Thank you for getting the switch out. Good evening. And welcome to the South Burlington Development Review Board meeting for November 15th, 2022. My name is Dawn Fillebert, and I'm the chair of the board. Let me introduce you to other members of the board. Starting with Dan. I'm blocking your last name. Albrecht, thank you. Quinn Mann, Stephanie Wyman, Mark Baer. And joining us remotely is John Stern, another member of the board. And also with us from the city of South Burlington are Marla Keane and Marty Gillis, our development review planners. So thank you for joining us tonight. This meeting is being recorded. A couple of ways to participate. People can participate by coming here in the audience, as some people have. Or you can join us virtually. And if you do join us virtually, please send us your contact information so we have a record of you as a participant. And those of you who are in the audience, please sign the attendance sheet up back so we have a record of your attendance should you ever wish to claim party status in the future. You can also attend by phone. And for those of you who do so, please indicate your participation status by sending an email with your contact information to Marla. That's M Keane, K-E-E-N-E, at southburlingtonvermotte.gov.  If you want to participate and be recognized, raise your hand during the public comment session. And we will recognize you. And you can then turn your microphone on and your camera on. And we ask that you avoid using the chat function for chit chat because it's not part of the public record. Number one on the agenda are the emergency evacuation procedures. This auditorium has doors in each corner in the back. In the case of an emergency, you would exit those doors and either turn right or left to go outside. Second agenda item, are there any additions, deletions, or changes in the order of agenda items? Nope. Hearing none. Announcements, I've already said the meeting is being recorded and how to be recognized. Are there any comments and questions from the public that are not related to the agenda? OK. Hearing none, we will move on to our application review. And item number five is continued site plan application SP22020 of Naglian Chase Construction to construct a single story 21,790 square foot office building, create 260 square foot of outdoor storage and associated site improvements at 39 Bowdoin Street. Are there any disclosures or recusals? I'm recused on. OK. Thank you. OK, who is here for the applicant? Good evening. I'm Dave Marshall from Civil Engineering. I'm fortunately remoting in. So I apologize for not being able to attend in person. That's OK. Could you raise your right hand, please? I think we've sworn you in in the past, but let's just do it again. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury? I do. OK. Thank you, Dave. So we have the staff report. And this is, let's see. I'm just reviewing my notes here. The applicant to make necessary modifications to the project. So the project will be compliant with the city's land development regulations. Before we start going through the staff comments, Dave, do you have any comments you'd like to make? No, at this point in time. The good news is our list is getting shorter and shorter. So now we get to deal with some of the very subjective components of the project that we need to put the board to input on. OK. Thank you. So let's go ahead and move to comment number one. And this is all about the amenity plans. And if you could please review for us your latest plans for amenities. So we see. So there was a landscaping plan prepared by Cynthia Knoth that was prepared specifically not only to deal with the landscaping, but also this particular amenity area. The plan that's in front of you right now is generally the proposed development area. For orientation purposes, north is straight up on this particular plan. The road that runs east-west at the bottom of the plan is Meadowland Drive. And the road on the right-hand side that runs to the north, that's called Bowdoin Street. And in this particular case, the project site sits at that intersection. And with that, the primary issue here is how to create an amenity that books inviting. That basically starts to tie the building with the street together. In this particular case, as you look at generally the white component of the building footprint on the southwest corner, the bottom left of the building is the proposed amenity area in which we have focused a number of plantings as well as street furniture or maybe furniture we'll call it. Thank you. Good job. That basically looks to tie together the main entrance of the building as well as the secondary access to enable staff and any visitors to enjoy that particular side of the building. It happens to be located on the south side, which here in Vermont we like to have on the warm days or at Hulvins, for that matter. And it also provides views in the west in the direction of the setting sun. So we like that location. It is located again between the building and the street to again provide that particular feature of inviting people in off the street into this particular area.  And with that, it's an area that's larger than what is required by the role. But it seems to make sense in regards to those particular access points and how to instill that area. Thank you. Questions or comments from the board? So as the board's kind of getting used to the site amenity thing, this isn't my staff report for this Marty's project, but in a sort of a general way, and I apologize, Dave, for using it, you was a bit of a guinea pig. What we kind of tried to highlight here is that there's a specific list of things that have to be included for each type of amenity. In this case, it has to be adjacent to a street or an entry. Seating has to be a main component of the space, but it has to be well landscaped with landscaping sort of integral into the space. And so the question for the board is not is it minimum dimension, but is it ticking all the boxes to be considered the type of open space that they've requested, which I think is a parklet? A parklet in a snippet or two different things? No, it's a snippet slash parklet. OK, good. Thank you. All right. What do you think, Ward? I mean, I think that the landscaping isn't an inherent part of it. I think it's sort of like an accessory part of it. What is it? Just those four trees, like little planter trees on the sort of four quadrants and the rest of its hardscape. That's correct, Mark, except over on the east side, there's a little bit of a buffering landscaping there. Also correct. And I know that it's larger than what's needed, but part of me is a little concerned because it does butt up right on the shared use path. So I'm wondering if it doesn't want to have a little separation, a little landscaping between the two of them, or else is it going to start? I mean, I guess maybe that's not a bad thing if it starts to feel like it's connected to the path, or do we separate it by two feet, maybe make it a little longer, and have a little connection with some landscaping between it kind of thing, between the little patio and the actual rec path. Is the rec path not shown on this plan, Dave? It's not, but it is right up against it. It's on the plot plan. I see the call-out. Okay. If you look at C2.3, I think, it shows it budding right up against it. The other plan does show it better. There's lines missing on this landscape plan. Yeah.  