 This is the Development Review Board meeting for Burlington for June 1st. And when we call each item, which we do in the order they are on the agenda, Scott will seek out and bring aboard the applicant and anybody else in the public who is intending to speak on each application as they come up. We will square people in as appropriate and Scott asked that when people join the meeting that they provide their addresses, their physical addresses. Your mailing address. Mailing address. Snail mail. Address. We're there on the real world. Okay. Going through the agenda. I will say that we don't have any changes to the agenda. Is that right, Scott? That's correct. Okay. Communications, everything has been posted online. So there are no other communications. Correct. I have minutes to deal with and we have minutes posted. So if people are going to look at it, if you have any issues with them, let me know. Before they get approved and send them to Ally. And with that, we can go right into the public hearing. The first item is 77 pine street, netty real estate. And I will note, since anybody is watching this may be not aware, this is in the form based code district, which means our review is somewhat limited in that most of the review happens as a checklist, working with staff to make sure that they meet the criteria of section 14 of the zoning ordinance. And then there's specific reasons why we might look at aspects of these projects and both of these projects tonight. We're looking at the height is the only about the only thing we're really focusing on at this point. Okay. So I see the applicant and Grace, CFO is that right. So we have Doug, Doug netting grace. So Doug and grace, is there anyone else I should be enabling to speak. And before you answer, are you looking to present tonight. We are looking to do whatever is most helpful for for the DRB and for for easy and I and we would like to also have David Saladino from BHB be able to speak and perhaps Jeremy Park guess from MSK. I don't think he's going to be attending but Greg Gossens our architect will will want to Yeah, talk about his his his great design. First for you, Greg, Greg, first and foremost. Yeah. Well, I see a Greg, I'm going to assume maybe that's him. Yeah. Are there any members of the public who are asking to speak on this project. I could like to speak on this, raise your hand please with the raise your hand function. So we're getting a few folks, Brad, who want to speak to this. So, I need to swear them in at this point so we I guess we find out who they are. Okay. We have Michael green and attorney from Lisbon Michael and the only to allow everyone to talk. Okay, so I'm going to ask the four people I think we have from the applicant I see we have three people from the public if you will all swear to tell the truth and hold truth on the pain and penalty of perjury. Yes, yes. Yeah. I do. Yeah. Okay. So we will go through the applicants presentation and then after that, after questions about the board, we will ask for the participation of the public. So we have no ways to go there. And I think it would be helpful to show some of the drawings and renderings of the building as we go through this tonight. So back to you grace I can show what you've submitted unless you guys prefer to drive. Oh, I would. Well, I'll don't step in at any point, but I'm happy for you to drive. Let's let's let's show the renderings first Scott if that's possible. Either the south East or the northeast. Okay. Thanks. I just wanted to note that the staff has recommended approval on this and that the height issue is something we look at according to section 1464 of the ordinance. And so that's one thing we want to be talking about. So wherever Doug and crew wants to start. I know this is all focused on the height but I just wanted to give a brief overview of the project and then I'm going to like Greg Goss and who designed I think it's very beautiful building to talk more about the building. But this is this is just a classic urban infill project for the city of Burlington. It's currently a drive through that used to serve three drive through bank teller spots in the city and we're planning on relocating that access to the north of the building and creating what I think will be a great addition to the downtown area. We're going to be developing 49 apartments so 49 homes here for for for a need that everyone knows is this is needed more housing in downtown. So that's a really quick summary of the project I'm very excited about it I'm, you know I'm hoping to get under construction this summer on this project. And with that I'm going to let Greg Goss and speak about his design which I'm very excited about and hopefully the city is also so Greg if you want to take it. That'd be great. Okay. Is everybody picking up on me on this. Yes. Okay, thank you. So I'm joined with Steve Crudell, partner here at GBA architects and questions either Steve or I we can feel them. So the overall design, we were pretty excited when Doug asked us to do this project with a very tight site. And so we wanted to emphasize the kind of the small footprint and the vertical nature of it all which was part of the criteria for a building of this height. And so you can see from this rendering that we did a brick feature with it with some pure color panels, all of them and kind of a vertical oriented manner on the street level. We created a datum along the sidewalk because Pine Street slopes of about three feet or so from the north side of the south side so on that data and we put a horizontal planner. We recessed the entry, the main entry with a feature column. Again, picking up on sort of the the vertical nature of the building. The other corners of the building, a living dining kitchen, this is an apartment building. So we have corner windows and all of them and again we have some vertical mulling articulations on the window panels. The brick is a is a blended brick, an iron spot blended brick. We're going to vary the pattern in a little bit from a running bond and known many areas to kind of a staggered back and forth type bond and you can see we ran a strip of that way up to the top of the building that's a stair tower over there. We took the flanking Peter colored panels, and also oriented all the windows and stack them to create some vertical striation type accent features. Form based code required step back, allowed us to put not only rooftop terraces out there, but also to plant some trees and we are truly trying to plant some trees on this we're working with Wagner Hudson architects on on the project for a talented group to put birch trees and some star magnolias up in planters on the step back areas. We also utilized some cantilevering decks and terraces and step back area. We wanted a building that animated the street that really was an active participant in the street that just didn't kind of sit and play back and we really want to animate and like I said and really improve the streetscape in kind of an active manner. So between the terraces the rooftop plantings and the cantilevering decks we we hope we really accomplished that well. So we can look at one other rendering if we want to flip to the rendering every now. So this is looking down pine street. At the north and elevation you can see the feature column the recessed entry area in that recessed entry is a public bathroom open during business hours, as well as the main entry to the to the residents apartments. Again, you can see the pewter cutter panels the stacked windows with the vertical orientation that that brick panel going all the way up for the stair tower and and all of the corner windows. That's sort of along in the short of it. I'm happy to answer questions, but again, you know, I think we really wanted to create a building that kind of emphasize the slenderness and the vertical nature of this, this piece of property which I think would be a very kind of exciting and animated street presence. I agree with you about the, the presence on the street that it, you know, because we do have to look at on that criteria for giving the extra height. And I think it works that way. I guess the form based code doesn't require that the rear of the building have the same animation to it and that was a little disappointing, but I guess that doesn't seem in contradiction to the code. West elevation there. We do. Yes. And there we use the, it's probably on another, another one of the attachments there it's it's the pewter color panels as he's trying to bring it up. They're updated building elevations. We went to scroll down to the rendered ones because I think they're passed. Yeah, then Brad I think you know as you know elevations are kind of hard to read because they're so cool. Darrell. So the West elevation which is the one on the left you can see the pewter color panels the vertical oriented windows and stat. What you really don't read on this elevation though is the fact that up at the ninth level that steps back. And there is a trail on the left hand side so that's a quite a large step back where there's a large terrace area for all the tenants in the building. On the right hand there are step backs not only on the West elevation but it wraps around to the south elevation which you can see on the elevator that read right elevation on this one. And that's for one of the kind of the feature apartments up on top. So it still has a lot of kind of articulation to it, which we really think is exciting. Yeah, I mean I've no setbacks are really quite quite nice on ability here. And I guess if before we go to any other other part of the presentation I'll ask if any members of the board want to ask the architect any questions on this one at this point. We don't have the visuals of the people on the board at the moment so it's hard to tell. There we go. Nope everybody seems to be okay with that. I'll ask one other question just because I was very curious about it and this may be just my ignorance on the form based code. Is the bathroom is an outgrowth of a requirement for public amenity is that right. Saying something you're muted. Yes, if a building is over proposed to be over 85 feet. One of the standards for achieving that there are two standards one is providing public access rooftop access and or a public restroom. And in this case, that standard is being met by the owner of providing a public restroom signed from the principal entrance maintained by the building owner and open during regular business hours. Okay. I did not know that. I got a question. So, I see that I understand that from the report in the documents that were submitted that there isn't going to be a rooftop. I guess access for anyone in the building but was there any thought given to providing access to this. There is access for people in the building to to the terrace up there on the wall right. So my question is, was there access, was there any contemplation giving to providing access to the public to that terrace area. Hi, this is Doug. No, we, we really wanted to focus on the other choice and that's providing a public bathroom. We just found it very problematic trying to get the general public, you know, to a really a private common space with barbecues and, you know, that different amenities is be really hard to control how many people were up there you'd have to have a security person there 24 seven control how many, you know, what the access would be the answer is we didn't we didn't contemplate it for very long. Again that's not a requirement for buildings over 85 feet it is an option, either or. Yeah, I guess I'll ask one of the question that maybe you'll get to it in this presentation is the right now it sounds like the inclusionary, which we don't really have much to say about that other than you have to meet the criteria. But are you playing to that onsite or off site you know yeah. On onsite Brad so we have, we have the 15% affordable for the city then we have another 5% for the state so we have a 20% affordability in this project so 10 of these apartments of the 49 will be affordable, which is, which is, you know, it's quite the word is amazing but it's great that we can