 So my name is Angelorosa, I'm the Chair of the Burlington Development Review Board and I will be calling our Tuesday, it's Wednesday, March 8th 2023 meeting to order. We have an agenda posted online and it's a very short agenda tonight so it's very likely we'll conduct public hearing and then move on to deliberations afterwards. So we have agenda, no changes to that, well there are some changes to that. There is a change. Yeah. 294, 296 North Winooski Avenue has asked that we defer this until the April 4th 2023 meeting. Is anyone here to speak on that? There's only two people, I'm assuming you're not here to chat about that? Nope. All right. So I see no reason not to defer it and I would move that we defer 294, 296 to April 4th. Second. Any opposed? All in favor? Aye. All right. So that has been moved and so that means the first item on our agenda is 371 Main Street Champlain College, expanded existing residence hall from 30 beds to 36 beds. Is the applicant here? I did end up recommending consent, AJ. Yeah. Yeah. So this was on our, Scott just let us know that he recommended that this be approved under our consent agenda item. We don't really have a consent agenda on this application, but the indication is particularly small project and seemingly a good project that works. Is there any member of the board that would be object to treating this as a consent agenda item? No. Did you get a chance to read the staff's report? Do you have any issues with it that you need to address, sir? For the record, Nick Anderson, director of planning and operations at Champlain College and all of the recommendations and the suggested conditions seem fine to me. Okay. Is there somebody who'd like to make a report, make a recommendation on this one? I'll make a motion on ZP-23-24371 Main Street. I move that we approve the application and adopt the staff findings. Second that. All those in favor? So be it. Justice. Nice to see you, Nick. You're up. Okay. So this is the next and last agenda item tonight is 176 South Wyniski Avenue, ZP-23-15. Request at 176 South Wyniski Avenue to demolish this existing building and construct new mixed-use commercial residential building. And we have the applicant and their architect here, I suppose. The applicant may be joining, but this is, I'm the architect, Taryn from Narmavishnevski. And I'm the engineer, Greg Dixon. And so would you raise your right hands? Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give in this matter is true and incorrect in the pains and penalties of perjury? Yes. All right. Well, why don't you walk us through the project? We obviously have the information from the staff report. Why don't you walk us through the project and introduce us to it and tell us what you're doing? Sure. So this project is a collaboration between our client, which is Evernorth and Champlain Housing Trust, and the VFW. So the VFW has identified that this site and the building that they're in is no longer fitting their needs and had approached CHT and Evernorth as developers to assist them in figuring out the best use of the property. Our program and goal for this site is really to develop affordable housing, some dedicated to veterans, and community space on the first floor. So we have two commercial tenants that we're proposing. One is 4,500 square feet at the north end of the building and the 2,500 square feet at the south end of the building, which would eventually be occupied by the VFW. At this time, that's our plan. The upper four stories would become housing, about 10 apartments per floor. The top floor steps back a bit and we introduce a roof top deck. So that's how we get to 38 apartments. We have entrances on the primary facade for both of the commercial tenants and the residents in the middle. We've developed a street presence or streetscape and base of the building with the form-based code requirements to be public-facing and open and have a lot of glazing. And then the upper stories are a mix of materials to break up the massing, but still to provide a balance of vertical orientation as well as some connecting horizontal trim and lines between the different volumes. We didn't want it to read as three distinct buildings, but these slots that you see are really generated as part of our requirement to form-based code and they helped to break up the long linear massing of the building. We were allowed to go four stories, but we chose to go five. We considered six stories, but that really wasn't possible in a fossil-free building which would be heated and cooled with air, a lot of moving air. And the first floor requirement of 14 feet, we just felt that it was too tight to get up to the six stories. So we found ourselves somewhere in a happy middle of five, which provided us with the number of apartments that we hoped we could get on this project. The site is pretty tight, and in our clients' experience, many of their residents do not drive cars, but we found a mix of parking that we thought would serve the overlapping use of residents and commercial tenants for the first floor. The other buildings on the site include a smoking shelter that the client would be putting on a slab that we provide and a trash enclosure. And there's a significant improvement we're proposing to the retaining wall between our property and the commercial property to the east. Does that capture? I think so. If I could interject, this is largely reviewed by staff under checklist for the form code. I was going to ask about that. So you're really being asked if you will accept the additional height over the administrative allowable height. So they're asking for the fifth story, and the second thing is a use of a composite material, which isn't listed in our traditional list of materials. They do want to use a specific product, which has been recommended for approval by the design advisory board. We have accepted it and approved it in other applications, but unfortunately this particular product is not listed in the form code as being one of those defined products. That's the Hardy trim. I