Is it open to the public? I mean, what is the intent? Do we know that? I think the idea is that it could be either. It's supposed to be either directly adjacent to an operable entry of the building, or the street. This one happens to be both. Okay. So the business is not going to have a problem with people stopping and eating their lunch there or something. You know, I just, being supposedly friendly neighborhood, you'd like to think that that's where this will go. Obviously anything can go extreme, but I just can't imagine that in the environment that we have here. When you're out within the Meadowland Business Park, you have people walking back and forth on their breaks. It's very vigorously youth, as far as the right path. And in this particular case, you know, we live in this world of do we divide and conquer, or we do try to basically bring things together. And of course with the form-based zoning, we're trying to bring things together. Maybe that's where some of our brain was in regards to this layout was, you know, is there any reason why we can't communicate as opposed to trying to be sheltered? It's just, it's a feature that's so close to the road it just seemed to make, there is no way that you could hide it, you know, in the proximity of the entry and the existing recreation path. Yeah, I'll jump in. I like it. You know, we're trying to create these connections and not wall people off. And it may be hard to visualize out here in the hinterlands, as it were, but you know, 20 years from now we could have 10 buildings like this and people feel, yeah, it may take some time, but I like it and it doesn't bother me that it's next to the shared use path at all, so. Thanks. Any other comments? Go ahead, John. Is it not a liability issue for the company that would be in this building if somebody who was just totally separate and apart decided to sit down for lunch and start choking or something? It's a good question. I know that there is a statutory language in place that protects property owners from a users of a recreation path from being exposed to litigation for people's own actions as far as if they trip and fall on the recreation path. But I don't know if it kind of goes into this particular situation. So it's a good question.  So you're right. It's a line that is not something that we typically deal with out in these particular areas. I don't know if I have a good answer for you there. That's a good question though. And one that every business who comes before us is going to have to address, I guess, or consider. Yeah, so this is the idea that came from the applicant. It's not the darn civil engineer's idea. So it's one that is already been vetted internally in regards to their proposal to the board. Okay. Are we ready to move on? Number two, this is the curb cut alignment. So what's the latest proposal? I know you said it's not functionally feasible to have them right across from each other. What are your thoughts at this point, Dave? So the applicant would still like to proceed with the original proposal in which the curb cut off of Bowdoin Street is offset from the CBA office building driveway that is on the east side of Bowdoin Street. And what we intended to do with these particular plan sheets that were submitted was to demonstrate what it's like in order for a vehicle to access an egress utilizing not what is shown on the plans as far as the curb cut, but perhaps one that is, again, aligned opposite of the CBA. So the plan that you're looking at right now, you see this kind of orangey area, salmon color, off to the right of that, to the east is the existing driveway for the CBA office building. And in this bigger case, if you could imagine your mind's eye, and actually if you look carefully, there is a little bit of line work that would indicate how a curb cut would need to be oriented on the left side to, again, line them up. But more specifically, when we try to bring a design vehicle into this particular facility, what I'm going to have you do with your eyes is start at that bottom portion of Bowdoin Street. And that's the truck approaching this particular realigned curb cut. It basically pulls in and then does a very, it basically backs up into the loading area. And what the orange represents is the amount of impervious area over and above what's necessary today. Oh, this is very helpful. Yep, this is good. So yeah, so the vehicle pulls all the way in and then backs in through this particular facility. And because of all the line work that's on this plan, we stopped. We didn't try to show you how it comes out. That's for a later plan. So, but in this particular case, what we're trying to do is identify just what pavement area would be necessary to facilitate that particular turning movement based on the proposed layout of the land that is a function of available upland areas and configuration, the location to the street. So perhaps now would be a good opportunity to go to the next sheet. So that last plan, the summary is we can get in, it just creates a large amount of impervious area to carry the day. So here, the truck at the building, at the proposed building, starts out of the loading dock area. And now we're trying to get to that newly, the recommended lined driveway curve cut opposite of the CVA. So the truck turns left and it drags its rear end. So that's the secondary line that you see here. But nonetheless, the front cab starts out, it turns left and then back right. And we have to go out into Bowdoin Street, only to have to back up into the CVA driveway to then head back south and north, excuse me, west, because this is again, essentially a dead-end roadway system back out to Heinsberg Road. So the shading portions represent the additional impervious area to enable the vehicle to pull out because of the dragging nature of the back of the trailer, we would have to basically move the solid waste enclosure a little bit further west, that's the red rectangle that would create a little bit of impervious area. And then of course, once we're out into Bowdoin Street and we said, okay, we're out of there, let's now get turned around, we now need to use somebody else's driveway perhaps or I suppose we could have backed into our own. But either way, the trailing edge of the trailer creates some overlap that creates impacts. So thank you. I think that's one option that's not shown here that would be perhaps more manageable as far as the tree impact than the one that's shown utilizing the CVA driveway. So in this particular case, what this basically tells us is that trucks are very good at backing up. They can move the back end of the truck fairly readily based on the skill set of the driver, but when you're driving out, the tail end always just drags behind you. So it's much more difficult to manage that particular area and that's what this particular plan shows is that you can get out, it's just a little bit more convoluted way to basically do that. So the former drawing that you showed us is your latest proposal? Well, in this particular case, Don, what we've tried