Mark Bair is online, Jim Langen is online, and Dan Albrecht is online. And as staff from South Burlington, Delilah Hall, our zoning administrator, and Betsy Brown are planning and zoning assistant. So thank you all for coming. We have a lot of people attending virtually in a small audience. So I just want to review with all of you. There are a couple of ways of participating in this meeting. One is to attend in person as you folks are. The other is to attend virtually online. And some people even call in and participate that way. It's important if you want to be recognized as attending the meeting that you, if you're here, sign in on the table in the back of the auditorium. If you're online, please indicate your participation in the chat room with your contact information. And if you're on the phone, please email Marla at M-K-E-N-E at sburl.com and let her know your name and contact information. Okay. Moving on to the agenda. First on the agenda are the evacuation procedures and the event of an emergency. In the auditorium, there are two sets of doors in each corner, that corner of the auditorium. In an emergency, you would exit those and turn right or left and exit the building. Are there any additions, deletions, or changes in the order of agenda items? Hearing none, let me cover a few announcements and ask if there are any others. Thank you for those in attendance, those on the phone, and those watching online. As a reminder, this meeting is being recorded. I've already talked about signing in. Comments, I guess that's it. Do you have any announcements to let Marla our usual participant from the city, the Filament Review Planner, is on vacation this week? So I'm wondering, do you have any announcements? Unmuted. Is that part of the recording? I think it's, yeah. Okay. All right, good. Okay. Number four on the agenda, questions and comments from the public that are not related to items or projects on the agenda. Hearing none, we can go ahead and move on to item number five. Are there any recusals from item number five or disclosures? Okay. Item number five is final plat application SD 2201. Can people hear me with this mask? Okay, good. Thanks. SD 2201 of Brendan Connolly to amend a previously approved plan unit development of three lots by subdividing an existing 8.0 acre lot developed with a single family home into three lots of 0.5 acres, lot four, 0.5 acres, lot five and seven acre, lot one, seven acres, lot one for the purpose of developing a single family home on each of lots four and five. And five at five Johnson way. Who is here for the applicant? Brian courier from a Lurie Burke civil associates representing Brendan and Alexandra Connolly. Okay. Good evening. Brendan is Brendan and Ali are here as well. Thank you. And are you folks in the audience also here. Okay. All right. Good. Thank you. Brendan. Brian, Brenda. And what was the third name? Ali. Thank you. Let me swear you in, please raise your right hand. Do you sell me swear that the information you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury. Thank you. Okay. We have recently reviewed your project. This is a continuation of our review of it. I'm sure you've seen the staff report. And for those of you in the audience, there really is only one issue that we need to discuss. And that is staff comment on page six, relating to the boulders. Let me read that for you. The applicant has added boulders to the Western property line to further demarcate the wetland. Staff considers it to be human nature to tidy up one's lawn and recommends the board either require the applicant to provide signage indicating wetland buffer. No mowing or similar or set the boulders inside the property line by approximately two feet to allow the homeowners to mow in between them. Now I'm wondering if we could see some art that we can refer to because I know I had questions about this when I was reading it. I'm looking at 21, but I'm not sure if that's the best one. Yeah, it's the site plan sheet one. Let me see what page that's on. It is actually probably sheet 20 sheet 20 probably shows it shows it best. I'm sorry page 20 in your in the staff report. I just think it would be helpful if we saw a picture and illustration. So the page 20 in your staff report sheet number six. The technology technology is amazing, but Okay, great. Thank you Betsy and Delilah. Okay, so the staff report says the applicant has proposed putting boulders on the west side. Would you please remind me where the wetland is that the boulders are going to be protecting. Yep, so the western property line is the rear lot line of the existing homes along Dorset Street so the, the wetland deniation is just to the west of that rear lot line. Right. So where it's being highlighted right there we're showing a row boulders in order to demarcate that boundary rather than we're using a split rail fence on the southern and eastern lines, which is just the buffer, but in this instance it's the buffer and it's a property line so we use boulders in this instance and we have no problems scooting them, you know, two feet to the east to give a little bit of clearance there from the line. Okay, that's very helpful I was for whatever reason I was thinking though wetland was on the other side so the west didn't work for me okay got it. Yeah, yeah, yeah, we got on three sides. So you are in agreement that you will put the boulders within the property line two feet from the edge, at least two feet. Yep, no problem that. Okay. I think, I think that's all we needed to know. Board, does anyone have any questions before we take any public comment. Okay. Are there any members of the public either present or online or on the phone who would like to make any comments about this proposal hearing none. I would suggest that we entertain a motion to close the hearing and I would would love to entertain emotion. Frank beat you to attend would you be willing to second. Sure. Thanks. Any discussion. Any, all those in favor of closing final plat application SD 2201 signify by saying aye. Hi. No, the motion is carried. Thank you, Brian, Brenda and alley. You will be hearing from us. Thank you very much. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. Item number six on the agenda. Continued final plat application SD 2126 of Greenfield capital LLC to consolidate three lots of 6.77 lot 11 6.62 acres lot 12 and 6.42 acres lot 13 into one lot for the purpose of constructing 130 790 130,790 square foot. On a single 19.81 acre lot. The application for development is being reviewed under separate site plan application at 443 community drive. First of all, Jim, Jim Langan, are you, are you recused from this. Yes, I am. I'll get off the line. Okay, thank you. Thank you. And does anyone have any disclosures or conflicts of interest. Okay, who is here for the applicant. Myself Chris Huston with react company. Is it Chris? Did you say yes, Chris. Okay, thank you. And anyone else will be testifying. I'm Jeff Zweber an engineer with BHB. Representative on logic. I roll. Thank you. David Roy with women lamp here architects. Okay. What is your first name please Roger. Thank you. Anyone else. We have several attending by zoom as well. Will they be testifying. Yeah, they may be. Okay. All right. What are their name first and what are their names. John Ilick. Okay. And with react properties, Michael Willard with VHB. Would you all raise your right hand please. You saw only swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury. Yes, I do. Okay. application and we reviewed it. We reviewed it several weeks ago, and we could not get through all the comments. And since then, the applicant has met with Marla to go over some of the issues that were brought up at the, the first hearing and this is final plat application. So our job is to make sure that we before we close this final plat hearing that we get all of our questions answered or resolved. And we'll see if we can do that tonight. So, would you who are you the primary spokesperson. Yes, Don, I'll be the primary spokesperson for tonight. Okay. Thank you, Chris, right. Yes. Okay. Could you give us a two minute overview of what you're proposing and where we are with this. Absolutely. Don, as you mentioned, this is a reasonably dense application. So with that in mind, we scheduled a follow up meeting with Marla on December 17th as you as you noted to help facilitate tonight's continued hearing for which we've incorporated many of those discussion points as it was an extremely helpful meeting to the entire team. And I think to the staff as well. With that, you'll see in our in our materials that we've provided tonight in response to each of the questions we've actually inserted both a written response, as well as any drawings that would immediately be referenced to ease and simplify tonight's review of each of those points. As you know, with the goal of closing the hearing by the end of this evening. In terms of the overall application. It consists of approximately 130,000 square foot new facility. Three story office wing. We covered this in our introductory in our last hearing but I'll touch on it very quickly. Our house and production component as well. Approximately 400, a little over 400 parking spaces are provided as discussed. And I think done very simply put, we've addressed all of the comments and concerns that staff had. There are some new materials tonight in response to those questions that we want to really direct our time with you to those points. Okay. Thank you. So what what we have for a staff report is kind of a summary of Marla's comments about your meeting with her and what you were able to work out. The issues have been resolved. We're going to focus initially on those that for which questions still remain. And then we move on to continuation of review of the staff report items that we didn't get to when we reviewed this a while ago. So I'm going to call your attention to page four. And there is a original staff comment about number 19, which relates to stormwater. Yeah, I'm just going to go back to the beginning because if it's not long, I don't think Marla can page three of that memo. Or, as item six. Hold on. Bear with us, please. The original staff comment number 19. Yeah, that's the site plan. This is the site plan. And then this is this is all the site plan as P 2146, which is item number seven. So I'm on the wrong one. It's listed on the agenda as a number six. Bear with us, please. Sorry. Continue final class. Number six. Yeah, it says number six. Continue final class. Right. Right. So. And I'm happy to touch. I believe I understand the essence of the comment. I'm happy to follow up with that. If you'd like. No, we're just trying to make sure we're broadcasting the. So SD 2126 is. I think this is the. SD 2126 is SD 2126. And we were you were looking at SP. She'd say right there. Yep. It does. Okay. Sorry for any confusion. So you're on page four. Well, I'm not sure now. I'm sorry. This is final application. No, this is a different sequence. So Marla looked at the original comments and then updates. So it's a similar kind of cross. So let's start with number one. I'm sorry for the confusion. Sorry. Staff recommends the board require the applicant to modify the subdivision plan to not show any proposed development. The applicant has provided a revised sheet. Staff considers this comment addressed. I don't know why my notes aren't showing up. Okay. Number two. Staff recommends the board require the applicant to provide an easement and draft shared. Access agreement to formalize the connection between the subject lot. And the lot to the east update. The easement has been proposed. Staff recommends the board not close this hearing. Okay. Is there still a. No, no, no. Go ahead. Until the related comment from. SP. 21. Oh, four, six has been addressed. I'm really confused right now. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. I'm really confused right now. I'm sorry. Okay. Okay. All right. So I think. We have arrived midday today and we have not had an opportunity to get it. Right. Okay. I'm unable to. To advise. Okay. I'm sorry. When you say. When the update. that they have provided on the plans and comments regarding the nature of the event are provided in the staff notes. I guess I don't follow that. Is there an easement document? In other words, is there a draft deed? Yes, there is. And that's been submitted to state? Correct. To day, this afternoon. Yep. And who has looked at that? We haven't had the ability to look at it fully today because it was coming in and too late to do full attention to it normally and to include it in your packet. So that should really be. What the hell's going on? My sound. Okay. Frank. Can you hear me? Press the button. I thought it was green. Oh, there it is. It's a brighter green. Mine was none either. So Frank was asking about the status of the easement document which was submitted this afternoon. And we have not had an ability on the staff side to review it. And therefore we're unable to provide. Comments on it. That precludes in my view. That precludes that by itself precludes closing the hearing tonight. As the applicant were happy to testify to we submitted the easement document mirrors the language that the FedEx parcel used for their application. So I understand that all those staff hasn't had a chance to review it. We're happy to testify as to we believe that it substantially meets. Well, when the staff's request when the because to marry for. I mean, I don't think. The testimony is important as is important as legal review. Right. When we customarily have the city attorney. Pass on the pass on the deed. I think Marla believes the city attorney does not need to review it, but she would like to review it. Yeah. Well, a staff person, we are short staffed as you can tell this week. So just given the volume of information we're receiving. Not only for this application, but for another application today and other staff duties. We were unable to give it our fullest attention today. Can I can offer a suggestion? The this is a draft easement anyway. It can go into effect until a number of other things have happened. The formal sale of the property, for instance, we can. We would like to suggest to make a requirement that we. Have Marla review before before it's going goes into effect. Well, unfortunately, again, I forgot my hearing aids. And again, I can barely hear through the mask. I know if I may last night there was a hearing with the city council on the proposed land development amendments and. I'm sorry. I don't know what happened with my notes, but we have to spend a fair amount of time on your other application. And this comes up again. And let's wait and see how far we get because one of the suggestions that Marla made. Is that if everything is in order. And we cannot close this hearing tonight. She will put together a draft decision that will work off the next time we get together to do this. So let's see how far we get. Let's see how it goes. And we'll we'll decide later. And let's wait and see how far we get because one of the suggestions that Marla made. Is that if everything isn't buttoned up and we cannot. Close this hearing tonight. We'll decide later. Okay, okay. So your other. So I guess we will conclude this hearing and move on ask if there's any public comment and then move on to your other application. Are there any members of the public who would like to make comments on this proposal. Okay. Hearing none. I would entertain a motion to conclude this hearing conclude or continue. Continue. Thank you, Frank. Yes. I'm sorry, and done to be clear, we will come back and revisit this after we provide our explanation on our next application. Thank you. Yes. With someone like to. We have a date. to February 2nd. I guess. Make a motion to move it.  Just a second, please.  