 Okay, it's after seven here. So we will get started Good evening, this is the South Burlington Development Review Board meeting on Tuesday, February 6th I will start by introducing my fellow board members. We have Stephanie Wyman Charlie Johnston John Moscatelli and Frank Koepman will be joining us shortly Frank will be joining us shortly. Yes, but then Stephanie will be joining us. I'm Koepman. I am chairing this evening for our staff. We have Marla Keen and Marty Gillies So a couple items about meeting attendance Whether you're attending in person or online It's important that you sign in Signing in allows you to Seek party status if you have If you want to Have issue with a decision that we make we have record that you were in attendance and participated in the proceeding for virtual attendees We request that you keep your microphones muted and cameras off unless you're actively participating for virtual attendees to log in You can Put your contact information in the chat box. That's available The chat box should only be used for administrative purposes. It's not for having side conversations online Alternatively you can email your contact information if you're online to Marla at M. Keen at sberl.gov It's sberl.com dot com or SBVT dot gov. It's works the same. Excellent. Thank you And if you are in person as we have quite a few folks this evening you can sign in on the back table there, which I see folks are doing and And Moving on to Agenda item number one emergency evacuation Procedure so if you're in the auditorium with us tonight There are two exits towards the back of the room if we're in a situation where we need to exit and go out either door Go right or left and and you will find the exit pretty quickly The next item Any additions deletions or changes in order of agenda items I'm hearing none. So we'll move on number three any announcements this evening nope and Any comments and questions from the public not related to items that are on the agenda tonight Great And just because I see there are some folks in the audience this evening I will just give a brief overview as far as public participation goes We have three main projects that we're looking at tonight at the end of each project We will ask if there's any Public comments anyone who wants to provide public comment So there's an opportunity at the end of each item that we're looking at today. So specific to that project And with that Can we start a gender five without mark here yet or or rather Frank I Suppose you can open it, but it's sort of silly to do so because Stephanie is going to be recused and then you don't have a quorum So we do have to wait a few minutes before we can start Until Frank gets here. He just forgot something at home and really needs it for this meeting I do notice I feel like the room's gonna fall over this way with the way you're all sitting I'm sorry music So we're just gonna stop for time for five minutes here Yeah, yeah, thank you That being said if folks who will be speaking for the first for item number five and P2301 of John Larkin Inc. You can find yourself a spot at the table, you know the drill and We will proceed momentarily when Our board member joins us and Stephanie Wyman will be recused for this item With side lots that are perpendicular to the street So I think we were just gonna bring up that proposed Subdivision And have the board give some feedback on that relative to that requirement So I think the spot that we flagged the staff was just the portion behind I guess Maybe it's southeast of the Micro unit thing around on the curve of Fayette over to your right a little bit Marlon and the other back Back again in between like that strip mall building above Yeah down that that lot line where it is sort of at a weird angle to the yeah right there that'll Nubby part Maybe didn't seem to fit board with the regulations requiring Lots to be generally squared up with the street. So just to know at this stage If there was feedback to be given there So this was a sort of preliminary quick sketch we That is drawn that way because of the parking lot But we could come from the corner of that parking lot and 90 into Fayette Drive. That's not an issue at all No Okay, that was the primary one. Yeah, that was the only one that we fight and just want to make sure that we were running it by you Make sure you had the opportunity to look at it. Yeah, and in the second part of the staff comment is so previously we had indicated that Pueblo Mary Platte would not be waived for proposed subdivision of land and so That is one of the potential kind of Benefits they can get from doing the master plan. I think it was that you had Indicated that it would be waived for division of oh, I'm sorry. You're right. Yeah. Yeah, so for non-division of land It would be waived as per the last meeting but for Subdivision that include division of land You would not waive preliminary and we are asking you to either confirm that or change that Does board still feel the same as we did Previously, yes, okay, just want to make sure I got all that okay Moving on to comment number three Aren't we supposed to be according to the red comment addressing discussing the question of waiver Yeah, I mean you had discussed it last last meeting Decided where you had come down was that for Subdivisions that included the actual division of land That you would not waive the preliminary subdivision requirement. Okay, that this master plan would not function as a preliminary They would have to come back for preliminary again. Okay, that's what I thought. Okay, and so just we're confirming that tonight Okay, moving on to comment number three So the applicant provided some additional information about the existing height of the four-story building that as that is on this property so the four-story building is at 44 feet 6 inches and Gave a range of heights proposed for phases 1 and 2 I Guess I'll start with the applicant Do you just want to give an overview of the range as you provided and how you arrived at that? We honestly have provided those Ranges in the beginning just to kind of give ourselves some flexibility and then after the fact you guys asked for additional information And so we decided to give this exhibit The the building height master plan section enlargement that I think gives a little bit more information It showed yeah, the one they have up it shows that you know Generally doing 15 foot floor-to-floor for the first floor and then 12 foot floor-to-floor for the floors above that and Showing how that pans out Across the site for phases 1 and phase 2. I Remember you correctly. I think you had offered a range of 44 to 76 feet for building height For phases 1 and 2 and I think the board's question was how does that match up with the building? That's there. So when you provided the heights for the building that was there it was Just over 44 feet from the pre-construction grade to the top of the roof deck And then it was almost 63 feet to the top of that architectural feature the tower So as far as the board's concerned, I don't know if that helps to kind of illuminate things But kind of give some sense of what the other buildings in that 44 to 76 Foot range would be given that the existing building is 63 feet at its highest point Not to want to give give that way After looking at I had a little trouble following the elevations, but I'm imagining These buildings as solid 76-foot high solid block of a building is objectionable I can envision possibly Step back higher floors that might be Visually, okay, but I would be opposed to Providing that waiver certainly now before and certainly before seeing at detail Elevation detail and setbacks if any on the upper floors. Yeah, I think I think the tower Or to be the limit and even at that limit which is above I think the 45 feet for the zone, right? Well, so the the max height for the zone is 76 feet Oh, it is 70 it is we're not really giving a waiver in this case But more time of just locking both parties into a range of heights just as we sort of try to narrow down The direction this this project could go. Yeah, it's it's really because these buildings aren't designed yet So, you know, that's why I don't want to Discuss any aspect of what I don't want to say what we might do after we see the design Not suggesting that you're going to build solid blocks But you're asking for essentially carte blanche up to 76 feet when we haven't seen anything yet and I would be opposed to that I think the disconnect here and I I totally understand your point Frank and this is Marty's show So I apologize for interjecting This is not a waiver request this is a commitment to build stories that are between 44 feet and 76 feet the board actually doesn't have the authority to grant a waiver at the master plan level. They only have the authority to grant parameters that they that the applicant is committing to in exchange for Vesting and the regulations that exist at this time So if the if the board says you're saying all buildings will be between 44 and 76 feet That sounds good enough for us to apply the rules regarding heights that are applicable at this time Yeah, that that's a disconnect for me if the max for the zone is 72 feet then allowing 76 feet It's the max is I'm sorry So If the applicant didn't say oh, we promised we're gonna do between 44 and 76 You might say well if you can't promise anything you're just gonna be subject to the rules that apply When you come get to that phase again So if the rules then change to say your max height is 55 That's what they'll be stuck with but if they're saying and if the board feels that it's important that these buildings not be two Stories that they'd be at least 44 feet in a zone that allows up to 76 then that's a good thing to vest I don't I'm not saying I expect the planning commission to change it to be two stories maximum here in any way Thank you for correcting me. I withdraw the comment still not comfortable with exceeding the I don't know what what authority we have or not comfortable with exceeding the the height of the Existing building on the corner if it's within the regulations and you you want to when you want to vest them I'm not gonna stand in the way okay, so um It sounds like Applicant proposed 44 feet to 76 feet range You've heard some feedback from the board that taller, you know Buildings could fit that could feel, you know, 76 foot block um Might not be the feel we're going for but it will come with each phase of the project. So Yeah, I think I I would say I'm comfortable with the that range that the applicants put forward I agree with staff of I think we're mostly trying to look at this point in the process Make sure we don't end up with a bunch of one-story buildings in this area that wouldn't have that urban feel um Does board have any other input on the range or are we comfortable with what the applicants put forward? Okay, excellent So, um in this discussion of vesting components Of the current regulations. Um, this brings us to the next Um comment number five Four sorry, I thought we already kind of Oh, the difference is kind of subtle there, but oh, okay We were kind of talking about phases one and two sort of the big stuff And then we were wondering if the board had a similar feeling to put a range on The heights for three and four That's gonna three is going to be mostly the old orchard terrace infill and then four will be the micro units and the potential duplexes kind of townhomes closer to Lowe's So just wanted to see if you wanted to if the applicant wanted that the board wanted that or if that's something that We don't want to do at this time So currently the applicant hasn't proposed a height range for phases three and four is that Is that what I'm hearing? I think you had mentioned one earlier, but I don't know if you want to like formally Get get a range or if I don't know where you're at. So, you know, we had I think said 22 to 24 or sorry 22 to 44 feet at least for the townhomes And Yeah, quite frankly the you know, we expect the old orchard infill buildings to be similar in scale to the other old orchard buildings And for the micro unit building to be similar in scale to building one So If we don't lock in a range right now, it would just be subject to the regulations that are in place at the time that you come forward for your subdivision site plan zoning permit And so you'd be able to build as high as the regulations allow you to build at that time Um The advantage for you, I guess if locking in a range is maybe that you get a height higher than what would be allowed Although as Marlon noted that seems somewhat unlikely that max building height would drop below what it is today And for the board the advantage would be You know that you avoid one story buildings by requiring at least whatever But that could be hard given that you're looking for some flexibility Three and four do include, you know, something that might be a three or four story building plus You know some attached single family homes or duplexes. So might be hard to be broad brush For three and four and we do provide number of stories And there are specific regulations around dimensions for each story. So I think you guys have a range based on that Yeah, I think Where i'm landing it feels like vesting is it's less of a concern for those phases just based on the type of development versus your phase one and two um I'm I don't feel strongly about trying to get something vested on those phases Or it seems like and you guys don't either it seems like right Okay, so we're gonna best with phases one and two the larger buildings And not and just have you guys be subject to whatever's on the books for three and four Excellent. All right. Thank you for bearing with us with all these nuances um, okay, so Comment number five So we're going to revisit the list. Um, that was provided in the january 7 staff report Um, so those were the items that staff had proposed as potential items that could be vested as part of the master plan um So could we bring up that list? from the january 17th Okay, um So these are just things that as staff we kind of flagged as Being important features of the project generally non controversial. That's why I put them in without, you know, kind of discussion But they're all up for discussion The the benefit here would be that if we say we vest the proposed street layout If the planning commission were to make regulations that say streets have to be As windy as possible, you know, then we we could say well, we have this master plan here That says you can actually have a straight real road, you know, or vice versa They said streets have to be as straight as possible. Whatever, you know, so stuff like that Locking in proposed street layout. For example, it's just sort of the conceptual Kind of what's proposed here in this master plan Um, so it would best them and the rules applicable today as opposed to making things up to chance Um, this this list can be added to uh deleted from up to up to you and up to that We can't depending on if there's stuff that you guys want to see in here or stuff that you see in here that you don't want to include So from the applicant's perspective, is there anything on this list that You think doesn't make sense to vest from your perspective and that you might not want to be Held to it. Is that the right kind of I don't see anything I'd defer to Greg for the traffic Yeah, no, I think at this point that's fine Okay, I don't I think it's a list of as the staff said kind of non controversial The built the bones of the project if you if you will Just board have any other thoughts on this list Okay, so it sounds like we'll want to vest this list And then as we discussed maybe we'll add the range of building heights for phases one and two to this as well Exactly. Yep. Perfect. Great. Thank you Okay flipping back to our other document um Oh and that was that was all on that one Um, so now we're going to move back to the staff report that was prepared for the january 27th meeting and we're picking up at comment 28 I'm gonna try to do this without making you dizzy. So I'll get it. I'll feed up and then I'll start sharing I'm I'm good Yes page 23 Got it. Um so This comment, um Staff fragments of board discussed with the athlete the impact of this requirement on the proposed development as it pertains to Building and siting design So this requirement is all new commercial and multifamily buildings of at least four Four stories in height to which the cbs is applicable or now it required to install rooftop solar or provide equivalent renewable energy generation elsewhere on site um, so applicant have you Had time to think about this requirement and and how it pertains to the the project and any siting and design that that might be impacted by that I think this is another item where we'd prefer to discuss further at site plan review Yep, just we haven't really thought about where the solar panels are going to go yet. We don't have an architect on board yet Okay, I think at this point we just want to make sure it's on your radar. Obviously You know it can impact design. Yep. I have a question for staff now that i'm looking at the At the black not the red um Do the required solar install installations Well, of course, they're pretty flat, but do they affect do they count toward building height? Uh, they don't count towards building height. No They don't count toward building correct. So when they vest their When they vest with with the range that has been contemplated The solar is also the week solar requirement is also vested but doesn't count toward the 76 feet Correct and they will still need to get approval for each subsequent building. Yeah But we're saying that they could theoretically propose a building up to 76 feet and then put solar on top of it But that would be subject to Approval from this board. I understand right. Yeah, okay Moving on to comment 29 So this is about the changes in location and timing of the civic space and site amenity As compared to what was purchased sent to that sketch So um at sketch um the applicant had shown the entire neighborhood park as part of phase one But the current phasing plan shows that only the dog park is part of phase one Rest of the neighborhood park is deferred to phase two. Um, and also that the dog park has increased in size and relocated The playground to the lawn space. So, um, could you just speak to You know knowing that things change while you guys get more into the weeds of developing Um, what kind of prompted that change? Um, and yeah, just the decision-making on on that change. Yeah, so we had uh reorganized the neighborhood park a little bit expanded the dog park um, and so previously it was the dog park and everything west was included in phase one and now, um, we're And there really weren't that many improvements to the western portion Uh, now we're making improvement or proposing improvements to the western portion that might Uh, honestly get a little bit hung up in some permitting because it requires some changes to the storm water areas Um, so we prioritize putting the dog park in phase one And the rest we put into phase two But, you know, that may Change a little bit as we're looking at our landscape budget requirements to see, you know, if we need extra Landscape to put in that phase one could possibly expand Didn't it also have to do with the size of a phasing? The It was too big if we put everything in phase one. Yeah, possibly. I forget exactly the phases have to be at least 20% By area is how we did it So we were trying to stay in those kind of lines as well Um, I have a question for staff. So one of the items I think was on the vested list was the phasing So they were just saying like based on landscaping It sounds like there's still some potential for this like phase one area to shift a little bit. Um, would that Cause of issue with that vested list that we just looked at if they altered that like does this do these areas need to be I think if anything we would expand phase one like yeah, I assume if we wanted to shrink phase one We would have to come back Um, I think that the board in their decision can be a little bit careful in their wording to say that um You know minor modifications and phase