provide no affordable housing and building that's so nice. I think it's very nice to do it on site and I'm glad to hear that you're doing that. That's great. And the other aspect of this but all this is sort of covered by the form based code checklist so our review is less dramatic than it might otherwise be. I went through a lot of stuff on the what do I call the parking management plan. So I think there's not a lot more that we have to go through at this point. I did find that the, it was interesting that the jog in the right of way. But that that's between the city and again that's not a zoning issue at this point. That's correct. The city's the city's actually, you know, desiring more land to own and we're providing that to them, along with, you know, easement in a right of way for the extension of mainstream. Yeah. Good. If there aren't other questions from the board, I'm going to see if there's anything else you want to have as part of your presentation. And then I would actually invite the public people who are wanting to speak to participate. So we'll get into public comment, Brad. Yeah. So top of the list of folks who raised their hand. Not sure who it is, but what's been like a link. You'd like to speak. Introduce yourself. Thank you. I'm, I'm Chris Jensen. And I'm an attorney with Lisbon Leckerling apologize for not correcting the, the title on the zoom haven't quite figured this business out yet. And I'm coming a little bit late to this party but, but looking. I would like to present Doug cheeseman Manny Leone in my green. Looking at this project my, my primary concern would be that the height of the proposed structure is significantly taller than the neighboring properties. And excuse me the mass, particularly from the north and the west. It really looks significant to me. The other issues that that I would have concerns about art and I haven't had a chance to review it are the transportation demand plan because we've got, we certainly have parking issues in this area. I know that there are no parking requirements under the, the new zoning. But that I think is something that we've got to take into account. I think that the height and the mass of the building is going to also have an impact on the, the light in the general area. And finally, I, I understand that this is a brownfield property I don't know that that is a zoning issue. But that certainly is something that the neighbors would have concerns about. Am I muted. Who is that. This is Grace Sifo from nutty real estate. Okay, I'm not going to go before, before you. I'll go in. Take down the renderings. Sure. Before you get going grace. And I'm getting your name again at Lisbon. I don't want to do an individual back and forth if I can get the whole scope of what your concerns are, then we can try to address them. That's fine. That's, that's pretty much my list. And again, I apologize. I'm coming late to the party so I don't, you know, have, have a song and dance on each one. But I think they're, I think they're pretty self explanatory. Can we get your mailing address, please. Sure. 84 pine street. Okay. Thank you. Thanks. And I think if it's okay, I'd rather go through the, the several other members of the public and then have Doug or grace respond to these things. Let's go with Michael green next. Okay. Michael. Michael green. I am a resident tenant at my office at 84 pine street fourth floor. Residence address to 76 South Union street. My concerns are as I read through the staff report and concede that I don't know the. Any terms of art in the zoning. Ordinance. But when I see the requirements for the, your discretion to allow the additional height. A was slender vertically oriented proportions. And while I think this building has a lot to say for itself. I wouldn't use those adjectives to describe the upper stories. I think it's quite, especially from the, I guess your North South elevation, it's, it's quite massive and monolithic. It would be helpful I'd say, from my view, if there were, I didn't see anything in the drawings that showed the actual streetscape of how it compare where it fits in, but there's a driveway between it and the, the 77 pine and there's a driveway between it and the building to the south, but I didn't see a drawing of that, which would have certainly helped me understand how it would fit in with the streetscape. I don't know what's typical and submissions like that to have that, but I thought that was would have been helpful for me. I think it would be of 14.6.4 talks about upper story proportions of the building oriented and tapered, which I, again, not a, not an adjective that I would have been common parlance applied to this, and or separate into separate masses in order to retain sky view. Again, that's not what I see here. You know, be helpful for me to see is, you know, I'm not skilled at looking at renderings or drawings. But I don't see that as an app description of these upper stories. I sort of went through some of that myself. So it's really the height issues then we have one other person speak. Yep. Michael, can we get your mailing address please. 84 Pine Street, fourth floor. Great. Thank you. We have many Leonie speak. Yes, thank you. I'd like to make a general comment, which is that someone talked about 20% affordable units, as if that were a positive attribute of this building. I wanted it appalling because if you have 20% affordable units, it means you have 80% that are unaffordable. This building dramatizes the kind of buildings that are being built in Burlington that don't meet the housing needs of Burlington. When a developer is able to come up and say that they are providing 100% affordable units, then I will be impressed in the meantime. That you all can't do any better. That's a general comment that I have as far as this particular building. I am concerned about the size and height of the building. My experience in Burlington and in other cities is that tall residential buildings make lousy communities lousy neighborhoods in proportion to how large and how tall they are. We seem to be embarked here on bigger and larger and taller buildings. I think it is disastrous to the quality of Burlington and I think one of the problems that this building dramatizes is that we all tend to look at these buildings as if they were individual projects they're not. They're part of a collective expansion downtown. I think it's necessary to look at the collective impact of these buildings in terms of the massing in terms of the quality of the neighborhood in terms of the parking issues. I am all I can suggest to you as a design as a development review board is that up to now you seem to be using the present laws, the code in particular to justify your approval of these buildings. I'm hoping that you will get to a point where the disastrous nature of these individual buildings assumes a collective impact that is sufficient to get you to understand that the problem in this case and all the other joining cases in the big pit, potentially at the at the cathedral of the particular conception that the collective impact makes it very clear that the code is deeply flawed. And I urge you at some point to have the courage to take a stand against it and propose that we return to some modest version of more traditional and more traditional respect for the particular qualities the particular qualities that burning than has that are not characteristic of New York or other lockset. I am concerned about the parking and traffic I would I would emphasize or, or I would second what, what Michael Green had to say about the parking and traffic. I think that this area right now is quiet. We're under a pandemic. But I think our experience here is that there never was adequate parking. We have now removed all the public parking that was in the big bid. We've removed the, the public parking garage. I think not only will the residential members of this community suffer, but I think that the commercial members of this community will suffer that the merchants will suffer. The business downtown will suffer because in fact, I might be nearsighted but I don't see that there's any real part long term parking and traffic plan for the central part of Burlington so I urge you to to stop at this project and and take a hard look. Those are my concerns. Thank you. Thanks, man. I think to get your mailing address please. 84 pine street. Great. Thank you. Right across the street. I don't see any other hands up, Brad, just speak to this project. I mean, there's a lot of food for thought. It's a lot of what we're bound by and maybe Fanny's asking you for a little bit going in here is, you know, in the parking and the height all the form based code are things that went through the planning commission and the city council. So I think it becomes what we're supposed to be using as a guidance. As we have to look at what our realm of interpretation is as we go through this. I think. Grace or Doug, did you want to respond to some of those questions that concerns that people were raising. This is Jeff. I have one question for the applicant related to this. Well, we just heard. Yeah, I'm having a hard time. You know, I work right around the corner from this building. I know the area well, but I'm having a hard time placing this building in context, because the renderings and other materials you've given us don't really show the streetscape around you. So I think that's what compares in size to some of the existing buildings. It would be helpful to me to have something that gives us a better sense, you know, at least for the buildings to sort of the south and north, and maybe across the street, just to understand how, how 10 stories compares to, you know, the height of those buildings. Mary Mary or Scott that used to be actually a criteria or a request in terms of all applications to show an elevation of the buildings in context is that not part of the form based code to do that, or is that just That is not part of the form checklist that the staff goes through. So Mary, is it something we can ask for though given that up to 10 is with DRB approval. No, it seems like we have the ability to ask for additional information since it's not just the six stories that would be subject to staff approval right. Correct. The extra height is discretionary by this board's review. To be clear, they're not asking for 10 they're asking for nine, nine stories. And I do have photographs that, you know, that we can share of the of the building site and views from all directions to have a rent with a rendering of the building. I'll just need a moment. Oh, thank you, Scott. That might work as well. It's in condition. I think Grace, we want to be helpful to say it with the building in place. Yeah, right. That I can't give you. I, you know, we've we've stood on the on the building's footprint and taken, you know, taken photos of all directions, which I thought might be helpful place thinking that we don't have a rendering that includes the building and all direct, you know, and the adjacent buildings. Yeah. Oftentimes that's actually part of the submittal so it's lacking. So I can just give you a quick overview if you can hear me. You know, the 77 pine is about 58 feet high. But I'm just talking about heights. 