and it's really deceiving and so that's how as the sidewalk comes around the building and it's at one level you start to get an elevated type sidewalk and so now we're looking to essentially obviously park terrace kind of broke that up but now as we go to the farther south and we have the 11 park building that has already built we're looking to continue that all the way through so that the element that the two-tiered sidewalk will remain it will not be steps down and steps back up it will come all the way through and then it'll be a consistent elevation between the buildings that we can further develop basically kind of as an open terrace type area I don't know that's a good vision yeah uh I I guess I like that idea I just quickly uh you know maybe measured the distance between the two buildings there and it's around 20 feet 20 feet yeah okay um and so that's that's a pretty nice little pedestrian area it looks like there's some plantings and maybe it hasn't quite yes we haven't it was yeah it's not even close to being developed to what we want it to look like so we chatted about it today and those plantings would kind of go away that all 20 feet would almost become flat um from the back of the building all the way to the front the stairs that you're looking at right now would effectively be removed yeah and it would just come flat straight across there to the next building and that whole area could be used for courtyard for um eateries and stuff like that and it would just be a pedestrian way and then to remind the board to those telephone poles go away eventually so we've already had discussions with Green Mountain Power so all the poles go away on on on Park Street coming in so their main goal right now is to move all the poles back to actually the south side of the church street driveway and it goes underground and over into the Lincoln Inn property which which we also my lot real estate also owns so at this point so we're gonna be back in front of you as far as that redevelopment goes but it kind of helps now that that our goal is to all these lines go underground um that which were obviously everybody should be excited about so um so you know eventually like I said you look at those poles right now as well as a pole to the right which is right at Park Street um and yeah all those crossing lines all that all that gets ends up getting buried um in in the long run what about like ADA compliance though I mean how do you so yeah so ADA obviously right now from the Park Street side that's ADA there's a small ramp there right because because we have we have parking or handicap parking base will use underneath the parking deck as well as over on the parks on the four pearl site we would also have uh if you look at the site play yeah and and then and then there will be as you go to the other 11 you know to 17 park um there will be there well there there'll be we will allow right now the ADA parking for a seven seven park 17 you know 17 Park Street the new building is actually going to be it's underneath the parking deck there's going to be ADA parking spaces there and so there'll be access either from the Park Street side down through or there will be even though we're talking about this pedestrian type area there will be ADA access through that I guess I looked at that for a while on the the drawings and it feels like somewhere you need to once once you enter at 11 on the north side of 11 and you get on that pedestrian elevated section I want to be able to get back down again somewhere without going all the way back it's like a giant dead end you know so so I guess we were coming to the to the board to discuss that a little bit we felt that I mean what what we're showing right now is sort of that effect but you're seeing how much room it soaks up and how basically the space in between the 20 feet in between would just become a ramp and is that a desire which we feel it's not I feel that having it flat and having areas for both of those businesses and creating a space that is a little bit elevated from the street it is warranted the other point being is is what are you accessing at that point you're not going to any businesses on there you would have ways to get back around and that was all businesses along the well I mean yeah I mean we are provide like I said we are provide there's basically three ways that you could access any of the businesses along the front of these two buildings specifically one is you can park underneath the 11 Park Street deck you can either go down by the ramp by by by the box car bakery there's a ramp there you can come as you can see here you can come all the way down internally from those parking spaces under the deck so you end up right here because that's all going to be at the same level or you can park in these two or you can even add additional spaces to park underneath the new proposed parking structure so there will be basically three different from three different locations you can access all of the frontage along along these two buildings and then if you wanted to you could obviously you can access because it ramps up to four perl you can go that way as well so I think I think we're offering we're offering multiple means of of egress to all the all the stores on the frontage of these buildings and there's also there's also means of egress from the back side as well so these buildings come all the way through so if you have just like four perl just like 11 Park you can actually access all the businesses from the back of the building as well as from the front of the building that are ADA accessible and the same thing is going to exist from this building as well yeah I'm I guess I'm still stuck on them okay let's say I'm in a wheelchair let's say I'm on the elevated portion of the front sidewalk yeah right I can go in and out of businesses if that's where