boundaries that don't change the substance of what's contained therein or something It'll be fine Great. Just wanted to make sure um Okay, um Yeah, obviously I think you know basis. I think for staff bringing through the attention It would be great to see that civic space established early in the development as possible, but given the Amount that's being developed in phase one. I feel that it it's reasonable that the dog park is just included there and then The rest in phase two Does anyone on the board have any Concerns with kind of that change in the area? The phasing the stuff to the west already exists. I mean, I understand there's going to be improvements to it, but it still exists Um, it's really the pocket part stuff like that which would be I think which is always part of our phase phase two anyways Yeah, okay Frank you look like you're thinking but we're still going to be talking about phasing so you can chime in I'm just I'm just Trying to get a grasp of how much of the neighborhood park is actually Other than utility service It looks like it's mostly for stormwater or there be any Park left for recreation And what will be there? Yeah, there's we're adding um Some some uh paths around the park We're adding an overlook at the pond that's attached to the bridge Um, and we're adding more more planting around the stormwater to make them look Um less stormwater like So basically it's a park to walk through not for kids kids to play soccer in yeah Yeah, it's a passive recreation park and we move the Playground over to old orchard because it's easier to provide ADA access and Quite honestly, you know most of the population is over there that would probably be using it. So Okay The next staff comment comment 30. Um, we were talking about phase two, which is the orange phase we were just looking at so, um Phase includes the completion of the entire neighborhood park a separate pocket park in the street scape improvements only on the southwest side of Fayette road And so Uh, so we're just reading here the proposed streetscape improvements including the addition of lights and wide widened rec path on the west side of The fair road are not strictly necessary to allow for safe pedestrian Cyclist access to the northern northern property line Of this subject PUD however, given that this phase includes 100 units plus the 80 units constructed in phase one In the 270s exit stay one could make the argument that the improvements to the entirety Fayette road would be most useful at this stage If not sooner. Um, so wondering if you could kind of respond to um Doing the the entirety of those improvements. Um as part of phase two or um I think, you know, we were trying to spread out The improvements, you know to correspond with each phase Also Fayette narrows down as you move north So, um, it you know does kind of rely on the the multi-use path You know it it there's not really enough room when you get to the north in the road to kind of provide bike Access so In this comment saying not a comment on what is being proposed, but when it's being proposed. Yeah, sorry. Yeah Yeah, I think we were just thinking of that rec path and a lot of those street improvements as bringing the townhomes like the residents of the townhomes to The neighborhood park and other amenities There so That's how we were thinking about it and like you said, we were trying to kind of distribute it just so that it's a little bit easier to finance That's fair. I think I was thinking about it the opposite the moving people from phase one and two north um Yeah, it's like hanaford and stuff that way the bike path bring with the bike path. Um but as I noted like It is true that there is a rec path a sidewalk already on fed so it's not like The street improvements happening earlier would make it so that a cyclist could or couldn't go You know a cyclist still could go just would be nicer if they could go on a You know up to spec rec paths instead of what exists now. Um So yeah, my I if I'm jumping ahead a little bit But my next comment was kind of saying if we if the board were to find that Maybe street stuff should happen earlier in the project or something. Um A lot of the phases are sort of on the 20 cusp of what can be a phase And so my recommendation was if we get there like if we if the board finds that we should get to that point Maybe considering consolidating in the three phases. I don't know how that works for you in terms of finances or construction timelines. Um, but that was just something that I had kind of floated Obviously pending the board's kind of finding on whether the rec path should be Complete from north to south earlier in the project than phase four Um, I guess I'll just start Uh Give the size. I also think it would it would you know be great if all of Could be that whole streetscape to for that connectivity for the folks that are going to be there Sooner um for that connection to the north uh, I don't know if Other board members Your opinion or how strongly you feel about maybe trying to encourage that I mean, I tend I tend to agree with you. I don't know that it's uh a game a game stopper But uh on the hall we want to see the The future at least as it affects the general public we want to see the the future realized sooner rather than later Be a little less specular a little bit more imminent When we're talking about what a really public I think one of the challenges is if we Do the sidewalks and multi-use paths, you know, does the construction of the adjacent buildings later You know rip them up Um, you know, it kind of makes sense to do things All in one area together so that you're not ripping up something that you put in earlier Well, is this something we can is this something we can defer until preliminary plan for whatever the phase is This is really about the phase boundaries Um, so in if you were to defer it you would have to find in the findings for One of the buildings in the orange phase That so it'd be either building three or building six That the applicant had to construct The path beyond the limit of the phase and I think if this master plan stands that's going to be a difficult finding to support at a subsequent final plot Because the applicant will be able to point to this plan and say well, it's not even in this phase How come you're telling us we have to do it? well, I mean I'm sort of I find the idea of tearing up the sidewalks in order to complete the phase fairly rational as an objection I agree. Yeah, especially like over at the micro units, you know, we have to build on the existing parking lot and There's not a lot of extra room around Now I I agree the road exists So there's a connection there. I don't see any reason why we'd want to force them to put in Infrastructure that would inevitably get torn apart when they're doing the construction later It's just doesn't seem to make much sense and it's not like there is no connection now I don't think you want to encourage people to be on a new path going past construction as it's happening All right, so I think the boundaries of that phase we are comfortable with given the constraints of The phases Um, and we are now at comment 31 Oh, so this uh relates to if if we had landed on encouraging You know further build out of Fayette road And combining phases three and four but given that we're not tending that direction Um, you all had noted that all the phases are configured in such a way to reach that 20 percent. So um, I think We're good on that one Border staff anything else on 31 Okay Comment 32 This is about construction timelines. Um, so Master plans, um have an initial six year project period. Um, and so Uh, we just wanted to hear from you of how likely it is that the entirety of the development proposed in the master plan Could be completed within six years. Um, if that's not within the, um intended, uh, you know vision, um Re looking at the scope of it potentially What are your yeah, I think thoughts on that? I don't think it's very likely so we You know are tentatively anticipating having to do that extension before the end of six years um, so, you know, it's very possible that um Phase four won't be completed in that timeline Okay, um, so that's helpful to know so staff's recommendation is um That kind of the details of that phase are probably less pertinent at this phase of review Yeah, I think I mean the the reason that's in there is the The idea of a six year window for a master plan is that if you are going to do something in 30 years We wouldn't want to vest it now because The the rules would be 30 years old by the time you build it and we would prefer that, you know, the master plan is not that far behind um So it's supposed to be with what can be done in six years And then if what can be done in six years due to like budget stuff or supply chain reasons or labor availability gets stretched to 10 then that's okay. Um So I think just the the idea was just to confirm that what you're proposing is reasonably could be done in six years and we're not looking at like a 20 year project that we're pretending is a six year project for the sake of getting regulations vested Understood. Is that fair marley? Thank you. Yeah, I mean it's still correct to show the final condition though even if it's yeah It's just there's no no anticipated vesting of things that aren't going to be within that six year timeframe Or six to ten year timeframe Okay I think I understand the point. I our approach to the master plan was to Sort of put the parameters around the big fix, you know elements the roads the the open spaces Um, I don't think what I've what we've drawn is doable in six years. It's probably I don't wouldn't venture a guess it um But I don't think it's going to change much and you know, if I were to be back here in six years I think that the concepts that were presented will be sort of the fundamental concepts of what we're approaching So I don't know if that answers the question, but we have a longer view on that master plan You know for but I still I think we have strong conviction that we've got the the general roads and parks in the right place um, and to that point, I don't know if it's worse Having this clarification here, but um the list of items that we identified to vest So what does that mean that those items would only be vested in phases one two and three since Actively or because we are looking at it at the entire end state that we would just How does that work? I guess or do we not need to worry about that right now decision Okay as part of this master plan if if they're saying the details are fuzzy on phase four you may say Then these elements are vested for phases one through three and phase four. We're not really asking anything I mean that's based based on the applicant's response. I feel like that's where I would Well, well one in you mentioned six years you could extend it to 10 years at the same time if we have to come back in 10 years The board and the city get another crack at discussions on some of those items anyways, so I I think our intent with this master plan is to try to build it as quickly as we can And the way that we have shown it as we can that's why we're here So vesting it up to when the master plan is We'd have to come back to amend it anyways. I think is Is kind of what we're asking If I may I kind of see it as as more The applicant's decision I don't see much of a downside for us including phase four But we're going to need as much detail on phase four is in one two and three in order to vest it So if the applicant wants to spend the money with the professionals in the time to get to that level of detail now So we can vest it all great If you really think phase four is out past six to ten years You might not want to spend that money right now because even if we vest it, it's not going to count You're going to have to come back anyway so Just keep in mind that whatever we're going to vest we're going to need the same level of detail To do that. So this is the master plan. This is not a sketch anymore. Yeah, that's why I would say There's not a second Sort of set of plans coming before you have to issue a decision on what's vested and what's not right So things like building heights. Well, we don't have the phase four in detail right now So we would have to exclude that So those sorts of things if we don't have it we can't vest it right so I've pulled up the list again and then I think Everything but the second to last one You have right And I think I talked to paul earlier last week and He wanted to tighten a lot of these up like become more specific Like what does natural resource impacts mean? You know like want to he wanted me to You know for in 10 years for the future versions of ourselves To have that instead of be three words be a paragraph and say we're Vesting the you know The way that this interacts with the wetlands and the you know acres of impacts. Exactly. Yeah, so That can become tightened up and in that Yeah, I think it's fair to say maybe building a location and footprint for phase four Is invested if the board doesn't feel that it should be vested but as the applicant's expressed They're thinking I mean the buildings are on the plan right So you have all the information right now as well for these. Yeah So perhaps it's worth a little bit of time and deliberations or something, you know if you want to talk about it further So that's not a decision we need to make right now is what I guess I mean it'd be helpful probably that yeah, it indicates the applicant But if you think there's you know discussion to be had about to what level Phase four gets vested in all these things That's fair to preserve that for deliberations, but I think it'd be Good to indicate that now as as far as I guess my It sounds like at this stage at the master plan They've put equal amount of time into everything to your point John except for maybe building heights for phase four So they've treated this whole project phases one through four as if it's one master plan all getting the same level of detail and treatment um Yeah, I think I mean these are high level items. I think we have the information necessary to vest phase four under these minus building heights, which we said we're only doing for phases one and two Um Any other thoughts on that Okay, so I think we've come full circle. Let's go for it. We're good. Thank you And yes and Marty to your point We would expand that list of items and deliberation for the final decision to have those That that list be more robust. Yeah, so there'll be more detail when the decision comes out But I don't think anything surprising um So comment number 33, hopefully I didn't skip one um so, uh a plan showing um the placement of any temporary structures or uses on the site so um It's being recommended for you to provide a phase by phase construction plan that identify any required construction areas or temporary parking for site users And submit those prior to the close of the hearing Um, is that a level of detail you guys have we felt this level of detail was more for site plan approval we this is a 30,000 foot view of a project. I I have not figured out how I'm going to construct these buildings at this point. So um, we're requesting that these be handled as part of site plan Um and having that construction information outlined that you're looking for uh be more site plan specific I was just scrolling up to the header of this again. So this is under the phasing plan. So the phasing plan should designate different things and the timing and sequence of development And one of the things that should be part of the phasing plan. So is one two And three is temporary or interim structures including construction or staging areas intended for conversion or redevelopment in a subsequent phase should be identified So yeah, this is in the LDRS as part of the phasing plan um It seems like there's a primarily Inter interim structures and uses. Um So what are constructing construction interim structures like? um contractors trailers Are supposed to be on this plan now like you seen across the street Here on market street. Yep. Yeah, Snyder Braverman's got there. It's like a big building and it What is it like 90 by? Something I don't know how big it is like an acre It's 40 000 square feet and it's a um sort of a fabrication tent What I'm saying is at this point. I don't have that type of knowledge on what sort of construction They're going to require what spaces they're going to need um, we do believe that the phases um can be used and those areas can be used for construction staging and construction phasing um, and are appropriate to do so and we would sort of Work to build in that Those areas, but I don't have that level of detail at all mapped out at this point in the project I don't know if this is a reasonable art Is it Possible that that component of the phasing plan be met with more of a narrative Description rather than you know, this is where we're going to have this temporary structure for building this phase xyz or is that Or is that something we we would accept Or historically how I know we haven't done a lot of master plans like this, but I think the purpose of this standard is You know, I pulled up a backup this plan because I wanted to point out the exact circumstances where I think the standard might be applicable This building currently uses these lots for parking, right? So if during construction of this building Um, this building is going to supply the future parking for this underneath it for instance Um, you know, and this is a universe in which like there isn't a parking There isn't like unused parking lots across the street. I'm just giving an example of why this matters So say this was like a standalone field And there was two big parking lots here and both of these were going to be under construction at the same time And this building is going to be operational Well, where are the people using this building going to park during construction of these two buildings? So that's suffer instance that this might be important I haven't performed like a building my building analysis on whether that's an issue in any location on this project and what we were saying is We feel a building by building Evaluation at site plan is more appropriate for something like that and to to your point of mentioning that We are in a location where there is where there is a lot of other parking places That could be used during construction if those areas were needed for construction staging and traffic Um, but felt that it was easier to identify on a case by case basis with the board during site plan approval Yeah, I don't disagree I'm just reading the reg and It's kind of mentioning this as a required component of a master plan Uh, I don't know how we resolve that if it's required, but you Don't have it at this time. I don't know. Yeah, it seems like uh I don't know a bit of a stalemate. I'm not certain You know, I don't know so Wouldn't it have to be a plan for each phase? It wouldn't just be one plan Yeah for each for each building for each building. Yeah, so I need to provide you I mean we could put something together whether it's really what's gonna happen. We have no idea I think that's I can create a cartoon for this board to look at and for us to put into The permit but felt it was really It wasn't appropriate and like I said, I don't disagree with you But I am just reading the rule We can submit something. Yeah I would prefer to close the hearing now. Yeah. I mean, is there something that we Is there something the board can write in as a A condition of the master plan that this can be a Site plan approval construction I think that a condition to submit such a plan is probably a bridge too far. It's not specific Mm-hmm I'm nervous about Not thinking about it, you know, I've just seen so many applicants paint themselves into corners Does that not put the onus back on us though? Yeah, but you're committing to these phases, right? So if you if the board allows you to paint yourself into a corner and you can't build the plan that you've been Promising then the board doesn't get then you shouldn't be getting all the benefits of having this master plan approval But I think it's to the developers You know, they have to make it work. So