100 pine, including their, their mezzanine on top is about a hundred and 114 feet or so. And I think the building right across the street is right around 68 feet. The occupants of that building might know, but I think that's what I recall and Grace, you might know too. Yeah, those are the heights of the, you know, the three. Doug, the first one you mentioned is that what used to be seven Wellington Square. Well, the first one I mentioned, it was, it was as the People's United Bank building. Okay, that's 57. And then 100 Bank Street, the one at the very end that Redstone owns is about 100 and I think it's 116. Yeah, it's 105 Doug, but then with the rooftop mechanical equipment that has another 18 feet. Yeah. And then Grace, do you know the exact height of the building across the street? Um, no, because I, I, I have the buildings that were, you know, similar heights or in some cases, much taller than, than, you know, then 79, but I could certainly grab that. But that's, that's, you know, those are the three significant buildings around what we're proposing to build. Yeah. And that's all that I wanted to say was just that, you know, to the comment that there's, there's nothing nearby that is really the height of our proposed building. I just wanted to point out that, for example, the key bank building is, is, is, is taller than our building and is just, you know, is just separated by People's United Bank building at 75. It's helpful. And, and I'm looking at this picture because of the elevation of time street and 100 bank being similar height 100 bank would actually be from a skyline standpoint if you're standing in front of this building taller because it would be up higher elevated right. That's correct. The grade change might be maybe six or eight feet, I'm guessing, and then there another for 104 there with their with their parapet and everything. I remember I'm missing it, but they were on 120. I did I have been I'm sorry that I, it's not in the list that I prepared for this meeting, but I'd be certainly happy to provide any total heights for the board, either this evening or tomorrow. And then I think city place. That I can speak to you know, when when city place was voted on you know by Burlington residents and approved instruction in 2016, it was stated to be 176 feet. So I'm unsure of the proposed building right now but at 10 stories, I can assume that it will be taller than 79 pine street, and that's very nearby and something will happen there eventually so that's something to keep in mind. Jeff, were you. Was that helpful. Yeah, that was helpful. I'll give some thought to whether I think the rendering is needed but that was helpful for context. I mean, I think in the big picture I think the way your code reach the way it is is, I think the city wants more density in its downtown and you know we're creating a walkable bikeable bussable environment here and like most cities have and to do that. We don't have to have some density, and that's what we're proposing. I think it's a good thing. I don't think it's a bad thing. I agree with you Doug that what you're proposing is what seems to be the intent of the change of the codes, but not everybody's at one with that. I have another question. If, if you were for each floor that you would maybe be required to reduce this by if the board reduced it how many affordable units would the project be reduced by. So, I don't have that exact number but if you just divided equally each four of my have five apartments so. So it'd be 20% of five, which would be one I suppose right. Yeah. It's interesting when we were in front of the DA be a week ago. They felt a shorter building would not be would not work as well in the neighborhood and and thought it would be a mistake to lop off a bunch of floors on this building. I don't know who was here, other than me that heard that, but I don't know what they wrote up in their summary but that's what I heard pretty clearly. Right back in the, you know they built they improved the design unanimously and they were very complimentary to Greg bosses, the architect because we really strove to create a really special design with this building that does taper as it is it as it elevates So, you know, the, the footprint of the neighboring buildings is quite a bit larger than ours to have something that refers you know in terms of scale. The idea of making it at the footprint that it is, but shortening it to me, you know, really, I'm not connecting all of those dots but of course, you know, it might not be for me to, you know, that we all can have our opinion but I really think that some of the interest and what makes the building really unique and attractive comes at the top. The last three story that upper three stories. I'll just mention this building dimension, it's somewhere around 76 feet by 75 feet. It's not. It's a skinny building. In comparison the bank building next door is 200 and some odd feet and, and it's, it's, you know, all the city certainly city place will be a couple hundred feet long. It's, it's not a, it's not a, it's not a huge mass in my opinion, it's a building that's 76 feet wide. This is Greg Gossum's, the DAB, they were, I think somebody had mentioned DAB members pretty much to a person felt like the building height would, or the building designer be compromised if it were shorter. And I'm not sure if that's codified many of the minutes but I know that was there was that that is a statement of fact for the conversation that went on. I think we have, this is something we would talk about, I think during deliberative we have some criteria to review this with and the question is the terraces and the setbacks and articulation that happens on the, on the building does that give us something to hold on to to to improve the extra height. That's, I think that will come up for us. I think, I think we're bound by the zoning ordinance that's in front of us, and that's the criteria we need to look at it by. There are other questions from the board at this point, I guess or not. I think that we will close the public here and we will see when we deliberate I'm not quite sure what's happens with that and then we have the option to, if we need more information or have other questions we can always reopen the hearing we have to. So, close public hearing at this point. Thank you everybody for participating. We have one more form based code application. More discussion of height, less hype, but still more height. And that is for 157159 South Champlain Street. And we have the applicant team here just need to find them and fish them out. So, Nathan and Don, I know you two are involved is there anyone else that I should be able to speak for you. And do you want to present or should I drive like the last time. Hi Scott thanks this is Nate. Peter Smire and Kurt Muller from VHB should be in the waiting room. Okay. And also john light should be in there as well. And it's fine for you to drive Scott if you don't mind that'd be great. And are there members of the public here as well. Anyone who'd like to speak to this item please raise your hand. See one to David Slansky who's a neighboring property owner and Steve. Just Steve. Okay, I see everybody here. So I'm going to ask everybody who's going to speak or participate in this hearing to swear that you tell the truth and hold truth and pain and penalty of perjury. Do you. Yes, I do. And then I'll ask Nathan or whoever's going to want to start the presentation and if you want, Scott to post something. Let us know what would be helpful. Great. Thanks Brad, if we could start just with a perspective you, Scott that'd be great yeah that's that works right there. Thank you. So thanks again everyone. We have a pretty exciting project here we think this is a great fit for Burlington. We've got a new infill project on a site that sat vacant for many, many years. It's a very challenging site. A lot of people in Burlington are aware of this block, and some of the contamination challenges with this block, our team is put together an approach that will clean up this site for good, and put a nice new residential building on the site with 32 new units. This project is located adjacent to August 1 bakery. And we will be achieving lead gold certification for this project. So, part of the development team. I'm here. And the john light is also here as part of the team. We have Don welts the architect, Peter Smire civil engineer, and Kurt Muller, our environmental expert. So at this point, I will turn it over to you Don to give a presentation on the architectural features of the building. Great. Hi everyone. Scott, could you, could you switch to the, the perspective, the Northeast corner perspective. It's also shows the blend house or yeah actually can can you share screen so I can pull up the slide if you want to drive. Yeah, can I. Sure. Give me a moment. You should be able to present to your screen. You're talking you're muted done. Everybody hear me now. Yes, yes. So we're asking for an additional 12 feet I guess above what can be approved administratively or an additional floor. To mitigate the height of the building. We've recessed the first floor back about six feet from the primary facade, casting it more in shadow and I think making the the overall massing of the building appear lighter. So we've divided the primary facade into three days, and then again broke the middle bay down into three more days. The northeast and north, or I'm sorry the southeast and south and northeast corners have been recessed or set back from the primary facade, a little over 11 feet. I think softening the mass and also allowing more light down into the neighboring properties. The central Bay is broken up into a band of granite with flanking brick cladding on each side. The windows are all stacked vertically with with with with a horian horizontal orientation to. The, the, the, there are decks that are cantilevered out on each floor that also help to break down the overall massing of the building. But also provide scale and and I think visual interest. So for does read horizontal it's it's a public space with big windows were proposing a gymnasium or a gym in that space so thinking that that the bigger windows and the ability to see and will liven up the streetscape a little bit. We've mixed the materials with the brick and the granite as I mentioned with wood panels, certainly the wood panels and storefront glass along the first floor. So that is more just adjacent against pedestrian access or people we've, we've soften. We've worked to soften at least the, the northeast corner and held that side of the building back as much as we can from the property line allowing as much light and the least amount of shadow possible onto the blend house. So what we are calling a sort of a pocket park between the two buildings that the civil engineer can talk a little bit more about, but will be planted and soft and green and accessible to both buildings. So the DAB review. The proposed parapet height is 42 inches and we talked a little bit about potentially reducing that two feet, getting us back within the 55, I guess maximum with the 5% additional. That would get us back under the 5% additional. A little bit of conversation. Some people felt that it the building look better with the additional two feet and others felt that maybe it should come back. We should not get down, but that is, that's an option to Yeah, I guess, I guess that's it from my end. Thanks Don, I think we'll send it over to Kurt if you're available to talk a little bit about the challenges of this site it's a brownfield site that Kurt can talk a little bit more about. If you'd like me to stop the share, Scott or or Kurt. That's fine. That's fine. Good evening all our VHB environmental consultants. The date hired us last year to do perform a phase one environmental site assessment on the property, at which point, identified that there was a former dry cleaner located in the 151 parcel which is this. Can we see a site plan as you're doing this. Certainly. Show that or somebody. Yeah. Yeah, I can pull up a site plan. Great. Thanks to me to interrupt you. No, no, no, I'll wait to the site plans up and then I think it's easier for all to reference thanks Brad. Yeah. Okay, so that's the location plan. Is there a particular plan you want to go down to Kurt. Just the plan view of the parcel it may be two or three pages in that one work. Wonderful. Perfect. Thank you very much. So as you can see the grid the 157 parcels the subject parcel. We did a phase one environmental site assessment on that property identified that there was a repair facility as well as a foundry on that property. There had been historically releases of petroleum, minor piece of these metals, as well as as potentially some some PAHs which are our polycyclic aromatic high departments. So mentioned in the phase one we also identified the fact that there was a former dry cleaner 151 parts. And that is the north, north, northeast of the property there. And so as a result, there was known both