Just I'll make the motion to continue the hearing to February 2nd. I'll second the motion. And I'd like to ask a question and make a suggestion. It seems, I mean, if this, I'm not saying it is, but if this turns out to be the only remaining issue, and I don't know the answer to this, I'm sorry. I think I actually ought to, but I don't. Are we free to close the hearing? Not in public? In other words, could we go to a deliberation, close the hearing, render a decision? Tonight? No, not tonight. But before that, I mean, if I, I do not know the answer to that question, but I will see if I think I don't know the answer to that question. Well, or in the alternative, I'm just throwing this out. Still a vote is still pending, and that's the date we have. But at the next hearing, perhaps, or at the next meeting, there must be a way procedurally to close the hearing at the next meeting if we can't do it in deliberative session. Just for the sake of it. Is there a way to, sorry, excuse me. Is there, I think I've seen Shelburne do this before. You, excuse me. The meeting, we close it to a date, certain to a time to collect additional data or allow people to send letters in or whatever, and then without having to wait for a formal meeting of the DRB. I'm having a hard time hearing you, Dan. I'm sorry. Would you repeat that, please? Is there a way, rather than saying continuing the hearing to February 2nd, is there a way to just say we continue, we continue, or we allow the collection of evidence up until January 20th or something, or however long we think we need to talk to the attorney? Well, it's not necessarily a need to speak with an attorney. It's a need to review the materials that were submitted today by staff, not necessarily an attorney. Okay, so review the materials. In other words, can we close the hearing to a date, effective, that's all I'm saying. I still didn't hear the end of that. He's asking if it's, if you are able to, if the board is able to say pursuant to staff review of submitted materials by ex-date, we will then decide to close the hearing and give it that sort of qualification. Okay, are we getting ahead of ourselves, given that there's another proposal that we need to review tonight that is much more complicated? We might, there might be a lot of reasons that we believe we can't close. So could we kind of hold off on that? I suggest we vote on this, vote to continue it to the next available day for February 2nd. And if we can fiddle with that in between, we will. Okay, good. So you have a motion pending, it's been seconded. Okay, any other discussion on the motion? Well, the only thing, Dawn, Mark here. Sure, Mark. So I think one thing that I've always heard Marla do in the past is she always suggests we keep the subdivision open until we close the site plan in case there's anything that comes up from the site plan review that needs to be applied. I mean, the subdivision isn't as complicated, but procedurally, she typically wants to leave it open if I recall it to correct it. Right. And I think if we continue it to date certain in the future, I don't think we can close it in the meantime, because it's a public hearing. If we continue it to a certain day, we have to give the public an opportunity to hear it on that date. Okay. So if we have something else, we might want to just continue it to the next meeting in case if we wanted to close it beforehand, I don't think we want to push it out to meetings. I think that is the timing, though, that Marla, for them to be able, if it does have to stay out and for them to submit materials with that date, it would be, even though they may not have to, procedurally it would be difficult. And the given date was the second. Based on staff review, do we think that we're going to be looking to possibly close the site plan tonight, or does it look like there's going to be open items? I know I heard the testimony that they're hoping to close it, but. If I were a betting person, which I'm not, but if I were, based on my reading and my discussions earlier with Marla and with Delilah, I would bet that we're not going to be able to close this tonight. Okay. And I know that's not what the applicant wants to hear, but there's a lot of complicated issues that we need to resolve in an hour, an hour and a half. We might have a very different perspective on this, but. So, all in favor of continuing this hearing to February 2nd, say aye. Chair votes aye. Opposed? Aye. Opposed? Okay. The motion is carried. Thank you. Okay. We are now moving on to item number seven. Continued site application SB 21046 of Greenfield Capital, LLC to construct a two to three story 130,790 square foot lighting manufacturing light manufacturing warehouse and office project 418 parking spaces and associated site improvements on a proposed 19.81 acre lot at 440 through three community drive. Jim, you're still recused and I'm assuming it's the same crew of testifiers you've all been sworn in. So we will move ahead. Okay. So in this staff report, as I started to say earlier, some issues have been resolved and I'm gonna just blow over those. So I call your attention to page four at the bottom of the page where Marla comments on the original staff comment number 19. Staff recommends the board require the applicant to address the comments and these are the comments related to storm water from the storm water section. And the update, the applicant has provided an item by item response, including several statements regarding required plan modifications. These modifications have not been made in the provided plans. For example, the applicant has stated they will provide eight-inch culverts under the recreational path and indicated they will provide a detailed maintenance plan for the final plat submitted. As the board is aware, this application is the final application required prior to approval. Therefore, staff recommends the board require the applicant to provide the described materials prior to closing the hearing. Regarding the comments of the storm water section for which the applicant has provided responses the assistant storm water superintendent reviewed the applicant's responses to her original comments on 1223 and indicates that the following items are still outstanding. And there's a list of items in the staff report. So Madam Chair, if I may. I received an update this afternoon from our assistant storm water superintendent and who had been speaking with the applicant. And she felt, I mean, we can go through their comments that they had mostly been responsive. And I believe the materials that we were requesting in this that are mentioned here have mostly been provided today. I still need to share them with you, but she seemed satisfied with what has been provided so far. And with regard to one item that had to do with a pipe that still is not shown on the plans, we can make that a condition of approval for obtaining a zoning permit that they submit. Okay. That information as part of obtaining the zoning permit. And you can live with that. Yes. Okay. And we can consider this result, largely results. The stormwater section seems satisfied at this point with that condition. Thank you. Okay. Item 20. Well. Go ahead Frank. How does that fit with the recommendation for a hydraulic analysis of the proposed drainage system? They have responded to that and provided that information to our stormwater people and you have the hydraulic analysis? They have been communicating. I have not reviewed it personally, but they have been responsive to stormwater's requests. And I was told that they were satisfied that they've addressed these comments. Well, did we know that the analysis specifically includes the verification specified? It does. They responded in the affirmative. And I spoke with stormwater at about 2.30 this afternoon. So that's when they gave me the okay on this. Frank? Well, I couldn't hear her. That was a simple response. I spoke with the stormwater superintendent at 2.30 this afternoon and she was satisfied that they had addressed all of stormwater's comments. Okay. And that they had done the analysis and they've been working over the intervening week since we last saw the applicant. So they've been providing this exchange over that time. It wasn't just today. So the materials while they were submitted to me today have been flowing back and forth between stormwater and the applicant and they are satisfied that they have addressed these comments with the exception of the one item that can be a condition of obtaining this owning permit, which is changing something on a plan, I believe. Yes, it pipe was inadvertently drawn a little bit too long into the buffer and it will terminate prior to reaching the buffer. So when they come for their zoning permit, they have to give me that document. I will give it to stormwater. They will say, yes, it's there and then we can move forward with the permit. You know what? I'm gonna have to accept what you say but I'm gonna procure your ground. I'm particularly disabled tonight. I can understand about two words out of three. Sorry about that. So why don't we move on? Okay, on the next page, original staff comment and staff update. This relates to required short and long-term bicycle parking requirements and the project will provide a minimum of seven bike storage spaces in the bike storage area on the first floor and there are four unisex shower changing rooms on the second floor and a locker room adjacent. No indication of the type of indoor racks has been provided. Staff considers this can be addressed as a condition of approval if the board desires. No response has been provided for their required minimum short-term parking. If the applicant wishes to take advantage of the provision that allows additional long-term storage beyond the minimum to be applied toward reducing the short-term parking requirement, the applicant must provide five more short-term spaces that are currently shown on the provided plans. Is that something you're willing to do? Yes, absolutely. We're providing 12 long-term indoor bike spaces which are shown on our A-101 drawing and also we're providing six additional short-term bike racks that are now shown on drawing C 2.1.0. Okay. And those materials have been submitted to Delia. It's at eight prior to noon. Perfect, thank you. Okay, staff comment number one has been resolved. Original staff comment number two has been resolved. Original staff comment number three. This relates to the trees. The trees to shield the interstate. And the request is that the board direct the applicant to interspersed shrubs or provide a mixture of deciduous and coniferous trees. In other words, tall trees alone are not going to provide the shielding. Are you willing to provide some shrubs too? Yes, we've done that in the package that we sent today. Perfect, okay, thank you. Comment number four has been resolved. Original staff comment number six. And this relates to the easement and the need for the easement document to be reviewed prior to closing. So here we are again. No draft easement document has been submitted but it has been submitted. Yes. Staff is unable to ascertain whether the reference changes are acceptable. Staff recommends the board require the applicant to provide a draft easement, which you've done. So I think what's missing here is time for staff to review that. And we talked about that a few minutes ago. And Madam Chair, if I could this document, this easement meets the requirements on the LDS and in fact is the same language that was used in the FedEx project to facilitate that very simple review since the staff has already approved that one. Okay, I think Marla wanted to review it because she, there were some concerns about the FedEx easement language. So she will be back next week and we can. And we can even try to have somebody read beforehand but I don't think we just didn't have time today given the timing. Sure. Okay, good. Listen, on this easement review stuff, I, you know, this is probably a tedious point but an easement quote document is deed. This may be a little conservative or blinkered but deeds are reviewed by lawyers, period. I mean, they can also be reviewed by staff to see that the concerns that staff has, the specific concerns they have are met but it's also a deed which requires legal review for its validity and for its effectiveness to achieve what the staff thinks it's reading. Okay. Now, this may be understating the actual abilities of staff who have a lot of experience but frankly I want a legal review of the easement deed. Okay. And we now have staff in the planning and zoning office with legal background. And I'm not a lawyer, a lawyer. The city attorney should review the easement deed or I want to see it, let me put it that way. Oh, she has an attorney, okay. Great, all right. As we were actually hopeful, I'm not a chair that as a condition of approval this evening, closing of the hearing that we, that that acceptance of that deed would be the easement deed would be a condition of our approval. As Delilah mentioned, that would be another item that we would need to have in hand when we filed our zoning permit. And this issue is obviously contingent on both the previous hearing and this one. Okay, all right. Thank you. Okay, moving on. Page 11. Don, did we skip over number five on the loading dock base? Oh, it's been addressed. Sorry. My overstate. Okay, page 11, original staff comment number eight. And this relates to the pavers and stone seat walls to determine if they will allow full value to be counted toward the minimum requirement. And then the staff update, you provided some updated figures and the comments from Marla are, staff considers the objectives to be met, therefore recommends the board to allow the pavers and stone seat walls to be applied toward the minimum required landscaping budget. Staff further recommends the board require the applicant to update the landscaping schedule of values to reflect the final approved landscaping plan once modifications recommended herein are made. Is that something you're willing to do? Yes, indeed. We submitted that today. Okay, perfect. Great, thank you. Okay, number eight. Sure, we need, oh, number nine, I'm sorry. Staff considers the applicant must modify their landscaping plan. We've just talked about that. Additional modifications are still recommended there for staff considers this comment still clauses written. Okay, I think we've resolved that. And number 10, staff recommends the board require the applicant to address these comments prior to closing. Staff has referred the revised plans to the city arborist and is awaiting a response. Staff anticipates having an update by the time of the hearing. So we did. The only update we got was the same comments that are above. So again, in the materials that were submitted today was the soil preparation specification added or called out in some way, because we couldn't find it. Do you want to go to the document? We'll go to your document to see what the response was. Okay. I'm not sure exactly what she's asking for. I know under the landscape portion of it, we have certain soil specifications amendments also under the stormwater plans. We have soil depth and quality specifications. So I believe we're adequately specified, but... I think what the arborist was saying was on the sheets that he was reviewing that were specific to the planting details. The landscaping sheets referenced... Make a mention on the sheet of soil specifications. And not there. Are you in the document from buying this one? And, but we couldn't find them on the landscaping pages. So are you saying that those soils preparation specifications are in the stormwater? Is it in another area, not on the landscaping pages? This is Mike from VHB. So the soil specs that Craig Lamber is referencing, that that's sort of like a construction level specification, but we can surely provide that. It's typically not provided in a permit application. That's a construction level documentation, but we can certainly provide that. Because it made reference... He was calling it out because it was referred to... It was called out in the drawing and he didn't understand. I guess he needed it to assess if this was gonna be appropriate for the trees that were being suggested, but he couldn't locate where that is. So if it was on the plan and called out, he should be able to find it somewhere. Yeah, they're not on the plans. It's a separate document that's issued during construction. Okay. So you can provide that? Absolutely. Thank you. Okay, 11. And maybe just a pause on that one, just so at the end of the hearing, kind of understand the magnitude of that. And Mike may be able to elaborate more, but it'd be like saying topsoil, right? Like we're gonna provide topsoil C specification. So... Having a really hard time understanding you. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. So the indication on the drawing, maybe of the nature of provide topsoil C specification. So from a zoning perspective, topsoil is adequately descriptive. It was a detail that relates to technical nature. So like when a contractor is procuring it, exactly what the constituents of those components of the topsoil are. So I guess what I'm trying to elaborate on is don't necessarily be alarmed that that indication was not on a zoning level application. But it sounds like the arborist would be happy to see it. Would actually like to see it. And we can certainly provide it. Thank you. Okay. Number 12. Staff update. The applicant indicated they would address this comment at a meeting with staff on 1217, but staff has not yet received revised plans. Staff recommends the board require the applicant to address this comment prior to closing the hearing. And this is the use, the towed parking lot. 11, it's been addressed. She said, yes, I did skip 11 because Marla said it was, it had been addressed. So number 12. The applicant has not provided computations demonstrating compliance with this criterion. And this is related to the parking lot, number of spaces. Staff considers it appears this requirement may be met for the Eastern parking area, but it's not met for the Southern or Western parking area, each of which contain more than 28 parking spaces. What are your thoughts about this? We submitted a revised plan, which Betsy can pull up, which does accomplish what Marla was requesting. So we've here complied with this requirement as well. Okay, thank you. And then the next is about perimeter planting and the staff update is it's unclear whether the remaining portions of the parking areas are curbed. It seems likely that they are staff considers complete curbing of parking areas to be necessary and recommends the board require the applicant to provide curbing for all parking areas. And Madam Chair, we have submitted a revised plan. You see the response, the written response right there. Okay. Indicating more clearly the locations that curbs are going to be included. Okay. And the recommendation that areas where trees is set back less than 10 feet. The staff recommends the board require the applicant to remove snow storage from the areas where trees are set back less than 10 feet. Correct. And we've done that. Okay. I don't know if there's any detail you want to review on the pages that follow. Should we? Well, then let's not do it now. Let's let Marla staff look at it. Okay. Thank you for submitting it. Yes. I want to ask a question. Sure. It's my understanding that we need to display these exhibits at this hearing in order for them to become part of the application process. So, I mean, we reference the drawings in our written response here. Should we also flip these drawings up on the screen that we've provided? And I know we provided them today in order so that they get properly introduced into the hearing. Why not? Why not? I don't know the answer to your question, but if there's any doubt, let's do that, please. Thank you for bringing that up. Hey, Dawn, Mark here. Can I ask a question, make a comment in regards to that? I guess this goes back to the, I guess going back to item staff comment number 12, especially the 10% landscape, the exhibit that was submitted, was that submitted today and has it been reviewed and accepted by staff yet? They submitted 35 documents today. It has not been fully reviewed by staff. We don't have the capability to go through that volume of documents before this meeting. Okay. So, no, it hasn't come in.  No, that was what I was looking for. I just wanted to make sure of the items that are listed as, has been addressed, that we're glossing over, compared to that information that the applicant has submitted to address a comment, but has been submitted, not in a timely fashion to allow staff to review it, to be able to testify tonight that it's met the criteria. Correct. So, for example, this is a good example. The drawing C2.10 that you have shown here describes the 10% It's written on the area. It describes the 10% requirement for islands within the parking zone that we're proposing for this area, for this Southern parking lot. So we've kind of gone through and said that we have addressed these issues. And that's why I think we need to go through the actual drawings and represent what they correspond with in the staff comments. Then please do that. Okay. I am not the assigned staff person for this. I am the person who is sort of sitting in for Myla, who has lived with these documents for a week. So I understand getting them shown and getting them into the record, but as far as giving advice to the board members, I mean, they can come to their own conclusions. Staff will not be able to provide an evaluation and agreement or disagreement on what you state other than the statements that you'll make. How do you see of these, looking at staff then? Well, I think these drawings represent a response to those staff comments. And that's why we came here believing that we could simply close out this hearing by visually displaying these graphics and these written responses. I understand that the hearing is simply not out of it to realize your wish. I'm sure you have a good faith. This is a complex project. There's a ton of stuff to do, but it's going to ultimately proceed as opposed to proceed. And that definitely requires staff review. Sophisticated staff review of the documents that you've actually submitted. So your view that you've met the staff comment may or may not be concurred in by the staff who's making the comment. And it's just gonna have to wait. Sorry, at least for my vote anyway. Okay. No, I agree with Frank on this because let's be honest, even if Marla was here tonight, she would say, great, thank you very much. I haven't reviewed it, so I'm not prepared to say whether the condition has been met and we're able to close the hearing. So I'm in agreement with Frank that thank you very much for the document, but we need to allow time for staff to review it and sign off on and provide us as a board guidance that the condition has been met. Thanks, Mark. Any other comments from the board? Okay. Original staff comment 13. This is, no, we've already covered that, I'm sorry. Okay. The next comments are fine on the next page. So let's move on to original comment number 16. And this is the screening of utility cabinets. And the update from Marla is, staff considers if the applicant can accommodate this request, it may be incorporated as a condition of approval. And she has the request written above. Yeah, we have addressed that on the revised landscape plan LA 1.00, which Madam Chair, to your point about making this a condition, it was clearly our understanding that with the correspondence that we've had with all the changes that we've made to the documents to reinforce what Dave Roy just said, it was our understanding that we had actually very few items. We've agreed to all changes. That was the basis for our hope that with the past communications we've had with staff that this would be approvable tonight that we could close the hearing. Understanding what's been said. Right. Prior. I understand. Okay. Comment number 17. Staff update. And again, this can be a condition of approval. Yeah, Madam Chair, if I could cut to the chase with this one, we're approved that we are agreeing with staff recommendations on this issue to reduce our drive access on the Easterly drive to 22 feet, which is consistent with what staff is requesting. Furthermore, we will and this is on page 58, Betsy, of our, this response is on page 58. If you just continue forward a little bit. And so we're also agreeing to the 20 foot radius on the entrance. We do need to maintain a 30 foot radii on the westerly service access. And we've demonstrated the reasoning for that. In our attachments here. Okay. So essentially the compromise that staff wrote about on page 17 is what you're speaking to and you're willing to comply with that. Correct. With the exception of the radii on the Western side. Yep. That is the service, essentially the service access. And if you go just one document further, Betsy, next one, sorry, next one. You'll see that we diagram the, yeah. And in fact, says a point of reference, the FedEx radius, I believe is 50 feet, Jeff. According to that, sorry. According to the act 250 permit documents, the FedEx radius is 50 feet with a 30 foot wide drive. So we believe that staff will be in agreement with our demonstration of the need. Okay. Thank you. So that's a big issue result. So I'm skipping ahead to the end where the staff report kind of concludes with the need to reach compromise about this. And it sounds like we have. So I believe that's the end of the staff report. Do any board members have any additional questions or comments to make about this? And let's see. Thank you, gentlemen. And let's see if there are any public comments. Are there any members of the public here or online who would like to comment about this proposal? Hearing none. I would entertain a motion to continue this hearing until February 2nd. Motion to continue until February 7th or 2nd. Thank you, Quinn. Do I hear a second? I'll second. Thanks, Frank. Any discussion? All in favor of continuing this hearing until February 2nd? Yeah, I have one point of discussion. And again, it's procedural. Is there any assuming there'll be deliberations on something between now and February 2nd? Is there any rule against getting some of this work done with staff? In other words, the hitch here for the most part seems at least on this part of the application. It seems to be that the applicant has made what it considers a good faith effort to get stuff to staff quote for the hearing, but it's just not practical to have reviewed it. Can we get through that review substantially before the second so we don't have to mess around a lot? Well, I think one of the suggestions that Marla made was that she could, if we reached a point where we felt we had covered all the areas and enough documentation had been submitted, she could actually write up the decision in draft form for us to work from on the second and address any unanswered questions to speed things up. So I think... Well, that's not really what I meant, but... Okay. Frank. I would be laborate now. Frank, I think I can sort of briefly respond to you. I think that basically what you're asking for is that in the staff comment, there's like 80% of the comments were sort of glossed over because it said staff considers this to be addressed. I think Marla and Delilah working with the applicant, between now and the second, we're gonna end up with a staff report that's either a draft decision or with like everything's been addressed, or maybe there's one thing which the board has to agree with, but for the most part, everything will have been hashed out between staff and the applicants. All right. Okay. Thank you, Mark. So any other discussion before you vote? All right, on favor of the motion to continue the hearing to February 2nd, signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Aye. Okay. Thank you very much. We'll see you back here on Groundhog Day. Thank you very much. How am I wrong? Thanks a lot. So Jim, I'm back now, right? Pardon? I didn't hear you. Are we still on, let me see what we're moving to. Okay. Okay, we've never checked this out. So Jim can come back. Let me text Jim. Are you talking to me? Yeah, I'm just, we're gonna text, I'll ask Jim to come back. Oh, okay, good. Are you here as part of the O'Brien project? I am. Okay. Ian is remote. Yes, yes. Okay, yep. Okay. Moving on, this is the final plat application SD 2125 of Green Mountain Development Group, incorporated from the next phase of a previously approved master plan for up to 458 dwelling units and up to 45,000 square feet of office space. The phase consists of two, four, this phase consists of two four story multifamily residential buildings on lots 10 and 11 with a total of 94 dwelling units of which 79 are proposed inclusionary units and two city streets at 255 Kennedy Drive. Are there any recusals or disclosures? I will make one. I am a homeowner in the O'Brien hillside development but I don't believe my ownership of property there will color my review in comments on this project. Unless anyone has any concerns about that. Any others? Okay. Who's here for the applicant? Hi, Tom. Evan Langfield from O'Brien Brothers. Hi, Evan. Anyone else? Is Andrew here? I see him, but I don't, I see him on the, he's still needed. Andrew Gill? He may have stepped away for a second. Let me just text him right now. Okay. Carolyn, are you, are you with this project? Yes, I am. He's probably putting his kids to bed. Okay.  Please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury? Yes. I do. Thank you. Okay. Who would like to give a very brief overview?  We missed swearing you're in. Raise your right hand please. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury? I do. Thanks, Andrew. Okay. Who would like to give us a very, very brief overview before we launch into this, all these comments? I can go ahead and give a brief overview. So we are back for our second final plat hearing. I'm just gonna pull this down for a sec. Sure, that's okay. Second final plat hearing for two 47 unit buildings, mixed income as part of the greater hillside at O'Brien Farm Development, plus some additional infrastructure that we're on behalf of Summit Properties, we're gonna be the owners of the two affordable mixed income developments. Our first hearing a month ago, we went through a good portion of the staff comments. And so we've come back tonight with some responsive changes, kind of two big categories that we're here to talk about tonight. One of the big focuses of the last hearing were the architectural elements, the design of these two 47 unit mixed income buildings. That was, I'd say, in our view and then follow up comments with staff after that hearing was kind of the main point that needed to be worked out in terms of redesigns and then some more technical comments on specific site plan and landscaping plan, more technical issues. So what we'd like to propose tonight would be to start by addressing the architectural elements. There's a specific section of the staff comments that we'd love to start with those, explain the redesign that we made in response to the board and staff comments. And then once we do that section, we'd love to just, we can walk straight through the rest of the staff comments if that works. Okay, I have no problem with that. What about other board members? Do you have a suggested place to start? Yes, so what I'd love to do is do just a two or three minute sort of big picture overview of those changes. And then what we could start on, it would be page 12 of the staff comments, but the big picture overview of the architectural elements would love to have Andrew give a little background on that as he's been living and breathing this project for the last five or six years. Yeah, do we have pictures to look at for those of us who are only semi-literate? That's the goal of this first part is to start with the pictures. And I think Delilah, do you have the PowerPoint that has the architectural renderings? That would be the first document to pull up that Andrew did. We do Betsy's running the slides tonight. Okay, so Betsy, yeah, the PowerPoint with the architectural photos and renderings would be a great way to start. And if there's specific pages you want me to jump to. If you could go to the second slide, I'll just very briefly say that this is the redesigned building that we are proposing and it's mirror image on the lot next door. We will go through in detail what the changes are, but what you're seeing there is what we are hoping to build and what we're hoping you'll find to be responsive to all the comments we've received and worked on. So with that image in your minds, I'll let Andrew kind of walk through the history to how we got to that. I appreciate it, Tom. And sorry to be a little bit late guys, I was in fact saying goodnight to my kids though. Good timing on the start of the hearing. If you wanted to just advance to the next slide, that would be great. So I thought after the last hearing that, for the benefit of sort of everybody who's on the board at this time that I might just kind of take a little trip through the past. I've been working on this project with O'Brien Brothers probably I think since about 2015 and our first hearing for this development was in 2016. It was a sketch plan for our master plan development. And I just wanted to sort of go back in time and walk through the sort of progression of the plans for the project very briefly and just sort of overview of sort of the consistent push towards where we are today. And sort of a little bit of background and just sort of seeing how over time, while things have changed largely, things have remained the same. So this first slide is just a depiction and you can see how far digital renderings have come since 2015, but this was submitted in 2016. And you can see here the depiction of lot 10 and lot 11, roughly buildings of the same size that Summit is proposing in the exact same locations that they're proposing along the street that is now O'Brien Farm Road. If you advance to the next slide, we can see how things were presented at the sketch plan a few months later in August, where the roads and road network that we're now so familiar with came into being. Lot 10 and lot 11 still sitting there, still very similar to what's being proposed today. Walk forward one more slide. This was the final plat submitted in June of 2017. It's about a year and a half after that initial sketch plan meeting. And again, you can see lot 10 and a lot 11 that we've been discussing sort of laid out there unchanged. And we can keep moving, get through these pretty quickly. So this was in November of 2018, a sketch plan submitted for the multifamily development of the six lots. And you can see there the lot 10 and lot 11 footprints, similar locations to what's being proposed now, similar layout for the subdivision, but different. Things have changed over time. We can keep going. This was the preliminary plat submitted in March of 2020 that we've been discussing in comparing this final plat to. And you can see there the two buildings that were shown, the layout, and we can skip forward to the next one. Again, this is another angle of the preliminary plat proposed in March of 2020. The two buildings at the top of the road being lot 10 and lot 11, skip forward one more time. This one I thought was interesting because this shows the two summit buildings that are currently proposed as proposed with the architectural changes submitted in December. This shows lot 13 and lot 15 in the lower left-hand side of the page, the U-shaped building. That's the current final plat for those two lots, which was submitted in December. It doesn't yet have a hearing, but that's the architecture and the rendering submitted for that. And it also shows you the architecture that was submitted at preliminary plat on the right side of your screen with lot 12 and lot 14. So it sort of gives you a snapshot of what these buildings and the forms of them looked like at the preliminary plat and are now looking like at the final plat. And if you go forward one more time, this is a rendering at the street level showing the four-way intersection, the street scape improvements that are being proposed. You can see all the plantings, the brick paver crosswalks. You can also see the sort of patios and street activation that's being proposed. And the summit project is located on the right, lot 11 and the O'Brien project on the left at lot 14. You can skip forward one more. It's just a little bit more zoomed in view and I think one more will be the end of my part here. That's just a different angle. And you guys are welcome to, we've submitted this so it's part of your packet at this point and you can skip through it at your convenience. So this is probably where it makes sense for Tom to speak a little bit more about the changes that he's made and you can see laid out here between the October and December submissions. Right, thank you, Andrew. So yeah, that's great background and when we met in November and when we then sat down with staff, we heard loud and clear, there were some very specific and consistent comments in terms of wanting to see more height and depth variation, wanting to see some improved definition of those entry towers, which were a big part of the preliminary plot discussion, looking for some more elements to see variation in the depth of the building, both on the ends and the street-facing facades. And then just generally adding some more architectural details that were consistent with that original preliminary plot approval, the ventilation, the slatted ventilation. So we took all those into account and then we also adjusted some of our color themes so that they would be both more consistent with what came in at preliminary plot, as well as more consistent, but not identical to what O'Brien is proposing for the next stages. So that is what you're looking at now, is on the left-hand side is the final plot that we came in originally, a little over two months ago. And then on the right side, you can see the front and back of the building where the tower on the left has been defined. It now has two-foot bump-outs on each side. It has the larger windows, the increased glazing there. There's more diversity of the windows along both facades. You see some triple windows. You've got the 12-pane windows to give it a little more of that urban feel that was discussed kind of blending the urban with the neighborhood elements to this building. We've added some bump-outs on both sides. So the previous version had no bump-outs on the ends. You'll see now, and it might be a good time to switch to the next set of slides, which shows the ends of the building. Advance one slide. Betsy. That's right. You'll see that the end view, and again, on this one you've got the top, would be what was prior previously submitted on the bottom. You've got the current proposal before the board. And you can see those four-foot bump-outs on the end without the tower. And we've added the balconies on the end units. Those were moved from the side of the building where they weren't as prominent. They were smaller balconies. These are now 12-foot wide by three-foot deep balconies. So they're more functional, better covering, more visually appealing by changing those balcony locations. And then the bump-outs on each end give both give that tower some real stand-out, and then the other end just gives it some more architectural appeal. So if you could go forward one more slide, this is, that's the building from the street view. We heard many times that that tower was an important theme. We've added some elements to accentuate it in terms of the brackets coming down. We increased the glazing as much as we possibly could. This was a big issue that we talked about at the last hearing was that balance between trying to maximize the glazing while also keeping in mind the energy efficiency requirements. This building to get approval as under affordable housing, it has to meet the efficiency Vermont high-performance tier, which is a 20% glazing standard. The prior preliminary plat buildings had more windows, so we reduced them, but tried to, in the areas that we could be as consistent as possible with preliminary plat, really try to accentuate. So those are about 12 foot wide and six foot high. So those are really large windows on both sides in those towers. Just inside, how much of that space inside the window is living space versus hallway or stairwell? That is all living space. So that's one of the, functionally, in terms of one of the biggest changes from preliminary plat, both corner towers are now living space. And that does somewhat define the size of those windows and the size of the tower. In terms of shrinking the tower, more wouldn't really work because then that would take that functionality of the living space out.  So those apartments have very large windows. And the two cars that we see, the red and the orange, that is a Bryan Farm Road. That is a Bryan Farm Road, correct. And there's one more rendering. I think this actually circles us back to the beginning. So this is the first slide you saw and this is the building from the street looking from a Bryan Farm Road. So with that overview, this would be page 12 of the staff comments and maybe happy to answer questions now, having to dive into very specific details. Many, many changes were made. I kind of hit the high points, but I would be happy to answer questions on any specific changes. Window variation was significantly changed, but these comments do start on page 12, the staff report, if you want to go there. Where on page 12, Tom? Because there's a, my page 12 starts in the beginning of a red comment. So this, the way I have- That inclusionary. Page numbering, SC six, nine through 12. So this is the beginning of staff comments on the original, so I think everything on these next two pages were original staff comments on the design we came in with originally. And then if you go to page 12, 13, 14, then in blue is where you get new staff comments describing staff review of our changes. I think the first page, page 14 would be the first new. Go down, 14. Okay, it starts at 12, but the first comment is 14. Okay, thank you. So yeah, if I could just add, at the bottom of page 12, that Tom was referencing, were the criteria listed in the regulations that the, well actually there's their list of items, but we did sit down with them in between the last meeting and now to hammer out a lot of the issues that were raised at the last meeting. Thank you. So if we move ahead to page 14, at the bottom of that page is a bullet list in blue of the modifications that the applicant has made. Which you've just described, Tom. Okay, so then the next page. So on page 16, it's a comment from Marla and it's about the architecture. Differs from elevations, blah, blah, blah. Staff recommends the board discuss whether the revised buildings are sufficiently consistent with the parameters established at the preliminary plat. So that is for we board members to discuss and decide upon. And there's the four bullets on page 14 under the drawing. Those four middle page bullets with the criteria established at the preliminary plat. Oh, I see, okay. Thank you. So board members, what are your thoughts of the architecture and how acceptable it is and how they've responded to comments that we made when they were before us earlier? Go ahead, Frank. I guess I'm gonna ultimately ask Mark, at least I'm gonna ask Mark for his views, but we have to decide what we're talking about. This is still, I'd like to keep the red back up there with Marla's comments. With the Marla's comments or the Larla's comments, what were we just looking at? Can we get that back? Probably Marla's on page 16. We go back to where we were? Yeah. Yes. I mean, here's the question. You know, staff is asking to discuss whether the buildings are sufficiently consistent with the parameters established at preliminary plat. Well, no, it still doesn't look, a whole lot like it looked at preliminary plat. The question is, are we gonna insist on that? And that's why I wanna hear from Mark.   It's an improvement. It's not nearly as nice. I mean, I don't know if nice is the standard we're going with here. It doesn't look still like the preliminary plat renderings did. And I don't think, this is idiosyncratic, my opinion is not, doesn't look as nice. So here's the question, not whether it's sufficiently, not whether it's consistent with the parameters established at preliminary plat, cause it's not. The question is, is it okay? And that's, with that setup, I'd really like to hear from Mark, myself. Can it be improved significantly without breaking the bank?  But again, I'm ultimately gonna defer to those with a more sophisticated view of what's possible in a big building like this. So Mark, not to get one to spot, but you're our in-house, our protector, on board. Here we go, is that better? Well, I wasn't at the last hearing to know sort of what the, you know, what the major issue was. I can, so, but I'm in looking at the material and sort of reviewing the previous application and then sort of what's were coming before us now. You know, I do certainly see improvements and can I ask a question to the applicant? The set, the corner tower, you know, which we're looking on sort of like the, on page 13 of the application or of the packet, which shows the corner of lot 10 and the corner of lot 12, which shows sort of the corners of the building with sort of like the large glass areas. Was that proposed originally to be a common area on the inside of the building for each of the floors? I believe that was proposed to be stair towers. Stair towers, okay. Was there going to be common areas on each of the floors on these buildings originally? I don't, I'm not sure, Andrew would have to answer that. That was before my time. I don't know that there was, I don't believe there was common facilities on each floor. I think there were. Yeah, I mean an elevator and lobby right there. Okay, so there wasn't going to be a public amenity space. The floor was pretty much corridors, stairs, elevator and units. Exactly, yeah. There was a small sitting area near the elevator that correlated with the towers. Okay, but it's not like some of the, some other projects we've seen where you got a large common room on each floor. This is predominantly residential, private use on each of the floors. Okay. So, you know, in looking at the preliminary flat application approvals and looking at what we're sort of seeing now, I mean, I guess, you know, using Frank's term, is it okay enough? You know, I would kind of say possibly it is. It's certainly an improvement. You've definitely accentuated and added some design elements to sort of kind of highlight the corner of the building and give it some differentiation. It still does blend a little bit to me. It's almost like, you know, it still has a little, and I know it's the flavor of the day. And I mean, to use that term like, you know, in sort of a derogatory term, but the flavor of the day is that's, you know, three or four different materials that sort of takes on a plaid look to the building, which has a way of breaking up the facade and breaking up the massing on it, that if you use one material, it would have a very uniform look. But, you