we're going to find a way to make it work. Yeah I mean that It should also be identified Yeah, we just really didn't understand what was needed for this we felt the phasing pan appropriately provided the space for all these things and putting little spaces on it and putting more detail at this point in a project Didn't seem appropriate. So in the interest of time What needs to happen here is the board needs to say You must do this before we close the hearing or say We're gonna take that risk and you know, allow this standard to not really be met But that decision needs to be clear and unequivocal from the board You know, they're saying we don't want to do it. The board's options are approve it without it deny it or Require them do it before you close I don't know that we have an option other than three Required the two of people we close Yeah, I wouldn't feel comfortable and again, I think we're all in agreement that We might not love what's that? I guess I can work with Marty and see what you need for us To to do this. I I thought everything was on the plan, but apparently it's not and Maybe a conversation that could have happened before 807 at the hearing. Yep. Yeah Are we all So We will continue this that will probably be the final item um Work with staff on meeting that criteria And comment number 34 Uh recommendation to revise the management plan to include the information Um, noted by the director of public works Is that something you all This request is specific to what items are proposed for public dedication So they can either say it verbally or They can submit it, but if it's going to be continued Unless there's not something that you had questions about Sorry, we had missed this note Is this since we have to continue um, and these are comments that have come From the city. I think we talked about this a little bit in the last one, but um, we can I think it's just the actual management plan needs to be to reflect Sort that Are you guys okay if we Move on to continue it. Yep on that one. Okay So, um When would we be continuing this too? I know that you we have sworn to never do feral and barking on the same one But if this is just going to be like a perfunctory They won't take Time or Also, do I do we need this date before I take public comment or should I move to public comment while we sort out a date? That sounds like a great plan. Okay. Um, is there anyone here or online? Looking to make a comment about this project tonight Okay, no one online no one in the audience All right, I will turn back to staff for a date of continuation Uh 20th February 20th 220 Two weeks from now So in order to do that we'd have to have your necessary materials by this Friday Which is just the phasing plan and then The language and the management plan that says I think there's quite a bit of work to that phasing plan I think we're gonna need at least a week or two to prep that Yeah, I guess might be a multiple Gage pushes out a couple beatings. I think we need to that's gonna take quite a bit of work Okay March 5th Yeah, March 5th is the meeting after that So stuff would need to be in by the 21st Of February I will move to continue Uh mp 2301 to March. Sorry fifth Second Um all those in favor I Opposed abstain All right, we'll see you guys one more time on the 5th. Thank you so much Okay Moving on to agenda item number eight So this is for master plan Skeeter master plan sketch plan application SD 24 01 of university of amont and state Agricultural college to establish a master plan for an existing 87.6 acre acre lock developed with a parking lot supporting driveways and a helipad The master plan consists of 275 units of housing and two five-story buildings over two phases And associated site improvements on 5.7 acres at zero cat amount drive Um, so this is the first time we're seeing you guys for this project. Um, it is a sketch plan So, um, I don't need to swear you in Uh, but if you just want to start with a brief overview, um Of the oh, sorry. Oh, sorry. I have one disclosure Uh, my wife works for the hospital and the medical school and my oldest is actually just admitted to uvm But I do not believe that will in any way impact my ability to render an impartial judgment Excellent. Thank you, john. If anyone has any concerns with that, please speak up And is Stephanie joining us? No, uh, sorry Thank you, john. Um, so yes, if you want to give a brief overview just to start. Thank you Is your mic on? Oh, sorry, maybe not. Okay. There's that better. Um, my name's lisa kingsbury I'm the associate director of planning at uvm. Um, we have a whole team who will introduce in a second But with me here is lani raven our associate planner and tony libro Who's the chief operating officer of aam 15? They're the owners of the double tree hotel So i'm just going to very briefly talk about the importance of this project. Um to the university Um, so uvm and aam 15 are entering into a partnership to develop and manage this 184 unit multifamily project The project is on land that's owned by the university, but it has long been leased by the hotel for the parking needs for their conference center This parcel is identified in uvm's 2022 to 2023 campus plan as a land bank Meaning it's an area that uvm has deemed appropriate for development And this will be a public-private partnership with the primary use being as housing for uvm upper-class undergraduate students And as everyone is very aware, there is a keen need for all types of housing in our community right now Our upper-class undergraduate students many of whom live off campus feel that pinch of the housing shortage Just as others in the community do So this project gives them another option for housing that's on the periphery of our campus Similar to our redstone lofts and redstone commons projects if you're familiar with those And it's a way for uvm to contribute to the the need for housing in the community So we're very excited about the this new housing option for our students and about the partnership with aam 15 Um, my name is tony leigh bro. I'm the chief operating officer of aam 15 management We own and operate the double tree hotel on wilson road I just wanted to echo lisa's comments. Uh, we couldn't be more excited to be entering into this partnership with the university creating housing for students My oldest is applying to uvm. So I need to get in like two years from now, hopefully But ultimately where we're going for is to be able to pull students out of the housing requirements for the local community Um, so that there's more availability for the residents of South burlington So we're excited to take this additional role within the community and have put together quite A team of professionals to help us in this endeavor This is part of a larger plan and i'm sure we're going to touch on multiple pieces of this but In an adjacent parcel, there are two projects that are under form-based code Uh, which are part of this plan, which is a parking garage as well as an expansion Of the current hotel and that's under form-based code. So, uh, this The first question somebody might ask is we are giving up four and a half acres of parking. Where are all those cars going? We do have a plan for that and that's in a parking garage. It's on the existing parcel That is part of that that is owned by am burlington hotel, which is the actual hotel owner in an adjacent parcel Uh, so launey, let me turn it back over to you to just introduce the team and we're happy to go through any comments that you have Good evening. Um, I want to introduce our team. We have quite a few people here. Uh, only a few will speak So i'll introduce them first Alex Halper and Colleen Perron from freeman french freeman over there Jeff Hodgson and Cynthia sylvie landscape architects Over here derrick reid From crebs and lansing engineering So those are the people that we expect to speak Um, so if you would like us to take you through this, uh, project a little bit Um, we'd like Jeff and Cynthia to come up and talk about the project Yeah Yeah, and if other people are gonna speak as well, there's another microphone on that table So you guys can move around as you please So, um And is your mic on sir? Uh, yes Okay So this this parcel if you're not familiar with it sits at kind of the northwest corner of the interchange So it backs up to a wetland and kind of are in centennial woods To the west Is the rugby pitch And there's a heliport over there And so the front of the the site itself is the double tree Um and conference center the parking lot That is the site we're talking about today is to the north So the the apartment building sits entirely on that Area where the where the parking lot is Excellent And with that we'll move if it's okay We'll move into the first staff comment because I think we're getting into the area We'll probably get to these items of discussion Um, so the first item is about phasing so describe the proposed phasing including geography and timing And whether you are seeking concurrent approval for all or part of the project at the same time as part of this master plan review So planning for the future housing on the rugby field is in the preliminary phase And we do not have enough information at this point about that project Our plan is that the rugby field housing will move forward within three to five years So we will be you know focusing on the Back lot on the catamount apartments building And again as tony had mentioned the they're permitted at certain separate projects We can also give you information about phasing for catamount woods as well as the hotel and parking garage And I can give that to you now if you want the construction of the new hotel will start as soon as permits are issued To be completed by december 2025 Number two the demolition of the old. Yes, that's the new wing Number two is demolition of the old hotel wing a little bit north of there And construction of a parking garage To be completed by december 2025 And then third is the construction of catamount woods as soon as permits are issued To be completed by july 2026 And that will include the courtyards all roads shared use path paths amenities and viewing platforms to centennial woods So all those pieces you just spoke to it seems like they're kind of within The six year time period that we talked about for master plan So is it correct to say that those are all the pieces you would be looking for approval under this no master plan Or so the master plan includes phase two, but we don't have any details about that So we're really focusing on this. Um, yeah, that's phase Uh buildings. I think it's a and b We're not focusing on those now. We do not have more information about them at this point So, yes, everything that I just mentioned that will be done by Um, july 2026 is in that picture over there All right, um moving on to comment number two Um, so this is Uh, so what stage of review it would be appropriate to demonstrate that the proposed storm water treatment may be allowed Um, and this I realize now, um, because sometimes I write these in like 12 hour binges That this is a little bit confusing. So this is talking about the storm water treatment associated with phase two because that is If you go to the natural resources map, that's where there's a conflict with the river corridor That's right. So that Sorry, so there's um a plan to build a flow restoration expansion of what we're calling the main street pond That is sort of a phase two effort, but hopefully soon because there's grant funding to do it Um, but there is a river core that passes through there. We're currently working with Trying to contact an art to revise that river corridor line so that we can improve the the main street pond that basically It's determined to be a stream right now But we feel it's not because there's storm water ponds that are actually protecting the river corridor themselves And so it's just the detail. We're going to work out for the next phase So your position is that the river corridor as mapped is incorrect and you're looking to True that up with what's on the ground and you're working with the state to do that sounds like Yes, how will that relate to our ability to approve a master plan? Well, this that phase isn't part of this master plan. It is part of this master plan. Oh Okay, so but it's a later phase of the project, right? Yeah, we would have to at a minimum condition any approval Recharacterization of the of that area, right? Yes We're at sketch right now too. So I think I don't know what the timeline is I would imagine they might have that sorted out by the time or at least an update Exactly. Yeah, so we would be able to better inform a condition. So that's phase two That's would be part of the rugby field housing What we're looking for approval as phase one would not include this, right? But the master plan is one master plan and then you'll be looking for Final plot for phase one And final plot for phase two later later So the master plan lays out the general concept of locations of buildings infrastructure storm water treatment So the master plan would need to know that that storm water Can exist And I think frank's suggestion for a condition if you know signs are good from a and r seems to be reasonable That would be fine. Yeah Okay, thank you A question number or sorry comment number three This is relating to the requirements that buildings must front on streets Um, and the project requires upgrading the existing site drive from a driveway to a street So, uh, this comment is asking for you to speak to the proposed street configuration That is proposed here So the street today is um, and sorry, I'll just add in looking at and so um In your description connecting it to one of the approved street types that are in the LDR and how that relates The driveway as it sits today is 24 feet wide. We're proposing Um, a recreation a multi-use path 10 foot wide multi-use path on the west side and a five foot Sidewalk on the east side It's a windy road as it is today it works well for traffic calming We want to call it a um neighborhood local neighborhood street The street width that's allowed the maximum street width is 10 feet Uh, the the lane We'd like it to be 12 So that it matches the current the buses need to turn through there So I don't know if there's an allowance for a waiver on that But we'd like it to maintain this the width that it is today We meet the other requirements by providing the sidewalks will have street trees In that green space, but we feel like the speed limit of 25 is reasonable And we don't know a sort of flexibility falls in the street typologies. It's a little bit I think it's a little Outside the box In the development the other option was a rural connector, but speeds a little faster And we'd rather not have faster than 25 and I think the street would control it with its windiness, but we wanted the board's thoughts as to How to name it if we can just Ask for minor modifications to the street technology Oh, yeah, sorry and the uh The neighborhood local requires Parallel parking on it and we wanted We don't we can't fit a bus through if we parked on it. So All right So staff, could you speak to um I mean the parallel parking seems like a Made I know typically dimensional waivers or standards or something that we sometimes can wave But as far as something like parallel parking requirements I don't know if that's something we can get at with street types, right and you can't get to waivers Um at the master plan, right, right? That would be a final plot thing. Um, But the master plan is supposed to lay out the street types So I think It does look like you have some parallel parking it's it's uh It's the bus drop-off. It's wider there. It's We're able to make an area that's two percent for ADA um And then it basically allows the bus to come and drop off and move out So is there a way to make it A rural connector and reduce the speed I mean, how much is the speed limit? I guess I would say that um, this is something staff can think about I'm wondering about the board's feedback on Whether they think it makes sense to try and find a path forward to not exactly meet one of the street cross-sections And if you think that if you want to say yes staff, we think that Not exactly matching one of the street typologies For an extension or an improvement because they they do have to make improvements to it It's not like they're just keeping the road as it is They're keeping the alignment and making improvements in the road Does that seem like something you want us to look into whether that's feasible? Or do you think that it should match one of the typologies in the ldr? So that the streets in south berlington are uniform and predictable It's very similar. I mean Charles is laughing at me Uniform for for what purpose? I'm not a traffic expert frank. I'm not a traffic expert But I know that you know when you turn down the street and it's weird sometimes it's a little confusing It's a little weak I'm not making a push either way. I'm trying to be neutral here. How much discretion do we have? Well, that's what I would have to look into. Yeah, I think we should look into I mean, this is sort of almost a self-contained community. I think it's kind of You know and to say it's gotta Be similar to a street a mile away doesn't make a lot of on its face a lot of sense, but it may be some Better reason that I don't know So if you would look into it, I think we'd appreciate I would agree with that Okay, thank you. So we will look have staff Look into path forward and revisit the street type That was our goal And we are on to comment number four So This is about the proposed management structure Responsible for the project development following Project completion and the long-term Ownership and management. I know you spoke a little bit to that. This is a partnership and So you might have partially answered this question, but I know I personally absorb it all so if you could speak to the management structure During development and the long-term management of the property that would be helpful for us. Yep, absolutely. So the ownership structure is a partnership between A subsidiary of a m15 management and the university of vermont, but I interrupt you for just a second. Yes I'm a little fussy about the loose term Using the term partnership loosely. What exactly do you mean? It'll be an LLC in which the university will be a member and we will be bringing in private investors Formed in a separate LLC to be the opposite member the Managing member of a a m15 management Will be the one of the managers Of the partnership and a m15 management will operate the building. Okay. So it's an in essence UVM is a passive member without control of day-to-day operations that is correct and an intended user of the overall Correction of the premises. So UVM will be A intended user During an initial stage of the project to be At this stage the conversations and the letter of understanding. It is not a final agreement Is 20 years Where this will be intended for use with students the land lease On this parcel between the developer and the university of vermont is 60 years So there is a gap there where this building could theoretically Seize to be for the benefit of students and be for the benefit of the general public Everybody get that UVM has no say essentially and It ceases to be used for its original purpose after 20 years and becomes It could discretionary with the with the private managing member For whatever the lawful purposes are at that time correct So a m15 management Will be responsible for the day-to-day operation of the building signing the leases collecting payments All normal phases of management Okay, so the Can restating another way the principal benefit to the university is For a period of an expected period of 20 years possibly more if you come to another arrangement, but Only the only thing will that way expect that to be locked in Is 20 years of student housing on a portion of the property plus The rent on a long term on a 60-year lease It's your land. It's the university's land. Is that correct? That is correct, sir And I just want to clarify something you made the comment that the university has no say They are yes, they are an investor and a passive