is Development Review Board of Burlington for September 21st, doing this in person and via Zoom. So our hybrid meeting. Some people are at the offices on Pine Street and some people are at Zoom. So we take up items as they are on the agenda. And as we take up each item, Scott will see to it that the applicants or public that wanna participate in each item can participate. And we also request that you provide Scott a mailing address if you're gonna participate in the hearing. So communications, did we have minutes? We posted online, Brad. Yeah. And then it's where the minutes attached that you don't have that in front of you right now. Up to date on draft minutes, we need to call up Brad to have you sign a few. Who's gonna be doing that now? I'm doing it right now. You're doing it. Oh, great. Go for it, Scott. Okay. So then the first item on the agenda is 63 North Avenue. It's a request for a variance. Is the applicant here for that? Either in person or I see somebody raising their hand there. Oh, yes. The two of us are here. Ready? Three are here. Three. Are you all applicants or part of the public? Well, I'm one of the owners. Okay. Against displacement. Okay, so we have people here and the applicants is here. Joseph Piscotti. Yes. Okay. Ken Axel, sir. Okay. Anybody on Zoom, Scott, that you can see? No. Okay. So the three folks who are in person there, can you raise your right hand? And you swear to tell the truth and hold truth under pain and penalty or perjury. Okay. So this is really has to do with a variance for the location of trash shed, I guess. I have to say that the drawings, the plan was quite confusing to me. So maybe you could take us through. I understand this as issues, just given the nature of the property and setbacks. So it's a difficult thing. Staff is recommending approval. But if you could run through exactly what you're proposing, it would be helpful. And maybe Scott could share the site plan or something. Sure, I can do that. I can pull it out. The site plan is also confusing because it's a plan view overlaid over a 3D view of the site. So the property lines don't really line up with the aerial photograph. So it's confusing that way. Well, let me show what I have up in the aerial. Okay. That may be all we have. Yeah, I think that's all we have. Okay. That's the site right there. Right. And the property lines go through the building, which I'm assuming is not really the case. It sort of is the case. Not as bad as it seems there, but the northwest side of the building is cut into the foundation of the building two or three inches. Okay. So the shed you're talking about is a lower left-hand corner of the property. The lower shed, the lower left-hand corner. Can you point to that, Scott? There. Okay. And that's the existing shed? No, that was the shed that was there for many years, but it flew over, well, three times since I've lived there. And it was actually on the city right away. Okay. It was located there. And where is it that you're proposing to locate it? At the, so moving it up. Scott, where is it? The condo. Yes. Oh, there you go. Great. That's the one you want. There. The blue one, I believe, is what you want. It's drawn in there. Can you get to the one without the stickies on it, Scott? There's another plan there, I think. Nope. I thought there was one without the stickies. The stickies make it very hard to see what's going on behind them. That's the best plan I have, Brad. And it shows the red, the next one up, Scott. Yeah. The red blocks, that's the existing location, correct? Correct. And the blue one is the proposed location. So they're just shifting it downward toward Depot Street in the parking lot. When you say the existing location, you're talking about the existing location that doesn't exist anymore? Well, the existing one is what was built there without permit. So that's what you see in the photographs. The actual shed is constructed. They're just going to shift it. So the red box on that screen that you see there, that's where it's currently located without a zoning or a building permit to be placed there. So now they're requesting that they're going to shift it a little bit to the blue location with the approval of a variance. And that allows access to the parking space. That was the point, right? Not my parking space. The original shed in the 80s when the place was built was on the south wall of the property. One of the tenants moved it to where it is now, but if it's moved any closer, I can't back up my garages in front of that area. I'm not going to be able to back up fully because they're not observing the zoning as far as parking. They park in the access to parking area. So I have to make that real sharp cut to get out of there. It's like four feet or so that they're going to take away if they try to put it where he built that little foundation there, there was no permit for that either. So I guess I'm a little confused. The proposed location, does that work for you for parking? No. No, okay. So who's applying for this? It's the Kondo Association is applying for it with the idea that we had 10 nills a zoning inspector come over and told us that we couldn't keep it where it is. And so we said that we would, if we got the variance move it to where Mr. Mitros who is opposing this where he would like it. He would move it with 10 nills there and put it where his access is not infringed upon. Right now, he does get into his garage fairly easily, which there is a video of that on this application. Where the shed is now, it's right up against where I have to pull in to get to my garage. They have a jammed up in the corner of the building. It's under the heat, which is a fire hazard. Who's making this application? Is the applicant here? Yes, we're the Kondo Association. You're making the application, but you don't really like it where it's proposed.  It's on the south wall. Who's the applicant? It's Scott. Joe Biscotti, Vice President and Ken Axelson on the Board of Directors of the Breakwater Cognitive Association for 6383 North Avenue. And we're doing this because we have to. It can't stay where it is. And that's what Ted Miles said. Because I called, excuse me. I called because Joe Micho's called. It's up against my entrance. We have one person talk at a time. Yeah, I'm gonna call time out here for a second. Yeah. I'm gonna ask staff. Scott, who signed the application? I'm gonna pass the buck to Ryan on that, AJ. Sorry, it's a Ryan project. I'm looking at the wrong one. Let me pull it up to the right application here. Give me a second. Biscotti is the applicant. That's me. So the association is moving it. And they said Ted Miles said it had to be moved. Are we under a notice of violation at this point, Ryan? Or is there some other reason this is getting moved? I don't see that. There was none of notice issued. Ted Miles went out on an inspection per complaint. And that's where he found the shed at its current location within setbacks. And he worked with the applicants by understanding to tell them that they wanna place it somewhere. It's gonna likely require the variance. And that's their proposed location requires the variance. But it's a location that people aren't happy with, Ryan. Currently, yes. Is there a location that people would be happy with? Yeah, South Wall. That's where it was when it was built. In the 80s, the trash shed was against the South End of the property. It's not in anybody's way there. Where it's at now, it was pulled down to the middle to be fine. So are you saying, and who's speaking right now? Bill Mitros. Okay. I know, John Larkin. And I know all about the building and that's where the shed was originally. Just on the shed. That's the red square on the site plan. That's where it used to be. That's where it is now. That's where it is now. So we don't know where it used to be. We don't have a drawing of that. It used to be where that white is. The old shed is actually on the area. Oh yeah, that one. Yeah. It's here. But this is where it wouldn't be in anybody's way. That's where it used to be. But it's supposed to the right way. It might be in the right way. Obviously the lines are screwed up on that area with the overlay. But that's where it used to be. It wasn't infringing upon the driveway or parking garage access. So I understand. I'm just sitting right away. It still would have needed us to get a variance. It's a complete steep hill, which we have a picture of. It was buttressed up with two-by-fours and four-by-fours and kept going over and away. And it was not legal. So let's pause for a moment. I agree with AJ. We don't have any authority to get permission to put something in the city right away. So that's not an option for us. And we don't have a drawing for where you would like to put it, which is where up against the south property. Or that's, I guess, where it used to be is where you want to put it. We can't put it there. You don't want to put it where it's proposed. So I'm not really sure what we're supposed to do here. Yeah, and we're not under a notice of violation either. And so I feel like this is a condo association to