they are how do I get back down to the real sidewalk it's like on the south end that that's so we could Greg just said we can provide a similar we can provide a similar means of egress on the south side as we do up at boxcar bakery we just have to move the door yeah I that's I'm I'm thinking that's sort of necessary but you know we've been pretty careful with some of our recent projects that don't have a front door that's you know they have a front door they have an accessible door that's by the major parking area or access point they didn't have a front door necessarily off the public right-of-way front sidewalk so I think that's still a big thing you want to try and make sure that that's accessible and not not sort of difficult but and I think we could do that I think the only option that we're that we wouldn't have is that if you're in the exact middle of those two buildings at that point you can't get down to the ground but we didn't really feel it was necessary because what is what is there to do besides an interesting question because I'm not sure you know as a building designer that's not normally where you think about your accessibility issues is where does a sidewalk you know have to go but I think but what we just what we just threw out to you as far as if we can provide accessibility on the south end of that building and now we're basically providing we're probably can go up we're providing multiple ways of access to front and back yep of all the buildings um no I think it's a overall it's a it's a very clever integration of the existing property and the new property and and you should be commended for figuring out how to do that and uh you know probably uh Greg's office and well both Greg's have managed to really sew that together well so I think that's pretty interesting um it's been interesting because in all honesty the longer that we've been involved with these sites the more that these options have kind of just presented themselves for you know and and it's become a way of essentially you know in the in the town regulations have changed such that it's really encouraged really what we're proposing because we want to be able to do this like a year ago right I just want to comment on that because I was on the planning commission when um you know we we approve four uh park you know the first is it perler park up there it's four perl perl okay so we go around the corner yeah anyway uh we encouraged that building to get a little taller uh at the corner yeah uh which hasn't um met with everybody's admiration but I think it really worked out well it's just my opinion I'm only one person uh but you know the the density and the um the the presence at that corner is something that should be celebrated really and and I thought that building was successful in doing that and now we're going to march down the street and it's still creating a fairly high uh line there and then by taking advantage of oh in the meantime the village at the time village trustees said we aren't that sure about how tall all the stuff is so we're going to cap everything in the village center at four stories so uh I think it's actually very interesting that the status come along and said well here's a way to get that extra story you know we originally this zone was allowed to have six uh so you know you're now down to four through the um municipal regulations but now the the state layer and the affordable piece that looks like we're going to be able to go back to five which um I'm I support that but I also recognize the the community outcry at the you know the height issue is is still not it's not gone away yet so um I'm I'm just gonna say that I while the regulations will allow it uh I think we all have to be pretty careful about how the treatment is and and so that's why it's important as we look at the whole streetscape some of the other language in the development code talks about scale in relationship to neighbors and so you know you don't want to for example go from you know going from four to five to four is fine but going from five to two is is tricky right so uh I'm gonna say that we we all want to be careful about how we handle some of those transitions um and the sensitivity of of what's happening and why the view corridor up to the park street school is practically sacrosanct it it was very difficult for us to to think about how to approve things that start to impinge on that view corridor because it's been such a staple of uh historic uh sort of the community core for so long um and so that's that's also a thing as this building gets closer to the park street school um I happen to walk all the way through all those properties and then along uh you know uh park terrace and whatever is there a name for the road in the back now there's no no name uh but I just did that last week um to uh park there and walk with something on on pearl street and and it's still a pretty impressive uh view that school street park street building is is still important and and it wants to be uh continue to be at least historically viewed up that street as a you know reminder of our our history um so uh and I don't exactly know where but your the corner of your building is that about where the corner of the current building is the corner the corner of the new building will be closer to the street obviously yeah but the face of the building is pretty consistent with the existing face of this building yeah so uh I guess what I'm saying is the renderings the design um all of that wants to be evaluated as if you're still on park street with an opportunity to look up this which is now gonna look like a street instead of uh looking like it's kind of an open space in front of a built uh a school an old school right you're gonna you're gonna be creating uh and and enhancing a view border and there might be some opportunities in