groundwater as well as soil vapor impacts that were migrating on to this 157 parts again the sources at 151, not 157. So as we transition from the phase one of the phase two, Nate entered into the Brella program, the brownfield program and got and the Brella program which is liability protection program through the DC, he was accepted and DC went as far as to actually fund the phase two investigation which was great. So in doing so we were able to confirm the nature and extent of the contamination both laterally and vertically. One being determined nature and extent of contamination but the other was to pre characterize the soil for offsite disposal. The important piece of that is the fact that because of this project, there's there's approximately 3000 yards of material that will be coming out of this hole essentially to put the garage in. And as a result, all of that contaminated soil will be removed and disposed of appropriately. That's thus mitigating the exposure risk. Also, because there's a vapor that is migrating again underneath this property although some of that material be coming out with the soil. There also will be a vapor mitigation system that's proactively installed underneath this building as a just in case measure. So, so that's part of the corrective action plan as we transition from the phase two to phase two investigation to the corrective action plan which is now being funded by the CCRPC or Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission. We are designing that that mitigation system as well as calculating the soil disposal and means and methods for that. We have the CAP, the corrective action plan built and ready for distribution and in about a month or so. But yeah, so, so, you know, great opportunity to clean up a dirty site in Burlington and happy to field any questions that anybody has them. Great thanks so much Kurt. And Peter, I think these slides will work great for transitioning right into to you. Yeah, thanks Nate. Peter Smire from BHP civil engineer on projects. I'll keep this limited because I know your board has a review, essentially focusing around the height but just as a quick overview, lots about point three acres. It's fairly straightforward as far as a civil and utility standpoint and that it's served off of the existing municipal services on South Champlain Street. And, you know, one of the things we were excited about with this property is the fact that as of now it's, it's occupied by some old building slabs and then to gravel lot and driveway. One of the things we were able to do on this from a stormwater standpoint is knowing this drains down to the city's combined sewer network that drains the treatment plant. So we collect that water and detain it and hold that water back before it goes into the combined system. So, right now what happens is that water flows across some of those gravel lots and slabs to the west and across the adjacent gravel lots and the adjacent property so there's a decent amount of run on volume to the lots to the west and that has resulted in some evidence of grilling and erosion of those lots and some southern washed into the street at the bottom of maple street. Just by virtue of the fact that we're putting a rooftop surface on here that's no longer gravel there's there's less origination of some of that stormwater pollution and there's also better management of some of the run on to the adjacent lots. Are you doing some detention as part of this. We are so underneath what you see at the northeast corner of the building that darker hatch pattern. That's a pervious lot that's that small pocket park area that Don described, but underneath that we're putting in a detention system that connects into the street drainage network. One of the challenges we did have was with the contaminated soil so ordinarily we look for opportunities to infiltrate our water wherever we can, but given the substantial efforts that are being made here to clean up the site and give it a clean level of health, you know, injecting water into the ground near this site and near the form of contamination was not advisable in our opinion. So the system is essentially the pervious, the pervious patio and then combined with the detention system underneath it. So I will, I will end my description there. Now just so none of the meat remediation has been done at this point right that correct. That's correct. Yeah. And so that would be with the first stage of construction would be doing that work. So, yes, yes it would just curious about the process. Thank you. And I guess I'll wrap up here. Just to seeing this site plan we were excited about this little pocket park it is a small opportunity but we have a special relationship with the blend house with how these lots started and we have easements to allow a couple of parking spaces in our area for them so we'll be kind of connecting to this blend house through this pocket park and having this kind of inviting area with maybe a little seating, a place to pause a little bit of bike parking so it's going to be a nice transition between the two buildings. And we do have planters and some greenery in the front as well so, although it's a pretty major infill project, there is, we've, we've brought some greenery and where we can. Yeah, that's all we have and we're happy to take questions. I have one sort of a silly question in a way. You have one street tree that you're providing is that am I reading that correctly. That's correct. And it. And it just seems odd that's right in front of your front door. I'm a civil engineer as we did coordinate that with our landscape architect Mike Willard but I will respond that there is actually some significant three phase power that runs along the city green belt there in front of the building. And so one of the challenges we did have was trying to find a tree that was of a scale that would fit under there correctly. Okay, we did coordinate with city arborist to match the lilac that's that you can see to the south of our driveway just so we had some uniformity but that was one of our challenges was sort of fitting everything in with that overhead. It's just my question about why it's there. Thank you. And I, are there questions from any members of the board at this point. Yeah. Again, this is, you know, with the form base code, it looks like you have a fairly, I guess I would say aggressive. Management parking project in terms of how the parking works and your. Right chair happening. I think that helps meet that criteria. And the other questions I have a question for staff and this is sort of general with this application the other application we've talked about a little bit is, and we've asked for it on some projects but it seems to me it's not really up to the applicant as much as somehow the city to be getting some data about how these projects with all the changes we've had in the parking requirements is how they're working out. I don't know whether I think we had a report a while back on one of them, but is that something that planning commission or the staff is contemplating happening in the future. The TDM has annual reporting requirements for that now. And we had done a very informal ad hoc follow up analysis, but the TDM standard in place now as an annual reporting requirement. And that gives us an idea of how the public is perceiving the success or not success of the parking situation. How the public receives it. Yeah, that's really the question here is not just I say the public and also the applicant of the building. You know we're changing the parking a lot and saying that we don't have to have all these parking spaces here and just you know it may be a question of having the merchants downtown to give us and some of it may be anecdotal data and maybe hard to analyze but it just seems having some review that we get feedback on it. The TDM is just saying are we successful within the criteria that we set up and are they meeting their goals, but to look at a larger question as to how is that working for the city. That will give us actual numbers that will give us numbers on actual parking demand associated with a given project. So it will. If people aren't able to park their cars it will be saying that. Each, you know, first the TDM is relatively new for the changes in the parking regulations. Yeah, and we've only had a handful of these come through so far. Right. What's been unique to each application is well there are no minimum parking standards each one of these projects is providing parking. So they're managing, they're required to manage their own parking. So, you know, unbundling parking from rents is going to be different project to project participation within the building is going to be different. So it is this very individualized management and the annual reporting coupled with public transit availability with each project so that it's really not a boilerplate. I think I don't want to take up this applicant with this kind of conversation baby, because this is not that's they have a very elaborate looks like a very good parking demand manager plan. That's part of the application so this may be something for another discussion. But lastly, I'd only mentioned that this the TDM management is a condition of approval and it will be a zoning violation if it's not continued. So there, there's something that sticks to these projects. Yes. Okay. Any other questions for the board for this applicant for the applicant any other things that you want to add at this point. All set on my end anybody else feel free to jump in if you have anything. So here's the project. No I think, well, I guess we'll discuss the, what is done for the height issue in deliberative. There are two members of the public. My mind, Mary, so, David plans key, if you want to pay pen. Yeah, hi good afternoon. Thanks for giving me an opportunity to speak can you all hear me okay. Okay, great. So I, you know, I met Mr. Degas, at least over the phone. And he's been very pleasant and professional to deal with and I, I own the blend house next door and I also the Pomeroy house which is to the back of this property. And, you know, at one point I own this property. I, I guess, you know, I'm not sure it's that relevant but some of the contamination history I might understand a little differently, but I do think once somebody digs there they do have to get the dirt out of there I'm not sure that there's a situation that needs to be remediated if you leave things as they are. And my primary reason for wanting to be heard and I appreciate the opportunity to do so is, is shading, and we have not gotten the shading study on this, despite asking a few times and I don't think I'm sure that it's, first off, I admire Nathan and his team for the this is a, this is a big project and there's a lot of hard work that goes into it and I think it's a, it's not a great looking site right now. And so I think there's a lot of good that can come from this and I don't want to sort of mistake my small issue for the big picture. But if you look at the picture that's up there. I think the reason why we're not getting a shading study is because it's brutal. It's basically a wall that's going to block out the sun, because as far as I understand that that sun comes up on the south. And I have really nice tenants in the blend house. And I don't know, I'm not opposing the project I'm not saying that I'm just wanting to have an open discussion I don't know if this is within the scope of what you all consider. I'd like to surface it, because if there's anything that can be done to make it I mean the pocket park all that stuff. My sense of them is that's decency. And it's consideration, but some of it also might be a little bit of a accommodation for something that's not mitigable. And so I just don't know that and I don't know whether alternative views of different heights different configurations different massings would lead to different shadings but I can't, I can't assess that it's a quantitative study, and I still haven't seen it. And I wonder if it's in your ambit to ask for that, but I do think it's worthy of discussion. I think it's worthy form based code process right. There is no requirement to provide shading information within the checklists. Is it okay for me to jump in or do we want to wait because I do have updates on the shading analysis. Well, that's, there's one of the person. I appreciate it. There's one of the person who wanted to speak from the public. That was Steve, if you can introduce yourself and before we get into Steve, Dave, need your mailing address. Yeah, sure. I'm going to give you a business address if that's okay. As long as you can get mail there. Okay, 48 Green Street, Virgins, Vermont 05491. Okay, great. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. And Steve, if you can introduce yourself and give Scott your address. Yeah, my name is Steve McKenzie my address is 162 battery street. I'm a neighbor of David who owns the building next door at 166. And I'm a butter to the west for the project I'm in favor of the project it's good to see more housing downtown and I'm not really concerned about parking. I want to address your comment about parking. Global information. We moved above our office about eight years ago, live in a one bedroom apartment upstairs. And we sold one of her two cars and we probably drive, maybe two days a week to the grocery store. That's about it so for us, we love living in a walkable circumstance so I'm sure the people that live here. I don't have experience in terms of being less dependent on the car and getting more exercise, especially if you have a couple dogs so I do like the idea of seeing something like this happen I just had a couple questions. Really for Don the architect and maybe whoever did the landscape which is. I'm not sure Don about compliance with the code with the setback. But typically when you're between five and 10 feet, you're restricted to no more than 25% of the surface area, exterior wall for opening so maybe you know the answer but it seems like you're probably over the allowable amount of opening in terms of coverage because of that particular setback so it seems like that's something that would have to be looked at in terms of code compliance. Maybe you know offhand but something again to check out. The other is looking at the grading plan and the amount of fall it's just a thought. From our standpoint it's not really a building that has a backside is pretty visible from all four sides. And it'd be nice to see a little landscaping treatment on the West side as well whatever the setback ends up being. There's about five feet of exposed concrete wall at the base of the building so even with six but setback. There's an opportunity for some sort of landscaping treatment or a vertical garden or something to that effect for the base of the building so, but my compliments otherwise for going. League gold I think that's great. And then again I'm in favor otherwise of the project don't have any issues. As far as height certainly or the number of units. Thank you. Good. I'll just mention I think the openings I think that's a building code issue which is not in our purview but a lot of work should be reviewing that as part of their code review. And Nathan did you want to follow up on the shadow study information. Great, thank you. So, thank you, David. For your question on the shadow drawings we have done the shadow analysis and I did send it over to your colleague refaella week and a half ago so I apologize that you did not see that we've been working with David back and forth trying to show show what the shadowing will look like on the blend house I do have them here in front of me. I don't know if that this is the right venue, but I can make sure those get to you David they're a large file so it'd be in a link. But we absolutely have those they were put together by professional. There's no doubt that this building is going to impact the sun and the shading on the blend house but I actually I personally was pleasantly surprised to see that there's a lot of morning and afternoon sun that still hits the eastern and western facade because of the fact that they're both at the same plane on South Champlain our building does not step in front of the blend house so there's actually, in my opinion this is this is where obviously there's different viewpoints there's still a decent amount of sun, considering the size of the building. But I'm happy to share those now or I can just deal, send these to David separately. It's really up to the DRV on that. Is that something you can easily share right now. It is a video so I'm not sure how that'll work through zoom but you allow me to share a screen we can try. Okay, give me a moment. And if you can get it on your screen you can share it. Okay, great. Let's see. I don't. All right, let's just give this a try and we'll see if it loads okay so there's several views we don't probably want to look at all of them I'll pick a summer solstice so they'll be a little higher sun, and this is the. This is looking west, and there's a little tag on the bottom that's going to talk about time of day so let me let me just start this over here. Down here you'll see time of day and it's going to go through blocks of time. So you can see we're starting in the morning here. Looking at the blend house to the right the new building proposed on the left, and you can just watch the sun play through hopefully. So you'll see up till about even past noon is when it starts to fade on the eastern side. So back in towards the evening. And then let me, let me play that same view. Look, looking East now. Or sorry the same the same time of year but looking East so morning, the sun's up, going over the new building, and then we're at noon. Now, and it starts to light up on the western facade so. Yeah, no doubt there's impacts but I was pleasantly surprised to see how there's still a considerable amount of morning and afternoon sun on those two East sides of the building so. Again, happy to work with you David on anything we can do to minimize that we did push the building back off of the property line basically the maximum the code allows so we pushed it back as far as we could from that direction as well. Yeah, so Nathan thanks for that and you know I did get them I guess they're just huge files and nobody put them in my inbox so that's my technical stupidity. It sounds like the winter is going to be tougher and maybe I need to look at those in touch base with you, but, but I appreciate you doing the studies as discussed. Yeah, no problem yeah take a look let me know the winters are certainly much more difficult. Certainly work together on that. Okay, thanks. One follow up question for you Nathan on the landscaping which was raised by Steve Mackenzie is that. And I again I'm not really sure the line between our preview and the landscaping is part of the form based code right Mary. Okay. But there's no last question is there's no landscaping on the west side of the building and there would be an opportunity to do that weren't there. Something is soft in it. It would not be a requirement but it's an opportunity. Yeah. I think we would be happy to look at that honestly we hadn't thought a lot about that screening that side it's just not been our focus right now but I think it's a great point and it's not a huge space but we'd be happy to work with the neighbors on. You know what we can fit in there that's that's sounds like a great idea. Thank you. I'll approve from the public. And questions from the board. We're good. And Nathan or any of the other team if you have anything else you want to add at this point. I'll set on my end. Okay, and we are good and we will close public hearing and at the end of this meeting we'll discuss celebrating today which may happen. We'll see. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. We have. One other item 125 South Cove road. Modest existing house and replace with a new single family home. And is the applicant here for this one. Yes. You order then cliff. Each and I believe you wanted to present clip. And are there any members of the public here on this one. Okay. Please focus on the public. You'd like to speak on this item. Raise your hand and let us know. I don't see any hands. Okay. So is it David and Cliff are those the two. Okay. So both David and cliff, if you would ask, swear that you tell the truth and hold truth on the pain of penalty or perjury. I see Keith Wagner to. So. Okay. So. There are some concerns relating to the site on this project. And the. Form of the building relative to the code. So that's part of the concern that we want to look at on this. So I don't know who's making the presentation right now. I will. If I could take the screen. Good. You can. We're bringing us tonight and the opportunity to present. The existing site factors. The interests and certainly our needs for this house itself. Right. So we would like to continue the discussions on the main topic that the DB has. Recommended a redesign of our home. The issue is the ordinance. For garages. Here is the. Chapter that we're discussing a parking structure, either attached or detached. I'll be set back from the longest street facing wall. For the principal structure. And be differential yet consistent in character. And design. So we believe. To understand the intent of this ordinance is based on aesthetic standards. And we believe that this is the most appropriate way. To have the property or ill proportioned. Garage bumps on the front of houses. Especially located on dense lots. With tight city lots. And shallow front yards. Looks like these diagrams are showing the development review standards. This is prevalent in most of Burlington. Our project site is on the west side of South. And it's located on the east side of the street. And it's located on the east side of the street. LL. Or large lot. Which is very different and unique. To the rest of Burlington. In fact, there's. This is one of three. Designated LL lots. In Burlington. So it's quite unique. Our lot has generous front yard. Setbacks. I'm locating you. There's South Cove road. So there's our front yard. And then, you know, beautiful rear yard right on the lake shore. With its own setback restrictions. So we have needed to locate our house structure over the existing footprint of the house that we are removing. This is to take advantage of the existing small. But highly functional full height basement space. There's considerable lock, Rockledge everywhere down there as we all know. And what we don't want to do is have to get into any blasting. Which would be not only expensive, but very disturbing for the neighborhood. And certainly the natural character of the site. Here's our foundation plan. This section right here is where we have a full height basement existing that we're going to take advantage of. And that hash mark on the first floor. That's the space below. That we're locating in the building footprint. The existing homes in the neighborhood span from the 1960s to the present. Most notable for consideration are the adjacent properties. All of which have garages set forward from the main faces of the homes. Certainly understandably. These homes were all built obviously prior to the garage ordinance that we're addressing today. But the building type does form a strong character and rhythm to the street. Which is very recognizable. Your South Cove. And the lake. And the adjacent homes, 135 and 111. Are there and there 135 and 111. And then the two flanking homes. 