figure out where you want us to approve it or consider it to be approved before we do that. Yeah. The condo association has decided that the board of directors has decided that they want it at that side of the building. And again, where exactly it would be with the termites and 10 miles there if the variance is granted. And we would put it in the spot that would be best for him entering and exiting his garage. But yeah, we can't do that. We can approve it subject to future review. We need a plan in front of us that says this is where it goes. So if you want to continue this and have that meeting and then come back to us that makes sense to me. Because what I'm hearing is where you're showing it now is not really where you or Ted or whoever want to put it. We do, we love to keep it there but Mr. Michaels has complained about it being there. So we offered to move it in order to appease Mr. Michaels. But we were very happy and still are very happy with the six time owners with the placement of the shed now and we'd be very, very content to keep it there. When you say now, where is it now? Jammed up against the building. If you go back up, sky and out of our sky. Go back up to the next image above, Scott. You'll see it's the blue one, I believe it exists. No, the red one isn't where it's existing today. Okay. The closest to the building. The blue is what my understanding was where they proposed it. If you can get number five on the attachments that I sent. The photos. The photos. I think they're just down below that, Scott. Hard to see. Hard to see that one. Okay, that's where it is now. But if you go one more, it'll be a better, oh, that's the hill where the shed used to be. Can you try one more, Scott? Sorry. That's the last one. It's page six of the second. If you'd slowly go back. Okay, well, that gives you some idea looking up from deep post street. And if you would continue going down. I had it under that, that needs the other. So let's pause here for a moment. Just trying to, we seem to have a lot of confusion going on. This photograph shows a shed. Is that where the shed is now? Yes. That's the red shed in the plan. Yes. Yeah, I think I colored it red to try to make it easier, obvious. Okay. But if we don't show up to the very top, the very top. Scott.  Let's go, keep on this one for a second. This is the shed where it is now. Where the association does not want to put it there. We'd love to keep it there. We would love to. Wait a second. You're the association. You submitted something that's a different location than this. So we've got the association saying one thing and you're here representing the association something saying something different. We don't, I don't think you know what to do here. You're interpreting this incorrectly on Mr. Robinowitz. All right. The shed is in this picture is exactly where it is now. Right. Wait, let me finish. What you're seeing is the garage door, which is Mr. Micros' garage. The next door over is the entrance into Mr. Micros' garage. And then the shed is actually on the property line the cell line of the property. Now, the reason we put it there is because that is the least difficult location for Mr. Micros to navigate in and out of his garage. And it also is the best location from the standpoint of the trash collectors and also the best location from the standpoint of the aesthetics of the property. And that's where the association would like to keep it. Yeah, that's not what's being proposed. If you saw the shed in person, you'd see it's jammed up against the building. It's under that E, you see the patio there? That's a fire hazard in itself. And it's backed up the property next door that's kindling wood. It's all in crevice. Time out for a second. I'm trying to, we don't have name tags here. Mr. Micros' garage. Is that who's garage we're talking about here? Hi, Micros. Micros, is he here? Right here. Okay. And you don't like this shed here? No, you saw that's not a very good picture. I'm just asking you whether you like it or not. No, I can't get into my garage properly. Okay. It's in my way. So I have to pull up to that door. I believe you. I don't think we need a lot of detail if it doesn't work. H.A.? Yeah, Brad, look, I understand what our burden is, but I really don't want to be the party negotiating a dispute amongst members of an association. And at this point, I can't get clarity on who wants what and how. And I respect the association telling me this, but then they're telling me something else. And then, so I would move that we continue this for 30 days to the October meeting, give or take, I think it's the 23rd. The 19th, AJ. Oh, yeah, 19th. Sorry, math is wrong. And ask, and hopefully then the parties will come back to us all the parties with a more clear understanding of what's being requested. And we don't get this cross-talking fighting because I really don't know who wants what where. I can second that. I was holding down on this guy. We're making a motion here. From the board, any discussion on that motion? Could I just maybe, Mr. Mitros just said if the shed was pulled down this way. Wait a minute, hold on. Don't stop. Stop, yes. Any comments from the board on this motion? Did Brooks second it already? Yeah, he did second it. And I guess, so the only clarification is, AJ, I think that's what you're asking for is the association, if you are the applicant, you need to come with a site plan, which shows us clearly where you are proposing to put the shed, full stop. Bingo. Then we will have a hearing on your proposal and other people, including other members of the association can offer their opinion and whether or not it can flies and can be granted a permit. But we don't have that clarity with you, AJ. I support your motion, maybe with the amendment. And the staff was recommending that the variants be granted, but we just don't know what the variants should be at this point. So I agree too. So any other discussion on the motion? Then all in favor? I opposed. No, it's unanimous. So for the applicant, it is confusing to us. I know there's a couple of things going on here with where the shed could go, where it's shown on one plan or another plan. The variant seems the least of the issues. We can't put the shed in the city right of way. That's not an option. So you're invited back in about a month, hopefully with some clarity. Thank you, Bill. The fence is on the right way. That's okay. Thank you. Barriers. Thank you. Thank you, Jerry. Okay. Move on to the next application, which is 24242 Pearl Street administrative denial of a replacement sign is the applicant here for this one. And you are. I'm John Dubey. I'm the owner of Pearl Street Pipe and Beverage. Okay. And is anybody else here speak on the Scott? There's no one in Zoom, Brad, to speak to it. Okay. John Dubey, do you swear to tell the truth and hold truth on the pain and penalty of perjury? I do. Okay. So this is a denial by the staff. So I think the staff goes first on this to present. Yes, this is, this was my project. Okay. I marry somewhere in there. I don't know, but the eyeball's not picking me up. Do I need to dance or something? No, we can hear you fine, Mary. The magic eye. Okay. I was the project manager for this. Just to lay out this scenario, the building was destroyed by fire July 1st, 2020. The applicant filed a zoning permit application June 5th for a replacement sign. The application fee was not paid until July 29th. So the full year had expired. The zoning ordinance only allows one year for replacement of a non-conforming sign. This is a residential zoning district and the previous signs at the time of the fire were non-conforming to the zoning ordinance. So the one year time of allowance for replacing a non-conforming sign had expired before the permit was complete. So the permit was denied for expiration of that one year time period in which to replace a non-conforming sign and any replacement must now be conforming to the ordinance. And were they waiting for any feedback from the city in terms of when they made that, paid the fee? Relative to Open Gap Review, when an application comes in, it's assessed by the zoning clerk or the planning technician for completeness. It is not forwarded to a project manager until the application is complete. So it was not assigned to me until after the permit had been paid. Okay. Any other questions from the board for Mary? Before we hear. Mary, can you tell me just in context the new zoning online zoning permit system went into place when and was this processed under that? May 1st, 2021. And the write-up that we received said that they weren't informed that there was another fee due until the end of July, which was paid immediately. Do you have any reason to disagree with that statement? Open Gap system has a series of action steps on the left-hand ribbon. And one of those is application fee. It wasn't an additional fee. It was a fee for the zoning permit application. I believe that the applicant may have tried to file a building permit, only because of the amount he said to have paid. Building permits run parallel to ours, but a building