know, buildings in their day was one single material and it had a way of still staying very rich and vibrant. And, you know, part of me wonders if, you know, we did that with these buildings having a little more of a uniform look, but then accentuated the corners, if that would sort of create that sort of corner entryway, because, you know, I see it, like I said, it's definitely has improvement. It's definitely getting closer, but it still doesn't feel to me like that reads as entrance right now, you know? And I mean, that's just my opinion. And again, it's an opinion. I know because I'm resident architect, people do look to me, but it does come down to personal aesthetic tastes and everyone has that. Just because I'm the architect on the board doesn't mean mine's the only one that counts. So I would like to hear what other people's opinions are and then not just say, well, that's what marks it. You know, it's a lot of pressure to have that on me. I think it's definitely getting closer and I definitely think it's an improvement. And I think if you look at the, I'm not gonna say 30,000 foot look because that's what we had on those 2015, 2016, you know, rendering boxes to the, you know, sort of 5,000 foot look of the preliminary plaque, previous ones compared to now, you know, it could definitely be construed as being close enough, but I could see areas for improvement. So I'd like to hear the other board members' opinions on the subject. It might be helpful, Betsy, if we're talking about this, to just pull up the renderings we submitted today. They're a bit more updated than the ones in the packet. If you could go to slide 10 of the packet. It's a pretty good rendering of the corner. Slide 10 of the PowerPoint that we were just looking through, sorry. Could you please remind me in three sentences or less, why this is different than the preliminary plat? I know there, I know it had something to do with financing, but why is this, why did you have to come back with something different anyways? Well, we were not involved in preliminary plat, that was just a little Brian. However, preliminary plat, those were not fully designed buildings. That was just, it was the same building taken six times and put onto these, the site plan as representative of something that would be feasible, but that was not architecturally fully designed to the extent we were, and we were not involved. And so our aesthetic choices were different, but trying to also match all those themes and bring a really high quality product to the community. Thank you. So Andrew, these are the latest. Yeah, so the rendering that's on the screen now is one that was created using the architecture and site plan design from the final plat for the lot, now it's actually labeled wrong, that's my apologies. It's a lot 15, or a lot 13 rather, which is on the left-hand side. So we had submitted final plat for a lot 13 and a lot 15 just a couple of weeks ago. And if you flip forward one slide, Betsy, to the next slide, you can see the difference in the differentiation between the preliminary and final plat, you know, that's a slightly different color of brick. That's a different color of gray. You can see, you know, some of those, you know, how those are different. And so that is the most current architecture for that corner from the next phase of this preliminary plat. I know if you go back to the other slide or even to the renderings toward the end, which show just the summit project, I think that's actually helpful as well. Slide 15, even. This is Evan too, if I could just interject quickly. I mean, I think something that Tom touched on earlier that we discussed a little bit at the last meeting was when we submitted preliminary plat, there wasn't this glazing restriction associated with the affordable housing financing. So I think one of the large differences that you're seeing on that corner is that there's a reduction in glass across the street from the lot 13 building. And so that does show up. I think Summit has done a good job of sort of accentuating those windows to, you know, create a larger window, but then also almost create an appearance of an even larger window by creating the illusion with the darker panels there. But I think that is one of the biggest differences is that there's just less glass, but that's just the nature of the game because the affordable housing tax credit requirements changed. Well, not to mention the energy efficiency component of that, it's not just about the money. Is there a solar design element built into this? You have any solar energy built into this project? There is no solar energy. Primarily because of the flat roof, there's really nowhere to put it. The rooftop is gonna have all the energy efficient mini-split condenser units. So there is no solar at this point. Although we do plan on doing, for all of our other buildings we've done, if we can't do on-site solar, we do an off-site solar. We've built arrays as an off-take or agreement, but it won't be on this building. I'm gonna ask you to be patient with me. This is what I really wanna hear because I'm really interested in it. Would you tell me again why these two buildings have no solar energy? Would you say one more time? Yes, with the flat roofs, we've not able to fit enough solar panels. We've done solar on-site, but we've only done it on pitched roof buildings and that's been based on all the quotes that we've gotten for solar use. Where we have pitched roof buildings, we've built solar on the roofs. For flat roof buildings, we, with the energy efficient mini-splits that is, this is all electric heating for the whole building. And so all those mini-splits have condenser units, which will be up on the roof. So there's not enough room for that and the solar panels, but the plan is to do an off-site solar off-take or agreement, which is what we've done with our... Do we have a diagram? There's a plan that shows the rooftop accoutrements or roof top equipment. That would be more a construction stage, but basically it's just all the condenser units. That's the only place to put them for all the mini-splits. Other comments about the architecture? You know, I think it might also be worth reviewing the... Excuse me and Andrew, I guess I want to get it... My underlying point was this, to meet an energy efficiency requirement. If you were feeding energy, if you had a solar capacity that was reducing your draw on the grid, wouldn't that advance your ability to meet whatever the energy efficiency requirements are? It wouldn't be a substitute for that. The glazing is still one of the checklist of requirements, so we would still have to meet the glazing requirements. Wait a minute, the glazing requirement is independent of energy efficiency? It is one of the components. It's not an either-or, though, where we could say we're choosing not to do the glazing because we've found an opportunity for solar. It's a separate checkbox on the high-performance track that efficiency Vermont has. Well, that's too far in a ways for me to deal with right here. Andrew, you had started to say something. I believe. Yeah, so I just wanted to, you know, circling back to sort of Marla's comment, and Seth recommends the board discuss whether they're sufficiently consistent with the parameters established at Preliminary Platt. And if you had gone, if you go up in her comments a little bit to what those parameters are, this theme and variation approach to entry towers with similar exterior architecture but differing treatments visible through windows, slatted ventilation, decorative inserts, screens, street-level garage openings, an entrance into the street to a common-level space near the parking garage, complementary entrances at the main four-way intersection to include short-term bicycle parking, flush granite curving, seat walls, raised planting beds, bench seating, and landscape. So three out of four of those, I think, are done. And one out of four of them, we've attempted to do as best as possible within the parameters of the efficiency codes and within the design choices that the person who's constructing the project is making. And so I think, you know, if you go back to the rendering a couple of pages back of the four-way intersection, the final plat December, 2021, page 10, I think it's pretty clear that we've put a lot of effort into the streetscape, into the four-way intersection, and into creating the sense of place at this point in the O'Brien development. And the architecture is working well together. The streetscape is working well together. The cafe tables, the umbrellas, the stairs, the perennials, everything is pulling this intersection into the sense of place that we've been talking about consistently since 2015. And, you know, we continue to believe that we're driving this in the right direction. And, you know, I'm happy to hear the sort of positive feedback, you know, in the changes. You know, I think we've put a lot of effort into that and hope that, you know, sort of, there's more than just the entry tower to the project, is I guess what I'm saying. And I would just like to add on to that, that I'm really proud of this building here. I don't, I like this building better than what was at preliminary plan. This is all very subjective, but I think that it's a beautiful, beautiful building. There is obviously a financial component. You can always come back and say, well, you could do more or you could do more. This change we made from last time mattered about $800,000 of construction costs. We went, we didn't skimp. And what that means is that we're gonna be going to apply for $800,000 more affordable housing resources just from the changes from last time to this time. We went, we didn't just, you know, put some window dressing on these changes. We really, really took to heart the comments that staff made to bring forth a building that we're proud of. So we didn't view this as a half measure. And the reason we didn't view it as a half measure is because we have financing applications that are about to be heard before the Vermont Housing Conservation Board in two weeks, three weeks. Project readiness is a huge component of that. So we didn't come to you today with what we thought was, oh, you know, this maybe this will pass muster. We're really proud of this. It's a very expensive building. This is not, doesn't skimp in any way. So I just wanna say that that is our view of what we came today with it. It was not in the hopes of skating by. And I don't know if any other board members feel the same that this is actually a really beautiful building. But that's how I feel. Well, as I said at the last time you were here was you're having to thread a needle to meet the LDRs and also meet your energy efficiency standards to get financing. So we understand that. But I would, I'd like to hear from Dan and Quinn. Who else is? Jim, no, Jim is, oh no, Jim's back on. What are your thoughts about this new design?  I don't see anything radically different, you know? And they're in the broad scheme of things. So I'm curious from a, not that I'm an architect or read architectural history, but this concept of mixing facades and whatnot, how that trend got started, but hey, it is what it is. Dan, could you, as a board member, could you live with this design or would you object to it? Yeah, yeah, no, it's incident. I do like that. I do show, you know, the comparison definitely showed, I think improvements, you know, made the facades more interesting and then varied. Yeah, and I think the corner elements, tower, whatever we want to call it, I think they're statement pieces. They make the buildings interesting rather than just square blobs with different building materials. Yeah, okay. Jim, your thoughts? Yeah, I'm good. I think it satisfies the LDR provisions and really addresses what was in our preliminary plat decision. So I'm good with it. Okay, thanks, Jim. And Quinn. Yeah, I would echo similarly, as far as what we discussed last time when they were here and kind of that checklist of items that we felt like we're dismissing from preliminary plat, I agree that they've been addressed and I think it looks good. Okay, thank you. And Frank, do you have anything to add? Well, I guess I'm looking at it. I have another question for Mark. One of the points of frustration for me in trying to evaluate architectural design features is believability. I mean, you can always do a beautiful architectural rendering. I mean, I think you guys, that's basic architectural salesmanship is make it look beautiful. My question, because I like what, the bill, I don't love the buildings. I think they're better and I can live with them if that's it. What I'm looking at now and I'm asking Mark about now is I look at the way they've designed, the way they've depicted the intersection. It looks nice. The question is, is it believable? Is that it? Mark, your best judgment, is that what it'll look like if it's built as now proposed? Really? Eventually, yeah. I mean, honestly, the renderings these days have gotten really good. And I want to go back and say that when taken as a whole, it actually has a really nice feel to it. I think that the building, there's always areas where you can criticize and comment and critique. That's the nature of design review. But I think that they have addressed the comments that were brought up at the last meeting. And I think that it does have a nice, I guess I'll say flavor to it.  And I think it will have a rich feel to it at that intersection, the way the building is raised up off the streets and has sort of like an elevated entrance, patio, pavilion, you know, feel to it. So, you know, it's not a matter of living with the design. I think it'll be a nice design. And I think it's in keeping with the previous preliminary flat approval. It's a change, but I think it still is, especially with sort of like that structured, you know, like geometric canopy around the base of the building. And then the, you know, the very dramatic sort of overhang with the brackets. It definitely draws your attention to the corner of the building and its entrance. Okay. All right. If I could just adjust that point on the accuracy of the renderings to Frank, you know, I think, you know, to Mark's point, I think in prior eras of renderings where they were much kind of more watercolors and sketchier, that's where, you know, you can kind of, I don't wanna say pull a bay and switch, but it's where it's a little bit more eye of the beholder. But if you look at the hillside renderings on our residential development, and then you drive through hillside right now, I think you would find that they are almost identical. If anything, the development actually looks a little bit better, but we even have some of those renderings still up on our website. And it's the same render. It's Lincoln Brown. And, you know, these are high quality computer realistic rendering. So this is what the buildings will look like. Well, that has weight with me. I mean, the big public, the largest, the macro issue here is that this is, these are huge by art standards here, changes to what things look like and people are gonna be driving by this intersection for 50 years easily. And if that's what they see, that's okay. If it's diminished from that, from the standpoint of its overall aesthetic feel, it's a lot less okay. That's all I'm getting at. So I'd like to be able to know that that's what it's gonna look like, but it's as good as it's gonna get. So I take some comfort in Mark's words. I think it's fine. I appreciate that very much, Frank. And, you know, I've been the one working with Lincoln on these renderings and the site plans and the landscaping plans that we've submitted, which will be what the project is built to, are what Lincoln uses as the basis for this. So every tree that you see in this rendering is on Wagner Hodgson's landscaping plan, every perennial, every flower, the stairs are on the site plans. They all correlate one to one. And we worked really hard to make it accurate because we wanted to present this image to you guys and to show you what it was going to look like in reality. Well, that makes me feel better. Okay. Okay, I think we have a sense of what the board feels like about this issue. Let's stick to page 18 and continue to address the comments and then we'll go back to the beginning. This is about signage. Marla would like you to remove the signage from your submission materials. We're happy for that condition. Okay, thanks. Next page. So this is about traffic and it sounds like there are actually fewer trips in and out of Hillside than you had projected. I would say it may be easiest to start at the beginning now because that we just hit the architectural on it. It may be easy to start back to the beginning of the staff memos because Andrew actually did put together a little... Song and dance, Andrew? Something to follow along. Comments matched up to documents. Okay, let's start at the beginning and focus on, as our point of beginning, page two. And this, the comment relates to the pocket park. Right, so this was the comment previously for lot 11, the pocket park which did not have, it was just as a generic pocket park and we agreed that we would designate that as a smoking location after discussions with the board.  