to do is, so in this case, this is a good version. We've highlighted, we've added in the darker gray what would be the board's request or I should say the regulations request to align the driveways. And then I've whited out the originally proposed driveway, thank you, it's perfect. To basically try to take your eye away from that area and allow you to focus on that darker gray aligned curb cut and how a design vehicle would need to basically move out of this area. So in this particular case, this one depicts not coming out of the driveway and trying to go north or up on Bowdoin Street, but just simply coming out and getting to that aligned curb cut and swinging back around. In this particular case, in order to basically get the trailer out onto Bowdoin Street, we have to drive over the curb and into the tree. That's the red highlighted red area to facilitate that movement. So again, very tight, very challenging in regards to the ability to basically move the vehicle here. The next one, I believe in the series here goes back to the original proposal and it identifies generally how a vehicle would lead this particular facility. And again, it's benefiting from it, not any, doesn't have any extra turning movements to first turn left to try to get to the alignment across from the CBA driveway that basically allows the driver to come directly out and into Bowdoin Street. And similarly, just I had mentioned earlier when you back up into an area, it basically is even more efficient than trying to drive your trailer out behind you. So what's not shown here is again, just what we had always proposed, which was a truck would basically drive up Bowdoin Street past the words of Bowdoin and then back in. And in this particular case, this plan shows the remaining movement which comes back out again. So we felt very comfortable that the original proposal was the most efficient as far as both pavement surfaces and turning movements for the vehicle. What we tried to do with the other plans that were included in this application package was demonstrate how the driveway that is aligned with the CBA driveway on the east was not a practical solution. And there's a more magical word in the regulations in regards to demonstrating that it's not a, I'm not gonna pretend to remember the word, but it's a prudent or feasible means of providing access to the property. So the one that we're looking at now is still your first choice. That is correct. Okay. What do you think, board? Yes, to go off what the word you're searching for Dave functional. And so that's the, what we tasked you with to kind of show other options that might be functional. I just based on your presentation, it seems like you've walked through how it's, you know, they, it is kind of functional but more in a convoluted way. So I see this as I'd be comfortable with this proposal given that you have shown the functionality of the other options. Other members? Is the property directly to the North developable? Like at the end of Bowdoin Street? The answer is yes. Okay. So that's, that's owned by Dinah Power. Burlington properties, I think is the proper legal name. And that's what they call lot four. It is a subdivision, subdivided parcel that they sits on the East side of that Potash Brook drainage way that heads out to the North there. That is correct. Yeah.  My concern would be, you know, down the road if development did occur on that property directly to the North, the added increase of traffic. I think that the neighborhood itself lends itself to, you know, this type of, you know, vehicle movement, vehicle traffic, especially the properties that are, let's see, Northeast, you know, the two other structures to the North and East, the one across the street and the one directly to the North are more office oriented. So, you know, you get more of the eight to nine a.m. and four to five p.m. traffic leaving, but, and, but let's just say if we leave it and say, okay, this is fine. How does the standard vehicular traffic move through the property? Because I noticed that the connection between the larger parking lot and those sort of five spaces looks like it's what, a 24 foot wide two-way traffic path. So, the diagonal one between the two parking lots. Yeah, so that's actually a 20 foot wide pavement surface. Okay. And again, it's designed to meet the fire departments. Oh, okay, okay. Pavement. It does serve for two-way, but again, one thing that we mentioned during one of the earlier presentations was to the board was, again, because Madeleine Drive that starts way up to the west of the Hinesburg Road intersection is essentially a dead end road. The only place anybody's going is going to be points west. So, human nature being what it is, we always try to take the shortest route and that's where the majority of this particular traffic that ultimately is going to be going is, they're going to be parking in the main parking lot, we'll call it, and probably more than likely emanating out in that particular stuzzle and wistfully direction. What do you think, board? Other questions or comments or? Marla, do you have any questions? Oh, sorry, Marty, do you have any questions? Are we ready to move on with this proposal? I think so. I mean, while it would be nice to have the curb cuts aligned, none of the other curb cuts on the entire street aligned. Right. Okay. Let's move on to the next comment. On the last page, number three, we need the project cost estimate so we can determine if the proposed landscaping is adequate. Yes. This one's my fault. I don't think the information was provided to me by the applicant, but it turns out that it was an error thinking it had gone to Marty. It did not. So the project cost is 1.706 million, 1.706. But in this particular case, we're not giving time for staff to basically work through those calculations. So that's my fault. Thank you, David. Do you have a question, Marty? I do, yeah. I'm just doing the math backwards from the provided landscaping budget. It looked like you had the landscaping in order for a 1.25 million dollar project just by my math. So I think that if that is the project cost and the budget as it stands doesn't quite cut it. That's Marty's point. And that would mean that we need to work harder on the landscape plan as far as a more robust program that will have an increased cost to meet the minimum standards. So we would need to come back to you with that corrected program. So thank you. Would that require us to continue this or could it be a condition? No, we need to continue it. Okay. Because we don't know what that additional landscaping and where it's gonna go. Okay. Yeah. All right. Mark is well-tooled on the requirements. So we concur. That's my fault and I apologize. Okay. Thank you. Anything else about this project? Yeah. I'm just with that point to loop back to the first comment since you all do need to add more landscaping. And I think it sounded, you know, their landscaping is currently part of that park lot but it seems like to kind of raise it to that making it an integral component. I guess my statement I would put out there is to start there to look to see if there's any additional to be added while you're upping that landscaping. Okay. Very good. Any other comments from the board before we take public comment? Nope. Okay. Thank you, Dave. Are there any members of the public either here or online who would like to comment? Just giving it a second. I do not see anyone online. No. Okay. It doesn't look like there's anyone here who wants to comment. So I would entertain a motion to continue this hearing to what date? Well, we would need revised materials two weeks before the continued hearing. December 20th is wide open if you think you could get us stuffed by December 6th. I think that's a fair, yes, we can do that. Okay. I think all the heavy liftings been done now we basically need to add some meat to this. Yeah, okay. All right, I'll make a motion to continue agenda item O5 SP, or not O5, SP2202 of 39 Bowden Street to December 20th. Do I have a second? Sorry. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay, Dave, we'll see you back here on December 20th. Very good. Thank you for your time. Thank you. All right. The next project or application is continued site plan application, SP22028 of Riley Cohen Partnerships, LLC, to amend a previously approved site plan for 13,000 square foot contract or building trade facility with outdoor storage. The amendment consists of constructing a 5,500 square foot addition and additional outdoor storage at Four Harbor View Road. Any disclosures or recusals? Nope. Hearing none. Who is here for the applicant? Dan, can you make sure you have the button on your microphone, makes your light bright. There we go. Yeah, Dan Heil, engineer with Trudell Consulting Engineers. Thank you, Dan. Yeah. Oh, Matthew Cohen. Okay, thank you, Matthew. Is this another member of your team? No. No. Why don't you raise your right hand, we'll swear you in. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth on your penalty of perjury? I do. I do. Thank you. Okay. Let's see. We have a staff report. Are there any brief comments you'd like to make before we start to go through the staff report? Nope. I guess I can start out by saying we did submit revised plans. I believe the board saw that majority of this at the last hearing would be updated parking on the north side of the parking lot, updated outside storage, snow storage area. The revision that wasn't included on there would be the revised snippet park parklet. That was previously 340 square feet. We increased that to the 600 square foot minimum for that. And yeah, I think those are the main changes to the plan. Okay, thank you. I'm happy to go through the staff notes too or you guys have any questions. Okay, let's start to move through the comments or the questions and things will come up. All right, number one, the board agreed to discuss criterion 14.06a1 in deliberations. So, Marla, where do we go with this? I know we did discuss it. Oh, okay. There was a whole issue of whether we ask you to put windows in or siding.  Sure, I think where we left off, we were discussing whether or not to put windows in or whether that row of Arbor Vitey across the north face of that building was sufficient or aesthetically pleasing enough from Harbor View Road. There was the point made that if the windows do go in, the Arbor Vitey, once they mature, would block those windows. So our preference would be if the windows went in that Arbor Vitey, at least along that north face of the building, be removed. So those windows would be visible and let sunlight in. But I think from our standpoint, we would prefer that row of Arbor Vitey. So there is consistency along Harbor View Road. That Arbor Vitey will screen the building. The mature height, I believe, for an Arbor Vitey is, yeah, 20, yeah. So that will do a very good job of screening the building there. But we realize it's up to the board and we were kind of wanted feedback from you all on what you talked about during deliberation. Okay. All right, a board, what comments can we offer? I think our discussion was that we felt landscaping was appropriate for these standards. If anyone else from the board is remembering differently, but I think that's what we had determined. Okay. Is that something we can live with? Marla? So to be clear, we wouldn't be requesting anything additional as far as windows or anything like that is where we landed. You said you would not be. We would not be. Yeah. So I guess any other comments before we move on? I think we, yeah, we would. I guess that's that. Yeah, we went back and forth on changing the color of the building, but recognizing your original building is white and whether the windows pattern, stuff like that. But I think we all sort of fell into the landscaping is sufficient that it's gonna screen blend and you know, much of the property. So. Okay. Yeah. It's on my commute to work, watching you. What's that? Oh, it's on my commute to work. It's on my commute to work. Yeah. It'll go, it's on Marla's commute. Yeah. The Arborvide is going in. A big sign. Okay. All right, moving on to number two. The question is, shall the board require another bench? But that will cut into the landscaping budget. I'm looking at the staffer. Staff recommends the board consider whether to require the applicant to provide a second bench pursuant to the above, but otherwise consider this criterion met. Do you want to blow up the landscaping plan to show that parklet? Yeah, sheet nine. And the bench would conflict with some of the landscaping. Right. So they've proposed really robust. So sort of an opposite to the previous applicant who put in a lot of seating and little landscaping, they put in a little seating and a lot of landscaping. Nope, that's not the landscaping plan. I'm going to check the bookmarks. Existing conditions. Yeah, there we go. And then it's in the southwest corner of the building. Yeah, right there. So let me just ask you, do you have any thoughts about this comment? I think our preference would be the one bench. Checking with Matt, you said there were four or six employees there. Four employees during the day. During the day. Okay, yeah. We feel one bench would be sufficient. Okay. Yeah, I think it's got a nice scale to it. With the single bench and then there's plenty of landscaping. It's got a nice scale and feel. Yeah. Okay. So we're good with that. Thank you. And I think that's it for comments. There was one on dumpster enclosure. I don't see that. Where is that? Page four. Oh, how did I miss that? Sorry. Okay, we need details about the dumpster enclosure. Thank you, Marla. Yeah, that would be a six foot high chain link fence with privacy slats and there would be a gate on the front. Okay. We are okay. And we will add that to the plan for final. Okay. Good. Okay. Great. Thank you. Let's ask if there are any public comments about this project? Any online or? Anyone in the audience? No. Hearing none. I would entertain a motion to close this hearing. Make a motion to close the hearing for SP-22-0284 Harbor View Road. We have a second. A second. Any discussion about the motion? All in favor of approving the motion? Say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. Thank you very much. Great. Thank you all. This is for the medical center. Okay. I need to get this up here. Hold on. Give me a minute. Ashley, are you representing the medical center tonight? You're welcome to come up to the front. Okay. The next item on the agenda is continued site plan application SB-20, SP-22032 of UVM Medical Center to construct a one and a half story, 84,000 square foot A4 and six square feet medical office and outpatient facility with associated parking equipment and stormwater treatment on an existing undeveloped 13.5 acre lot at 119 Tilley Drive. Are there any recusals or disclosures? Hearing none. Who is here for the applicant? Ashley Bond with UVM Medical Center. Hi, Ashley. I'm going to swear you in. Would you raise your right hand please? Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury? I do. Thank you. Okay. So you're back. Medical center is back again. Before we start to go through the staff comments and questions, do you have any comments you'd like to make? No, we're here. I believe it's a very simple wrap up for the hearing. Okay. With the final site plan that was submitted by Gail to Marla. Okay. All right. So let's move ahead then. Staff comment number one, we need an update about the tree placement. And this is actually the only staff comment. So what is the latest? The final site plan was submitted. We did not change any of the tree placement from what had been previously submitted on November 1st, where we asked for the continuance. The western most facing trees are as you had requested to be more evenly spaced. We did remove one tree from one of the center islands. Uh-huh. But that was the only change and we moved it to the north side. Okay. And this, how did your discussion with neighbors go regarding this? We had a positive discussion with the neighbors and we understand this is a mutually agreeable plan. Okay. Good. So we're good to go. You're good to go with this. Okay. Any comments or questions from the board? I was just gonna ask. So I know the discussion was whether or not the plan met the LDRs for shade trees and we are gonna be discussing it because there's neighbor requests and I'm seeing this, does this plan meet what we're seeing the regulations? So the regulations are one shade tree per five parking spaces. The, if you look at it sort of in aggregate, they have been meeting for a while. If you look at it on a, you know, area by area basis, I think the two areas that we're in question are the western most bay of parking and the southern most bay of parking, not the stuff up against the building but the, yeah, sort of where it says relocated windmill. I have run the math on those areas and those areas both have greater than one shade tree per five parking spaces. It's like one point something. So we're fine. Okay. Okay. Dan, did you have a question? Can you zoom in on the western side there next to the blue spaces there? There's also a landscaping landscaping plan that has the tree types called out. I don't know if that's what you're aiming at, Dan, or- No, that's helpful. I'm just trying to count the number of spaces there. Yeah, my only worry about on this is, this precedent, really, that's the challenge. The precedent being- The precedent, well, there's nothing in the standards that says trees, placement. It does, it says trees shall be evenly spaced. No, let me finish. There's nothing in the standards that refers to neighbors about trees and views and things like that. So that's my challenge with it. It looks slightly better. Yeah, I understand the principle of cooperating with neighbors, but we're here to enforce the standards. We're not here to, you know, so it also leads to a potential for micromanagement of every other application that comes before us that's got trees along a perimeter. And the intent here is that it's not about screening. It's not one of those screening standards about like, well, we're trying to block commercial warehouses from being seen from an abutting residential neighborhood. It's about reducing, is providing shade and reducing glare. And then there's the question about, trees shall be placed a minimum of 30 feet apart. Is that standard being met? I thought the standard was at least 30 feet apart. Shall be placed a minimum of 30 feet apart, right? So the question is, is that what's going on if it's a minimum of 30? It looks to be- Yes, I believe that's what- Yeah, I mean like the tightest ones look like the ones that are sort of in the middle of the long blue. And that looks like it's three spaces which should be about 30 feet approximately. So that opening along the long blue, that opening right there, thank you. Is that for the neighbor's benefit? Is that, was that part of the negotiation? That's the view shed. Okay. And you'll notice that in the- Island where the windmill is, that we ended up relocating a tree there because that we determined was the view shed. Okay, all right. So where is the windmill now? So there. Oh, okay, all right. The windmill has not moved. Okay, good. There is an existing windmill location depicted on the plan. If you can see it in the blue spaces and we're gonna be moving it to that island. I see. Okay, good. All right. Any other questions or comments before we go to public comment? Okay. Are there any members of the public who would like to comment? Do we see any online? Yeah, Brian Armstrong. Okay. All right. Brian, are you with us? I am. Can you guys hear me? We can. Tell us who you are and what your thoughts are. Brian Armstrong and I'm a resident of 50 Old Farm Road and I apologize. Apparently I missed the meeting a couple of weeks ago, but I'm one of the persons that's been involved, both little Brian is town knows and UDM. And I do appreciate the perspective in questioning the enforcement of standards and that had been set out. I would politely ask, were not those standards dictated by the entire process? Meaning the hearings that we're having, the discussion going at 250 other appeals that go down this road. And so I would argue, there's a spirit of this entire process that is about cooperation. And it seems like from afar, and you guys know the regs better than I do, that the vast majority of the regs have been almost, if not entirely met. You've got neighbors working with neighbors. It just seems like a reasonable request that we're able to create the jobs, get the medical services that we need in going a direction that pleases all parties over potential exception of maybe a tree in a neighbor. Are we looking at the donut or are we looking at the hole? So I hope you guys have been great to work with. I know I've been arduous or being involved. To me, I think this is a plan that works for everybody. And if it's not perfect, I hope the town will see the wisdom and moving it forward as is, because for the most part, it's a phenomenal plan that works for so many aspects of our community, including neighbors, jobs, and healthcare. Thank you. Thank you, Brian. Are there any other comments? Just a question from Ms. Trump. In the spirit of cooperation, will there be any changes as far as legal matters? I would, with the plan that's presented, I think this is a win, win, win. I'm not referring to this application. I'm referring to other applications. The other applications with tremendous respect, I believe there is indication from the town that a sidewalk would be issued on the 126th permit. If that were to go through and this plan were to go through, I would be think this again is a win, win, win for the residents of Old Farm Road, for the town, for the O'Brien's, and for UVM. Thanks. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I would entertain a motion to close this hearing. You'll be done with us. You don't know what we're gonna do on our Tuesday evenings anymore. But thank you, we really do appreciate everything you've done with helping work through this to get to this point. Appreciate it. Yes, thank you. Make a motion that we close SB 22023 on the wrong one. Wait, who's this? Who's this on that? No, that's not the right one. Oh, James, James has been part of the applicant team. He just didn't have anything to say to me. All right, okay. I'm sorry, I didn't recognize you. All right, no. I'll make a motion to close SB 22032 of UVM Medical Center at 119 Tilly Drive. I'll second that. Is there any discussion? Okay, all in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion is carried. Thank you again. Thank you very much. Thank you. Enjoy your Tuesday nights. Don't say that. Don't say that. I know, I know. I brought my coffee. I thought she was like... They're complaining about their Tuesdays. Come on down. Good evening, gentlemen. Good evening. How's it going? We're back. All right, agenda item number eight, continued final plat application SD 2210 of O'Brien Eastview LLC to create a planned unit development of six existing parcels currently developed with three single family homes and a barn and totaling 102.6 acres. The development is to consist of 150 homes plus additional inclusionary offset units in single family duplex and three family dwellings on 11 lots totaling 23.9 acres. 18 commercial development lots totaling 39.8 acres and 25.2 acres of undeveloped or recreational open spaces at 500 Old Farm Road. Any disclosures or recusals? I will disclose as I always do that I purchased a home from O'Brien four years ago, but I don't believe it will sway my opinions. So can I just make a note for the benefit of these folks? I saw Derek join, but then he's not on anymore. So if you need him, that one. He was just for the other project. Oh, okay. So who is here for the applicant? Evan Langfield with O'Brien Brothers. Andrew Gale with O'Brien Brothers. And I'm Scott Homestead, a civil engineer for Crebs and Lansing for the O'Brien Brothers. And I think you've all been sworn in. So I think it would be our preference to start tonight by talking about the roof height issue. So let's find what comment that is because it's kind of detailed. It's just in the cover memo. Oh, okay, right, right. Which I don't seem to have in front of me, but. So give us a little overview of this so that we can discuss this with you. Sure. So I think at a high level, I mean, you guys have been reviewing this. It's now been three years since we started reviewing this at Sketchplan. I think we've had 12 hearings or 11 hearings in a site meeting. So I think everybody's fairly familiar with, both the opportunity that's present, but also the challenges with the site. It's a large site for one. It has a lot of different housing types, a lot of different housing styles. And it also has a lot of different topography, both existing and planned with a different grading, as well as the roads that crisscross the site, the pedestrian paths, et cetera. So what arises as a result of that is there is all sorts of undulating topography that is created. I think what we've found and what we've been working with staff on is to kind of better define what is allowed via this zoning district. We had been working off of one assumption, which was that a waiver was a possibility in this district. It's not a possibility, but we actually don't think that that presents a challenge based on what the land development regulations allow for the development of view board to make a determination on, which is that you guys have the leeway to make a determination on the pre-construction grade. And again, one of the challenge that has been presented here is that because of the land is going up and down both east and west and north and south, you have certain lots that allow for homes at one height, and then you, with the, you know, call it home A, and then on a similar lot, on the other side of the project, you could have that same home that is not permissible because of a height restriction if you're looking at it from a certain aspect, whereas if you're looking at it from the logical perspective, in our perspective or in our mind, which is what the actual height of the architecture is, so the pedestrian experience, that's really what we want to discuss tonight and how to kind of define that. We're also well aware that there is an existing appeal on another project, and so I think this is fresh on everybody's mind as to create a methodology that we can all stick to that doesn't create any confusion down the road, which could open this to appeals or at least markiness and misunderstandings. We did submit a presentation that I think helps to illuminate a little bit of what we're talking about, so I don't know if it's possible to bring that up. And again, just as a preface, we really appreciate everybody sticking with this over the long term. It has been a grind, I think, for everybody involved. I think the result is that we're getting to, I think we're at the goal line right now, and I think we're very pleased as to where we are. We think the project's come a long way. We think it's been a good back and forth, so. Did you want the graph or the diagram? Yeah, it's this one right here. So you can probably advance to the second screen. So this is just giving, actually, if you go back to that, it's actually kind of helpful to understand just from, again, that's Old Farm Road cutting through the middle of it, it's hillside on the far right, and then to the immediate west, yep, so right where your cursor is actually right, just to the immediate right of Old Farm Road is the first phase, which is Leo Lane, yeah, right there. And then you can see on the east side of Old Farm Road are the remaining units. So we can probably advance to the next screen. We just go back one. Sure. And the ones that seems like are majorly in question are the ones that sort of right in front here, and I'm pointing, but no one's gonna see where I'm pointing. Right in the- Yeah, at the bottom of the screen. Then the long meandering line on the left side, whichever those. Right, so there's isolated ones elsewhere, but that's the crux of what our high level discussion is. Yeah, and so I think what we're would like to talk about today is I think you're right on the cul-de-sac that's at the bottom of the screen, which is O'Brien Farm Road extension. There are homes that you're hovering over right there, which are sort of recycled plans from the existing phase, which are the uphill town homes. Don, it's a similar style to what you live in. Those right now are not compliant through our kind of translation, our interpretation. So they do create a little bit of a challenge that we would like to talk through. There are some homes depending on where you measure the pre-construction grade from along Mabel Way, which is the road, yep, right there, that we sort of identified depending on, again, how you look at it, where you assign a pre-construction grade, that could be a problem. And I think that that's sort of the crux of what this slide tries to get at. And I think if, you know, you guys think back to the meeting, the last meeting we had, the reason that this came up, you know, we had been operating under an assumption which potential, which, you know, up until the recent appeal of the height of a home that was getting a zoning permit that had final plat approval, it sort of never entered our minds that height isn't settled by a final plat that approves a plan to be built on a lot in a neighborhood. And so, you know, we raised the issue at that point just to say there's a lot going on on this site, up and down, left to right, different grades. We've not looked at all 155 home lots. We just sort of thought if it's on the final plat and it's approved, it's approved. And so, you know, the request back to us was, we'll take a look at it. And so, you know, immediately as we started to look at it and I said to Scott, well, how tall are these houses? The question was, well, what's the pre-construction grade?  