permit is not entertained by the building inspector until such time as a zoning permit is already issued. So you think they may be applied for the wrong permit and by the time they applied for the correct, paid the fee for the correct permit. It was after the date. Is that, that's the city's position. Judging by the amount that Mr. Dooby says he paid, I believe it may have been a building permit application. Okay, thank you. Caitlin, do you know if there have been a significant number of like adjustments or changes to how the online system is working and routing people through it since the launch on May 1st? How is routing, those are human actions. So the zoning clerk or the zoning planning technician, would be doing initial assessments before they are directed to us. I think it's the initial questionnaire that directs people to which permits they need. Have those been adjusted since May 1st or have they been, I guess like the system is supposed to be self-sufficient. And if it pushed the applicant into a building permit incorrectly, like do we have concerns that there's maybe routing issue with what permits being recommended as required for an individual applicant through the multiple choice questionnaire? Well, as I indicated, building permits and zoning permits run independently but parallel. The OpenGov system directs you to what permits you need to apply for. Certainly Mr. Dooby began his application on June 5th, that I can see. So those are date marked when there are additions or alterations made. However, the application wasn't completed with the payment of the fee until July, late July. So if I can just weigh in briefly and I'm up to my eyeballs in OpenGov daily, including the back end.  And yes, those have been changed a bit over time and probably need some further change. But those questions are aimed at the system figuring out what permit you need. In this case, the replacement sign needs a zoning permit but also a building permit. So both of those things get started concurrently. And as Mary had said, the zoning permit needs to get the green light before the building permit gets issued. Or for the applicant, they can apply for it concurrently. Is there anything in OpenGov that tells you you need to apply and receive one or four of the other? Like sequentially? No, I think there is. It's certainly something we've given plenty of lip service. I'd have to go through and verify that. I think there is, but I guess I wouldn't swear to it. Mary, if they had been on time with their application, would they be able to stay with the sign that was out of compliance? If they had applied in a timely fashion, the application was complete. They could have maintained the same size sign that was there and changed the lettering. What they applied for was a different size. So they would have had to come to the DRB for replacement of the sign in a different size because it still wasn't conforming. I can respond if I may, Jeff. There was a building permit application fee paid May 27. And an additional building permit application fee paid August 2nd. And Mary, is there, in your view with the dimensions, is it less non-conforming is acceptable to you? If the timing consideration were off the table here, does it need to be exactly the same dimensions or smaller or only exactly the same dimensions in your view? For the DRB to consider replacement signage, that's changed. It has to be in substantially greater compliance. I can only tell you that I know it's not the same size as the sign that was there before. And it is not compliant with today's regulations. I haven't analyzed the difference. Maybe at this point we can hear from Mr. Gooby. Okay, that is the case. We were very confused at the process. First off, I gotta say the July 1st deadline, I have no way of knowing that there was that deadline. So I couldn't have applied for it to meet that deadline because I'm not a developer. I don't have feelings of zoning. But after the fire, we weren't really thinking about that we even needed a permit because out of, I have the bad luck of out of the six signs that are on the building. Mine was the only one that was actually painted onto the storefront. So in April, when the general contractor came to us and said, okay, give us your signs to put back up. That's when we realized we called the sign company. They're the ones that told us, well, we don't do that anymore. We now put it on a separate material and put it up on the building. So they're the ones that told us we needed to get a permit from the city. I'm not very good with computers. I'm dyslexic. The building clerk down here must have got a real kick because the first application that I downloaded for the city of Burlington, I filled all out, I come down here and it turns out it wasn't the city of Burlington, Vermont was some other brand. So she said, no worries. We launched this brand new portal. You can get your applications online. All right, so I'm not, like I said, very good with computers. I can't speak to the confusion of actually going through the rock up because I asked my wife to help me do this. She applied for this. That is exactly right. We filed an application fee. We thought it was to start the process. And as soon as the city told us what we needed to do or what we needed to pay, we paid it. In fact, adding to the confusion to us a little bit was when we first filed in May, the first response we got through the portal was they wanted pictures of the new fence that we were building. So we responded, we're not building a fence, we're building a sign. They said, oh, we're sorry. We had a lot of applications. We need a picture of the building. So we did that. Well, then later on when zoning finally came out and said that our application was denied. At that point, we thought we were all set. We had posted the cardboard thing that the city had sent us for three weeks but then we did our construction. It was all good. The building inspector even came up. He checked another door permit that the GC had done. He looked at signs and says, okay, that's done too, all right. And he was gone. We thought we were all set. And then we got a thing from the city saying that we owed a fee to zoning, which we like, okay, we paid it right away. And then we got a notification that the application was denied. Well, when we got that note, we were a little confused because it kept referring to us as the pharmacy. And we knew they were opening, he's got like five signs on the building. So we figured he's applying to do something, but so we were a little confused. And we wrote back and yes, it is you, okay.  The sign is actually a different size, but it's smaller than the original sign, okay. And the reason for that is, is I had no control over the building of the storefront. They got it all built. It's actually three inches narrower. So my sign has to be like two inches narrower to fit in that space. But other than that, it's pretty much the same length going in the same place. And it's equal to the state sign that they just had done a couple of years ago that they didn't need a permit form. Cause like I said, that one, we just handed it to the general contractor, they screwed it right back into place. I, you know, if I had known that that fee was due, I certainly would have paid it if, you know, if we had known about the June, July 1st deadline, we certainly would have met it. I have a question about the dates. Was the sign damaged or destroyed during the fire itself or was it removed as part of the reconstruction at a later date? It was damaged basically because of the fire, okay. Like I said, my sign was stenciled to the storefront. So we actually have the storefront panels. It's like an aluminum panel at one above the windows. In fact, if you have a picture, you can see what I'm talking about, but it went above the windows right there. We have those panels, but they couldn't be affixed to the front. They're trying to smoke damage and whatnot like that. And they're literally the storefront that the letters run. The state sign and all the pharmacy signs are actually on separate materials. So we had all those other signs. We just gave them back to the GC, but the GC says, well, I can't do anything with this. So Kirchner Sign was the original company that had done it in 1983. We called them up and they said, well, nobody paints on paint signs anymore. It's all vinyl lettering on separate material. So okay, as long as we're doing this, this is what we want to do. They said, okay, you need to get a permit from the city of Burlington. We even at that point had read some rules and we were just outside the definition of being able to put it back up, but where it was, because we weren't using the same signed material. There was no existing signed frame. And that was the criteria of it, of a non-required permit that we read at that point. So, you know, it's almost identical to the sign before. It's just a different color going in the same exact spot. I don't know what else to say. It's just, we were admittedly, and it could be us, we're not very good with computers. We're old, computers came after us, but we were confused. You know, going through the process, we were confused. I have a question for staff, just for clarification. The actual application itself, was that submitted in time, separate from payment? The application and drawings were submitted June 5th, 2021. And I think the reference Mr. Doobie's making to the pharmacy is I didn't, wasn't able to discern from the drawing if he was proposing replacing the sign on the pharmacy front or on the front of the former Pearl Street beverage because the drawing wasn't clear. So that was the reference to the pharmacy. Is there anything on those applications when you fill it out that says this is the fee that's due and the application isn't complete until you pay the fee? You step through work steps on your application. You submit your application, staff assesses it, and determines which review path it is, and that assigns the permit fee. So that's what the permit fee was assigned by the planning technician after reading his description. It would only be the situation of a non-conforming sign where timeliness plays a big part. Mary, can you? So Lakeside Pharmacy replaced their sign, right? You're asking me? I'm asking you, it's in the photograph.   