So as far as I can tell, I'm happy to answer questions on that but I think that Marla's comment was just to see how the staff or how the board felt about that pocket park on lot 11. And have you made improvements? It's on page 57 of the board packet, Betsy, if you wanted to skip to page 57. Oh, so you have made improvements? We have, yes. What is the definition of a pocket park? Carolyn's on, she couldn't probably tell you if there's a specific definition, a small park next to the building was my definition of a pocket park. So Andrew or Carolyn, the little park at the intersection of a Brian Farm Drive and or Road and Eldridge, is that considered a pocket park or a proper park? I think that would be a proper park with the playground, right? Yeah, okay. Yeah, a pocket park is just a small park off of a roadway that's like a respite spot, basically. Okay, thank you. Did you zoom in a little bit more, Betsy, just so we can see the plants and things? Right, so there's a, you'll see additional plantings, kind of surrounding the little park and then a walkway out of the garage, out of the garage level, paved walkway accessing the park. I think it's something on reducing. There you go, perfect. So orient us, please. We're looking at the corner of Lot 11, facing O'Brien Farm Road and that little park there, right in the center of the screen, which is accessible walking out of the garage, out of a garage level and accessible off the road. It's similar to before, but we then surrounded it with additional plantings and improved the walkway access to the park and the biggest initial comment from Marla's first hearing was that it didn't seem to have a purpose. So we added, gave it a purpose. Okay, all right. All right, any comments or questions from the board? Moving on to page three, update for one, four, I'm gonna take modifications to the proposed landscaping, which result in the required landscaping minimum being met without inclusion of the pocket park staff. Nonetheless, recommends the board review whether their direction regarding the pocket park has been met. What do we think board? Okay, doesn't sound like there are any strong responses. So I guess it's been met. As a reflected in the above table, the applicant's modifications to the landscaping program has resulted in the required minimum landscaping budget being met, okay. I mean, that's just the, I didn't understand the question. That's the point of the silence. Okay. I mean, either has or it hasn't, no. It's a computational issue or is it the fact that it's hardscape of some sort? Well, I think there was a question about has our folks happy with the enhancements they've made to the, the applicant has made to the pocket park. And I believe that the characterization originally was that Marl, it doesn't matter now because even without the pocket park, we still meet the landscaping, but originally we needed the pocket park expenses in order to meet the landscaping budget. Okay. So it was a bigger issue at the last hearing and Marla's concern was that it was kind of a useless pocket park that needed more landscaping if you can include it. So we gave it a purpose, landscaped it, but at the end of the day, we actually don't need it to meet our minimum. Okay. So her point was if you're gonna have it make it something special and you did it. Okay. Good. Good, good. So the budget's met, okay. At the bottom of the page, which I'm having trouble reading my comments. I'm still on page three. Staff recommends the board discuss whether to allow credit for this 107, 503 and hardscape features or whether these elements are integral and necessary to the overall neighborhood character approved at preliminary plat. Staff further recommends if the board allow credit for these elements, they only allow credit for the incremental cost over standard features, asphalt paving standard concrete crosswalk striping and concrete. Yeah, so I can talk to this about this for you guys a little bit. And we had submitted a slide deck that just had some additional sort of visuals related to some of the staff comments, not all of them. I don't know if you have that available. Betsy can be slide two. We do, she's bringing it up. Hold on. No problem. So this question, just to sort of get started on it while we pull up the budget is related to the improvements that O'Brien Brothers is investing in the streetscape of the project. So in the streetscape of the project at the intersection of Kennedy Drive and Two Brothers Drive, we're putting in a brick paver crosswalk. We're putting in some like knee walls, stone walls on either side of the entrances, some additional perennial plantings and things along that are shown on the landscaping plan. And as you head up O'Brien Two Brothers Drive toward the four-way intersection, you've seen the sort of integral concrete, the flush granite curbing brick paver, actual clay brick paver crosswalks. And then you're also seeing in some areas where we've planted trees in smaller soil, like areas where the soil would be not great for growing trees. We've proposed to install these silver cells, which are a new technology that is quite expensive, but is sort of, to Frank's point, an assurance that in 50 years, those trees are gonna be looking really good. And so those expenses are sort of atypical. They're not things that are normally, you don't normally spend. And if you go to the next slide, Betsy, you can see in our budget that the four or five trees that we're planting with silver cells have a total cost of about $70,000. You know, and a typical tree is about $700. And so what we're saying is that those expenses are an investment in landscaping and an investment in the city's infrastructure that are sort of beyond what's normal. And while we don't have a need to use those expenses in this project, we just talked about how Summit has exceeded their required landscaping. We're simply asking that the board recognize that this $187,000 of expense should be available at your discretion. If say the lot 14 project, maybe we're $10,000 short on a required landscaping we can't find a place to put another tree that we would say, well, can we use some of that excess from the streetscape to cover the deficiency? And that would be only being asked that that's at the board's discretion. It's not creating a right for the applicant, but just sort of noting in the permit that that would be available. Well, okay, I don't wanna, I've been talking a lot. I have two comments. On the second point, but I wanna go back to Marla's point, but on Andrew's last point, I think that's something to be deferred until we get to a subsequent phase, no? That question. And also we would be governed by what we're permitted to do under the LDR. So I think I would just defer on that one. And I think we should defer on that one. Certainly not make any commitment. Well, on the other point, Marla's Marla, let's not skip over what Marla's actually saying. I agree. I like the idea of using better than humdrum materials to make the intersection and the streetscape nicer. I support that and I support credit for it, but I'm also impressed by Marla's point, which is we should be crediting not the whole cost, but the delta. And for that, I'm a little, I don't know whether Marla should have done it, but without knowing what the baseline cost is, I don't know how to calculate that. And I would like the staff to provide that information if it can, or at least the staff to review information provided by the applicant. I don't think we should do more than, I agree with the credit concept, understand toward the minimum landscape. And I'm not talking about using it for a later phase, but I agree with that. It should only be for the delta. That's my comment. And in order to do that, we need to, in order to do that, we need a comparison standard. I have no idea how to do that, right? Yeah, I'm happy to provide that. And if you look at the slide that we had pulled up there, that was the last bullet point on the slide was that we'll provide an updated budget, which would include the information in terms of like, what's the delta between a painted crosswalk versus a clay brick crosswalk? Or, you know, if we're using an integral colored concrete for that central square, you know, what's the differential between the cost of that and the cost of asphalt? That's all information that we can provide. Certainly can be reviewed by the Director of Public Works. And we're happy to do that. You know, I think it's a good point. And so, you know, we can certainly provide you with that. Anybody on the board have an issue of providing the credit for the delta? Don, can I weigh in? Sure. All right. No, I agree with Frank on the delta differential. And also the fact that I think we should be able to find a way of figuring out how to give the applicant the ability to use sort of their access as credit because, you know, while these are individual site plan applications, it is all part of the master plan going towards the streetscape, you know, so each of the subsequent applications that come before us are all part of the whole. And, you know, I also agree with the applicant on the issue of the silver cells. It's an expensive ad, but it is an insurance policy towards creating a good stable planting bed for these trees. I don't know the cost of it. I don't know if that's exorbitant or not exorbitant, but I know that we have talked about previous applications that that is a viable, you know, added expense on the installation cost, which goes to its landscaping. So, and I think, you know, we always sort of strive towards on every landscape review, doesn't actually come down to the minimum landscaping because most applicants sort of go over and then they want to look at the hardscape, which isn't typically, you know, attributed, but whether the project is properly landscaped. And I do think this project is sufficiently, properly and nicely landscaped. So I think anything we can do to work with the applicant and staff work with the applicant to review the Delta on the differential between the basic, you know, asphalt and concrete stripe and what they're proposing, which is our very nice design elements and very nice landscape elements we should. Yeah, I didn't mean to suggest that we should withhold the credit for later phases as a matter of discretion, more concerned about what is permitted under the LDRs, I want to hear to the LDRs. Yeah, I agree with you and I got that from you, Frank. I was just sort of summarizing more of the way Marla presents landscape budget, landscape review, and we have done historically in the past. So I think this project is well landscaped. And I think, you know, in terms of, if we can, look at providing sort of credit towards other projects down the line. But I think that each one of these are going to be pretty well sufficiently landscaped based on what I'm seeing on this one and on the master plan. Thank you. All right, I think, I think Frank has a question of if you can even consider this, am I hearing you correctly? You're asking if the board can weigh in on this, am I hearing that correctly? I'm sorry, it must be some quality of your voice that is especially difficult for me. I don't know why, but it's the masks I think. Well, I took it off. You're asking if it can be if the board has the discretion to make this decision. It's a great question. I do believe that they do it because this is a phased preliminary plat. So this is phase one of a preliminary plat. We're asking to apply it at phase two or phase three. I think he wants guidance from staff, Andrew, not the applicant. Yes, we staff believes that the board has the discretion to consider this and make a decision under the rules. About future phases. That's all I'm talking about here, right? About the future, about the future. That's your point, isn't it, Andrew? You're talking about saving up some of the more generous expenditures to use as a credit for later phases that are not before us at the moment. Isn't that your point? Later phases of this preliminary plat. So this preliminary plat is two buildings of six that were permitted to be presented in phases to the board at final plat. So I'm saying for the next four buildings, the next two or three final plots that that would be available if those site plans had deficiencies or remounts that we could backfill this into. I believe since you are reviewing this as a whole and it's going to be phase that there is nothing that states that you can't grant it as a credit across the phases. Okay, are we ready to move on? So, Don, I just wanna throw one last thing on that subject because I think it just sort of wraps it up. That's also contingent upon each of the subsequent phases being adequately landscaped to begin with. So like if we review a project and then we say, yes, we agree it's fully adequately landscaped, there's sufficient trees, sufficient, but they're still short, then we can say you can use the credit. But if they come in and say we're short and we wanna use the credit and we say, yeah, but you're still, it doesn't feel adequately landscaped, then they're not able to use the credit from other areas. We are perfectly comfortable with that. That's exactly what we're asking for. At your discretion. Yeah, because you said, let's not just try to find a place to stick a tree that doesn't need a tree just to meet the landscape budget. Okay. Yeah, exactly. Good. All right. Let's move on. At the bottom of page four of 19 is an update for 1-4-22. And I'm not sure I understood this. My notes say I need help with this one. What does the applicant or the board need to do? Delilah, can you help us out with this? Let me read it. The applicant indicated in a letter, there have been modifications to the street tree locations, but no update to snow storage location has been made. With the area being more closely highlighted, staff has been able to identify two areas of particular concern, namely where the road curves around the snow storage. One such example is shown below. The other is on the northern corner of Lad 11. I believe in the materials submitted in response today that the applicant addressed some of this. Again, I have not had the opportunity to review it fully to see if it satisfies what was written from the initial review, but I believe they have tried to respond to it. If we want to show it, they can speak to it to some degree and the board can, I think it might highlight what Marla was asking. I'd be happy to. Slide four that we submitted today, Betsy has this depicted on it. Right, so as I understood, there was two locations that showed snow storage where there was a potential concern of sight lines if snow was piled up, that they're for driving, there could be sight lines. So what we submitted today showed that a call out there with how those proposed snow storage areas would be revised to address the sight line concerns. So we would be happy to find with the condition that says that staff confirmation that that sight line issue on lots 10 and 11 has been resolved by the plans that we submitted today. Great, thank you. Whoops. Comment number 33, the original comment related to, well, let me read the update. The applicant indicated in a letter, there have been modifications to the interior parking lot landscaping, but no update to computations has been provided. Staff recommends the board require the applicant to update the computations to allow evaluation of this criterion. I think you've done that, haven't you? We have, we submitted those actual computations today. The plans were previously submitted, it just didn't show the calculation. So again, we'd be fine with the condition that said, subject to staff confirmation that those calculations are correct. Thank you. Okay. Number 34, update. The applicant has proposed to maintain plantings in the right of way, separate maintenance by the applicant could create inconsistent standards within the city. Staff in coordination with the director of public works recommends the board require the applicant to pay a pro rata share of the city's right of way landscaping contract. The applicant has provided a silver blah, blah, blah. Staff considers no further discussion of this comment to be necessary. I have a question about the feasibility of that proposed solution. Of the city right of way? Yeah, about having the applicant pay a pro rata share of the contract. Yes. I don't quite get that. Who controls the contract?  