there do something I and I think just want to look at you know maybe there's a building form or maybe there's a something that happens along that edge so that it it's building enhances that well the building itself if you look at the design it actually the the the wing that goes off the back actually steps back yeah so if you look at it so uh again in uh um without seeing the context to to remember which side of the building is on which corner you know you're you're look if you were standing right here you're looking up towards the school yeah along this face along that along that face so but the thing closest to this park street side which will define the view is the tallest it yet is the face that goes that way in this picture just saying you're gonna want to stand there I mean this is why it's so much fun to model these things now it's because you can really see it um you know the technology is there for us to see I think this is going to fall into that category um in the ldc that says the commission the the board is entitled to ask for additional renderings to help them conceptualize right so uh it looks like you're actually most of the way there is but um I think those kinds of uh views will be very helpful in having people understand the full context I would suggest we keep looking ahead for that I think it's the the back side of this as as it steps back and uh the upper level steps back a little bit the opportunity for those uh the views from those apartments is going to be outstanding you're going to be looking uh basically sitting on your patio on the fifth floor looking at camel thumb and I know you guys have probably been in in you know four pearl and and 11 park and and seeing the views I've only been in uh the corner building so I I haven't actually been in the other one but the views are outstanding they're there's some of the most amazing views are in the whole area so um actually go sit on the roof before yeah so uh that should I mean that could be a marketing tool I don't know maybe that's helpful too that here's what it looks like if you're on the building looking out but um I don't I don't really have other uh a lot of other things to say about the building at the moment um again I think just having to play nicely with its neighbors and sitting in the environment in the neighborhood is you know that all that neighborhood language is buried in the village center um you know redevelopment portion so the good news is the building that you're tearing down nobody cares right um it's a it's a good thing and I think the things that you're talking about um with it sort of joining its brother on the to the north is going to be really fascinating uh maybe you don't need to hear it now but uh the street life that's starting to develop on those elevated terraces is pretty interesting I think it took a while to get going but I think it's starting to show up now in fact some of this nice weather that we've had in the fall you can walk down there and you see people enjoying those spots and and um you know so they shouldn't be underestimated that contributors to street life and and the city center no I agree I mean I've been like I said we when we when we built Marie here and we built developed and built for Pearl we were the and I've always said this process here it's gonna take a while it just does and and we were the first to the show right so so it's you know I think the building uh was a great contribution a great first step but these like I said it takes time I mean you know the redevelopment of Winooski whether you like how it turned out or not is beside the point but it took a while to for that all to happen and a lot of it was the commercial right so if you remember Winooski the commercial was vacant for a long time and it met a critical mass of residential right and once the residential finally got there then the business has followed you're seeing the same thing happen here I mean we continue to have you know greater and greater interest of the commercial because the residents are here now and and it becomes self-sustaining and and they're not as worried about where do I park a thousand cars five feet from the door because they know they basically are gonna have a thousand people that can walk across the street and so that's that that becomes you know that that's becomes a really important aspect I think of any of these redevelopment projects in these core centers or these growth centers as they're being designated and it just it takes time I think um you're fortunate in that you have personally the history of what is going on there you did the first one you did the second one right so those lessons learned in those stories and those observations of how life is changing in the usage and the demand is really helpful for all of us to to know yeah so I would incorporate that into the presentations because I think it helps everybody in the community figure out you know what's going on yeah and they need that you know they need to understand yeah and I think a lot of it too is just as we're here tonight to talk about you know you don't think about the and and we're and I've always been and I've been looking at this since we have these first designs is that you look at the 20 feet that's between the two buildings when you're redeveloping areas like this at the high density that you guys are promoting 20 feet is a lot of space right okay and it needs to be maximized as much as possible because you know as as as we've all seen you know when um McGillicuddy's is busy everybody questions why the heck would anybody want to sit outside on top of basically four you know five corners but people do they they're it's it's full people just enjoy that whether they enjoy they in and believe it or not they enjoy the traffic they enjoy watching the cars by they enjoy the people that go along