They have four signs actually. And Mary, do you know anything about the permitting for those? I don't have permit applications for them. Well, that's where I think this is where the applicant is saying his was painted on the building itself, whereas the other businesses hadn't signs that could be removed, cleaned and put back up. Looking at the photograph of the fire, it looks like the signs may have burned. At the fire, I don't know. That may not be okay. Not the Pearl Street average sign. You can see it on the front page. I was thinking about the Lakeside Pharmacy. I don't want to go on a tangent there. We have a fair amount of information on this. Does members of the board feel that might be true? Yeah, we can deliberate on this. At the end of the hearing. So any more information that any member of the board wants to get from the applicant or staff. I can respond to Caitlin that the size of the sign. That's proposed is higher. But the length is less than the original sign. So it is. I wouldn't call that substantial substantially greater compliant. Okay. Okay. So, this is any more questions for the applicant or staff. We're going to close the public hearing. We will probably deliberate at the end of our meeting tonight. Thanks. Staff and for the applicant here. We have another item on the certificate of appropriateness for six Alexis drive is the applicant. In person. Yes. And Scott, is there anybody else on zoom? There is no one on zoom for this item, Brad. Okay. So is this David Cohen? Who's here? Yes. Okay. So I would swear you in just swear to tell the truth and hold truth and the pain and penalty of perjury. I do. Okay. And the staff, I think actually recommended this for consent with one comment on that garage location. You have nice drawings. It looks like a fairly complete application. So I don't know. Is anything you want to add or comment on the garage location that the staff commented on. Well, I was asked to comment that was made was couldn't I move the garage back. The front of the garage. One to two inches. And. We've been through this. You can see from the pictures. A site elevation, et cetera, that. That I know that the city wants garage locations. To be subordinate to the front of the building, the living space. And I think that it is. I don't know that. This would require. Redoing again. Another set of plans. It's going to also impact. And to me, it looks that. It is separate, especially with the pergola over it. And. I don't know. I didn't think that. It was a request that. Really would significantly alter what the house looked like from the street. Or how it read to people walking by. And we'd like to comment on that. Or how it read to people walking by. And we'd like to go with this is our third revision of this garage. So. We would. Request that it be passed. As is. And what was the cause for the other two reprisions on the garage? The first one I'm working with an architect from locally. And he did not realize it's a very odd shaped. Lot. It's a corner lot and it has sort of a. It's curved to Alexis Avenue. So there's a point. More, more a lot that. Where it intersects with a papal tree point road. And what we were trying to do is minimize the footprint of the house itself. And we were trying to keep as much open space as possible. So originally the first one, the house was flipped. And the garage was more forward. We misunderstood what was said. We went ran it by our builder said, I don't know that Burlington will allow that. So we confirmed that. And what I misunderstood. I thought that. We had to add in about 200 square feet. We had to. Take out the, the dining room and kitchen and flip it 90 degrees behind. Where it is now behind the garage. And this is what we came up with. So these plans have been. We've had to add in about 200 square feet. We had to. Take out the. The dining room and kitchen and flip it 90 degrees behind. Where it is now behind the garage. And that's what we came up with. So these plans have been. Here probably since August beginning of August. And this, this request for one to two inches came in this week. I'm just not sure. I'm what we're trying to do is make something that looks nice. And when you start bringing the, the. Garage back, you have problems with the Eve. And how it, how it. How it translates to the rest of the house. And whether it makes it look separate or not. We were trying to go with something that looked historical. We were trying to fit in with the. The. The neighborhood. So that's where we are. Okay. Any questions from the board for the applicant. I'm going to ask. I'm trying to find the exact wording. In the standard, maybe Ryan can. Let me know what it is. In terms of the garage. I know it's not, it's. Some of the board in it, but I'm trying to find what the exact wording is on it. Do you have that, Ryan? For you. Almost there. This last one, this last iteration. Was when we were told that it had to be flush with the living space. Yeah. Yeah. So I met with the applicant. Once prior to his submittal. And well, even before that, we talked about the forward fate of the forward most garage and he moved it back per. Our discussions. And last time he chatted before it submitted. It was flush and that was fine. I misinterpreted this shall we set back. And I thought that we had examples where they were flushed in the past. So. That was my error with saying flush was acceptable. But the code does indeed say. We find the sentence. A parking structure either attached or detached shall be set back from the longest street facing wall of the principal structure and be differentially yet consistent character and design. So that shall be set back. There's no minimum distance that it requires. So that's where that condition of a few inches. So I don't know if that's sort of discretion that the board wanted to take on that. Who could be one to foot who knows one inch to 12 inches. There's no specific requirement in the code that. Identifies that. So. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. The interpretation is open. I would. Imagine. And in this picture here. It is flush with a wall, but it has a bay. Beta. Juts out. So. I mean, is it flush? I mean. This own, this own example shows it flush with the living space. On the opposite wall after that, you know, the bump out in the front. We have a huge bump out there. The porch you're talking about. Yeah. I mean, I think that what you're looking for with the design review is, you know, visually, what is it going to do? I mean, I think that's, that's the whole purpose of the design that you want houses to look a certain way. So. I don't know. I. I think that where we are. You know, I don't know. I mean, I'd have to talk to the architect and see how it impinges on the eaves of the garage. And whether we're going to be able to do that or the eaves of the garage will have to come in. I don't know. I don't know. It will have to be, it would have to be completely redone. For the sake of an inch. Which is request that. That would be a variance from your zoning. The question. Is the, the overhang or the return. Over the garage. Is that the same plan as the front porch? No. I mean, it's the overhang the same. But I guess I'm not understanding the question. Would it be in line with the front of the porch? The same plan. No. I mean, if you scroll down, you can see it on the plans that the pergola is set back from. You get the next page. We're starting here. We could say there is a wall at the front of the porch. And that gable end. And I'll tell you, so we have a few. I mean, if we have to, we'll add an inch to the front of, I mean, Take away an inch from the porch. I mean, if that makes, I mean, It's a big difference, but you know, it's every time we do this, it's a couple of thousand dollars for new drawings and, and. Whatever. So we prefer not to do that. But if we have to, we have to, but I