You know, for example. I don't know how the ends are out of work. Marla had the conversation with public works on how this could possibly work. And this was suggested as a potential way to do it. It would be a contract that the city entered into on its own. And then I think separately, there would be another contract with the applicant that would cover part of that, the pro rata part of that contract. It wouldn't be them as a party along with the city. It would be a city contract to which they in a separate. I understand what it said. I'm just talking about how it works in practice. I have not experienced this. So I, I'm not able to answer that question. Could we add some to your comment, Frank? I think it's similar to what, you know, we had sort of wanted to say as well. You were going to add something? Yeah, so well, so in the slide deck that we submitted today on slide six, I just want to show you guys what we're talking about here. So that everybody is on the same page. I was in the conversation with Marla and the department of public works about these perennials. It's, you know, certainly more complicated than we wanted this to be. So if you, seems like if you zoom out a little bit, maybe you could see it all a bit better. So the rendering that you're seeing, the perennial flowers are circled here in red. And then there's a zoomed in shot of the landscaping plan where you can see the beds in areas where you have those little, they're like small circles with dots in the middle of them. Those are showing plants that are inside the city right away. They're also essentially connected to the buildings that we're proposing and the patios and things like that. You know, in the conversation with the city, our initial response was, you know, we're happy to maintain these along with the rest of the property at our expense in perpetuity and execute, you know, whatever agreement you need from us, you know, to that extent, this sort of standard of uneven maintenance came up. I think, you know, what we would sort of suggest is that there's a conversation to be at between public works and us and to sort of try and figure this out. We'd like to put these plantings in. We'd like to maintain them ourselves. We'd like to keep them in, you know, pristine condition because they're part of our project. I think, you know, in terms of how to move forward, we certainly would be uncomfortable with saying we need to pay a pro rata share of a contract that we're not negotiating. But what we could say is that if the perennials are to be planted, that a suitable maintenance agreement would be executed. And if that, we can't come to terms with the city and the Department of Public Works as to that agreement, then the plantings will simply be removed from the project. Yeah, I'd hate to see him go. I mean, look, here, step back for a minute, you know, it's, I mean, if I, let me put this right, my test is if I were them, I just wouldn't agree to a condition like that. I just wouldn't do it, you know, giving the Department of Public Works carte blanche to go out and get a contract, maybe do maintenance that is possibly in my view if I'm the developer and given ego being what it is, it's probably not gonna be as good a job as I could do. I mean, let me get to the point. I'd much rather see a requirement that they shall maintain their plantings other than the trees within the right of way. Which is what he's suggesting, it sounds like. Yeah, well, and I'm supporting that, but not all this fancy stuff, I just say that. In other words, I reject the staff suggestion, is what I'm saying. And I would much rather see a very simple arrangement. Developer shall be responsible to maintain anything except the tree in a matter reasonably satisfactory, if you can live without reasonably satisfactory to Parks and Recreation or whoever is otherwise responsible for the thing and be silent about them paying a piece of the city's maintenance contract. I just wouldn't do that. Other people would be perfectly happy with that. When I see you nodding. When I see you nodding. Yeah, I would just agree with that. It seems overly complex to have them pay a pro rata for all the points that Frank made. Okay. I have to confess, I have a slight bias and it may just be nostalgia. Okay, but I just disclosure, I mean, I've known O'Brien brothers work for 40 years. And when they have buildings that I know, because I was at the closing where it built 40 years ago, and I still well maintained and still look good. That gives me a certain amount of confidence in the suggestion that I just made. Now we got a whole different generation, you know. I'm chair. I don't wanna prejudice our ability to stick it to some other developer, but in this case, I really wouldn't. You got it. You got it. Yeah, okay. Thanks, Frank.  Yeah, I would agree with the gist of Frank's comment. That's not necessarily the editorializing, but yeah, this whole thing about heck half of my, most of my neighborhood, most of my properties in the city right away. And I hate to have this weird thing of like, yeah. I think these are all highly visible locations and some rough agreement without a dollar amount and you know, or an annual maintenance plan has approved by the city arborist and something like that. I wouldn't even require that. I mean, I just say they shall maintain it. Pretty loose on that. They'll be responsible for its maintenance. I guess we have to have some standard. Yeah, I mean, I think public, the comment from public works about just having them contribute to the comment contract was that there would be a consistency if it was maintained by city staff across the board, then two different entities where there's elements areas being maintained not by the city and elements being maintained by a private entity. And I think they were concerned that it wouldn't, it wouldn't be consistently maintained. Yes. I don't know. I would just trust these guys to do a nice job with the maintenance. All right. With that, can we move on? Okay. Staff update. The applicant has proposed to maintain plantings. Oh, we just did that. I'm sorry. Okay. Comment number 35. We really don't need to discuss. It's been resolved. 36 is okay. Let's move on to sureties on page nine. The update, this section has been updated in its entirety to reflect meetings between the applicant and staff and a more detailed review of the applicant's request based on information provided at these meetings. So in the middle of the staff comments in the update, it says staff request, however, the board make a determination on the applicant's request to apply the reduced site landscaping bond calculation to older sureties. Staff considers this is not prohibited by the LDRs. I'm not really sure what all this means. I'm going to be honest. Can I apologize for the unbelievable level of detail that these conversations always wind up in for you guys? I just want to say that I wish that we could have less complicated conversations. I'm happy to go through this. I did prepare a few slides in that presentation that I sent over to you guys today to sort of walk through how we got where we are. I've already had a similar conversations with staff, but I think it would make sense to sort of give you a quick overview. I can do it in two minutes here and just sort of back into where we're at today and what our request is of the board. Make this easy for us. Help us understand Andrew. So if you guys head to page eight of the presentation that I sent today. So and I'll just kind of get talking about it here. So when we came in and were issued permit SD1717, which I think means it was issued in 2017 for the hillside development, if you go to the next slide, you can see in that permit that there were, it looks like seven phases of infrastructure proposed. And you can see that those phases include this four-way intersection that we're currently amending. You know, phase seven is there, phase six is there, phase four and phase five all incorporate portions of the land that are involved in this project that we're currently looking at. And we're making changes to the roadways, to the street trees, to what was proposed previously. So we go on to the next slide. You can, when the project was approved, we had about a $490,000 landscaping plan for the neighborhood. And at the time the project was approved, the land development regulations required that 100% of the cost of landscaping be put into essentially an escrow so that it would stay there until three years after completion of the project. Now, we knew that this project was gonna take six years to complete. We're in year five now and it looks like we're gonna go into a little bit of 2023 to get this thing wrapped up and plant the last tree in the ground in the single family area. And so in order to avoid having $480,000 in escrow for a period of nine to 10 years, we worked with Ray, who was the Zoning Administrator at the time to come up with these phases that we thought would be sort of sequential with construction. That way we could plant the trees and maybe within four or five years, that portion of the landscaping bond could be released back to us. And what happened, if you go to the next slide, we developed this framework of 22 landscape phases, each with a dollar amount and 10 different street tree phases, each with a dollar amount. And the idea was that, you know, they could be released in a sort of more timely fashion if they were in smaller phases because they can be completed soon. So if we walk to the, and as you can see here, it's about $485,000 of landscaping. If you go on to the next slide, you can see that it's not really working out. We've got about 30 letters of credit open with the city currently, which I think Delilah could tell you is a total nightmare logistically. We've only completed three, two of the 22 landscape phases are actually 100% complete and have started their three year warranty period. And at this point, the first of those phases is set to release to us in 2023. The third phase it looks like won't be released till 2025. And the request that we have here today because we're still in the sort of same permit, since the time that we created this complicated mess to try and help solve the sort of liquidity issue of having so much capital tied up in these letters of credit for such a long period of time, the city reduced the bonding requirement for landscaping to be 50% of the cost. And so the request that we're making of the board here today because this permit is within the same project is simply to reduce the landscaping requirement, the bonding requirement for hillside to be the current standard. And what that would do if you go to the next slide, you can see that we've submitted to the board a spreadsheet which goes through every different budget that we've provided for the project and it shows you sort of how those lines would be reduced. So for the infrastructure, phase six and phase seven, we have new estimates for it because we've edited what we're doing in the road and we've provided those new estimates here. So the bonding amounts for phase six and phase seven as outlined on the phasing plan would be what's shown here, the 515,000. The infrastructure phases we're not proposing any changes to for the existing project. If you go to the next slide, you can see that the phase 11 landscaping, which is highlighted in blue has changed because we're proposing different plants in that phase as part of this summit project and the roadway construction. And what we're looking to do in addition to changing the amount on phase 11 is to reduce the required amount of the previous phases that are all currently being secured by bonding by 50% essentially down to the new standard. So you can walk through each of the 22 phases there and see how they would be reduced. And what this is gonna enable us to do because we're reducing the amount of equity needed so much, $250,000 is to roll all of these 22 bonds into one bond. And we figured out a way to work with the city in order to have sort of annual inspections and to move forward with two bonds in place, one for infrastructure, one for landscaping and to sort of recycle them on an annual basis in a way that everybody thinks makes sense. I hope this isn't gonna be on the test, this is complicated. So are you really talking about consolidating a lot of these into two different groups? Exactly, and the way that we're able to do that is because the requirement in place in 2017 for 100% bonding of landscaping was reduced by the city council, the zoning regulations were changed. And so we're simply requesting to bring those bond amounts in line with the current standard in order to facilitate this easier path forward for sort of managing these as we head into the next five, six, seven years. And it will make everyone's life easier. And the surety will be equivalent to the current LDR requirements. It's just not gonna be double what the current requirements are, which is what we're currently putting into these escrow. So what is the controlling LDR for this project? The old LDRs, right? The controlling LDR is the one that's in effect December 2020 for this project, for this review. And it is different from the one that they were under when they received their approval in 2017 that now they don't have to bond for the full amount of the landscaping. It allows them to only go for 50%. Okay, so. Okay. Any discussion about this? Thank you, Andrew, for that overview. Any discussion? Don, I would just say that this stuff is like trip ends to me. If the applicant and staff are in agreement, I'm fine with that. Okay. I couldn't agree more. Yeah. Great. Okay. But it stays tied up for three years past completion in each phase, right? Yes. So, and we have that, I think. It's only the amount. It's not the other basic terms, correct? Exactly. The amount is reduced. The other terms are remain consistent. So just to play that out a little bit more. The only reason you would need 100% bond is if 100% of the landscaping, the only reason you need 100% landscaping bond is if 100% of that landscaping failed in the three years after you, there was a certificate of substantial completion for it. Is that correct? Exactly. Or am I giving you too much room there? No, that's right. I mean, it would be to cover 100% failure of plantings. And I think that's what everybody said. I mean, that just doesn't happen.  