with it whatever might be people crossing the street and that's similar and that's as you're referring to as as this gets busier you know the the smaller areas need to be developed as best as possible to invite basically people to occupy them because they don't need a lot of space they just but they still want the area regardless and so I think there's lots of opportunities to develop these little nooks and crannies around these buildings but you just need to recognize that that's that's what people are looking for and then how to actually maximize the limited outside space that that that comes along with these higher density areas that are that everybody wants and one thing that struck me walking behind the current 11 park is is there is a lot of parking back there you just you know and I think people would be surprised to know it's there because you don't really see it and it's there and it's helpful for the whole area so the problems that you know might have been under parked at at four pearl are helped by the development of those parking spaces that are beautifully tucked in behind everything yeah and that's just to I know I asked this already that's public parking yes can we actually put signs up that say that's public parking well it is I mean that's I mean in all honesty you have the biggest public parking lot here but there's also this kind of comes to another topic that I was going to bring up with staff eventually here right now you have a lot of parking over at the school street driveway yeah okay for whatever reason it's a town you can see it is completely underutilized but nobody knows it's there yeah and so it's so yes there can be certainly signage but another thing that I think needs to happen is it needs to be unposted because it's posted between noon midnight to 6 a.m. that lot it says you're not allowed to park the over there oh well we don't really want it at the park there well I mean if you're going to you do if you live there and you need someone to someone comes to visit you move a car over there or something yeah they're there that that that lot specifically yeah really should be open you know it just it promotes a lot of people being able to come in because it's a lot of visual right and so the one of the biggest problems with this parking lot here and though you have 60 public parking parking spaces nobody knows it's here I mean yes you have some signage but the number of people that when we built four per we're like hey you know there's 60 spaces right across the street nobody knew it I mean it's it's difficult whereas I think when this project is built here it's going to be this is going to become a little bit more in the visual corridor I mean we talked about having that whole area opened up and making sure you can see school street well part of the park the parking is part of it right so if we have you know multiple restaurants and stuff say in this new building as well as in the 11 park building then people are going to want to see that and have it be evident that they can park there and they're not going to have to work want to have to worry that hey I'm down here and I'm at I'm at I'm over it on tap or I'm at a gillicuddies and we're open it's open later or the restaurant and suddenly it's midnight but hey I'm parked in this in the town lot that says I got to be out of there by midnight I mean it's just I don't think it in this specific case I think it should be a discussion that should be had with with the city in regards to potentially lacking or laxing that specific you know requirement or that posting in that area and I think it's just been really just a kind of a standard policy throughout the entire city and maybe it needs to become more of a it needs to be more directed on a lot by lot basis in regards to you know what is what restrictions are imposed it's a fascinating comment it's the park the whole parking issue is a municipal and individual owner yeah it's not one or the other yeah and as you said the the the 11 park project um in the deck that we built there has been a complete success it's really just there was a lot of pressure on four pearl for the density that we built which was great but you know there was a lot of I don't want to say resistance but just a lot of unsurety in regards to like I said you have all this parking here but and I've said this for so many years if you go downtown Burlington your perception is you know you're gonna have to park and walk that's just going to Burlington when you come here that's not your perception your perception is I'm going to park five feet from the door and if I can't then I'm I'm out of here and yeah and not not really what you want in your village and that's not what you want in your redevelopment of your dense area and so but we are finding that that with the additional parking and familiarity with the additional parking we've added for 11 park and a similar concept that we're going to be doing here for the for the new proposal with the three three levels of parking that I think we're really helping to promote that and people are just becoming more familiar and more aware of of what they can do here all right I just have two other comments and then I'll turn it over to the public if they want to make comments one was the unit count versus parking which is all the big question and I know it's not really specified in the city is what do we still call this village center is it now is the village and then our zoning district so I didn't have a problem with it I know that you've got a lot of efficiencies and and one bedrooms and you know people tend to imagine that you're gonna have fewer cars and so on and so forth so I would think the right number of cars on a project like this is probably somewhere between one per unit and one and a third per unit you know like 1.3 you know you could argue