don't know where that makes the house any. Any more. Acceptable. I don't know where visually changes it. I don't know. Do you have an inch come out from the porch? Well, it's quite, it's, it's sort of in our court in terms of how we look at the zoning, which one is required to conform to. And our mission is to see two of that things do conform to the zoning. Within a reason that we can. So, Brad, if I may pipe in briefly here. The board has seen this a few times recently. And the code says shall be set back from the longest street phase and wall of the home. So that's not discretionary. What's discretionary is how much we're talking about an inch or two. And that's up to you guys if you feel that an inch is sufficient. Typically it's been about a foot. And the point is for the garage to read as secondary. So, I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I'm looking at the elevation. I think that it does, but that's up to you. You know, I mean, I've tried to be proactive and I, I rely on coming here and presenting plans. And getting a go ahead and say, yeah, this is okay. I mean, I don't know what else to do. I mean, I, I've actually been here twice in person. So I, otherwise I just don't know what else to do. Other than coming here. This is the first time you're before the board though, isn't it? It's the first time before the board, but I've worked with the zoning office and plans.  I said, no, I don't see any issues. Okay. So that is, that is, I guess I throw myself on the mercy of, of the zoning board, but we really like to try and get financing. And every time we delay it, it's 30, I mean, it's 45 to 60 days to get financing, which I can't get until I have a zoning permit. And then a building permit. And I think already we may have lost this construction season. I'm not sure. Okay. Any other questions for the board for the applicant or for staff on this one? I think we have a bit. Okay. I think we have an idea of what the issues are and how you feel about it. Okay. So we have a zoning ordinance set. So we will deliberate at the end of the meeting tonight. And follow up that way. Close the hearing at this point. Great. Okay. We have one other item on the agenda. Presentation overview. On the parking standards. And TDM plans. Is a David. Live or see on zoom. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Hey, Brett. Yeah. Say J. I have, I may have to jump over to the town of Stowe DRB. So I'm wondering if we could deliberate on the two items we have quickly before we receive this presentation. I'm okay with that. Actually. We're sort of moving on pretty well. Everybody else okay with that? David. Sorry. Sorry. I didn't hear that I was being promoted to panelists. We're looking at deliberating on two items. Just in case AJ has to leave, we want to do that. So take a few minutes or just do that first. That's fine. Okay. So, um, I guess we can do this. In the open meeting. Any issues with doing it that way. Scott. Okay. I have the whole thing recorded. It's up to you whether you want to close the meeting and then reopen. Any feeling on the board on that issue. Okay. Well, we'll keep it open. So the first thing we have is, um, 242, 242 pro street. Um, I have to say that. I don't know if it's, um, I don't know whether or not, but we also have staff changes that the staff member who interfaced on this is not with us right now. Um, so we're not getting her feedback. On how this came to pass. Um, so I'm, I'm a little. Leary of, of. Denying this just on that date. Where there seems to be some of the legitimate confusion. Um, I don't know. I don't know if it's open. Three permits since it started. It's not super clear. And I feel like I know things. More than the average person being on the DRB. Um, I, I. So to me, I would like to have leniency on the timing, which means we do need to look. At the size. Um, I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know if it does that if others are in agreement. So what. What staff. Comments say is. It's a replacement of non-conforming signs. Destroyed a damage. Uh, can be replaced within one year from the date of damage. It doesn't say that they have to remade smaller. I don't know. I mean, I don't know. I don't know. Um, And I, from reading that, I didn't see that. That. Making the same size or slightly smaller. That there was a. Issue with that. I think this is where this is in the staff notes as well. It's the section. Seven point one point six, where it says a non-conforming sign should not be relocated, enlarged, replaced, redesigned, or altered. This is certainly. It doesn't fall into the, any of the exceptions, which is repainting, refacing, repair, or change of lettering logo. It's different when it's damaged because of fire. I think that might be a different aspect of it. If you're just replacing a sign because you want to replace it. Yes, those things would come into play. But if you have a non-conforming building that burns down, if you replace it. And then I'm conforming way. Any other thoughts from. Members of the board. It seems that they. According to the applicant, they did everything they. Think they could have done to get everything in on time. And fell short. And so what they're facing is a non-conforming sign, according to what staff has written is. The requirement for a non-conforming sign to be replaced. That it was a non-conforming sign. And so basically 16 square feet and to commit to severe complains according to Mary or down to six square feet. Which is relatively small sign. It seems that, you know, for, for the lack of one date for. Getting in. A payment, which they. Clearly. I get a feeling that they would have paid that. tend to err on the slide and letting them put a similar sign up, the way he's asking. Other thoughts from members of the board? Trying to find it, yeah. I guess I'm generally looking to find a way to say the time limit. I agree that they seem to have done everything they needed to do with respect to submitting an application. I've also used the online system. I'm actually looking at it right now. There is a section after you submit the fee. The next step is application complete. I'm not sure it's really clear in that first step. When you submit the application, you get feedback from the staff that you have to submit the fee for it to be deemed complete. There's no verbiage to that effect, but you could get there just by looking at it. So I'm torn. Kailin, I like the direction you were headed with is the sign. Was the sign destroyed during the fire? Or I mean, it looked pretty intact after the fire based on that photo. So it was actually removed from the building sometime later. If you're doing a rebuilding, a building after fire, I think you're splitting hairs to start to say, well. Yeah. Pull the body out. You're going to put it back on. Here's the. There is a section in section 5.3.8, rebuilding after catastrophe. That's what we have here, not somebody choosing to redo the sign. And it does pretty much allow rebuilding of non-conforming structures. I would seem to read that. Not saying that when you're rebuilding, you have to bring it into compliance. I'll say you have to get a zoning permit if you're rebuilding the building. Yeah. That section actually also has a provision for extending. It has a one-year deadline as well. Yes. But it has a provision for extending it. Yes. 5.3.4. 3.4. There is no 3.0. There is. Yeah, there it is. Yeah. There is. More than after one-year, longer provided. However, not in excess of two years. So applicable standard for the reestablishment of disadvantageous uses. And extension of time may be granted by the DRB after public hearing. I mean, the way I read this is if your building burns down, you could actually ask for an extension to replace it and long taking longer than one year. Yeah. Yeah. And that would obviously mean you couldn't replace the sign within them. So I don't know if we're standing on form over function. I think if he came in front of us and said, I'd like to have another month and a half to complete the building and put the sign up, we would authorize it under this section. And I think it's a confusing process that the person went through. I mean, it wasn't just the sign. Right. This is probably the smallest part of the entire project of rebuilding. Well, I imagine the landlord went through the rebuilding process. And that was maybe part of the confusion, too, is that the landlord went through it and didn't have the tenant do his part until at the end, where the landlord could have done more of this in the beginning as for the extension needed. Well, I'm tempted to overturn the denial. So we overturn the denial. Does that mean we just have to review the sign on its merits or is it administrative? I think we could overturn the conclusion that it should be deemed after the year and send it back down to be approved. To be reviewed. OK. So it's reviewed as if it was timely. Yeah. OK, that sounds like that's an appropriate response to this. Doesn't get it. I can make a motion. So let's see, what is this item? So on ZP21, I'm sorry, yeah, ZAP21-13, which is 242 