investor But under normal LLC laws within the state of vermont an LLC investor does have say Under normal LLC laws in the state of vermont an LLC member who is not a managing member has some say on some major things like disposing of Substantially all the property for example and very little else I'm john collins. I'm deputy general counsel of the university just want to point out that the lease lease will control things like The student Activity is the student policy is being subject to the policy. So I understand and frank you and I know each other from 20 years ago Um, I understand your concern, but we're making sure that the university has a sale of this project And we'll be actively involved so You know, well the operating agreement can provide that but correct So far that's that's broad outline and not Doesn't exist yet the operating correct But we'll have fundamental decisions in that agreement where uvm has absolute say over quite a few things It might be helpful then as we related back to what we're doing here when you've described the management plan to Be somewhat specific about that. So it may accelerate your negotiation a little more than you had planned But uh, why don't you try to nail that down some? We'll be happy to provide that pardon. We'll be happy to provide that. Thank you very much But we have an active interest in making sure that we have to say so All right. Well, I'm glad you're here. Thank you I think that's one of the requirements that we submit for either preliminary or final class So I think is the management plan required at the Um master plan level. I think that's correct. Yeah, okay And so yeah, I get what you'll be doing concurrently with you So I just want to be clear about this though that aam's involvement is only with phase one from a master plan perspective We don't have involvement phase two. So I just want to be clear about that So yeah, I think these are all the like different legal mechanisms and other agreements you guys have in place having that all laid out in the management agreement For our purposes to see what How all that's laid out I hope that that you'll have counsel involved because this sounds like a fairly complex management arrangement And we would like we would like it to be Comprehensible and meaningful when we see it Yeah, not a problem. We don't need the operating agreement. We just need the operating agreement ultimately be consistent with what you described to us Excellent. Thank you Frank um Okay, we are moving on to item number five so So one of the pieces of master plan is that you can request process waivers for subsequent applications filed under the master plan And so at this time you have not requested any process waivers as part of the sketch plan application So We just wanted to have the opportunity of if there were any waivers That you might be Looking to seek They're listed bulleted up there Um And if that's something that you've not given thought to I think I might turn to staff to Um Provide any recommendations you might have but we'll hear from the applicant first Yeah, we'd like to do master plan and preliminary plans together In one meeting and at our next meeting we'd like to do final plans Together with the site plan application. I think that's the kind of information. Yeah. No, sorry. I'm the master plans So so yep, so that's that's a given. Yeah The type of waivers that you could request are things like if you later choose to I don't do something that would otherwise require a site plan you later choose to add a sidewalk The board at the master plan level can say requests to modify impervious surfaces by You know less than 500 square feet shall only require a zoning permit instead of a site plan um So you can think about that I'm sure there will be unexpected changes like I don't know what they are, but I'm sure that they will happen So to the extent that we can ask for a waiver for a certain amount whatever is Customary we would love to hear about that Not on the customary. Yeah, I don't know if it's worth clarifying and staff correction if I'm wrong, but so these are for just to This is specific to process waivers and that Like so as far as what steps you have to go through at different phases if things change and not like waiver of Actually like impervious or something like that. So it's more like it's more like instead of having to do a site plan review It could go directly to zoning permit or maybe Things changes that would require drb review Like a modification of wetland impacts less than 5000 square feet Can be reviewed administratively that'd be an example. Yeah, thank you for So so you can think about it I think this is something we wanted to flag at this point in time and you can Look kind of what's proposed and what things might come up of oh, we might want to have a different Streamline process if this comes to be and then you can talk through those with staff as far as what the options are And then bring any waivers you process may wavers you might want to us Can we waive the need for naming a street typology? That's not a process But I appreciate the creativity there Um So that's the overview. No, it's a little funky, but I think at this point It's best to be aware that you guys can request process waiver items based on what might come up Um on the current site plan and you can bring those to us at your master plan Meeting Okay, thank you for this information That just so we all have a baseline the right now A site feature that's added that's 40 square feet or smaller could be a zoning permit and 41 square feet and above Is a site plan that's our typical that's what the process is today So if you're going to be looking for a waiver, that's sort of your start point is you'd be looking for 41 square feet and and beyond um Just so you know That's what the board knows as well. Thank thank you for that heads up. Yeah, we definitely will want to ask for something like that um, so this next item is about vesting components of the master plan Uh, I think you guys were maybe around for a little bit of the previous discussion where we were talking about this a bit um and I might defer to staff if you want to in the vein of wanting to communicate this Effectively do you want to give an overview of the benefits and kind of what? Things might be considered. Um unless the board wants it. I actually had a chance to talk to lani before this meeting about this comment So I think that they're all up to speak. Oh, perfect. Yeah, we'd love to take advantage of it But it's a moment. We're not far enough in planning for the second phase to take advantage of this. We just don't have that Okay, good Okay staff comment number seven Um, so this is about the buildable area of the lot. So the total parcel is reported Um to be about 87.56 acres with 275 units um and it seems When staff looked at this that maybe a habitat block and a river corridor were left Or were included in the buildable area that was considered So in revisiting those items it looks about that there's 11 buildable acres on the parcel Which would allow for construction of actually 130 units Without the consideration of affordable housing bonus units So, um, we're hoping that you could speak to achieving the desired density given those parameters Yes, I can If you bring up plan dp-1 On the right side UVM included language on plan q dp-1 that reads Applicant believes that review of the application Is subject to limitations set forth in 24 vsa 4 4 1 3 Which limits regulations of qualified uses Including schools and educational institutions To specified criteria And only to the extent the regulation does not have the effect of interfering With the intended functional uses Habitat blocks and steep slopes are not subject to regulation per 24 vsa 4 4 1 3 Per a conversation with staff yesterday. It seems that this language was overlooked We have submitted a letter to this effect to staff and we've given you a copy here And we've asked that staff reconsider this comment and others Related to the potential need for a conservation PUD Or other measures to meet UVM's desired density So you're equating if I understand it correctly, you're equating The fact that this is will be for a limited time student housing as uh coming within the scope of Qualified use is that right? Yes. There's no instruction planned here Instruction no science buildings It's student. Well, it's it's student housing. It's student housing. Yeah. Yeah, I think you have a I think you have a hard road John if you don't already work on them, where's John? Sorry, do you mind just um, there's another microphone over there too This is pretty important because it's affects half the units you want to do. So I think it's worth Yeah, I don't want to go too far down the road tonight because I think we want you to respond and then we can react more but Student housing is educational use and there's Vermont Supreme Court case law on that. So it doesn't have to be You know what's in my mind is a little very old. Remember that right? I do. I do with the ski areas not You don't get the benefit of correct But student housing is considered educational use. So you got a case I don't have it tonight, but I'm happy to to supply something. Okay. Would you would you? Yeah, absolutely care about it, but I'll tell you would you send me the case? Yeah, absolutely supports it It is an educational use that would be my concern. Okay Fair enough to follow up on that with what you teased out earlier since it's this joint venture that it might not be student housing in 20 years Does that impact on the ability to waive certain requirements? Because it's not university isn't building the the other parcel you're talking about if the university is going to build an own In perpetuity Then it seems to make sense to me that it would be an educational use although Certainly would be interested in frank checking that case law In the case of the building that's in question now Is it truly an educational use if it's not uvm's in perpetuity? So let us address that in writing. Um, I think uh Tony was being very upfront about possibilities down the road But you know, this is certainly intended to be student housing for for a long time So we can address that in writing So I'd like an opportunity to uh provide some detail on that You will provide details. Yes Um, and the other thing I want to note is that if the board ultimately disagrees with their interpretation There is another path forward for this project to be successful in its current configuration So I think my recommendation um at this juncture is You know, the board has indicated they have some questions about this I think it's great that the understanding seems to be so deep at this initial level Um, I think that the board can continue reviewing this project as it's presented because this There's two potential ways to resolve this and one of them is probably going to be successful Does that feel fair? The other potential way to resolve the density issue is to create a conservation pud So if the applicant were to conserve the lands that they're not proposing to develop Then they get to transfer the density from those conserved lands to the development area Is that within the scope of your your thinking? Because that would that would be a quick solution Well, it creates other issues. So we we would do want to address the 44 13 issue first and and react to that Okay, be sure to address john's point to the 20 or 40 years. Yes, absolutely. That's a big Thank you. Thank you Okay, um stop comment number eight. Uh, this one is just about showing the zoning district boundaries on the plans um and uh given Uh involving multiple zoning districts. Um, so sorry just so, uh What is allowed is extending zoning district standards up to 50 p in either direction beyond the district boundary line as necessary Um to avoid splitting a building or subdivision in half Um, it looks like as of right now taking advantage of that still want it Kind of account for what's being proposed at this time Um, so just looking for thoughts and a response on that Uh, we plan to investigate this the parcel and the zoning district boundaries Right near the east campus storm water pond for the next stage of the application. Okay, great So that's on your radar to look at and adjust accordingly. Excellent Okay staff comment number nine um so this is um Uh board if we want to recommend um the applicant uh Consult with the city um by school and pedestrian committee for review Um in this situation, I think that referral would make sense. Um, any other thoughts on that? Yeah, absolutely, especially given that you're proposing uh parking under The uh the requirements based on the fact that it's going to be mostly students Which is another question that comes up with the 20 year and what if it's not and What if you have a whole building full of renters that all have cars and down the line Could be problematic But given that it's student focused I would definitely think you would want to have ample indoor bike parking because I'm sure a lot of the students Utilize bikes more than what we would normally expect to see from a normal building We're fine with that excellent. Um, so the question here is Does the board want it as part of the preliminary? Combined preliminary and master plan or did they want it for final plot? Sounds like people are pretty interested in hearing the bike pet committee's recommendations. They meet once a month Let's see. You could probably get on their next agenda Oh, so we would kind of sure you just tell us when to show up. We will Okay, I'll send a note Okay. Yeah, so sorry. I missed that so I think um, sorry. I saw master plan so we At master plan stage it sounds like um, so as soon as possible to get their input At this point. So you want to get their input before we submit our master plan application or after? I think before Yes, okay, just confirming with y'all. Thank you. Um, yes So before so it's part of the master plan that high level proposal Okay before we submit before. Yeah, okay Just let us know when to show up. I think staff will follow up with you on how to get on their agenda I can figure it out in the next couple months Excellent Staff comment number 10 So this I think might be tabled based on the discussion we had but this is about If you guys may pursue a conservation or a general PUD They do need to pursue a PUD because they're asking they're going to be asking for modification of standards that are not dimensional Okay. Yeah, we plan to ask for a general PUD. So for sure Do we need anything else on that? Um, no the rest of the rest of it is tabled here. Yeah, okay Just for clarity the general PUD doesn't help with the density issue. It does not I'm just wondering if we should still Talk it sounds like something. Okay. Um, so we will table those items but um With the caveat knowing if the density issue has not resolved Via the means that you are pursuing currently those points will Want to be revisited right now for the interest of time since it sounds like you aren't pursuing that right now We'll skip over but um We might have to circle back to that in the future. Um, okay, so Um, so staff comment number 11 um The discussion of reduced parking and reduced front setbacks and how this achieves Criteria C and D listed above We started to touch on the reduced parking a little bit, but wondering if you can Speak to that further. Yes, I can as we This is a special site within walkable access to a large natural area stores commercial areas multiple modes of transportation a major state university and a hospital and a state major statewide hospital That is superior to many other residences in the area and in vermont in general The green courtyards are another onsite of menatee The tradeoff is that this is a dense site with limited parking As shared investors in the project the new building is being designed with the adjacent double tree property To incorporate shared accessibility utilities storm water right-of-way access and other elements Catamount woods will not adversely impact adjacent properties Um Do you want to say something about the setbacks? Yes, if you could speak to that as well. So on the setbacks This project is just north and we're not talking about it today. I understand But it's just north of the form-based code part of the project with the parking garage And the primary street build-to line is zero to 12 feet Um So we're basically trying to align with that same standard as you kind of pass through the road We're aligning the faces of the building This garage footprint that you're seeing is not what you'll what is shown currently it actually Um conforms to the front Um of the street very well And so catamount woods is sort of imitating that to the north. So it is a continuous View as you come through Or do you have any response in The applicant's presentation of Meeting c and d with those requests We're comfortable with those for the time Okay Thank you for that No further comment Comment 12 So we're requesting initial description of the proposed form of the development and how it has been designed to complement the development context So, um, this is about the proposed ppd being compatible with the planning area So the the development context around here is large buildings like there's a hotel There's uvm buildings and parking lots in the context of a campus Which has green spaces courtyards bike paths and more So we feel that the new buildings that we're designing here will fit into this context I don't have any concerns with that board. Do you have any other? Okay Um So the next comment is about civic spaces. Um, so civic spaces. Um, oh, oh, sorry. Yes This is your territory. Yes. Um, so if you could speak to how the proposed civic spaces relate to the development context And the qualifying type that are being proposed. Yep So, um, we're looking to um, there's quite a large civic space requirement with the pud And so we're looking to um designate the multi-use path that goes along the drive As a greenway And then if we need we will need extra area we were thinking that Um Centennial woods, you know a major natural area in wooded area could qualify under the green in article 11 civic space types And then the courtyards satisfy the site amenity requirements But there will also be Kind of a little pocket park opposite the conference center Um, that we probably won't even need Okay, so the board hasn't really gotten too deep into the civic spaces Yet given that these regulations are only a couple years old. Um, so as this does in the report with a General or conservation pud they have to designate 10 percent of the project area as civic spaces Civic spaces have to be certain Like have to just like roads have to comply with certain sets of things civic spaces have to comply with certain sets of things Um, I think this may be the first project that is proposing to move forward With a greenway So just in the future be asking you for a lot of a lot of Good information about that. Yeah, we've had some other folks talk about it, but no one actually moved it forward so far Okay And if you look at the next plan, um, the colored landscape plan Derrick's in my plan or actually the next one Um There was I guess it's the it's probably the next question I might be jumping ahead. No, that's fine if we are I think, um So the next one's about the conservation pud Oh, maybe it was it was a comment about the, um The reworking of the area around the comfort Yeah, um, yeah, so that's just not in red. I think So reduce the site amenity requirement up to 50 percent Uh, when a civic space is provided on the site or directly accessible that the I think oh nevermind. Okay Okay, so I think that's all we need at this stage. Um, yeah Get your mic You're you're contemplating counting the courtyard for the hotel as a civic space The courtyard's at the student housing the two on the north side Okay, okay moving on to comment 14. Um So this is about Pursuing conservation puds. So I think would we just skip over this one for now? Yes, okay. Thank you um, and then the last Is um inclusionary zoning zoning um Exempts projects that are developed by an educational institution for the exclusive residential use and occupancy of its students from