that you want a few more but you know this if you're not gonna if you're gonna live somewhere where you don't need a car and it's not here I don't know where you know like that's just how that works so I didn't really have a big problem with the with the number of parking spaces even though other others may say well it's a little light I'm not sure that it is but but in case somebody wants to park or has a visitor or something like that I think we still need to recognize that there'll be some demand for those kind of spaces and if the you know the excess or expansion capacity is on the park street school you know at night you know ideal right the other was the the nature of the affordable units and I wasn't quite sure if they were you know is it like it's not all gonna be you know the high efficiency it's probably some blend of you know with the other unit types and just I don't know if that was clear in here where it where that happens but I'm sure as you go forward somehow we'll figure out what what the right number of each type of unit is and why I don't know we're not going actually that's I'm saying oh yeah I mean yeah I mean we're we're 20 we're gonna it's gonna be 20% affordable and we'll come back with it we'll work with staff in an appropriate mix across the across the different unit types I mean that's always been a you know discussion and that's fine we're not really we're not gonna sit there and say oh yeah no all the affordable units are gonna be the smallest units we have in the building no it's you know there'll be like I said right now I don't know if the exact mix but I think there's six or seven twos there's bunch of actually true one bedrooms and some micro units and so there's it you know our our proposal in regards to that 20% will be will be represented across all unit types and do you have that it you are you doing that in your other two buildings right now we do not have any required affordability but the 11 Park Street pretty much meets all the affordability requirements because we're we're you know our studio units in that building or anywhere between 14 actually some were even 1300 1300 up to 1700 so almost every unit in that building actually meets the 20% or the 80% affordability criteria um anything else on the board for now or yeah um the short-term parking spaces I think this is a newer requirement so I was curious do the other buildings have short-term parking like or bike parking spaces sorry yeah we'll come back with a at the final we will meet we'll meet the bicycle requirements I was just yeah oh yeah we we've had some discussions with Chris so so yes there are there are on the front of four pearl there are bicycle parking on the front of four pearl um I think we've had some just recently some discussions that um that we need to add them to 11 Park to go back to that so there are some locations within 11 Park that I know we can we can put some we can put some bicycle parking underneath the you know in behind the building underneath the parking structure and then obviously since 17 is still under design we can we can accommodate a lot of different locations for that and and you know we you talked about you know not having that many parking spaces but with the 60-some on bicycle parking spaces that you want me to require uh it ought to eliminate some cars I don't know where that came from by the way that's a there's a big number in there and it's it's seen some pushback and I don't know that we have the ability to push it back but we've had a lot of discussion all I know is there there's there's spaces for eight parking spaces eight bikes out in front of four pearl and I can't remember any time I've seen more than one the bike rack I think the bigger piece is the is the sort of indoor bike storage or the protected bike storage that's theoretically for all the unit owners who I don't know people can probably chime in but but a lot of people are familiar with carrying their bikes upstairs and you know putting them in but also there's a lot of people nowadays I don't know if you've been to a bike shop but most people the amount that they pay for bikes yeah they don't care how secure it is they're not going to leave their bike right they're not going to leave their bike locked with everybody else's bikes yeah just absolutely it turns into my son's down in New York City and his bike is wall art in his apartment yeah so yeah I first of all can't imagine paying that much for a bike but I'm old school yes yeah the days of buying a huffy it just it's you know they're they're long gone I'm gonna let Steven talk for him and I might have been very patient back there um you can come up to one of the chairs maybe yeah thank you I think uh this is a great project and uh it's nice to see the you know the redevelopment happening and uh thank you Chris okay and um I just had two concerns one is short term um I know when they did the building next door the sidewalk was closed for like a year and I realized the sidewalk needs to get closed at times but this is the middle of the city and it would be nice to just close the sidewalk when it has to get closed um you know you see a lot of other you know construction in cities where they'll you know make a safe area and then you know certainly there's times you know a couple weeks here or there you know throughout the construction where it's not safe um but anyway I'd love to be able to see that there's some way to make it so we don't have to cross Park Street twice as a pedestrian yeah going through there but that's a short-term thing only during construction um the other thing to mention was you know I I think the applicant has you know talked very nicely about the synergies and all that which I think is great but from a someone not patronizing the business say you're just passing through um it doesn't feel inclusive like when