Pearl Street. I move that we grant the appeal and reverse the administrative denial. I find that based on the extenuating circumstances, which included rebuilding a building during COVID, as well as the city's implementation of its new. This application being filed right at the beginning of the city's new online zoning process, which was confusing to the applicant, that we should determine the application was filed and because the application itself was filed within one year, we should deem the application complete within that one year period and turn it to staff to review the proposed sign. How's that getting that? In discussion. All in favor? Opposed? OK, so it's unanimous. OK. Brad, I got to jump for the last one. Sorry. I got to go to stone. OK. You have my, sorry, took longer than I thought. OK. OK. Be a friend of it. OK, so now we have six Alexis. I have to admit it does give me a little bit of a. I suppose conflict of interest if the issue here is that these reluctant pay architectural fees for the six inches. I don't know. Well, well, Brad, he's not paying you for. I know that. Of course, my industry, you know, so. When I think about this, if the protocol were enclosed, I think it would very clearly be in compliance. And then to me, what is the difference in the. The facade, if the portico is enclosed or not in in terms of the garage being subordinate, I do think that this is different than the last one that came before us, where the garage was looming over the rest of the house. Yeah, I agree. I think the design does make a difference, though, you know, it's got pointed out it's it's the the main facade of that terminology was but but it is the the portico does, in a way, become the main street facade of the building. It's got a huge gable on it and stuff like that. It's not the whole house is sort of set back from that. But what you're really reading on this thing is the main is that gable. And if we can set it back one inch, it just seems really somewhat silly, I have to say. And I think it's done a lot of detailing on it to make it read. Well, the gable on the garage gave on the portico. Where is everybody else had on this? I think that the main point of Scott pointed out is that it reads as being subordinate. And, you know, if you were to pay seven on the plans, they could really subordinate to the plan. So I would I'd be OK with this. I think we can then move it an inch. That's a lot of work for an inch. It's going to hardly be noticed. Well, I agree with it, because I think it's the gable end of both things. Gable of the garage, gable of the house. Brooks, you. I tend to agree with Caitlin. Frankly, yeah, Jeff, I'm just looking at the language of the ordinance. I'm troubled by the shouts. I mean, I know it's I don't know. I mean, I think that that's where for me, if we if putting a wall on the. Portico would obviously make that the longest street facing wall. Is that functionally different from there not being a closed wall there? Well, it's not the main wall. Where I have trouble with this thing is that we're talking about the walls and not not the roof and the roofs have a lot of detailing out here. So we could move the wall in and out of the wall could be moved in and out. And the roof stays exactly where they are. And that's somewhat. Irritating to me that it comply without really changing the appearance of the building. You know, I mean, they could pull the main wall of the house. They get strapped with two inch strapping and bring it out two inches. As he was saying, take two inches out of the porch. And that whole wall would come forward two inches. It wouldn't it would hardly affect this roof, probably. It just seems, you know, sort of a lot of it does not, to me, improve the building, I guess I would say. But you're right, Jeff, I mean, that's the where we are with the language of the ordinance. Yeah, I mean, I think we relied on this. I agree with Caitlin and in fact, I was confused in these two buildings when I first looked at this that the other project we saw recently with this issue. We definitely relied on the shall be set back from to send them back to redo it. Now, that was clearly much further out from the main wall of the structure. In the problem, you're right. I mean, that's the problem. I mean, we have to we have to adjudicate this and the language is the language. So I think we've got to be we have to be guided by the language. And there has to be a strong mitigator to deviate from the language. I mean, the introduction of this whole section is does provide for recognizing that it involves value based design and decision making, requiring a balancing of complex factors, interests and needs. And it does say in applying these citywide development principles and design standards, particular attention shall be given to the context of the development proposal and achieving conformance with the purpose of the districts in which the project was located. I mean, to me, there is. So what you're saying is the shall is advisory, not mandatory. I mean, in some sense, yes, because the purpose of that is to be subordinate. That is the purpose of that section. I think we agree on that. And in this case, it is subordinate in its plush placement because of the massive portico. I think the conversation wouldn't be there if the portico wasn't there. Right. No, I think I think you're right about that. And that introduction has its own shall. Yeah. Yeah. How does that introductory shall relate to the second shall? And unfortunately, we declined an ordinance committee. It's a change and we decided it wasn't worth changing this specific section. And you do need to go back to that sky. Yeah, maybe I think we have we have two choices here. We can approve it as submitted and say that the we feel that the portico and the gable under the portico give it a lot enough presents that that ends up feeling like the main wall of the house. It's a back or we can ask the applicant to provide a two inch differential between the garage and the main wall of the house.  But it does that seem like that that's really good. I don't know, governance is the right word. You're leaving the question here. Perhaps you're part of you're leaving the audience a bit with your phrasing. Well, take it away, Sheila. I mean, I'll make a motion. On ZP dash two one dash six two seven six, Alexis drive. I move that we approve. What is this? Approve the certificate, approve the application and issue the certificate of appropriateness and find that the staff comment related to the subordination of the garage is addressed by the the size and positioning of the portico and its gable roof. For a second on that. I'll second that for a second. OK, any discussion on this motion? Do you think there's any other conditions in here? I think that that OK. OK, well, all in favor opposed. Four to one. I appreciate your clarity and the words, Jeff, it's helpful. OK, so now we're David. We're ready for the next item, which is Article Eight Overview. Awesome, thank you. Can you hear me OK? Yes. Well, that was an entertaining discussion. And now we're going to talk about one of my favorite topics, parking. I'm sure it's yours, too. Well, it's an often talked about topic, that's for sure. It is indeed. So I'm going to share my screen here. And I'm going to apologize. I'm going to I have to leave about six thirty to pick my daughter up. No, no worries. And I will try to kind of make this as quick and painless as I can. So I want to kind of start this conversation with a little bit of background that I think is important context for the policy decisions that we made leading to this particular zoning amendment. And I think this slide in the quotes on it really illustrates some of the economic and equity arguments behind what is for the last several years now been a rapidly growing and, in fact, international conversation about parking requirements. And with great thanks to Professor Donald Shoup from UCLA, pictured here, who's really been kind of his his professional life work in kind of raising some of these arguments around why do we require parking? What are the implications of requiring this particular type of amenity with every development that occurs everywhere across the country? Can I get my slides to move? There we go. So communities all around the country, and as I said, in the world have come to the realization that requiring our on site parking is undermining nearly all of the primary land use and development objectives that we have in that includes here in Burlington, you know, things like creating more affordable housing, supporting public transit, improving community, economic vitality, streetscape improvements, all of these things. And as a result, hundreds of communities have taken steps to eliminate the required on site parking in either part or all of their communities with with quite a positive impact. And these are communities that are small and large, urban and rural, with and without robust public transit. The common link is that they're all working to eliminate unnecessary barriers to new development and help hold down its