inclusionary Housing requirements given the proposed partnership arrangement for development of this housing staff recommends the board asked the applicant to confirm this exemption complies I think we would have similar questions as So with this, um, I think it's clear that if The building was being used for the general public We would have to comply with this regulation. So if we got to a situation 20 years from now where uvm Sees to the students cease to be the primary residents We would have to provide Affordable housing as part of this building No different than we do with our other 20 apartment buildings Well, that's I'm glad it's clear to you Yeah, I think that sounds fairly straightforward. I mean it's not like parking where you know because it's students They need fewer spaces. It's you just change the rent and they comply. Yeah I mean, you also have to do the paperwork But you do the paperwork and you change the rent and they comply And what would be the trigger for our What would be the trigger governing that? I mean, you know, it's your your 20 years in one month Right They they've told the university all the kids got to move down. No one has discussed it with us And they just start running apart I think that There would have to be a condition Which as you recognize is difficult to enforce Um, I also think that there may be some hue and cry if that were to happen and the general public would know That this is happening and we get in force on that condition The general public though, however, doesn't doesn't stay very involved in the enforcement of inclusionary housing condition But I agree with you. It should be a condition of any permit Yeah, I guess I was thinking if if all of a sudden 185 units of student housing Are no longer student housing. I just feel like that makes the paper And then we would be aware and enforce Well, I hope to be retired. I hope to be retired in 20 years, but um, hopefully my predecessor will enforce that We won't be around should we say it's not our problem Okay, um, you won't say that And so there's one other item that wasn't in red here, but um about asking the avalanche to describe their proposed mix Of bedrooms. Do we want do we need that at this point or? No, I think you're right. I think I should probably Alex you want to take that one So, um, so again just to repeat because I was kind of just talking with staff If you can speak to the proposed mix of bedrooms That are proposed in the development Okay We have a mix of bedrooms and we're still working on the interior Of of that and we can tell you what our current mix is but That's not those are not developed plans yet So the requirement is just a mix of two or more dwelling unit types. Um, so One bedroom two bedroom. Oh, yeah, we have one through four bedroom. Okay units And it's pretty well mixed. It's not like one one bedroom one two bedroom one three bedroom and the rest are four Correct. Yeah. Yeah, I think I think this is More or less obvious. I just want to nail the point These are all apartments, right? No, none of this is any kind of congregate housing for example dependent on a common dining facility For eight or nine rooms or something like no, these are all self-contained apartments. All right. No in no sense Adornment or No, no, they're all apartments. Every apartment is self-contained with Laundry, you know kitchen bathroom living room. That's what I thought Excellent. Thank you So that was the last Staff comment we had in this report. Um, again at the sketch master plan level that we're at At this time We do still take public comment, right? If there's any public comments, uh, whether in person or online Marty, are we seeing anyone online? Nobody. Uh, no. No, okay. Um, sounds like no When online, um, this was sketch and we got through all the comments. So I don't think we need to continue Wait a minute. I think we need to I'm not so sure we should be closing the sketch hearing without resolution on the On the density question That's a pretty big issue Are you looking at me? Yeah, I think I think that's correct, but I'm also thinking you might disagree. That's why I'm looking at you Also, do we close and thank you just conclude, but that's all right. Um So I would agree it's a big issue and I think it's very important that it be resolved that being said There are a couple paths forward and if the 4413 exemption is not Available they Have the ability to do a conservation puv which they've said they don't want to do which they said they don't want to do Just just to clarify I didn't say we didn't want to do Okay, so you understand if we close the sketch plan it doesn't apply approval of the density In that case, I don't care Do we vote or do we just close? No, it's concluded. It's not closed. No voting. No swearing. It's sketch. No swearing and no voting All right, so it's concluded Thank you for all of your time. Thank you very much again. Thank you. Thank you I know We're all back from our little break. Thank you for waiting Um, and we will continue with item number seven on the agenda This is sketch plan application sd 24 0 3 of o'brien eastwood llc to amend a previously approved plan For a planned unit development of 155 homes in a single family duplex duplex and three family dwellings On 11 lots totaling 23.9 acres 24 commercial develop development lots totaling 39.8 acres and 25.2 acres of undeveloped or recreational open space The amendment consists of adding 0.17 acre battery storage microgrid in an area previously approved for open space Adding 14 units in two family homes Replacing two large single family homes with five detached cottage style units and other minor amendments at 500 old farm road Welcome This is sketch So I won't swear you in on this Um You guys know our system here. Um, do you want to make any other than the overview? I just provided you want to provide an overview before we jump into the staff comets Uh, I don't think so. I think you're all pretty well aware of the project. Um, we've been in front of you a number of times Uh, i'm evan linkville with o'brien brothers and andrew gill is also with us as well as some of our consultants from green mountain power and Wagner Hodgson Um, so if it's all right with you, I think we can just jump right into the staff comets Engineer scott is on the oh, yeah, sorry scott homestead for grips Okay, great. Um, yes that works for us. So Jumping into staff comment number one staff considers it may be appropriate to consider specific requests to modify the approved phasing plan But is concerned about the open-ended requests made by the applicant Staff recommends the board provide clear feedback on applicant on whether they will consider the open-ended phasing requests at the next stage of review Um Staff I was going to ask are there specific Phases in the schedule that are of more concern as far as open-endedness or is it um kind of No, not there weren't any specific phases um Just generally it seems like the board had a lot of Spent a lot of time and effort Considering when things needed to be complete And so we were concerned about loosening that up at all Yeah, can I I mean just let you know kind of where we were coming from on it? um, so the chart that's in front of you is the approved phasing plan uh the text from it and you can see there's different parts of the project where Things are said to be done, you know prior to the issuance of a certain zoning permit um, and so We just quickly realized that kind of the first one of these that came up Was that the open space on lot 18 was to be completed by the 30th zoning permit Our projection sort of showed that we were going to hit that 30th zoning permit Maybe this spring in like april or may um We started the project last summer as fast as we could we tried to build that as fast as we could Um, we didn't get out of the ground. It was like a monsoon all summer We were barely able to get that lot 18 open space completed We weren't able to install grass or like get it growing. It's certainly not like mowable and so we were concerned that sometimes whether Or seasonality could impact the ability to complete something Just even in the last 10 percent And so the request we made was simply that the zoning administrator be given the ability to say Just like they do for a ceo for seasonal items for a building like hey, we know you're supposed to be done You don't have it done We'll give you a temporary pass for five months until you can get x y and z completed because we understand why it's not done Because you've explained it to us And that was all we were really looking for on this You know, I could go into a lot more detail about all the stuff that can go wrong But these are major projects. This isn't like you know Plant a tree this is relocate old farm road, you know a thousand yards to the right of where it is There's a lot of stuff that can go wrong during that And so we're just kind of saying if we're working on this in good faith And we're working our butts off to do it and something happens like for instance, there's a consolidated communications conduit that no one knew about Right in the way of lioling and I've been trying to get that thing moved for a year and a half It's still not moved It's still in our way and it's prohibiting us from being able to complete Even our own work And so I don't know what we're going to get into on old farm road, right? But the theory here is just If we run into something unforeseen That there'd be some flexibility so that we're not saying well, you can't build any more homes Because something that's relatively out of your control is preventing you from doing work, you know other examples would be The city does not allow for waterline installation from november 15th to april 15th of any year And so if we needed to be doing that Because of the pace of sales and the timing of zoning permits There's a good chance we might not be able to do that work Which would prohibit us from getting started on a phase that we needed to do Right and then by the time we could do the waterline work We'd be so far behind the eight ball that we couldn't finish by the time we hit that milestone So those are the types of things we're trying to avoid and really we're not looking to change anything We're just looking to give the administrative officer the ability to say hey This makes sense. Let's give them another month another six weeks. Whatever it is I understand your point It seems well taken in part But only in part I think the discretion That we give the zoning Administrator should be circumscribed for example a seasonal objection that you know, it's pretty pretty conventional when you have to complete You don't have to complete a park in the middle of february typically So if we could fashion something that was limited to You know, essentially that seasonal seasonal conditions give the zoning administrator discretion to vary completion of the phases Consistently with seasonal conditions language like that that might be okay But the other problems I think you want to come back to us and secretly leave on a case by case basis We just get can I can I just comment on that? I think the seasonality makes perfect sense. It's easy to understand but there are other times where there is delayed turnarounds stemming from the city On processing applications on bonding requirements, etc. That delays us and I mean worst We're waiting on stuff right now that's been submitted for months And this isn't a point fingers, but it's just to point out a reality That there is there are staffing issues and their turnaround issues that do delay the project And so what the outcome would be is We can't build homes in the middle of a housing crisis for reasons that are out of our control So all we're saying is if we're making a good faith effort And we are actually making progress I'm not saying if if we get to a point where we haven't started a phase a requirement You know a month out of when the trigger happens Yeah, that's an easy one for the zoning administrator to say no you guys have not made a good faith effort But if we are actively trying to advance it, I don't think it should be limited to seasonality No Look, I think the other I don't want to put that burden On the y a I don't want to entrust and b. I don't want to put that burden On the zoning administrator either way Uh, do do we know and I'm more concerned, you know, I'm a bit of a sucker for O'Brien and those are historical It doesn't really feel like it frank Well, but I do therefore I have to be extra careful Because I don't want to set precedence, you know, there's good faith. There's good faith. There's developers and there's developers And uh, I don't want to give the zoning administrator discretion that I wouldn't give in any other case And I'm telling you that I mean the board will speak for itself, but I'm telling you my discretionary grant would be limited to seasonality And you know now I would point out to you in real life in practice You come up with a problem you come to us On a case-by-case basis For for room room to address it We've been known grumpily to even Not that I'm suggesting you would ever do this To approve things after the fact If there's a good enough reason But uh, well, that's that's my view. I hear yours. I understand it, but I'm not going to change my view Which is only one And you might get a majority without me to go broader So just to back up the the other piece of this and to your point of come back to us is You know, it was we actually filed this amendment as a final plat Like we did all the work We have everything done The process that we're used to the process we had at the hillside phase one was that if we had Little thing like this we wanted we had waivers in place that we just went straight to final plat So one concern I'd have would be that the process of getting a sketch plan preliminary and final plat approval here Could be a six to eight month process And that that would impede our ability to sort of do what you're suggesting Which is to come back in quickly and say hey, we're six months out. We can see a problem. We know it's a problem I mean, it could take a year to get now. You're getting beyond my command of the ldr's. I'm going to ask marla and marty Can we build in Conditions that would allow an expedited review here Of modifications to the phases that go beyond seasonality. You understand what I'm asking So the board Cannot grant process waivers outside of a master plan But I don't think that's quite what you're asking No, I'm saying can we build a condition into the Into what we Presumably will allow as a result of this application it says Exactly what I said, you know Give some sort of circumscribed discretion to the zoning administrator and say if you need changes to the phases beyond this You can come see us on two weeks notice Or you know on on regular notice just as you would come for uh The simplest sort of the most I can give you right now. It is not definitely. Yes Is not definitely. Yes I have some I have some Compunctions about saying I do not believe That it yeah, I have compunctions about saying yes Well, just to interject quickly to the it's it's in a normal process It's not like we can get on a drb agenda with two weeks notice We're talking 45 to 60 days We can get on in 30 days notice marla It's 45 to 60 days. Would you typically about 45? Yeah But for something as simple as The city's blocking Yeah, give me one of your non-seasonal examples, you know I mean, I do think that we'll be able to see these problems coming That's what I was just about to say I think the farther along you get in the project the less and less this is going to come up Because you're going to be more deeply involved and having more things going concurrently and being able to Shift things around the farther along you get Like for phase one, obviously that's super important because you that's the only thing you have going but when you have like six phases open at the same time I think these are going to come up less and less I think it's it's conceivable that we could come up with 45 or 60 days in advance of seeing a problem like this I I guess that yeah the six or eight months the need for three hearings, you know, potentially right And so not everything is a PUD amendment something this might be a site plan amendment But this one was embedded within a PUD amendment and that's why you're talking about it here at sketch Yeah, if if an amendment to this phasing plan The extent that the drb is changing a requirement, you know Is not going to require a sketch plan and could be at a combined amendment might be always a PUD amendment And I'm I'm speaking off the cuff. So I'm somewhat uncomfortable. I think amending the phasing plan might always be a PUD amendment but amending The project such that the problem goes away Like your water line or your you know, your comcast line is you you want to like do something else instead To complete the same phase There's a creative idea What about if the condition simply said that we could continue to get zoning permits while awaiting a drb hearing on the issue I don't think we could Well, that's what's your phasing plan I mean it says you have to have this done by a hundredth unit Or if you're awaiting a drb hearing to resolve an issue pertaining to this hundredth unit You can continue to build until the hearing occurs provided you've submitted a complete application And you know in due process or whatever the rules. I'd like to get an answer To the question first Me too I'm I'm stuck on season Appreciate the seasonality flexibility as well. So You know, we have what we have now And so I think you understand our position and how much of a problem has it been today It was pretty nerve wracking trying to get that done this fall. Well, that was one one item, right? It was the first item It was the first one Well, we get delayed on permitting from act 250 by you know, four months And then you have a monsoon of the summer I mean we're we're experiencing Greater weather issues than we have in the past. I kind of said my piece everybody understands that I'm sort of interested in what everybody else thinks I I would echo your general framework of I think seasonality is pretty cut and dry And I would not want to put the burden on the zoning administrator either to make those Kind of more gray area decisions of you know, good faith effort um, so You know looking into To what extent we could condition to try to expedite these sorts of things and and be creative around that i'm open to but um Difference for I think we didn't answer that question, but I'm also comfortable with seasonality and kind of drawing the line there but For whatever it's worth. I just want to point out that the The difference between a ceo and a temp ceo is not just seasonality The administrative officer already has the the authority To issue a temp ceo In the case of and i'm going to pull up the language right now. Uh, just going to pause the screen I pulled it up already. It says Barring uncontrollable factors such as inclement weather that may have prevented final paving or installation Actually, because that's an example um Yeah To the fullest that possible barring uncontrollable factors So we typically apply that to things like supply chain issues as well Supply chain issues If somebody submits an invoice and says, you know, look, we ordered our bike racks, but they're not here yet We'll install them as soon as they get here. We'll allow them a temp ceo for that Some of this playground equipment can take like a year to show up So there is this you guys do have a process beyond seasonality that you it's like slightly more seasonality It probably not as Wide-ranging as you'd like because I don't think we pretty comfortable with that language. You just stated the uncontrollable factors Yeah, I we've never like interpreted our own slowness to be an uncontrollable factor before I take issue with our own slowness because the examples they've given are not not not like our department necessarily, but the city's, you know Yeah, I don't want to get into it to take issue with that I don't think it that I mean I think that the language that you've referenced I think if we can have an uh, if we can use a similar discretion to the