have a sample of the trim here. Yeah. It's very similar to Hardy. The form-based code allows fiber cement as one of the primary materials. We couldn't really call this fiber cement, but if you've looked at what fiber cement is made of, you'll can see a bit of the concrete fly ash and wood chips in it, similar to Boral. We've tested this and we're much more comfortable using this as a trim product and feel that its longevity, its smoothness, its workability is superior to the fiber cement, so we're asking for approval to use this instead of fiber cement trim. So I know it's traditional that you would step through all of these standards, but they've already sailed through their checklist. DAB has recommended it for approval, so your review is almost entirely limited to the additional height, which is one more floor, which is discretionary by the DRB in the use of this material for a limited amount of the trim. Is that trim in our package? Is there a sample of it in your package? No, no. In the package it talks about Hardy. We're proposing to use some fiber cement products. The Hardy that we shared in the package we're thinking of as being the panels. They have the four bytes. That's not an R. This is not the Hardy. I'm just asking what we have in front of us. We don't have information on that. Yes, I believe you do. Well, I thought they had that one. I'm familiar with the product. I think the product was submitted in our package. It's just not uploaded. It's a narrative, really. Oh, okay. I'm happy to share it with you, like Brad. Mary, one of the permit conditions is the transportation demand management plan and the TDM plan. It was submitted this morning, so I have that already. Because we anticipate more than 75% of the units are going to meet affordability standards. They only have to do two sections of the TDM plan. Both of those were submitted this morning, so they're prepared to sign an agreement for that. I'm assuming that's the case. I actually have a question about the impact fees. Do you have any issue with the impact fees assessed? Because it's part of our condition. Do we have an issue with impact fees? I want to make sure that you've seen them. Oh, I believe our clients are well aware of the impact fees in Burlington and on this project. We had gone to technical review, and we've talked about them a little bit, and we understand and hope to continue a really close relationship with the city as we develop things along South Winooski and in the public right away. They don't often have a condition that very specifically says impact fees have to be paid before occupancy, so make sure that people understand that. As a matter of practice, I calculate the impact fees based on the area that's proposed. However, with eyes wide open, they are proposing likely all of their units will be affordable, which waivers are available, and maybe exercise towards impact fees. So the caveat is in there that impact fees waivers are likely after review by the housing trust fund manager for the affordability of the units. There's nobody here to speak on this application that I see. Anybody else have any questions? Yeah, I mean it's reusing a site that yeah, I don't think it's a good location for it. It's definitely not straightforward, but from our perspective, it's not that on straightforward. Now we're working with city engineers and also trying to evaluate all the utility connections right now and feel like that will be a process moving forward. So right now we have some stormwater tanks that we'll use to kind of take the hit off those big storm events in the beginning, but it's definitely not enough for tension to... This is just a curiosity question. You're on the edge of the ravine. Does that affect anything here? Absolutely. So you get a lot of... There's a lot to figure out about this old ravine It goes down 30 feet or something. It is. So we located it as best we could by doing some search on our existing project site which has its own wastewater and stormwater collection system and then trying to map backwards while the thing runs pretty consistently full of water. So it has been difficult to find. I think we have it in a pretty correct location right now and are working with sort of structural to figure out how that affects the building. You got a sewer running under the corner of the building. Yeah, so this project has some pretty extreme development circumstances and one is the ravine. A very, very old, large brick core running underneath the corner of the building is concerning. And we have unscathed infill soils so we're looking at ground improvements. And we're looking at a strategy to mitigate some of the structural risk of the building through a structural approach that would support that corner should part of the ravine collapse. That were to happen, there'd be significant problems in the rest of the city and along the street and not just our project. But it's not unusual to build over the ravine. The wonderful library goes over the ravine as well. So we think it's achievable but it's been a consideration. We have some old water lines in the street that aren't giving us the most ideal supply of water either. We have contaminated soils which are going to be a significant investment to move off site. So it's taking a lot of commitment from our clients to figure out how this project can sustain itself and move forward. Well, it's good to see more housing, particularly downtown. With that, I guess we'll close the public hearing and we'll probably deliberate on this in like two minutes. In two minutes? Is that something we could wait for? Yep, absolutely. Okay, thank you. Well, with nothing else on our agenda, our meeting is closed tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Not over until we get our motion. It's just a point of order. For the traffic demand measurement plan, we don't review that. We just make sure that... Not in this case because of form code. Yeah, form code. They said comply with some level of traffic demand management, I think, at a level of form-based code.