And in our project, it's unclear exactly what pre-construction grade means. And so if you look at the bottom of definition, what it's saying is pre-construction grade means where that grade is set at your final plat in your subdivision process by the development review board. And so if you look at it through that lens, we think that pre-construction grade can be set as the street side elevation of the home, you know, call it the grade of the dirt below the front door. And that if you look at it through that lens, the homes we're proposing work with the exception of the three-story townhomes, which have an extra story. And I think what we've tried to do, and you know, really we spent a number of years working with you guys, is to really emphasize the pedestrian experience, the streetscape. And so again, it presents these problems where you have this undulating landscape where you have a home, you know, call it the clover, which is one of our models on the existing hillside phase that could be on lot 37 over here, that's compliant. And then over here, it's not. And then over here, you could have that same home and it's well below. So you could have it at, you know, 37 feet, you could have it at 39 feet, and then you could have it at 34 feet, depending on where the grade is and where you're measuring from. And so that's the issue we're trying to deal with. But again, what these definitions provide for is clearly that the development review board has the leeway in the purview to assign a pre-construction grade. And I think that was probably the intent of when the LDRs, when this language was created, was to give yourself some latitude because a project of this scale on this type of topography, you're never gonna be able to assign one defined pre-construction grade on a streetscape in the middle of the road and say that's it and have it work.  So if you go to the next slide, I think we just, you know, we wanted to, I think we can actually, you know, I kind of spoke to that already. So we just, we had recently done some 3D renderings of the architecture proposed because we're getting ready to start marketing the homes.  The homes are all within a few feet of each other in terms of the height from the finish floor to the roof peak. There was an outlier home that we were using that was like 27 feet tall. It, we can fix that one. So table that and we've basically where all the homes are within 22 to 25 feet, the two story homes that are proposed. And so you can see here, the biggest home that we're proposing, I think is on the lower left at 25 feet tall and the smallest home that we're proposing is in the middle on the bottom at 23 feet tall, which is the cottage that's being built.  And so in terms of the actual physical structures, they're all remarkably similar. The difference here is how they're placed on the land, what the road is doing and what the site grading around them is doing. That's making it, depending on how you define that, they either work or they don't work. So there's one more slide that just says a few more images of plans. So you can see a few more of the models and variations. Again, our tallest plans are 25 feet and the other plans range from 22 to 25. Is the bottom right one home? Yeah. It's huge. Yeah, so really what we've tried to do throughout this development, actually even more so than on Hillside is provide even more variety. So we have townhomes and duplex and triplex conditions. We have a cottage concept, which we don't currently have, which is a very small home. It's not really a tiny home, but it's a small home in the 1,200 square foot, 1,100, 1,200 square foot range. And then we have kind of, you know, what you would see in maybe the five sisters neighborhood of Burlington. So kind of an old style, you know, post-war with a detached garage. Then we have more traditional homes that you'll see in Hillside. And then we have some larger homes that are on the Mabel way. So we're kind of calling the view lots. Thanks for this clarity. I thought I lived in a Cape, but now I know I'm in a cottage. So since I'm 1,200 square feet by rice. Now I take, we are not architectural definition. It definitely, it's a cottage. The measurements that you're showing here, like the, let's just pick the upper left, 22.67 feet. That's measuring from what to what. So that's from the midpoint of the main gable, but what's it measuring down to? It's measuring down to the finished floor elevation. So there is exposed foundation below that. So what really what we're getting at is that, and we'll get to it on the last slide, but there is additional elevation that needs to be contemplated here to stay within the regulation. So each of these complies on its own from a finished floor elevation, but then you do have to add on that foundation piece, but each of them with the conditions that we have designed would comply. Well, that would allow for a three feet of, you know, distance from the floor to the with the tallest building with the tallest units per person. And what are your floor to floors? So they range, they're different on different models. The biggest models are 10 feet first to second and nine feet on the second. Oh, so 10 foot floor to floor. So nine foot ceilings. Sorry. It's actually 10 foot on the first floor. 10 foot ceilings. 