ceo process for this process that that would be Fitting under what you've just said. I think that would meet the bill of what we asked for and it would allow us to say hey This is uncontrollable. We've done everything we can do We're trying our best I don't like general language. I would rather it would be more specific seasonal supply, you know supply chains another one The satisfaction there's not even maybe you know, you can come up with a more Particular list of the kinds of things rather than an uncontrolled discretion That would you know, I would go part of the way for me. I don't know about you Well, I guess the question is who decides what's uncontrollable Well, ultimately if you have an issue and you come to the to the zoning officer and say hey, this is our uncontrollable issue The zoning officer Will be able to say yeah, I can wait that or no. I can't Is that correct the ultimate decision? And then if you say no, I think that's beyond The intent then it will come to us It would be into the drb on appeal anyway, but You just don't want to create a situation where we're creating more friction by using vague language than we're solving by trying to Put something in place here to help. I'm not particularly worried about it being unclear And you know, I think it's no, I mean the I like that it's uncontrollable Like I think So we can maybe come up with some more particular examples But I mean we've been doing this for a long time you guys know us if we're saying something's out of our control There's something we can't do it's going to be pretty cut and dry that we've done see that was dirty And we do know you and I'm telling you I'm disregarding the fact that I know you well You're mister outside carpet back, you know for the purpose of this discussion You're mister outside Outside carpet bagger come in and make all the money he can and get out of town leaving an open sewer We will we will know about the issues well in advance I know we will communicate the issues in advance To the administrator officer and we'll be proactively working on this situation We're not going to get to a point where we can't pull his own in front to build the housing And you're missing my point you're continuing to personalize Circumstance and I'm trying to I understand I'm up with a workable general rule I I think we can provide more specific examples to help fill in a At preliminary plat I can give it more thought and we can fill in Would you do that something? Yeah Supply chain and seasonality are things that the Zone the administrator can make a reasonable judgment about and it won't put them on the spot. Yeah Sure That sounds great. Any anything else on this board? Does that make sense? All right. Thank you for discussion on that um Item number two Uh regarding request number five Minor modifications to match act 250 approval approval staff recommends the board direct the applicant to provide a plan that Highlights and describes the location and substance of their requested modifications prior to the next stage of the review um So something that just I mean, I think that's pretty yeah, we can do that Like I said in the cover letter I mean we're talking about just a couple of feet here and there on some paths. So it's It's pretty minor. We can we can definitely do that We'll just put red light around them. Exactly next submission um Comment number three staff recommends the board direct the applicant to supply in their next mission a specific statement on how the Modification meets the above tests a through d and so this is uh in relation to requesting the height waiver for 14 homes um Is that something you can put together Or any questions Conforms to the description of the selected p.u.d type gz intent of the p.u.d results and developments equivalent Right. Yeah Okay, we'll move on to number four Board doesn't have any additional feedback on that one um Staff frequency board asked the applicant to describe the specific numeric height waiver that's being requested um And the specific numeric height waiver being requested as measured from the average post construction grade Oh, sorry. No both pre-construction and post-construction grade um And including that in the request right so post construction isn't regulatory But given that they're dramatically changing the grade of the site We thought it might be illuminating to describe both Yeah, I don't know if it's worth backing up to like kind of fill in what we're talking about or if you guys are fully aware of what these are referring to but we can Walk through the request. Um Yeah, you we can zero in on the portion of the site plan. We're looking at and provide contacts Yeah, I mean certainly comment number four we can do Um, so there's no issue there so And then comments and six Proposes as or as well talks about the same home So I don't in the context of three four and six if it makes sense to just kind of say what we're asking for Yep So if you uh Yeah, if you zoom in a little bit in this uh rendering you can see the area of the project that's in question I think it looks like you're kind of honing in on it But it's a little bit to the to the right of that traffic circle on the bottom of your screen Yeah, so right next to the park And right across the street, you know on this on the top of the page side of the cul-de-sac road So I just say I move the mouse like right there. Yep those homes those 14 houses Uh have been in the project since uh its inception specifically since december 21st of 2020 when we submitted a preliminary plat update to include those buildings At the time in in december of 2020 They were included after a discussion with staff because we felt like they fit really well there and worked really well in the context of the project Those homes are three stories facing the street they are Unpermissible in the r1 prd under the old regulations However the preliminary plat was approved with those in it and we made it all the way to the final final plat hearing Before we realized that the board was Not going to issue a waiver for those because it didn't feel that it was authorized to do so under the regulations then in effect a conversation at our last hearing in uh november of 2022 was that We were unable to continue the hearing and work through this that there probably wasn't a good outcome Because those homes were going to have to come out of the project under the rules that were then in effect And so what we discussed with the board Was closing the hearing having a condition of approval that we would remove those 14 homes from the project prior to starting Which we did the homes got scrubbed from the plans They got scrubbed from the act 250 approval and they're currently not approved although they were in the plans for the entirety of the permitting process And so we're here today largely to add those back in under the current rules. That was the main Driver of this application Um, they're the same homes that they were for the two plus years. They were in there Uh, they worked there for all the reasons we discussed throughout that permitting process They work really well a really nice house There's a bunch of them built in the existing hillside neighborhood We submitted some pictures of the actual homes today That might be useful to sort of look at to just see how nicely they sit on the street with the landscaping and whatnot that has been Put into place Yeah, so they're nice looking houses It's a very similar Orientation in this plant with a green space at the end of the road An uphill configuration where the grade is going up behind them and the houses sort of sit tucked into the hill And uh, so yeah, that is the nature of the request and so under the current rules the board We believe is authorized to issue the height waivers needed to put these back into place And so we are here requesting that That's a rendering of the east view neighborhood So the other pictures were actuals and then that's a rendering of the proposed Are these single family or or or duplexes or multifamily? What are they their duplex is a duplex So one on the right and one on the left and so the originally I believe we had single family homes there in that location and um, I think we worked with Staff to actually add these homes because they provided a better transition from the residential neighborhood to the commercial or multifamily zone Because there are two stories on the uphill side facing the residential neighborhood three stories on the downhill side facing the larger homes We don't have any density issue Why why would we Not anybody See you're not here To do agree. We have the authority to Permit these now under the current regs. The height is not an issue on Well, the board has the authority to grant a height waiver under the current regs We will get to staff comment number six I mean orange. I'm gonna do it now. Yeah, so in the context of that, you know, three and four We can certainly do six was was a bit problematic um for us for these homes So the placement of garage and percentage of garages the fraction of the front facade was not a Zoning standard at the time that the previous project was approved Uh, these homes Don't meet those requirements Well, so you need a little more And so yeah, so the you know our sort of take on this is that We review the regulations in detail our council review the regulations in detail We do believe that that facade requirement can also be waived by the board um, and so we would be hopeful that We could see through the task that we set out on in november of 2022 when we said pull these out and we will come back and add them in And keep on that track One other point to note too is that the way these homes are designed is that they're stacked so they're a very efficient unit to build So they're actually from a market rate perspective. They are the lowest cost home We've been able to offer an either phase of this project um, and so we would like to be able to offer this broader spectrum of affordability on these projects And this is a way to do that Can I provide a little context so the board Does have the ability to modify standards except the five that are listed. We talked about um that in the context of um height waiver in comment number three Um, there's five things that can't be modified parking and building location requirements environmental protection standards lock coverage Um, urban design overlay standards, which just not apply here and then density The board has the authority to modify everything else provided the modification um results in a project that better meets the Description and defining character characteristics of the PUD um results in development that's equivalent equivalent or demonstrably superior Um, it does not have adverse effect on other things in the vicinity. I'm paraphrasing so The board can modify these standards that require the garages to be set back and to be no more than a certain fraction of the No more than 40 of the facade But in doing so the buildings have to better meet the purposes of the PUD and I think you spoke to some of those things Um, so what is the board's feedback on that? Just curious the the 40 percent of the I'm just curious what the calendar is. It's the width. It's okay. Yeah, it's not the total area Okay, so the what what's the requirement and how much over that are they if you have that information handy? Yeah, I can I can speak to that. So I think another good characteristic of these homes is that uh, they're very dense In terms of their construction and so these homes are 26 feet wide Each half of the duplex the total duplex is 52 feet wide Garage door standard garage door 16 feet wide. So 32 feet of the 52 feet is garage The way the standard is written is pretty set up for a 40 foot lot with a 16 foot garage door, right? So the home would have to be 40 feet wide Per side to have a double garage door in it Which would extend the width of the duplex to 80 feet in order to meet the regulation Which is 28 feet wider than it is which basically means that for every two units To meet the standard you would for every duplex here You lose a unit for every Two duplexes right like every two unit that you get two compliant units instead of three of these On the road for hitting that standard if you're holding the garage as you walk down the road So there is a benefit there in the sense of increasing density Increasing the affordability of the product because you're building more vertically and less horizontally across the plane and obviously the more Homes you can fit on a stretch of road The less each home has to bear of the cost of the road, right? So it also drives affordability So increase the increase in affordability is a relative term. It doesn't necessarily mean that these houses are afforded Well define affordability Relative to what else is in the market frank they would be Affordable is a legal term based on average income and when we require affordable housing units, as you know, it's a certain percentage Yeah, we already provide But they would not qualify as affordable. These would be market rate. They're just less expensive I would note that we provided affordable housing in our project Including these 14 homes that were already removed. So the the the inclusionary housing requirement Including these 14 homes is currently met despite the fact that these 14 homes aren't yet. So we'll be overbuilding Our affordability requirement, which we actually already built adjacent to this in the the zone Amelia Jason but I mean we can certainly speak to to those sorts of Qualitative issues in terms of why these homes fit here really well. We did that for two years That's how we got that far down into the process. Maybe maybe we could Cut to the chase like this. Could you write a little narrative about why You meet these waiver standards give us something to Hang our hat on gotta be careful when you ask yet her to write something because you're gonna get like eight pages Yeah, is it yeah, right something concise the poor bullet points. Sorry that it's it's the points That govern our ability to grant it with can you Point me to that on the staff report so I can circle the four that you're talking about because there's like two sets of four in the regulations Yeah, that's fair page. Um, it's 15 c o4 d3 So it's on oh, I did number the pages. That's helpful page five page five in the middle A conforms to the intent description defining characteristics. It's the first one in bc and d I can do that I don't mean to ask a dumb question, but if you just made them one car garages instead of two with that That would meet the standard, but then that guess that's not your like formatted building type You could reduce the garage width. I think that It would go to sort of marketability or usefulness of the home You'd have like extra first floor square footage that you aren't planning for I guess You'd have extra first floor square footage that's dark on one side. So it'd be partial basement, right? I mean, it wouldn't be you know the kiss of death But I think that the the homes would be less much less livable and marketable to the occupants We've we have one product currently the cottage homes which have a single car garage and to say that we haven't gotten any feedback about the Wanting a more larger garage would be inaccurate Just I don't care. I see how many bedrooms are in these units or a mix of bedrooms These are three bedroom Two and a half bath town homes. These were one of the most successful Homes that we sold in the first phase of the project. They were You know very well received by the market lots of families Really great product that I think will be welcome here I mean if I'm I just want to weigh in that like for my standpoint being that it's pretty There's a lot of continuity with what's already built So I'm more apt to grant a waiver for something that fits in with the neighborhood that's already been constructed Versus trying to change the style of it because the regulation has changed since the original approval For the other homes What do you mean by this that mean we're already talking about the garage right? Yeah So what's the other side of the street walk like on this existing streetscape? It's duplexes on the other side too, but it's a different design because it's the downhill side of the hill On what we're planning on this next phase. It's still somewhat theoretical but those are Row houses that are live workspaces. I'm saying with respect to the garage The facades Yeah, those are the reverse of these right so the garage is is not on the street side there because the grade is the other way So if you look in the in the image, you can see The parking is still it's the exact same house. It's just flipped around right so the two-story sides facing the street And the three-story sides facing a parking lot in that conceptual layout This isn't a waiver that We would be pursuing I think your point is are you gonna have this be your next home as well and your next and I I don't think that's our intent Look, I don't think it's a biggest deal in the world. Maybe we're spending more time with it. We should but I think you ought to provide You ought to provide a written rationale Can do And I would just echo Marty's point that thought across my mind too of like the simple of like, you know, there's a lot of garage Door on it and that's why we're having this conversation So having given that the waiver is about the garage door directly Pulling that thread into why that meets those criteria, you know Just just have it relate and not just like the marketability generally But like why the feature that you're asking for the waiver for is You know Is supporting those points Yeah One thing to point out on the the actual as-built images that we provided It doesn't diminish The amount of garage door space, but we did voluntarily alternate between two door to Two bay garage and then two one bay garages just to provide a little bit of architectural articulation That wasn't a requirement. We just did it to kind of break up the streetscape And I think it does work We want to see just drive down To brother's drive and you'll see what the actual built environment looks like Um, and just so this doesn't get overlooked it's the Fraction of the garage on the facade and also the placement of the garages. Is that relative to Setback Yeah, I was hopeful that I mean I think that the front porches of these homes the steps that come down that come straight out in the picture Probably extend more than eight feet So I don't know if that meets that requirement or not But if you go back to the picture you can see where the porch protrudes out and the stairs come down It doesn't the front of the building is measured as the enclosed space But I mean, I think that that can be part of your case, but I don't think it meets the standard Yeah, yeah, so just make sure the right up four points both of those pieces Yeah, and I think then that to that point I think that other dimensional requirement is even more problematic because of the hill and the steepness of the hill behind You're right. So the farther you push that garage back the more you're eating into the hill behind it And the more you have a grading problem that you can't solve to get water from tumbling into people's houses Okay, I think we talked to that one talk that one Um, and so this is staff comment number seven. We haven't talked about five, which is about a totally different area of the project Thank you So looping back to number five The proposed homes on lot 36 do not meet the building orientation standard cottage homes of the type proposed by the applicant are generally intended to face on a central courtyard As a solution to the requirement that homes face on a street civic space or courtyard staff recommends the board direct the applicant to revise the design of lot 36 To have the proposed homes face a central courtyard an example of this arrangement exists on the cottage homes approved on lot 16 Do you guys have that plan? Could we oh, yeah, could we bring up lot 36 as it is currently? I keep going down a little bit more. I don't know if Here's it's not in the packet Maybe if you go to this overall plan Isn't it the site plan the allane? No, you can go to that uh Yeah, just