Okay. Any other comments from the board before we move on? Number 37, new comments. Staff recommends the board determine whether to allow the applicant to reduce the amount of site landscaping bonds for a previous phase. Oh, we just talked about that. Okay. And there's a comment on the next page. The applicant has provided a very basic phasing plan, which does not appear to match the description. Is this still about bonding? No. No, this is a different. Okay. Staff continues to recommend to the board require the applicant to provide a phasing plan, I see, to facilitate issuance of zoning permits. Provision of sureties and eventual certificate of occupancy inspection prior to closing the hearing. Such plans should be overlaid on the site and landscaping drawing to illustrate exactly which elements are proposed to be included in each zoning permit. Can you folks do that? Yeah, so I'm sorry, I closed out of the presentation, but I have a slide about that. I'm sort of unclear as to why what we've provided isn't sufficient. If you went back to the slide deck, I'm just trying to find the presentation I closed out here. You know, maybe I can, yeah, maybe just keep going a couple more slides. Skip over this stuff on the waivers. We'll get that figured out here. No, yep, so that's the, you know, we submitted a phasing plan and I know that that things get a little bit complicated sort of in these long narratives and paragraphs that we're proposing. And I tried to just sort of get this ironed out in a couple of bullet points here. So you can see the phases are numbered, phase 10, phase 11, phase seven, phase six. So phase 10 to require phase six construction, phase 11 to require phase six and phase seven construction. So that's pretty much the gist of it. If the building on lot 10 is proposed for a zoning permit, phase six will be constructed. And if the building on lot 11 is proposed first, phase six and phase seven will be constructed. And that would include construction of phase six would include the improvements in the right of way, which are present here on the plan. Questions from the board? Yeah, why would all of phase six necessarily have to be constructed in order to do phase 10? Why wouldn't it be sufficient to do, for example, phase seven? Just because the connection to Kennedy Drive and the sort of traffic implications are what we were concerned about there. So we wanna get that Kennedy Drive connection built with the first building in order to give that outlet for traffic. When do you expect that will be, Andrew? As soon as lot 10 breaks ground, hopefully this summer. Okay. Any other questions or comments about this? I'm not sure what Marla's asking for. I just don't understand the comment. When she says she wants a phasing plan that facilitates the issuance of a zoning permit, that's what she's saying, right? And how does this not do that? Had she seen this when she wrote these comments? Oh, it just, okay. Well, that's why, that's the explanation. This just came today. Well, this plan was submitted with the original application back in October, but I think, Oh, okay. You know, I think it's, there's, it could be the case that Marla didn't see this plan in the packet. Certainly, but you know, when you looked at the comment, we felt like this is a phasing plan. The civil is, it's overlaid on the civil drawing. And I think the bullet, you know, what might have been missing potentially are the bullet points that are included here, which are sort of summarizing what would be built when. And so, you know, those can certainly just be conditions of the permit that you're, that you're issued. The only thing I could see that maybe was missing is it's not overlaid on the landscaping plan. So that, that would be simple enough to do, right, Andrew? It's overlaid on the civil. That way, there's no question. The only thing that I could see is, Oh, are you going to do the plantings in the right of way? Where, where are the bound, which, which we are. So I think that that would clear up any possible confusion if this was overlaid on the, on the landscape plan. All right. Is that right, Andrew? Well, we can certainly do that. Yeah. Okay. Let's move on. Update for one four down at the bottom of the page. This is about the affordable housing committee. The applicant modified their requested number of units on 1116 to request they only be required to build 51 inclusionary units due to uncertainty in funding. Regardless of the number of inclusionary units, staff considers the board should require a mix of market rate and inclusionary units in each building. Staff recommends the board ask the applicant to propose a floor and ceiling for inclusionary and market rate units and for the board to discuss whether to accept the proposal. So has, is this something you've done and you've submitted? So we did actually talk about this at the last hearing because there was a similar comment on a potential floor and ceiling of market and affordable units. And at that hearing, I said that that would not be a condition that we would think would really be appropriate. And the biggest reason for that is that we're applying for this affordable housing financing and we're going to, if we get it, we're gonna build this mix that we have. At the end of the day, O'Brien has this inclusionary requirement that they have to meet one way or another. So to say that this building here has to have some minimum number and some maximum number of affordable units in this building here has to have that. I don't think that it's an appropriate I don't agree with that condition because the financing can change. We could come back and say we need to do a few more affordable units or we need to do a few less because we didn't get this financing. If you wanted a very broad, something like no, if it was very, for some reason important to the board that these two buildings have X number of inclusionary units, I guess we'd be open to that, but that wasn't O'Brien's requirement was that they build the inclusionary units by the end of the, not these two buildings, but they could have been in any of the first five. We're proposing to go first, build way more than their minimum, but to add a condition that says these buildings also have to have X minimum or that you can't build them at all, just I don't quite see the need for that condition. I guess I don't have a sufficient grasp of the history. What is the, can you state, are you able to state what the inclusionary, is there an inclusionary standard for this phase of construction? I am not, no, I don't live with this project on a daily basis. Marla would need to, so I'm not prepared to run down the inclusionary on the background as I don't, this is not my daily job. All right, so we have, I think we have to defer the discussion. No one here is competent at this point to address your issue. My bias, it doesn't matter what my bias is, we don't know enough. I could just point that preliminary plat, these two buildings were gonna be market rate and then Champlain Housing Trust was gonna do affordable in a later phase. So we came in with a proposed to try to front load that ahead of any requirements. Across two buildings. If there was a, if staff went back, found a condition that said these two buildings had to have inclusionary, then I'd be fine with that condition. I can tell you, represent that it's not there. So we would, I guess I would ask, assuming no conditions are there requiring any affordable units in these phases, we would ask that that not be a condition. Can we back up a little bit, guys? I think that, so we, this preliminary plat, the preliminary plat that issued that we're in here for final platform makes clear that the development has a requirement of 51 inclusionary units. And- And so- For this phase? 51 inclusionary units for the six slots in this project. So across the six slots, we need to have four of which are proposing I think 343 market rate apartments. 15% of those required to be affordable at 51 units. And then the 343 apartments, we were granted 51 bonus units, bringing the total to 394 units across six slots. And so these guys are proposing 94 units, I believe, with around 70 inclusionary. But 79 is what the introduction is. We could certainly warrant that there would be at least 51 in the two buildings. I don't, I'm correct me if I'm wrong, Tom, but I think we were okay. We just didn't want to create a additional inclusionary requirement to say, each building is going to have 35, and now all of a sudden instead of 51, we're required to have seven. My reason for not doing it, Andrew, is actually more protecting. If we got financing for one of these buildings, denied another and had to delay and then build the inclusionary units on lot 17 or 18 instead.  It just seems unnecessarily restrictive. From my point of view, it doesn't, I actually don't have a big problem with it because I only have an option on lots 10 and 11. This is where we're planning the project. But were we to get denied and you have a condition in there that said these have to be the affordable lots. That just, it seems a little bit choice limiting in terms of where you could build your affordable units. So your financing is separate for each building? Correct. Huh, okay. Yeah, I don't think the financing can drive the requirement, but I don't think we should impose on them anything more than the regulations say we have to impose on them. It sounds like the regulations say we have in order for them to get their bonus, they have to provide one-for-one inclusionary units. Is that the deal? Right. Yeah, the 51-inclusionary units. And you're not nodding, so you may know something I don't. Is that right? Yes, 51-inclusionary units across the next five buildings. I have two concerns, one of which Marla has expressed. One is that they stay proportional with construction, in other words, that you're not be permitted to defer, that you achieve proportionality as you built. You understand what I mean by that, right? You don't get to say, well, we're not gonna have any in this phase, but don't worry, later we're gonna have a bunch. Well, there is a condition at preliminary plot that does require that the inclusionary, correct me if I'm wrong, Andrew, there could be three market rate buildings built before any inclusionary units are built. However, we decided to front-load the inclusionary units in this first phase. So the condition that's already been levied upon us is way more lenient in terms of when we deliver them. We just decided to be more proactive and lead with them. That was a terrible condition. I didn't vote for that. Well, it's also, and I think it's also the case that what I'm saying is we're fine with saying that the development will include 51 inclusionary units because that's the requirement. But I think it's sort of, there is a condition in place that we're allowed to build at the first three or four buildings prior to needing to build any inclusionary housing. And so I think, yes, we don't wanna reverse that decision because if... I'm not gonna do that to you. I wasn't sufficiently conversant. I'm surprised that that was allowed if that's accurate. So I, go ahead. I'm a little confused because the description of this project says, phase consists of two four-story multi-family residential buildings on Lats 10 and 11. 94 total 94 dwelling units of which 79 are proposed inclusionary units. Where does the 51 come from? So 51 was O'Brien's minimum. That was their master plan. For all six buildings? For all six buildings, 51 minimum. And we have our proposal to exceed that minimum. We're coming in, and it's actually 71 now. That was amended. It's 71 is the current proposal for the number of inclusionary units. So that's the 51's the minimum, 71 is what we're proposing. So if you did 71, if you get your financing and you get approved by us and so forth and so on and you do 71 inclusionary units, does that mean that O'Brien is off the hook for doing any more inclusionary units? In this phase. In the next, when they build the next four buildings. Yes. Exactly. Okay. All right. Thank you for clarifying. Oh, that's, that's good. So it's not all that. Go ahead. Mark. I think one thing to clarify or maybe my understanding of this issue was that, you know, our old regulations, you know, required a, you know, a balanced mix across, you know, a little bit in each of the buildings, but the new inclusionary zoning regulations said that you can put all of them in one building, but the building itself had to, you know, be harmonious with the rest of the development. It couldn't stand out as being the affordable building. Is that correct? So therefore it should, and I do recall the discussion of the phasing, how they could build three market rate before they build, you know, the unit. So I don't understand the discussion on having to do build one for one or having to have a certain number in each of, you know, this number of in a building 10 and building 11 a mix. There was nothing that during any of our previous application discussions, which said they had to build a few in each building, you know, they're proposing this, and I think it's a condition they're proposing that we kind of accept based on our previous discussions and previous, you know, restrictions that they were, that we put on them at the phasing. And I'm just not sure why we're trying to look at making them put a certain number in each of these buildings when that's not even part of the preliminary plot approval and our preliminary subdivision. And also it's not required by zoning. If it's not required by the LDRs that they have to build one for one or put a few in each building. And if you remember, Mark, when they came in initially, they were hoping to partner, O'Brien was hoping to partner with CHT and all the inclusionary units were gonna be in one building because that's the only way they could get one. We need a few market rates. Right, yes, right. Okay. And is that no longer gonna happen? No, that's not gonna happen because your group stepped up and changed the configuration. Instead of one building, it's now two buildings and the inclusionary units will be spread throughout those two buildings. Good. All right, well, there's an answer to Mark's. Look, there were two things going on here to the extent that we have discretion to require a proportionate spread. That's what I would do because I think it's consistent with the broad theories behind providing affordable housing, providing inclusionary housing and the broad theories behind the tax credit on which these guys are reliant. If, however, we have made a commitment to the contrary that I'm not suggesting we dishonor it. Now, if they've been allowed to build, have you guys built three buildings with no inclusionary units? Those would be the next phases after these two. I didn't hear. No, none of the multi-family has been built yet, isn't it? But you have a permit that says you can? That's what I am talking about. The first Marguerite buildings are final plaid applications sitting on Marla's desk. So this is the first application for multi-family in this project. And the next two buildings that application has been submitted and be before you shortly. So where is, and you- I think