you know we envisioned all this stuff years ago and through the different projects in the village in the city you know it's like wide sidewalks in the downtown like where martins is like on both sides of the street there it's a fairly wide sidewalk and I know when four pearl went in there's like raised up a little bit and I know my son's almost like tripped on the stairs like going around the corner and but it's really not that high so it's like and they got it it's reasonably inviting but then when they built the one next door now it's like a three-foot wall and so you're kind of if you're walking down the sidewalk you've got like like class one row with 18 wheelers and everything and then you know like a three-foot wall and so it just feels like if you've got two-way traffic it feels like you're kind of up against the road and you kind of like to you know be inward a little bit but I understand the conflict with the people patronizing the businesses and we want all that um but my concern is now this one's you know it drops another foot or two and so how high is this wall going to be along the sidewalk and I don't have a solution but it would be nice if we could somehow do something so that the people walking on the street don't feel excluded um anyway um and I understand you know they're trying to line it up exactly and it does look neat when you look and everything's at the same elevation from the you know the building windows and everything and you know so I don't know if they can somehow drop it a little but I mean other cities deal with this and it doesn't just all of a sudden as the roads going down hill you just don't get these like walls um I mean San Francisco's the extreme case but um it seems like there must be something that we can do because it's not hilly it's just no as we know it it's angled and a couple of uh I'll just explain what I what I think I know about this and there's a couple of competing things one is uh the sidewalk is already pretty wide where it's flat and the elevated piece is actually over parking so if we really want to allow that parking to happen that kind of sneaks its way in there but there's a sense that since even if it's elevated that that it's still a pedestrian zone it's not you know it's not a car so uh I I hear what you're saying it's an interesting perspective I'm not sure that we uh fully um heard you know I haven't heard that before so I'm thinking about it quite that way but but it is a somewhat of a segregation issue yeah and and so I appreciate the comment because it's something to think about in there um while on the one hand you can look at hey this has some great opportunities if a group of people feel like they're shut out of what we thought was being offered as an amenity then then we're missing something you know and maybe they're the way that yeah that can be more integrated exactly it's not the end of the world it's just like how I like I was surprised when that got built you know the raised area at you know next door that it was that high um and in a little disappointed um but I I understand that I understand the challenges and I don't need you know and I know you're trying to connect up and I don't is there any way to like lower the building a little and have like a slant or I have no idea um I'm just bringing up the perspective and maybe there's nothing you can do and it's just a comment um but as we go down the hill on Park Street we can't just keep making the wall bigger we're forgetting about that sidewalk that's supposed to be 18 wheelers when you're walking I see I mean maybe like there's planters on the lower part of the sidewalk yeah to protect so the people walking on that have like a planter and then the 18 yeah you just want to feel like there's something there yeah you know and and and so it doesn't have to be expensive or and all of that I just it was just something when I read the plans it's like oh they're gonna do more of that you know and I and I think from the business standpoint it makes a lot of sense and especially it sounds exciting that in between the two buildings of you know possibly two restaurants that sounds like a great idea and you know utilizing those spaces so I it's just you got a lot of competing interests yeah and and that's where the challenge comes in and and I commend all of you and the developer for working with the city trying to come up with the best plan for everybody um and again I I'm you know in favor of the project and all of that so I don't want you to think I'm not it's just something I noticed well I think it's a worthy challenge for for the design designers including the city to participate in a way to see if there's something that can be done to more more fully take advantage of that area and make it feel less owned and more public you know maybe I don't know if the elevation changes but but there could be I mean there are lots of places that have done similar design and thought about you know how wide is an ideal sidewalk what happens on it and there's a tremendous amount of research and especially you know in the last 15 years where people have really started to try and reintegrate the pedestrian into the streetlight you know in places where we'd forgot you know like what's this little five foot piece of something next to a highway you know that's not helping the pedestrian that freaking them out you know so um there are a lot of techniques out there I don't know that we've explored half of them uh this is one actually the you know that that is being implemented now so maybe there's a maybe there's something that we can all think about there do some more research and figure out you know like I know at one time there were any number of things like like water features and and other things that happen you can do with uh with an elevation change that actually enhance the ability