overall number three there scale not set and then um, if you just zoom in on the left Side a bit more Yeah, thank you sort of the worst plan to look at for this because it's got a gigantic sticker in the middle of it, but I think it gets the gist of it. Um so The previous iteration of the plan had across the street from home 35 14 35 15 and 35 16 it had two Similar homes to that shape and type so like 37 three and then 37 two and then above that 37 one And none of those five cottages or the garages were in the plan um, we looked at that and sort of have been looking at the market and the fact that home prices are sort of accelerating and We thought that it made sense to try and amend the plans to increase the number of smaller lower priced homes So that we had more of those to offer to the market This just felt like a really easy amendment the alley everything to the top of the page of the five 36 10 through 36 6 Everything from the alley to the old farm road is fully approved already and so We're using that existing approved alleyway to service five more cottages keeping the infrastructure Unchanged which we have to because this is actively being built right now and so we can't like Theoretically try and reorient that alley because we're actually putting the alley in the ground right now so like and this process isn't going to conclude for another six seven months And so like we we sort of need to move that forward and build it and so we can either add the five or not And I don't want to be that blunt about it, but that's sort of the case and so I think We can go into sort of all the design that we put into it I mean we put that walkway between the garages and the buildings We brought it over to daniel drive We put a crosswalk on daniel drive to get that to the sidewalk There's a landscaping plan that was part of the packet where there's all kinds of landscaping that's been added to this area To sort of make it look beautiful We think it's a really nice layout. It has the effect of increasing the project density by three units It is increasing the number of lower priced homes and decreasing the number of more expensive homes Which goes to a lot of the city's housing walls And it fits within the existing project. The caveat is that 6 10 36 10 Is likely going to be removed from the new layout So there would only be four cottages getting at it Just throwing that out there because we met with the neighbor and while it looks good on the plan It does not look good in reality In terms of proximity to the neighbor's land and so We just felt that it was best to stick with What fit and not try and shoehorn a home in there that didn't make a lot of sense So in the preliminary plan we would reduce that by one unit. We would have the four But all of the sort of reasoning Stands in terms of why we think it's a good idea So the the issue is where they're facing Yes The residential buildings must be oriented the street civic space or courtyard and our flexibility to Grant a waiver is Existent not existing. Yeah, the same the same as which was discussed for the Downhill garages all right, you want to provide Again a written statement for why you meet the The waiver criteria how they meet the waiver criteria Same for All right Yeah Yeah, we we can do that. I mean I will say just to summarize because this one is a lot simpler This is simply to get lower price product into the mix There's there's really no other reason if the board decides that they don't want to do this We'll go back to the two higher priced larger homes. We just think it gives more It just gives a larger buyer demographic an opportunity to buy into the project Can do sorry just looking That was five we did six and we are now at seven Um, well staff is supportive of as to this about the on-site battery storage Um, well staff is supportive providing the on-site battery storage We'd argue that the proposed location does in fact have a detrimental impact on the neighborhood layout And recommends the board direct the applicant to find another location It may be necessary to rearrange some of the approved homes or accesses in order to do so Um, so could we bring up a site plan that Shows the proposal could I ask a dumb preliminary requested by battery storage? What exactly do you mean? That's why we brought our experts Oh If you wanted to pull up the one that we submitted today, uh, has some pretty good So just to orient the board the plan that's up now Is the previously approved open space and the things that we wanted to highlight in the from the staff report is Um, that the site is fairly level. There's some grading up at leo lane And then there's some slightly less steep grading up by old farm road They've shown this dashed line as the future athletic field, but this parcel is dedicated to the city so We have an irrevocable offer and the warranty deed in our vault and so Any change to the area of this land would require a city council approval and Any use any choices about use of this land ultimately would be the cities As as it stands today if the council didn't amend that and then the second sheet if you go to that one Shows how they're proposing to modify it. Um, the two things are lot 59. They're proposing to carve out a chunk of law 18 So it'd be reducing the area and then also changing the grading and I was hoping they could speak to this because Now they have a bunch of topo in the back of the site Which seems to really impact the usable area of the of the lot. All right. Let's not spend time on my request Thank you. We will substitute the word. It's a we will stipulate you want to do a good thing on lot 18 However staff wants you to move it somewhere else. So could we limit? Thank you, but I don't need it We address those issues could I just make one other comment? So just a little history on that site is that Um, the reason why o'brien brothers is dedicating that space or did dedicate that space to the city Was that we ran out of lot coverage. We wanted to do something We wanted to create a park or something there. So it wasn't that we just discarded of it We just ran out a lot coverage. Um, and then to orient you the egress From leo lane Which is that drive that's on the upper right going on to old farm road basically directly across from that on the uh, northeast side of that is where the barn is So that just gives you a little point of reference so Do you have a problem with the staff suggestion? Yes Yeah, I mean, I think you know matty and josh were here to sort of kind of go over what the the Purpose of the battery building is it sounds like if you guys want to skip that weekend, um, I think if you go to the items I submitted today Um, there were just a couple things that I wanted to sort of clarify and if you go you know These slides are worth stopping on quickly so just any of those so What we've done in this neighborhood this is one of the affordable homes Being sold at hills at hillside east. This is 291 old farm road. It has a her score of five Which is 91 below the required score For the rvs stretch certificate It has solar panels on it. It has battery backups in the house for people it is Way above and beyond what's required and the way that we've achieved that is in partnership with green mountain power Putting in place this infrastructure Of which this battery building is part and So just as a preface to the conversation and we spent months maybe a year Trying to figure out where we could put this that wasn't on lot 18 because none of us wanted to come in here and Have this conversation that this was where it needed to go But it is where it sort of needs to go and so I think if you To keep ticking through the slides we can just get to Sort of the layouts that were proposed and some of the facts Yeah, great. So that was the previously approved landscaping plan And if you scroll down again, I think this is probably the least important one You'll note the size. So this is the current plan and the shape has changed a little bit It's not a rectangle. It has like a little elliptic thing on the bottom I don't know what that's called But the size of that is I think it says 21,800 and something square feet Of play field and if you go up to the previously proposed one, it's 21,500 and so There is A virtual discrepancy and the staff notes that this was reduced by 20 percent. It was not we Changed the shape of it But we kept the footage the same so there's been no reduction in the flat space What we did do was we leveled it out So the right side In the previously proposed plan if you look at The grading as noted. I'll see you're just a couple slides back First one You can see that there's a grade of seven percent on the left and two and a half percent on the right You can see there's a 12 percent grade where there's rock and ledge sticking out of the ground Whereas completely unusable where we're proposing the battery building If you go to the next slide, which is the currently proposed plan This is basically an as built because we went out there and we thought it made more sense to increase the area and to flatten the field So we made the field two and a half percent slope across the field We made it larger by 300 square feet And we transitioned the grading with a very smooth Sort of even downhill toward the existing hillside neighborhood the battery building Like it doesn't touch the Play field area like it it so if you go to the next sheet You can see the previously submitted open space plan in orange The current plan in pink and the battery building isn't touching any of it So the battery is located in an area where there's a 12 slope. There's existing rock ledge sticking out of the ground There's buckthorn scrub brush and other garbage trees that are in there And we thought that it made sense to propose it. So that's a photo the next slide of the field as constructed So you can sort of see the area And if you go back up two slides above We just did a little study. Ella was nice enough to put it together the next slide down Which shows you the area of this park and how much can fit in it so Two basketball courts of ollie ball court and a pickle ball court in addition to the battery building Which is tucked into a hillside adjacent to an existing road and screened Within an inch of its life so that you'll never know it's there What are you saying mark? Assuming I given the the difficulty given the problem with the city council. Well, you you acknowledge you got a city count You got a city council I think we're pretty confident that the city council would allow this use of this land. All right So what do you what do you say in the light of that explanation? My biggest concern is the change in the grading honestly more than I mean the As Andrew said the front where the battery storage is proposed um, there's an area that was Going to be pretty steep. Um, obviously You know, we know that this is the hill farm or the hillside area, right? So a lot of the develop a lot of the parks in this development except for this one are hilly um, this was the only relatively level area And so to try take away from This and to put a little hill in the back is I think the concern that was brought up by the director of the recreation parks director Um, and then he also mentioned that he's concerned about the change in the total area so One thing to bring up though too is that And I I understand that they were permitted as two different projects But the hillside phase one which has to be looked at you know from a from an occupant of this neighborhood They will live as though it is one neighborhood and there's a one acre level park That's just down the hill from this. So it's not the only level area And I would also say, you know to to the second point that the director parks and rec had um The area actually increased slightly. I mean, it's basically the same size. So And I think that that Bella did a really nice job of demonstrating I think she was channeling you frank as to you know, what can you actually fit on this site in terms of recreation where she Located those four fields To demonstrate that it is actually very usable Um, but I also want to remind everybody that it was an undefined Recreation space. It's not like this was a you know, regulation soccer field as a that that's what this was planned for the city had no Defined plan for it. It was a rectangle on a plan that was 21,567 square feet And I think that's where the the difference between what we're seeing is a 20 reduction comes from because that rectangle didn't use the whole space That was you know, relatively gentle slope I think that just just so you understand where that 20% calculation came from is that number assumed More more than just the area that was shown by your rectangle. It was the areas that weren't That weren't the 12% or higher slope. It's where you have 7% all the way out to the to the tree line kind of thing can Try to understand can can you scroll marty? You got the The the where we show the the pink and what is the orange? The original and proposed So i'm just trying to understand the What that's north so the the western side are up on the drawing The line came down considerably now Was that going to be graded level in the original plan? was it I think that You know, I can take a little bit of blame on this or maybe we all you know should but The original plan had a rectangle On a drawing. Mm-hmm, and I think that was about how much thought went into What was going to be there? and this was a massive PUD and There were you know in our hundreds of plan sheets, and I think We looked at it. We said this is an open space our engineer or you know drew a rectangle and it was like that's about right and That was what happened and so I think so there was a slope there that wasn't shown on the original drawings It was not level It was not I mean it wasn't level even as it was the rectangle was drawn Right, like if you go back to the proposal to the original proposal I mean you're looking at seven percent grade on the left-hand side and two and a half on the right Right, so that's a far cry from what we're seeing in the drawings now We're showing a much steeper drop off on the top of the lines It I believe what happened And I you know I'm not an expert, but we went in here and there was Ledge in the ground there are chunks of you know rock sticking up and we put fill in to cover up and level out over the top of the you know boulders and stuff they'll and leveled it and then I think that maybe in the hillside neighborhood some of the grading wasn't quite Built exactly, you know, so maybe there's a couple feet over there in the old project And then the way that the two came together you ended up with a bit more Hill than we had anticipated We graded it very modestly You know there's certainly room to move that pink line Further west to increase the slope. I mean, I don't know what it is now, but it's not It's certainly not two to one. I mean there's a photo of it. It's probably five or six to one You know our take on it was that that's Really nice usable space. I mean you can have a picnic on that you can You know still have your dog fetch a ball on that. I mean it's not You know so like if you look at that picture, I mean obviously we could move that over by filling in and making that bank steeper And you know if that's something that Like we can do that our take on it was that this was nice It was roughly equal to the size of what we originally proposed And like there's no nothing unusable about that hill whereas if you do push it over It'll become sort of more dangerous, right? Like you get a kid rolling down in it or Somebody, you know playing frisbee and breaks their ankle because the thing drops off at a three to one two to one slope Or public works won't be able to mow it on a lawn mower Which definitely was something I talked about to say I don't need the city telling me to regrade this later because they can't mow it because it's too steep so That was a field decision To make it like that and you know, we're certainly open to suggestions there, but Because it sounds like this request is two things then it's the building and Dealing with this slope Right, I mean that's why the the original line isn't where you're proposing now You moved it because you have a slope issue We moved it to be accurate because when I looked at this plan it was not Reflecting accurately what we built and it wasn't reflecting accurately what like I didn't want to submit the plan again without but I think it's clear if you look at the drawing this field and that Battery building are completely disconnected Like the connection here is that we submitted an updated plan and we weren't going to put grading on it that wasn't accurate, right? But the building had nothing to do with that So this problem exists Absent the battery. I guess absolutely But the the request to redefine the the recreation areas to solve two issues I think the request to redefine the recreation area is It's just us saying this is what we built I don't know that we would say that we were obligated to build something in particular in that rectangle I don't know if you look at that previously proposed drawing like I don't know the answer to that But I do know that when we built it this made sense We thought it was nicer That's how it got built and so We reflected it the way that it's built in the drawings I think I think our take on the grading of that site is We're open to suggestions if the parks and rec director says, you know, this is better used as a larger flat area But as a result you're going to have a steeper grade on the corners of it I think we're open to doing that. But I you know, I think the three examples that were provided If it's me running around with a frisbee or kicking a ball I'm definitely going to break my leg if I go over that that edge. And so the question is, you know, what's what's better suited for an undefined Use of that space anyway So the site's already graded because that looks like it's already graded in that photo, right? And you've identified this location Need something to go right or something could go there And why did you select this location for the battery storage? Good Hi, I'm Maddie Marie Kloss and I'm a project manager on green mountain powers energy innovation team. Thanks for having us We worked with O'Brien and our engineering team to select the southeast corner on lot 18 for a few different reasons the centralized battery storage facility is Pretty much limited to being located on lot 18 due to proximity to the distribution mainline system equipment so the distribution lines on old farm road, essentially in addition adequate site access for maintenance with utility trucks and vehicles off of old farm road Is best suited for off of lot 18 As well as the site loveliness compared to some other sites across The development and then in addition to allow for adequate aesthetic screening And just to clarify it will not be a battery building But it's a battery enclosure with a sound mitigation fence. So it's not a fully enclosed structure. So these are the external tesla battery stations with a chain link fence and the What do you call it the green matting that's in the fence that box the view of it so it The proposed equipment currently is it's called tesla mega pack. So it's essentially like a large power wall Then power walls are Located in all of the homes in the development. And it is not a chain link fence with green matting. It's Specifically it's called a sona guard It's developed specifically for different types of utility equipment battery storage for sound mitigation site protection and privacy so I think Rendering had provided renderings of what the enclosure actually looks like And they might not be in the original submission. Yeah And they're 10 feet high Yeah, I struggled with that because I couldn't find Like these plans were labeled that they were the renderings, but then I didn't see anything on the sheet that marty Has pulled up. Well, so that's goes to show you how much screening we put in But the battery enclosure is right there over the top of that blue dot So you're looking out over the play field at the battery enclosure Uh, if you go to the the next photo down there, uh, yep right there The