99 and 159. All have front yard. Or garages that set in front of their homes. And that's where we're going to go. And that's where our home design upholds and compliments this type of simple building layout. We've taken special architectural consideration and incorporated the garage space into the main footprint of the home. Try to lessen this impact. Here's a nice landscape plan by Keith. And his group. So there's the garage space embedded partially into the house. So here's our generous front yard, which we're trying to protect for the neighborhood. Nice new landscaping, new deciduous trees for screening. Outdoor patio space in front of the home. As one outdoor living area. Covered porch right there in front of the home. Again, giving a nice layering to the front of the house. Side yards, as you can see. And then the. Lakeside. There's also a nice curve to South Cove road, which our home is emulating as well from tip of the adjacent homes. Okay, so a nice rhythm to the street. So with living space above the garage dormers and a vocabulary of shingle style detailing. We've given the front of the house great character and proudness. So as to lessen the visual impact. Of a garage plus a house. But I blended a design and created a tasteful home appropriate for its neighborhood site. So this clause from the development review standards supports this notion that we're trying to. Encourage us to consider. Stating shall maintain existing development pattern and rhythm of structures along the existing streetscape. New building should be aligned with the front facade of neighboring buildings to reinforce the existing street edge. Located in such way that compliments. Again, the existing natural features. And landscapes. So the closing feel the ordinance was not necessarily designed nor intended for this type of deep front yard. Designated LL or large lot site. But more for smaller denser lots with homes sitting closer to the street. Very prevalent in Burlington. And so with all the consideration of our site's constraints and our project's beautiful property and the existing character of South Cove. Neighborhood. We're hoping that there would be a. We're hoping that there would be a place where we could be able to build a house. We're hoping that there would be a location to allow the garage face as designed to sit a little proud of our main face of the building. Thank you. There's two other issues that were raised in the staff report. One had to do with the deck or something on the lakeside. There were some issues with that in terms of the footprint. Right. So back in the, we met with the conservation board. And it was just a landscape element. I don't know if it was exact because it did seem like we were. Right inside of that setback, but it was actually. Deemed okay. I'm sorry. It was just defined as a landscape element. Right. So. The only problem. That I can tell. I guess you're sharing. So I can't point to it. Okay. So that's an issue. That's okay. I can't say that. But it does. We can expressly allowed encroachment. And the retaining walls are also okay. As expressly allowed encroachments. But the Western most, I guess it's the Southwestern most corner. Of the stone dust patio. Encroaches. Looks like what maybe two or three feet. or back. Okay, that's easily modified. It was just an intermediate area coming off the deck to a mid-terrace before you go down the slab steps which are integrated into a planting bed. So we can we can modify that. The driveway width is not a dimension on the driveway but how wide is the driveway Keith or Cliff? We made it 18 feet. The required minimum and can we discuss this with the DAB having a turnaround section right there in front of the garage? Well it's very nice looking house but we will have to sort of chew on this issue of the zoning requirement. One could make the argument that a large lot would have an easier time meeting the requirement than the heart of time but we'll have to look at that. Those are the main issues I think everything else looked good on there. Are there questions that anybody on the board has for the applicant? Yeah. Can you hear me? Yes. Can you pull up the foundation plan again? I was a little confused by what you were saying there. Are you going to need to do blasting now for other portions of the foundation? No. What we're we're wanting to avoid that so this area right there is where there is quote-unquote full height. We have about eight feet already available on the site. Everything around it is ledge and would be crawl space. So what we're trying to do is hold that line. We really need to hold that line in the face of our house so we can incorporate it into the house and in usable space for utilities. But that wouldn't prevent you from moving the garage further back. No. No. Okay. Thank you. I was just going to look at if you go back to that site, can I have a second? Yeah, that one. So are you pretty close to having the house on a setback on the north and south sides at this point? Yes, we are. Yeah. And for a large lot it's no fitting a home of size we're needing to go to the boundaries north and south. Absolutely protecting as much as we can for lakeside living and having good livable space facing the lake. That's the beauty of this neighborhood and the side of South Cove. Yeah. So being creative with design having as much opportunity for that lakeside living as possible kind of deemed that the garage sits a little forward from the house. You have a little side entrance off of the laundry room. Is that what I'm looking at on the south side there? Yes. Yeah, the garage space. Correct. We are the house. Okay. I guess the location of the garage is something we will debate at deliberative. So Brad, just a brief two cents here. So the large lot overlays been mentioned and it's a real thing but it only pertains to the minimum lot size. It stays 9,900 square feet. Some of the more than some arguably depending on who you talk to of the design standards are pretty squishy but this one's actually pretty clear. It says the parking structure either attached or detached shall be set back from the longest street facing the wall of the principal structure. So that's that's the hang up here. And is the face of the entry porch? Is that? No, that's why the standard again it's clear it refers to the longest face of the principal structure. Yeah. See how that wreaks havoc with the plan. Okay. Thanks Cliff. Can you bring up that section 6.3 which is the standard it's it's yeah there it is. This is Mike Boardman, the applicant and I this is the first time I've come before the broad DRB and I'm lived here most of my life but I'm trying to study all this language as this issue came up in this this whole development review standards and when I read through the the the role of these design standards I keep coming back to this page 3 here and part of it's highlighted there where it's and you can read it there but it says that these prints application of these principles and standards involve value based design and decision making requiring balancing of complex factors interests and needs. And then the next sentence in applying these citywide development principles and design standards particular attention shall be given to the context of the development proposal and achieving conformance with the purpose of the district in which the project is located. And I when I when I read that I just find I'm trying to figure out the intent of this and that's what Cliff was saying earlier. I think the intent of this standard was smaller, smaller lot neighborhoods where the garage was just going to protrude and dominate the house and I'm just finding it hard to believe that that's the intent is to rent the house of this this stature and you know the garage I don't see is protruding and dominating the house. So maybe I'm misinterpreting this and not reading correctly but it does seem like it's some flexibility here but you got to recognize where this neighborhood is. Well the trouble is that it could actually work in reverse from the logic that you're applying you know and that with the large lot one would think you'd have more room to be able to do these kinds of things. And your view is you have less necessity to do that to do those kinds of things. I understand that. Well I was thinking it was aesthetically too it just doesn't dominate the house which I thought that's why that was initially put in place back in 2008. Some of these neighborhoods were built with garages dominating. Yeah. It just didn't seem to be the intent in this neighborhood but. Scott do you have any perspective on that highlighted section and I guess I'm also interested in the two bullets above it. The development principles and the design standards it does seem to say very specifically that design standards include both required quote shall and flexible should components so I understand what the applicant saying but I'm trying to understand what you view the intent of those those multiple provisions to be. Well that's on the screen right now is basically the introduction that sets the context for the standards in article sex and you got to scroll down a little bit to get into the actual the specific standards and there are recommendations and there is flexibility but there are a few shell items you have to at least do this and putting the face of the garage behind the longest street facing for the longest street facing section of the principal structure at the shell. And I guess the conflict then is that the chapter here where it says shall maintain existing development pattern and rhythm of structures along the existing streetscape which clearly there is on that South Cove side of the street. Were there any members of the public here Scott I didn't think so. Nobody raised their hand last chance I'd like to weigh in raise your hand. Okay go ahead Brad. I think we understand the issues and the the views related to it. If there's anything else that David or Cliff or Keith wants to add at this point. Okay so I think we'll be deliberating tonight but we will find out as we get to the end of our agenda time we have one item after this. So okay we will close the public hearing. Thank you. So we have one other item which is sketch plan for 278 Main Street. I see a Bob Duncan and Bob let me know who else to speak. Is Jonathan showing up? Jonathan Farrell showing up on your list? Yeah. So Scott it is unusual for us to have it seems it's unusual to have staff comments on sketch plan. Is that right or am I just misremembering? You're remembering the one case wherein we had sketch plan and somehow I neglected to post my comment. Selective memory on my part okay. So this is a sketch plan for in addition to an existing building on Main Street. Bob and Jonathan if you want to take it away and make your presentation and somebody will hopefully have a screen share in this process. I'd like to screen share do you since this is sketch do you need us to swear in or we don't have to swear in a sketch? No. So we can lie today? Yes you can. Okay. Give me a second Bob. I'll promote you. All right you're all set Bob. Just one second I'm getting the right thing on my screen and share screen. So are you seeing a site plan there? Yeah we are. Okay great thank you. So Bob Duncan from Duncan just next to the architecture and Jonathan Ferrell who works for Cots here to talk about this. We're proposing a project at 278 Main Street so if you're familiar with the site it's the current location of the Cots family shelter on Main Street. It's across from Edmunds School and it's one lot east of the intersection of Main Street and South Manuski so the I'm not sure if I can show you and make my cursor work here but the right above the word site plan you see sort of a heavy dark line that's the building perimeter of I believe what's called consolidated telephone that's west of this property and so we have a lot size of about 18,000 square feet. The existing building which is an historic building had an addition built in 1991 when it changed when the excuse me when the YWCA did a slight expansion of that building and then Cots I believe was about 2003 developed this for its family shelter and so that that 1991 addition is in between the original building and this new addition that we're proposing. The lot is high density residential it's owned that way and the zoning would allow for a total of 19 excuse me 19 units on this property there's one existing the existing building is considered one unit as a community house so we'd be allowed to propose an additional 18 units. This design proposes an additional 16 units in an addition to the building the we're choosing to do an addition for a couple of reasons so one is that the 25 percent rear setback is a pretty onerous setback to meet so moving the building further away is more problematic but also by and most importantly by attaching the