to experience yeah what's happening draw together yeah so um great question uh don't have any answers yeah well I don't have any answers either so anyway I appreciate your time thanks thank you so much um Rob you've got anything uh you want to contribute to this this um conceptual plan at this time no it looks pretty straightforward and all the questions that have come up have covered all my questions all right um anybody else have you guys have any specific I mean any specific comments in regards to the actual architectural design of the building um I I don't um I I appreciate the challenge of trying to provide exciting and and opportunistic uh options for the residents you know it's as much about what they're experiencing from their side of it than it is from what we're seeing from the outside buildings even connected together and on the same block are entitled to be different uh I'm not looking for this to be a mirror image of the other one I mean I don't think that's fair but again I encourage um the renderings to include the other buildings so that we can understand how they interact and and what the I mean it's a fairly uh large sort of you know canopy roof breeze sole whatever we want to call the the cornice at the top you know it used to be everybody had one now nobody has one um you guys have have one you know help us out you know how does that all work is is it like along the the south side it's brilliant because you're gonna want that you know but on the um east side the the um park street side and and especially on that corner where it's very prominent because it's wrapping uh I think you know just help us understand how it works what it's doing there what what it feels like up against the rest of the street facades going down uh park street so that we um you know get a full picture anybody else you know other than that the you know there's a nice variety of materials I don't really have a comment on colors at this point it's you know way too early for that and you know those are pretty easy to change I think the materials you know as you get closer to the pedestrian zone you're trying to use something more durable or more you know resistant to you know everything that's going on there I think you've pretty much shown that I'm I'm not I think they were described as fiber cement panels and then above that you have sort of fiber cement lap siding which is all pretty common these days the scale of the fiber cement panels on the first level are fairly small you know in terms of just how big are they so you know when I looked at the first time I thought well is that block or is that speed well you know what is that some kind of a more masonry type thing for the scale but you know it's described in the thing as as fiber cement so it'll be helpful and it's all called out too so if I wanted to go look at all up I could kind of figure it out but you know it'll be nice when you come in again maybe you've got samples or you've got a brochure or something we can can see what that really is um I haven't been a big fan personally of the you know let's just you know change the facade material and start playing games with the outside of the building to make shapes and you know quadrants and whatever else you know throw a little corrugated stuff on there because that's popular you know so I'm actually more excited to see you actually playing with the building volume and creating some real demarcation points I find that goes a lot further than just changing the color and material type so I'm very supportive of that and again just looking forward to seeing sort of that develop and get refined anybody else same you know all right uh anything else from staff or from the applicant that we didn't answer cover thank you very much oh yeah I was gonna say I had I had a uh a few slides about the long-term bike parking uh kind of examples that's uh that uh adjacent municipalities uh have used but I mean it sounds like only if you want it I discuss it it's gonna be tricky because it's in the requirements right so they're gonna have to do something and the question is does it detract from something else they could do or is it gonna get left empty neither of which are ideal uh so I'm just gonna encourage us to somehow be able to um we can provide parking in the basement for residents it just might steal a couple parking spaces I guess yeah I guess isn't that the purpose so yeah providing 50 some odd bikes and you're assuming that they're not gonna need the two parking parking spaces that we may have to steal to actually provide for 50 and you know maybe they can be tucked in places where because of vehicle swings or because of columns or because of corners or something that it doesn't affect too much you know yeah and you know the the other thing that we have done in the past is we you know we there are some there are some products out there that we've used in some other buildings that allow for uh basically we'd have to because we're only there's 19 spaces underground so there's not a parking space underground for everybody so but we can break it up to some extent where there is actually ways to provide secure parking like parking for each individual space right so it actually would hang on the wall above their car in their space itself so that's not 50 but it's maybe 19 out of it whatever and then so you know there's it can be mixed up I mean with the thing is with 50 bikes you don't put 50 bikes in a bike store I mean so it's it's a lot of bike parking and so chances are it's not going to be in one centralized location it's probably going to have to be somehow broken up yeah and that that's entirely fine in terms of uh being in line with the LDC it does not have to be in one spot it does not have to be climate control that does not have to be uh you just it's someplace you can walk like secure and dry