battery enclosure in that picture. Oh, it looks like it got cropped There you go, so you can see it there on the left hand side of old farm road, so that's old farm road I'm sorry. Where's the battery? If you zoom in. Yeah behind those three. Oh, it's big Well, it's a 10 foot tall privacy fence around it It's it's 1700 square feet. So it's roughly the size of a single family home Can we stipulate that from a functional standpoint? It's a desirable thing Yeah Yes I was trying to get at the the reason it's located there is because of a transit mission issue, right? You don't want to put it potentially on lot 33 because then it's not connected to perhaps the Localized grid on the front side of the hill um what I I guess I have if this has it has been It and I'm deliberately putting Quote marks around it has been dedicated to the city. What's the it? The land That's what i'm getting at. It sounds like the the the describe how was the land described Is there a deed that is there a deed of dedication? Yes And how does it how does it describe the land? You've changed you've changed the configuration of the land. So how how could it possibly be accurate at this point? I think it describes the meets and bounds not the topography It describes the meeting if it describes meets and bounds and they can't be the same thing as what we're looking at now Right, it would not be the council would have to give it up. All right. So there would have to be A a an amended deed that have to be an amendment to the deed and the council would have to go along All right, based on everything we've heard Uh, oh, I have one more question because it wasn't clear to me What was the usable open area? For passive recreation or what have you before you made the change and what is it now? Previously the area where the battery enclosures proposed was shown as a 12 percent I'm not asking you that turn it around What was the usable area? We calculated 40 000 square feet of usable area Previously and that included that included the seven and a half percent slope but excluded the area where the battery storage is So it went all the way to that um shrub buffer in the back And then as proposed Excluding the area of the slope and beyond the slope We calculated 23 500 So you're losing on the other hand So they're making the argument that our calculations is inaccurate, but i'm just explaining how we made that so we had expanded that orange line all the way to the back And then the pink line was smaller But the area where the uh when you're talking about usable area if you got a 12 percent 12 percent is pretty steep gray Right the 12 percent we had excluded we so if the orange line if you extend Take the back orange line and move it all the way to the back. That's how we came up with the 40 000 I think we um included maybe like a little kick in the front too Because of my limited visual understanding You can see that you've given up 17 000 square feet of usable area Well, the the lot the lot is Currently the lot was 1.15 acres and the lot That was needed to the city and it's proposed to be reduced to 0.98 acres So in in fact that is it's precisely 0.17 acres that were removed for the benefit of the battery building I would point out that there are some 34 acres of publicly accessible space in the project and that that's a You know 0.05 I get your butt. All right. I'm just trying to get the basic facts right now Do you can see that there are 17 000 square feet of Because what I understood you to say before is we've taken away some but we've compensated with grading We've actually functionally added more. So if that's your position, I'd like that teased out a little bit There is 17 000 square feet of usable actual usable area for us to you dispute that I I don't think that I agree with that. No, I mean I the the land is what it is We went out there and we proceeded to construct the largest flattest area we could reasonably On the property and so the area that is flat Is the largest that it can be Other than the potential opportunity to shift the pink line a little bit closer to the orange and increase the slope of the hillside so That would be the way that you could increase the size of the level area somewhat I don't think that the sloped area is unusable So what's the use? Like what are what's the use because there's a tennis court a basketball court of volleyball court a pickleball court And then there's a really nice gradual hill where you can sit and have a picnic or play fetch with your dog So it's it's unclear to me what the reduction means When I say usable, I mean functionally Really useful material materially materially usable A seven percent grade doesn't strike me. It's pretty steep grade I don't think that we graded the I don't know what the backside grading is From a percentage perspective, there's a picture of it and I can tell you with certainty that you could have a picnic on that You could play fetch with your dog on that you could You know Play frisbee on that you could set up a beach chair on that and sit in the sun and enjoy the western sun on your face And read a book. Let me get out of there. Let me ask the staff Do you think that the residents Are losing losing a material portion of an amenity that the board thought would be there in practical terms I would like the opinion of the recreation director on how this space can be most usable if he thinks that a 12 and a half percent slope or whatever that is on the back is better than an additional 30 feet of flat and then a steep slope Then I defer to that Yeah, I was I had the similar thought that because you said what you're waiting against would you weigh it against the benefit of the Of of the of the battery stores. I think that's The authority of the board I'm sorry. I think that's where the board's Important neutrality comes in right that's that's your decision Well, is it our decision right so eventually They're going to go to the city council and if the city council wants to give them the land I mean that's Right and then we get it and we get to just have a discussion on what the land is used for right? I mean, they're opposing a battery storage, but we can't We can't Say no, you can't have the subdivided right or or sold back as a piece of land because that's up to the city council it is um council does tend to defer to The board and the planning commission on matters that are usually within their authority The only reason this isn't within the board's authority is because it's an amendment not be Instead of a new project I guess It's fine So I will sorry. I'm just putting in a plug. We started a little late tonight But um, we are a little bit past what we typically do so if we could put give guidance forward and Cool quick things is is this subdividable as it is Does it run into any problems having to chop that off if it was a parcel that the city owned And now it's going to be separate. Can it be severed? And meet the requirements that are necessary Or could the city accept it with Or and give him an easement or something or you could just you could solve that with an easement I mean that to me makes a lot more sense than talking about subdividing And would that be okay with gfb if it just had an easement I mean, it's the use that you care about Yes, typically that would be fine All over the state. Okay. I don't think I think that saw you Yeah, I'm just asking there's a practical that's something to be solved. Um, no, I agree with what marla said I mean, I I think it's something that's necessary and if it needs to go there It seems to be a good place to put it. I think the real question is what else can be done with a lot? I mean the The underlying thing seems to be we were under the impression that we were getting a pretty flat level 1.5 acre 1.15 acre parcel of parkland and it turns out that that's not what it is So but it also wasn't flat, right? Is that your point? It wasn't flat. It was gently sloped, right? Yeah It is unchanged from what it is But that's not what was on the drawings So Short of the board going out there and surveying it ourselves. It's it's new information to us at this point So your your point is taken, but it's still something that needs to be digested So I would I would be in favor of recommending the the change and finding out what the director of Recreation would like to do if they're amenable to potentially regrading You know grade it flat and put a fence in the back or you know, leave the slope as it is whatever They think is the best solution one more dumb question. What is the battery? What what are the batteries sir? so the Community scaler centralized battery storage system will provide several different benefits to the neighborhood but also to the larger distribution system The batteries will be part of microgrid that will be comprised of the homes in the hillside east neighborhood All of the homes in the neighborhood are fully electric And they have to andrew and evan's comments earlier solar and battery storage on them So the centralized battery system on what's currently lot 18 will provide additional layers of resiliency and backup power to the homes in the event of a broader grid outage but another really important aspect of the plans for the battery system is that with a fully electric neighborhood questions that green mountain power and Utilities across the country often receive is can the grid handle increased electrification from heating transportation the additional of new electric developments So this neighborhood is a really incredible opportunity to demonstrate that Fully electric developments can actually be a grid asset And that comes through pairing renewable energy generation with battery storage. So that green mountain power along with the residents in the neighborhood are able to Um, balance the grid in this area through the microgrid will be able to take it offline From the rest of the grid and in really high usage times benefits like that Paying the fee for locating the grid there For locating the battery storage system Yeah, so this project would go through section 248 permitting with the public utility commission And that would be done through green mountain power and a battery storage developer That wasn't the question is the Is green mountain paying for the use of the land? Oh for um No No, green mountain power is not paying us for the lot or for the land In this subdivision. There's no rental or or easement fee or anything like that No, the intention would be for the facility to go there and for green mountain power to I mean, we made it a lot because it was a lot easier To have a lot than to negotiate an easement with the city But you don't you don't need you don't need the lot you can create an easement And describe you can describe you you can what you're calling a lot line just call an easement area And keep the keep the acres exactly the same. You don't have to segregate the lot Yeah, I think we're comfortable as long as gmp is comfortable with that arrangement But I think the thing to keep in mind because I think it's easier for the city I think it would depend on the terms of the easement. Yeah But I think the thing to keep in mind is that this micro grid battery Storage facility is part and parcel and integral to the entire micro grid community That allows it to be 100 carbon free 100 electrified and backed up in climate resilient So we we can't do what we're doing Without having this there and this was the most logical place to put it If it was possible to to say, you know easement or you know Create the lot. I don't know but I do think there's some benefits to it being on its own lot from the city's perspective In the sense of you have a it wouldn't it be a Insurance or a liability issue to have This on city property you would dress that through your insurance if it's a if it's a real issue Or you require a green mountain power to compensate you for the You know for the insurance for the additional insurance, but by the way, who who winds up that's an interesting question Who winds up owning a lot who who has Who owns the underlying fee for lot 18? In other words, is this common land for the homeowners or does it develop well the city has an irrevocable offer of dedication for lot 18 So the intention here would be to take the city's lot 18 Let them keep the remainder of it and pull that little piece off To your point if it's an easement, it doesn't really matter if green mountain power is open to it All right, and you got two institutions. You got you got two important institutions here You've got the power company and you got the city they can the city can give the power company an easement And your problem is I I see it as pretty easy As long as the city You know, you got to make your pitch to the city. It sounds reasonably persuasive The countervailing issue is what the recreation director thinks Yes, so yeah, I think um The board is on board with the location And you've heard frank's recommendation as far as exploring the easement option might be more appealable to the city But as far as at sketch right now moving forward, we'd recommend getting review and input from the recreation director as far as the final grade How that lock is usable what what best makes sense as as an open space there understanding that it's in its current condition based on Your you know in the field decision making to to try to make it a useful recreation space Actually, and I'm sorry to do this quick, but now that I think about it See I'm confused about what it is you gave the city Did you give the city accurately everything within the outside line? Yes So the only you don't really have to amend the deed what we're really talking about is You're going to the city for green mountain tower to request an easement for this purpose So the city hasn't accepted it. Yeah Oh, it hasn't yet. Okay, so so all right So if it hasn't it hasn't accepted it you could modify it slightly and convey your subject to an easement in favorite green Can we let them figure that out at the next stage of review given that this is sketch and it's 1040 Yep all right I think that summarizes our feedback on this point for any other last So is the feedback is that the you guys are comfortable with the location And that we should explore with the city the ability to do an easement there and whether or not that gets us out of Even needing to amend the plans that overstate that because I want to respect more less concern Feedback is we got to hear something from the development director The recreation director as well. So there's three. I think this I'm sorry, but I think the sequence should be You work that out first And then you're definitely going to have to go to the city Now the city is not going to override us. I don't think on whatever recommendation we make I don't think But you should try to work out the recommendation in advance By working with marlin of development and excuse me. I keep saying development. I mean recreation director Does that sound coherent to you? Okay, that's understood That's good. Okay In with that, uh, we will conclude sketch Oh public comment Yes, I did receive a written public comment today the um from the neighbor to the Immediately next to the battery storage so that um if you pull out that plan, I think that they this is um Marla and bill weiner Who live just off the page to the left? I'm paraphrasing. I'll put it on the website for the board tomorrow like I always do But they Indicated that they are opposed to the facility being in this location If it's unavoidable, they don't want any closer to their home Then it's currently being proposed and they want an assurance that there'd be no sound impact from the facility The battery storage storage Is there a sound impact There is some ambient noise from fans an air circulation cooling system As well as inverters and transformers The estimated decibel level at the batteries within the 60 and 65 dba The sound mitigation fence helps with that And we don't anticipate for the ambient noise level at the next nearest properties to be increased because of the battery storage Uh, that's the Say the ambient decibel level. Does there any reason With usage that the decibel level varies goes up Does it move? It does slightly But I I don't think it would exceed again the maximum ambient sound that's experienced in the neighborhood currently All right, well Additionally, a sound analysis would be part of the section 248 permitting with the public utility commission Um, so that would be part of the standard permitting process for the as a zoning matter that we have But I think that under the puc guidelines that the Standards don't apply because it's governed by the puc So like energy projects aren't um subject to local regulation because it's governed by the state By the puc Yeah, I think it's it's under 44 13 anyway. Yeah So like with the exception of Uh, driveways It it is one of the reasons why we located it where it is other than for convenes, but it could have been south of there But it would have gotten closer to the weaners home There's an existing wooded tree line there and so we were trying to respect the distance and obviously The potential for ambient noise But there is a fair bit of ambient noise in this neighborhood anyway Because you've got the interstate on the south end and you've got the airport on the north end You've got kennedy to the west we our sound report The ambient noise is like between 60 and 75 decibels in this area Currently, well, I think and maddy saying the equipment 60 to 65 at the source. So I I think we could conclusively Say at our preliminary plat that it would not increase ambient noise levels if that would be helpful Respecting what stefanie says I think a double check is worthwhile But for what it's worth. I think the performance standard for nighttime Decibel level in a residential neighborhood is 45 decibels. Do you recall either of you? There was a performance standard on You're right. There is a different nighttime standard And I hope I'm remembering that right The project I mean the project is that this became a hot issue in west queen city, you know the It is 45. It is what 45 45 is correct. All right. So you're 20 20 decibels Would this be with that ambient decibel level 45 at the property like nighttime Is there any reason it would go up down and be different at night or demonstrably could you demonstrate? It's less than yes property less than that at night Um at the source I so at the batteries themselves. I don't believe that the decibel level past the property line Oh past the property line. No, I do not believe that it would exceed 45 at the next closest property line at the next closest property line is you know right there Or to the neighboring residences I should say pardon to the neighboring residences. I'm talking No, I'm talking about the limit of the property on your right at the property line So the sound would likely not be below 45 decibels at the nearest property line right in front of the facility. No, we talk it across purposes your property line The property line that houses the the source of the noise That's what the the the performance standard applies to it would it be more than 45 decibels Past that property your property line On the other side somebody's standing on the property So we yeah, we would do a study to determine that through the permitting process All right, so the only issue then is that Stephanie right and if she's right then it's a non-issue and you'll you tell you tell the neighbor Sorry can't help you So again not to cut your interest of time comment about noise Yeah, we can address noise at the next level depending on which direction the easement or plan goes Excellent And with that, I think We close conclude conclude I thought I got it went too late Um conclude this um, and we will see you at the next phase of review Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. She had it guys. Thanks for sticking it out So do you want to do minutes or um, we can table them for the next meeting since it's so late Okay, your mic's off Your mic's off Is anyone opposed to tabling the minutes for this evening? Okay, thank you All right, um, I don't have any other business Oh, yeah other business. Sorry Okay. All right. Well done. Thank you