new addition to the existing building we're able to provide elevator access to both floors of the original building through the connection between the two right now the existing historic building is accessible only at its main first floor level via a wheelchair lift that's in the 1991 addition by connecting the two buildings we're able to use the elevator that would be required in the new addition which is four stories the elevator can then serve by matching floor heights at the first floor in the second floor the elevator can serve the new addition it's a double sided elevator you enter from the east side into a vestibule and the elevator then takes you up approximately half a floor to get to the main level first floor of the new addition and first floor of the existing building we're proposing this addition it has one stair because as you may know there's a building code allowance that allows for not more than four units per floor not more than four units high in a fully sprinkled building to have one stair so this building will have one stair connected to the elevator so we're encouraging people that enter it to use the stair instead of the elevator and on this floor that you're seeing in combination site plan there are only three units per floor most floors have three there there's one floor with four units per floor the existing site you enter from the east side off of main street and we're proposing to maintain that same entrance and we're changing the parking somewhat proposed to put in paved parking area here the driveway that extends along the east side currently that the trash is in the northeast corner it will remain there in a structure a newly built structure for this and the northwest corner will have covered bike parking so we're even though we're not required to provide any parking in this district and for this use we're providing a total of nine spaces one of which will be handicap accessible the and there's a little bit of open space that currently exists on the west side of the existing building that will still remain and we also have a little bit of common space for folks on the north side of the new addition I think I mentioned that because of inclusionary zoning we're allowed to go to four stories I may not have mentioned that but all the units in this building will meet the inclusionary zone requirement even though we're only required to meet 15 percent but Cox is doing this this is this is going to be housing that will facilitate moving into permanent housing from shelter or perhaps even from a homeless situation for folks the unit sizes range from studio to two bedroom and there's a mix in the in the total count getting stuff to the 16 units but all of these units are permanent housing the sense of people will live there for a long duration of time but it is actually intended to be transitional in the sense that after a year or two years or something a folks would be able to move into the next step of housing so on the the sheet that's before you elevation sheet the you're not really seeing the main street elevation on this sheet the south elevation that shows here on the lower left corner is actually a section taken through where the connector is between new and existing so you're seeing the new structure to the north of it on the west elevation you'll see and also on the east elevations you'll see the gable ends of the original brick building at front of 278 main street a full application would show this this elevation of the main street building in its context so we're proposing four stories as you can see on the on the east elevation which is where you'd be approaching through the driveway kind of in the center where the gable end part of the existing building ends the the l that was added in 1991 also to gable roof we're proposing to remove that but that is a flat roof as part of the connector between new and existing and the green portion that you see there that's supported by columns is where the main entrance is building would be there's a vestibule entrance that you'll see there with glass doors there's also a stair exit to the right of that where that purple siding is and the green siding is wood siding and at that second floor level would be a common space for residents of this addition you'll see behind that the sloping roof is the elevator tower and the purple section of siding in between is the stair that the one stair that you could see in plan that was on the site plan so we've modulated the facade this is still admittedly a work in progress we got some good comments I think from DAB but we're working on some facade modulation because the building does step back and you'll see in the in the renderings in a couple locations but changing changing materials to some degree to relate a little bit more in terms of materials that are on the l of the existing building with some horizontal lap siding and also some vertical and horizontal metal siding that fits out the rest of the facade this this perspective aerial taken looking northwest from the southeast corner so you see the driveway that enters into the site just on the east side of the existing building the building to the left or to the west is the consolidated telephone company building and the building to the east is an existing apartment building on that property and these are rough approximations of the size of those we don't have actual models of those but the building to the north which fronts on college street is something we do have model ovens so that's in its proper scale and and and context because we we have that model internally so you see that the the green portion I was talking about that has the common space on the second floor on the third floor of this building is an open terrace that serves the residents of the addition so everybody has access to that terrace some outdoor space on the third floor as well as some interior common space that can be used for individual activities or somebody's having a birthday party or something like that there's common space to be utilized or it could be a tenant meeting or any number of things that could happen in that second floor space so this is a view looking down main sort of northwest at more pedestrian i level so you see the existing main street shelter and then looking towards the new addition at the rear and the and the main entrance to that new addition looking up the driveway with a slightly out of scale stone wall there in the left side of the existing main street building you can see the the trash enclosure at the rear and the 209 college street building that is north of this property the elevator tower there was a question raised at DAB as to why we chose to slope the roof to the north rather than the south and the reason for that is we didn't want to have to deal with rain or snow falling onto that terrace on the because that's the way you get to it is from that little roof portion that you see in the purple siding so we didn't want to have roof dripping on that and by sloping it to the north it also can drain on the flat roof of the of the addition so that all the runoff can be handled from that a view looking to the southwest so you see admins in the background consolidated telephone to the right the covered bike storage in the lower right hand corner and the first floor of the building will have a stair that exits out to this area so that folks who are able to use the stairs would be able and who park at the north side parking lot would be able to easily go in and outside the building there and offer straight to access to the outside for picnic area perhaps a grilling area that sort of thing and and then easy access to the trash enclosure if folks want to use that stair a view looking southeast so you see in the foreground the covered bike enclosure defense and and the consolidated telephone company on the right and the existing apartment building I think it's actually condos on the left so once again changing materials the lap siding is fiber cement relates to the lap siding that's on the 1991 addition and then some middle siding as we modulate the facade and the step backs that you'll see on the particular on the south and on the west side and then finally a view as you're walking up main street looking in between the consolidated telephone company and 278 main street you get a better sense of how the materials work together between the 1991 L of the existing building and the new addition so that's a kind of a brief overview I think we're here for for sketch plan review and and have been today DAB primarily to get feedback from you folks in terms of your thoughts about this we recognize that we're we're at the we're proposing some additional height here because we're allowed to do that in this zone by having complied with inclusionary zoning or well under the 92% lock coverage that's allowed because of the inclusionary zoning so one other thing that I'll mention it's more evident actually on this rendering than and it is evident also on the elevations there there are three apartments at what would be considered the basement level because this building sits half level of its main floor is a half level above grade there are three studio apartments at the lower level so you can see in this rendering the windows that are at that lower level they're they're pretty good sized windows and there but they are studio units that would be at that level along with other common space uses like laundry and individual tenant storage mechanic electrical that sort of thing I have one initial question for you I suspect that most most occupants here are not going to be driving cars right that's sort of you know don't need a lot of parking spaces for this we don't need a lot of parking spaces but it's it's not it's not reasonable to assume that none will have cars many some will have cars for sure and and there are some staff folks who work at the you know in the shelter in the main street family shelter so we're providing parking for those staff folks as well as for some of the folks that will have cars who live here well the question I have is it seems a lot of people are going to be entering that entrance that you pointed out as a pedestrian from main street yep and the walkway is not a particularly well laid out walkway it's basically walking down the middle of the driveway right that's a very good point Brad it's something that we've we've talked about and thought about and one of the considerations that we're doing because we expected the the vehicular traffic will be relatively light you know serving a total of nine spaces not a lot of certainly not any high speed traffic we're looking at the idea of incorporating and and emphasizing pedestrian access by including a sidewalk built into the into the driveway itself so that it actually accentuates the fact that that we're encouraging pedestrian traffic there and and trying to um de accentuate to diminish the idea of that being predominantly uh vehicular traffic it seems like something that would help yeah I think that's it's a really good point something we've talked about and and that's as I said one of the reasons we're here is to get feedback uh and and that's much appreciated yeah are there parking spaces in that area now that are getting taken out there there are not parking spaces in that area now the parking is is all at the rear of the property so the amount of parking spaces stays about the same uh the total number parking space is about the same yep okay I'm going to open up to the other members of the board to see if they have questions at all they want to make any comments on it um hey this is Keenan this project looks really great I'm pretty excited about it um I was wondering was there any thought put into um you know putting in more um you know like ramps and other ADA accessible locations other than it looked like it was just in the front um or I guess in that sort of middle back area so that you know a resident doesn't have just who is differently able doesn't have just one location where they enter the building uh well it's it's really pretty complicated because of the uh I would say probably about a seven