all right that's tell me that Jennifer do you have anything from uh staff comments uh no not particularly uh I was the one who added the comment about the color but like you said it's something that's very uh further down the line not necessarily important right now uh just like it's a lot of gray and black then and one of the things like yeah I agree okay existing colors around the village center lots of like reds yellows tan things like that and I'm not saying that this entire building has to match what's existing but uh it's just kind of like very dark in comparison uh just a general comment not a big issue at all um everything else is okay and like we said with the bikes uh yeah we've we've got a couple of just examples there where you can uh we believe that in the the amount of space that you've already allotted those two uh uh parking spaces that are um just slightly too small to be uh uh parking parking spaces um there's a lot of possible configurations that will accommodate a lot of bikes so it's a it's a really good solution to respond to compliment yeah yeah that's the only thing all right I'll close the hearing and off we go thank you guys and oh wait wait wait we have to actually approve it don't yeah yeah let's do that um pick a motion to approve a motion to approve the conceptual plan based on that i think that's fine they're not it this is more for input and and just to see that it you know passes the the straight face test and all actually just right motion to approve the conceptual plan yeah um you know we've given them comments and and they have more material to provide for the next round but at least we're we're all we're not we're all saying it works it's it's close you know basically I didn't hear anything that was on a tweak uh in the big picture um I I guess all of the parking and the circulation and the vehicle the one thing I did have was just uh um sorry was uh accommodations for um you know deliveries and drop-offs and packages and you know amazon and all that stuff right so knowing that it's already happening at the other building I'm sure you guys have all the answers uh having uh you know a package truck stop in park street probably not a great right they probably wouldn't survive too long doing that unless it's midnight or three in the morning but I I bet they do it all from the back so uh as long as you have an answer for the deliveries and the dumpsters and the the package stuff I we won't yeah good you know even if it's up or down I don't know whatever you guys do is as long as that solve will will be fine yeah good all right so uh motion to approve again motion to approve the conceptual plan I second that motion I appreciate you any further discussion all in favor hi hi hi all right thank you unanimous thank you very much um any further uh business on our agenda other is there any Chris one thing that uh would and Jennifer one thing that would be helpful uh for you guys is to keep us aware of things that are happening around the community or you know where's the Crescent connector or what did act 250 tell us next or why do someone get an extra story right like those developments that affect us that we don't necessarily track or what the my big one one of my big ones is when a project gets approved and then they has to still go through act 250 which in the village center hopefully goes away kind of similar already did uh but um we've had projects that act 250 made some conditions upon and we didn't know about them because they happen so far after our project and then we'll find out later the law they had to do this because act 250 said so and you know it feels like we want to know that stuff uh not saying anything's going on but the one one the one piece that we approved a long time ago is the hotel going up next to the jolly good what is it uh good stuff um that was approved conceptually I was on the the planning commission it was approved it we didn't have design control at the time so it was mostly a site plan there's going to be a footprint here and a footprint here I have no idea what that's going to be what it looks like I mean I think it's a hotel but I don't know what it looks like and that's kind of weird you know like now we do have design control but that was already approved so let's say you had uh you know some knowledge of what that was going to look like I would love to see thank you we have to do we do have drawings updated drawings uh for that like next meeting we'll look at them it's an extended state suite too is that correct um it is uh as far as I know his plan is actually to run it on his own brand right now um handy hotels and suites uh but um the the one change that they came up with was just a change in the number of rooms based on how they arranged the internal doors um it wasn't actually a substantial change in terms of floor area or the capacity yeah it it's it we we like to learn from the past you know what we learned was it's not really we we're uncomfortable when we have to approve things and we don't have design control but we don't exactly know what's gonna happen and you know we didn't get to know before but now we do um and the uh I still I'll come I'll come by the office at some point because I want to go back and see what we actually approved and then kind of look at what got built and see what you know was it possible for us to imagine that at the time and you know did it work out the way we thought and so forth because I'm not really that comfortable yeah well I do I have all of those um on final uh including final the final drawings um if you ever want to see it okay good you're you're welcome to um if you want to look at them right after uh all right uh well those are two motion to adjourn oh I was about to say someone's at the door second yeah Mike uh all right all in favor say hi hi hi all right thank you Rob