cost. Burlington was not the first, nor will it be the last community in Vermont to eliminate its on site parking requirements. The city of South Burlington beat us to it, actually. And the town of Williston has also eliminated their on site parking requirements for a couple of local examples. So. The Institute of Transportation Engineers, the the same folks that bring you the parking generation manual, which is the Bible in determining how many parking spaces particular land use may generate have themselves come out with a very strong endorsement of the eliminating of parking minimums in zoning. That's not what the parking generation manual really is intended to be used for. So I think that's pretty illustrative that even even those folks see the benefit in eliminating parking requirements. Parking requirements haven't always been a thing here in Burlington. In fact, it's a fairly new invention in its current form. It really wasn't until 1962 where parking requirements were established everywhere except for in the core of the downtown. And by 1986, all of the exemptions were eliminated in exchange for allowing for new building heights, higher building heights in the downtown, as a matter of fact. But the Planning Commission and the Planning Department have been kind of pursuing this thread for a long time. When we did the downtown Waterfront Master Plan, we did a lot of research around parking in the downtown, the parking requirements, the implications thereof. And once that plan was completed, the Planning Commission sent a proposed amendment to the City Council eliminating the parking requirements in the downtown district. At the end of the day, that didn't go anywhere, but we were undeterred in an April of 2019. The mayor launched a housing summit to bring focus and urgency to the five key areas of unfinished business around implementing the City's Housing Action Plan. One of those was with regard to addressing the issues associated with the on-site minimum parking requirements. So eventually, the City Council approved providing some direction to the Planning Commission in the creation of an amendment. That's a zoning amendment 20-04, which kind of had these particular goals in mind about removing a significant barrier to the creation of housing, specifically targeting certain types of development where the cost of parking is an even larger burden and enable a more efficient use of parking spaces that we already have. It's worth noting that since 2008, we've created over 7,000 new parking spaces across the city, the equivalent of about 40 football fields of parking. Almost 14 percent of the land area in the downtown is dedicated to parking. And about 30 percent of all those parking spaces are vacant even during peak times.  And each of those parking spaces cost the taxpayers a tremendous amount of money because they're not going to be able to do because they are they are preventing certain other types of more productive economic use of the private land adjacent to them or the private land that they occupy. So this is a really important issue for us to try to address. So in October of 2019, the City Council passed a resolution giving some direction to the Commission for this zoning amendment, which does I'll kind of bullet through the six or seven different things. The first of which is that creates and what we refer to now used to be the downtown parking district. You're aware that the article eight of the zoning ordinance divides the city into three different parking districts. The downtown parking district is the target of this, where it's now called a mixed use, multimodal parking district, formerly the downtown district that has no minimum on site parking requirements at all. So it includes the downtown and waterfront area, all of the neighborhood activity centers and neighborhood mixed use districts around the city and the first two hundred feet of depth of properties that have frontage on major thoroughfares. So those those spider legs in blue on the map, those are the major thoroughfares being illustrated there. So if a property has frontage on those thoroughfares and a development is proposed within the first 200 feet of depth, there is no on site parking requirement. It also exempts regardless of where it's located in the city, a minimum on site parking for permanently affordable housing units, the rehabilitation of a listed historic building and the creation of an accessory dwelling unit. And it enables the administrative officer to prove a permit to to modify the on site parking requirements of existing development within this district to reflect the change in the zoning ordinance. The principal reason here is that, as I said, within with the downtown, when you look beyond the downtown as well, there are lots of parking spaces that are going unused. We want to free up those parking spaces to be put to some better use. So if a property owner wants to redevelop those unused parking spaces, this is some of the use. They can be free to do that. They can be if they have a capacity on their site to do some other redevelopment and use those those parking space parking spaces to support that new development. They can do that as well. So we also modernize the dimensional standards for parking spaces because they were larger than they needed to be and more inflexible than they needed to be. So you see the list here of what we did to kind of reduce the space and provide some greater flexibility and we allow for an increased proportion of compact spaces. Previously, only 15 percent of the parking spaces could be for compact cars. Now we allow for up to 50 percent of any required spaces to be compact cars. So there's greater flexibility in how the parking ultimately gets arranged within a building under building on the site. The maximum on site parking requirements were lowered. All across the city. So even though in this mixed use multimodal parking district, there is no minimum requirement. There is still a maximum requirement. You can't create more than 100 percent of the requirement in a shared use parking district, by example. We don't want to see the unnecessarily excessive creation of more parking. I have a question on that. Yeah, go ahead, Caitlin. With the maximum, when it's a zero minimum, I think a lot of them are defined as multiples. But if the minimum, if the requirement is zero, then how does a 100 percent maximum? It's a great question. So that's where we use that. And I guess I'd have to look to the the requirements under the shared use and see are there some that are zero because that does create a create a bit of a conflict, because you can't have, you know, 125 percent or 100 percent of zero as a maximum that you're saying that you cannot create any parking spaces on that site. But the idea being is that in the shared use district, there is still a minimum requirement. And that is the equivalent of the maximum requirement in the mixed use multimodal district. But you raise an important question. I'll look into that a little bit further. One of the big changes then as a result of this is is we instead of having an onsite parking requirement, we now have a transportation demand management requirement instead for certain projects. So projects that occur within this new parking district and also create ten or more dwelling units and or create a building foot greater than 8000 square feet or the creation of 15000 square feet of gross floor area. So this is not the same as the major impact threshold, but it is a similar idea. Bigger projects in this district are required to implement a transportation demand management program for all tenants and employees on that site. So that requirement takes multiple forms. The first is that there needs to be some outreach and education for those tenants and employees. So someone on the site has to be kind of designated the transportation coordinator who provides informational materials to folks about what their transportation options are and surveys them as to kind of what their needs and their interests are and how they can be better served and reports annually to the city about kind of what they've done in order to educate their constituents on transportation alternatives, which then have to include for the first ten years after receipt of a CEO. This is a requirement that does not go on forever, but just for the first ten years. So a transit pass has to be offered for free for the first year and then at a discount of at least 50 percent for every year thereafter up to ten to everyone. Doesn't mean that everyone will take one, but they need to be offered to them so that they have that as a choice. In addition to that, a car share membership also needs to be offered for free for the first two years and a minimum discount of 50 percent every year thereafter. Again, they may not take take the owner property manager up on that offer, but they need to be offered to you every year. And if they're and in lieu of those two alternatives, the property could join a Transportation Management Association, which in our cases, Katma could be could be another one if one gets created, another one gets created. But the Campus Area Transportation Management Association, you're all familiar with that operates originally up on the Hill, the Hill institutions, but now has a number of other nonprofit, private and public members, including the city, that offers equivalent benefits. So that's kind of the shortcut for for a lot of property owners is that just join Katma, provide these same kind of benefits and you don't have to deal with kind of the administrative elements of how a TDM program is managed. There is if you build parking on site, there is no minimum requirement, but we fully expect that nine times out of ten, a project is going to build on site parking. It's just a reality of the market and kind of where a lot of people are at. So they're going to build some parking no matter what, when they do, they need to do an annual an annual utilization study of that on site parking for the first 10 years to see how is it actually being used?  