foot grade change from main street to get into the building the current handicap accessibility is in roughly the same location not exactly the same but it's to it's at the rear of the existing L where you access the wheelchair lift so it's a very similar uh location to what exists now the main advantage of course is by by designing it this way we can offer a handicap accessibility to the second floor of the shelter which it does not now have it only has access to the first floor so all the common spaces of the shelter and some of the rooms are accessible now but now all of the rooms in the shelter will be accessible by locating this so that we can take advantage of the elevator that serves the the new addition and somehow the control of who enters and where who has access to where that's sort of in the domain of really the people running the shelter yeah exactly and and as you can see here and I'm sorry I'm not understanding how to actually uh can see your cursor can you see my cursor yeah yeah oh good okay so so right here this is a control point right here yeah uh so if you if you live in this control point exists on all floors if so if you live in the new addition the elevator serves people come in get to the main floor or the second floor and can traverse to the shelter this door which will have key access and you know card access excuse me will allow residents who live in here to go through it will be connected to the fire alarm so that it can serve as a second means of egress for the shelter in the event it's needed but folks who live there's a there's a a desire in the part of the client to have to actually have a separation between shelter and permanent housing here so that that point serves as that separation and it occurs on every floor so there is ability to interact there's opportunity to access space on the second floor for folks in the shelter but the there actually is a control point here that separates the permanent housing from the shelter housing i i guess i'll make one other comment bob that that um i understand the um conceptually the massing and how it's expressing different parts of the building um the articulation of the some of the material seems a little schizophrenic at the moment but given the history of all your buildings i have total faith that you will get there to smooth it out and have it feel i appreciate i appreciate that as i said it's it's a work in progress but we we're really more interested in in conceptual and and broader you know broader context questions to for the sketch plan review we we did this same process when we developed 95 north avenue for costs we went through sketch plan review knowing that there was at that time some neighborhood opposition and we thought it was good to get cards out on the table become public with what the plans were and and get feedback and and we we think the same thing is true here there's there's no holding back of what anybody's trying to do we do intend to go to an npa meeting so that we can meet that next criterion in our in our path to a full zoning application and we're we're getting civil engineering proposals this week so that we can select a civil engineer so we can become more detailed do a more detailed site plan analysis i will say it's nice to see that there's some the picnic tables there's some use of the site which is an amendment i think it's important to have the most residential occupancies yep yep any other comments uh feedback on the board on this no well i guess we'll wait for the um actual development okay thank you okay thank you thank you yeah so i think uh this is the end of our agenda um let me foreclose a bit so are we okay deliberating on the things we have to deliberate tonight i don't see anybody objecting to it nobody's cheering on one way or the other but uh so we will close the public hearing and go into uh deliberative where the public can the recording has stopped uh was that our decision scott that we we stopped recording for the uh deliberative but it's still being broadcasted tonight is that how it works practice live stream continues recordings paused except for when you make a motion and vote okay okay so we have uh several things and nobody was recused on anything tonight how unusual so 157 159 i guess the documents are listed in different order than the agenda i guess i should go by the agenda in terms of our deliberative here so 77 pine street was the um first item um and uh i do feel that uh you know we're between the city council and the planning commission that the ordinance has been adopted a certain way and that um we can respond to it like that see did they meet the criteria for the extra height but in basic terms i think we're i feel like i'm bound to follow their guidance um so in term on this one the real issue is the height and how do people feeling about the height issue on 77 79 pine street i think this is like what that the code changes is designed for it's two blocks away or two lots away from um what is currently the the tallest building so it seems totally within the keeping of that area and what the intention is for a downtown development i think that's also interesting um the um renovation of what was chitin in bank that's now the people's bank um was that an administrative thing or did i just fall asleep at that hearing yes it was administrative per the form code yeah so we didn't we didn't need to see that but that's a fairly big renovation that's happening there that's going to transform the appearance of that building in some ways right so that this the context and i i i do feel it's they did a number of things to address the extra height on this and uh it was helpful it was it would have been more helpful to have the street elevation uh as part of the presentation but hearing the heights of some of these things does get to put it in a context that it seems to be within the realm of what's happening there so i don't make make a motion um this meeting is being recorded um feature now it tells us i'm 21-0927 ca 77 pine street um i move that we accept the staff recommendations and uh approve the what is the certificate of appropriateness okay any other uh second on this second that Brooks hey um i'm facing an agreement with that um is there any other discussion on this no all in favor opposed so it's unanimous we have three six six zero okay the recording has stopped i i find it fascinating that the the bathroom i know you know the bathroom is a public amenity that they have that um i'm just amazed at it there are a terrace up on the roof or a bathroom anyways that's the code okay next one 157 159 south Champlain street um again this seems to uh to be within the realm of what is asked for in the form-based code i think did a fairly thorough job on it any other comments thoughts on this one the other i i think the suggestion that they maybe they consider landscaping and doing something to soften the west side of the building would be i think a suggestion we can make i don't think it's a requirement that we can impose on them at this point um is anybody interested in making a motion on this one okay motion this meeting is being recorded so on 21-0799 ca 157 to 159 south Champlain street i move that we approve the application in the dot staff findings with the suggestion that they incorporate some landscaping on the western most side the second on this one Caitlyn okay any discussion okay all in favor opposed okay six are on that one um the recording has stopped does that happen automatically scott or do you have to push a button i'm serious that's like a new feature i i've done nothing different so i'm gonna have to dig through settings to see if i can clear i i know there is a setting that you can have it not announced every time you can just have it announced at the beginning can you do an accent gonna be like the navigation system and we pick out a man's voice with an australian accent yeah okay so now we have 125 south cobra and um i i it does seem that the problem is with that one pardon brook says i think there's too many problems with that one yeah well they're willing to make the change on the um lakeside cut that back on the line that that that's okay but it does seem that the i can really the they just missed the thing on the garage until the end of the project and i can see how it's sort of a pain in the ass but it is the ordinance so and it seems to me it should be applying here just as much as on smaller lots where it's off it seems like they have plenty of room it seems like the basement issue is not a non-issue of moving the no it's just the current plan that's really what it is they'd have to rework some of the plan to push the garage back um so i think it does fit with the the neighboring houses though um you know the garage is really closer to the house than almost any of the examples that they showed around them closer to the oh it doesn't project as much yeah they're yeah i think they're closer closer to what the current code is saying than anything around them and i guess that that's the question right is is does the character of the neighborhood the fact that the rest neighborhood is predates the current code and this is how they built does that have a mitigation impact on that on this i i don't think that changing the design though would require it to be out of character with the neighborhood and i think that's the other it's no can be within the the ordinance and be within the character um so to me springer that's why it's not overly convincing to me if this was the only option for it to be within character then i think it would be worth discussing further yeah i'm kind of with you there katelyn i mean i i understand their argument that there are two shell provisions that in that section h you could read as being in conflict if you thought moving the garage back meant it wasn't in the character of the area but it seems like they could meet both i mean the first one says the introduction of new buildings in addition shall maintain the existing development pattern and rhythm of structures along the existing streetscape i don't think moving the garage back several feet to meet the other provision means that no longer the existing development pattern or rhythm of the structures i always think that rhythm relates to the setback of the whole house to the street and maintaining that as a line across the street which um the garage here if the garage went back the house could move forward they'd have a little more room on the lakeside yeah i mean i think it's a very nice design i don't see like an independent reason to say it's got to be back further it doesn't seem you know that it's on its own is a problem but i don't see it meeting that provision of the ordinance and i guess we're a somewhat literal board on most things it does seem so uh so we want to make a motion on this this one i'll make a motion this meeting is being recorded on 21-0910ca 125 south cove road that we deny the application i must go stop findings second keenon and well keenon second uh any other discussion on this okay all in favor opposed five one on this okay the recording has stopped there'll be a lot of frantic redesign going on there you like that mary and after this we'll get into the settings and find it who invited her okay um so springer how many more meetings do you have uh i think i have the next one um but looking at work schedules i'm not yet sure if i'm going to be able to make it um so i'll let scott know as soon as i know about that um but yeah just want the rest of the board know that i did not reapply uh for my position well i would you'll be surely missed here springer i i've really enjoyed it i have um being a new dad and tanner turning one i'm starting to really value my evenings a lot differently than i used to yes understandable we tell them they're older and then you want to come back so you have an excuse not to do it okay well thank you hopefully we'll see you one more time it's been a it's been a really awesome experience and i've really enjoyed getting on the board with everybody appreciate it okay well good night all good night have a nice time have a good one guys