Is anybody actually parking there? Do you really need it? Could it be put to some better purpose? Um, if you're making leases of those parking spaces to offsite users, the term of that lease has to be limited to a year. It can be renewed every year, but we don't want to see long term contracts where those parking spaces are tied up in. And again, somebody's not actually using them, but kind of wants the ability to to do that through a long term lease. The cost of the parking spaces have to be unbundled from a lease or a deed. So if you're paying $1,500 a month for that apartment unit, that doesn't include the parking space. You're going to pay you should be paying extra for that parking space because everyone needs to recognize there is a cost to that parking. And if you don't want to pay that cost and you won't that's more of an incentive to find alternatives. It also means that that $1,500 $1,500 rental unit, maybe it only needs to be a thousand dollars a month. So it makes those units more affordable to people who don't have a car, which is a large and growing number of our of our population across the city. David, I had a quick question. Yeah. So I had somebody ask me about meeting the unbundling standard basically in the reverse, saying that, OK, I want to provide parking as part of the rent.  Seems to me that achieves the same thing, but it's not technically the same as what the code calls for. Something like that, except of water now, I think it is. It achieves the same result is that is that ultimately the the tenant or the employee is not paying for parking spaces if they don't want or need and that there's an alternative to a lesser rent without that parking space, it achieves the same objective. OK, so I would argue that it is still unbundled. You know, they're just it's just more about how they're marketing. Yeah, OK, right, rather than it's $1,500 a month and you're going to pay more for parking. Sounds better the other way, I suppose. Yeah. The last part of here is that the parking spaces that are created are prioritized for car share, van, pool, bike, scooters, handicapped parking. All the best spaces go to these activities. They don't get stuffed in the back of the lot where there's no lights and there's poor drainage. They go right up front. This plan also has to has then an agreement component to it, where the the applicant acknowledges and recognizes what their requirements are that when if they fail to meet those requirements, they understand it's a violation of their zoning permit and they will be held accountable through the zoning enforcement process and that ultimately it's that the review and approval of the administrative officer for whether or not what's been proposed as this TDM plan is acceptable within the construct of the ordinance and that no permit or CO can be granted without an approved TDM agreement in place in order to kind of affect that whole package. I have another clarifying question. So with the 10 year kind of duration of of a lot of these standards being in place, it what parts of this does that cover and what does it not cover? So, for example, the decoupling of the price of parking from the price of rent, is that limited to 10 years as well? Or is that forever? And, Joe, I just want to make sure I understand that. No, great question. It's not the only thing that's limited is the utilization on site parking utilization study has to be done for 10 years and the TDM benefits, the transit pass and the car share memberships. Idea being that, you know, if you do it just once, then, you know, people won't this is habit forming behavior and do it for a long period of time and you will establish those new habits and and of your tenants of your employees. Yes, there will be turnover. But, you know, that was the the feeling of the commission and the council at the time that over a 10 year period ought to be sufficient to kind of really begin to change people's attitudes and behaviors. So it's just those three elements that have a 10 10 year limit. So I thought kind of the the what's the obvious question here for the DRB is what's the DRB's role in all of this? And it's really not much different than what your role under parking has typically been. You're reviewing the application, you're making findings of fact under whether or not there's conformance with the ordinance. There's not a lot of discretion afforded to this part of the ordinance to either provide the parking spaces or you don't where the DRB does have a role in providing and in exercising discretion are these two sections providing relief from the minimum parking requirements where they're still required as well as relief from the minimum parking dimensions under certain circumstances that, you know, if a parking space needs to be a little bit smaller because of the way the lot and the buildings are configured, they can go to the come to the DRB and get that kind of relief. And if somebody wants to do a parking management plan to reduce their minimum on site requirement or to change their maximum on site requirement or again, having a shared parking plan for off site users, those are all things that you do today and will continue to review and have discretion over. So that's the long and short of this new section of ordinance. I have a question for you, David. Yes. So basically all parking requirements for future ADUs are eliminated. Yes. What about existing ADUs? Are they limited retroactively? So this is where if if you've got an ADU that's got a parking space that you don't think you really need anymore because they're not required anymore, you could come back through the zoning process and seek an amendment to your site plan to eliminate that parking requirement, and it could be reviewed and approved administratively because it would be in conformance with existing ordinance. So there's a there's a number of properties where they can squeeze in the parking for the ADU. They didn't have a parking requirement. They actually could squeeze in more units. Well, they're only going to get one ADU out of the no. But if they if they don't have a parking requirement for the ADU, they can keep the parking space and put it for a unit that's there. They can add another unit. Well, the ADU is typically associated with a single family home. So you've got a principal use of a single family home in the ADU. So they're not getting more units out of that. But certainly a mixed use or multifamily site. Now that doesn't have a parking requirement, they could add more units. But they still have a parking requirement in certain districts, right? In certain districts. So any place where they're kind of outside of this multimodal district. So, you know, in the RL, the RM, the institutional zone, all of those places, there is still an onsite requirement if you're not on one of these major corridors. But I'll I'll I'll preview for you that the Councilor Hansen has been a big advocate for eliminating these parking requirements. And that's where he's going next. He would like to see all of the parking requirements eliminated citywide. And. I'm sure we'll hear more about that in the coming months. Any other questions that I miss anything, Scott or Mary? No, I think that was helpful. We have one call in on Zoom. I think it's Sharon. So Sharon, now is your opportunity to raise your hand if you want to speak or we can call it good. I think we're going to call it good. You must have answered other questions, David. So this is current. These are now adopted standards. These are now adopted standards. This amendment was approved. I don't know, some some months ago now. OK, I want to say it was last summer, even. Yeah, I agree. Exactly.  Yeah. OK. All right. Hope you found this helpful, happy to come back and walk through other other aspects of the ordinance. And certainly, there are more changes in the works where this might be helpful, where we're making some more sweeping changes. I knew it was helpful. Yeah, that was great. Thank you. Thank you, David. All right. Hey, have a great evening. Thanks. I guess with that, we are adjourned. Right. We're adjourned until next time.