10 foot floor to floor. And nine foot ceilings. And then nine foot plate in the second. And then the other homes are nine feet and eight feet. And I don't think that we have any that are eight and eight. I think they're all nine and eight. Okay. I don't even know where to begin. This is a complicated issue. Can I just ask, do you have one of the ones that shows the 11 foot floor to floor and nine foot plate on the second on one of these? Yeah. So that would be the 25 foot tall ones bottom right there. So that's the difference, essentially in the height of the home. So again, those. I guess it would be helpful to go back to Marla on this issue of our authority to alter the grade because I'm looking at the, you know, the definition, but then we have some leeway. And so I just want to go back to me, that's the crux of what standards we can set to accommodate, you know, or yeah, you got a development that's not on a pulpit. It's not on a billiard table, you know, which is understandable. So I kind of want to know what flexibility we have and standards because that's really what the gist of it is. Do you want to go back to the definition that they have just as most convenient place to find it? So if you zoom into the bottom of that page, kind of ignore the highlighting and just read the whole sentence. The grade shown on the approved subdivision plat shall constitute the pre-construction grade in less modified in accordance with the regulations for alteration of existing grade. So the board does have the authority. It's so the grade on the approved subdivision plat, I read that to mean the plat. So the existing conditions is the pre-construction grade unless the board approves something other. And so the board does have the authority to approve something other. The board has in fact the authority to approve the proposed grade, for instance, like they've done. Right, so I guess my question is what are the standards read that relating to alteration of existing grade? Yeah, so then the standards relating to existing grade or alteration of grade are in 312, which are in the cover memo. If you wanna cover that guy. I can actually read it to you if you want. Might as well just flip to it. You can go ahead and read it, but if you can bring it up on the screen for the benefit of the public too, that'd be great. So yeah. So there's a section B that says, this is the section on alteration of grade. Section B is standards and conditions and approval. And I think the board has correctly pointed out that these are conditions of approval, not actual standards. There it is. Oh, that's the old permit on the 20 cubic yards one. Right, but the definition points to this section. So I think the intent is that you ignore all the stuff. It's like saying there's sections of the LDR that aren't in the form-based code that point to the certain characteristics of the form-based code. And you kind of ignore the stuff that's not relevant and just hone in on the part of the sentence that's relevant. In this case, it's the second part that's relevant. On the next page, which is about standards and conditions of approval. Okay. The development review board may grant such approval where such modification is requested in connection with the approval of a site plan, plan unit development, or subdivision plan. So the board has the authority. Incidental to construction of the structure. Yeah, okay. I'll be structuring a lot of it. And we've been around this a bunch. When I first started, we were going around and around on this for Cider Mill to now refer to as Edgewood, where we had a big conversation about how the homes were gonna have to be higher than that was a fairly level site, right? It's a field. And they were building up the grades on either side of the road, so that the driveways drained. And that resulted in their homes being more than 28 feet from pre-construction grades. So ultimately, the board granted the proposed grade as the pre-construction grade so that they could have 28 foot homes from proposed grade. The problem that we're having here is it's not a flat site. So this applicant is taking from the road and building up a little bit. And then in the case of the homes on Mabel Way, it drops down dramatically. And so when you take the average grade on the front, it's 28 maybe. And then on the back, it's 36 because you have an exposed basement. And so the average of 28 and 36 clearly more than 28. It's, I think one thing to keep in mind with that is that we've really concentrated on the street presence, but on the Mabel Way homes, which are probably the most kind of conspicuous for that point that Marla just brought up, that is also the transition to the industrial commercial area. So those homes are not kind of cantilevered over another residential neighborhood. If you think about, I don't know, probably nine months ago, we were talking about the transition from the industrial commercial to the residential neighborhood. Now we're talking about the transition from a residential piece to the industrial commercial and the impact on that. So to me, a three-story elevation on a residential home isn't negatively impacting a perspective from a three or four-story commercial building looking at it. Whereas, if you reverse that and said, okay, you've now got a three-story building that's overlooking a two-story home on a streetscape, that might be a little bit different perspective. So I think, again, context is very important in this discussion. Yeah, and the other piece, I think worth pointing out is, depending on the grades on the given lots on Mabel Way, it's pretty hard to make even the smallest homes proposed that are two-stories work. And so because of the conditions the road is creating, there's a high likelihood, if you're looking at it, as saying the backyard and front yard average grades, that you're only gonna have one-story homes on the downhill side of that road. And it's pretty hard to make a 22-foot-tall home that has all of the requirements of a marketable home that meets the energy code. I mean, one thing that's sort of silly, but it adds height is that even the depth of the truss heel is gotta be 16 or 18 inches at this point to meet the ceiling insulation, which adds just a little bit of height that is hard to get away from. And there are little things like that, but we really wanted to keep that two-story street presence of all the elevations that are shown in the presentation. If we go back to that presentation slide deck, I think it all kind of wraps it together really on two suggestions that we're making, which is we think that there's two logical ways to define what a pre-construction grade is on a project like this. So we go to the last page. Actually, it might be the second to last page. It's actually a few before the last page. It was the last page until Andrew monkeied with it. So one way to look at it would be, because again, what we're talking about is individual homes and the architecture and their impact on the kind of pedestrian experience. And so one way to look at it would be to take the two street-side corners, so the finished grade corners, and then average out the grade between the two of them, and then measure from that. So that's the finished floor elevation, as well as the exposed foundation. So that's where the finished grade, so call it the grass slash dirt, hits the actual exposed foundation, because you don't bring siding all the way down to the actual grade. You need to have some relief there. And so if you're taking it from that finished grade up to the midpoint of the pitched roof, that's where you're 28 feet. That's where you would have to comply. So that's one way to look at the average from each of the two street-side corners. Another way to look at it, which I think is simpler, but I think kind of gets you to the same point, is just to look at the midpoint, because the home across its way is level, but you could just take the midpoint of the home and again, from a finished grade level and measure up. So we're not cheating in getting that additional benefit of we're doing it from the finished floor elevation, you're still doing it from that finished grade up to the foundation that's exposed. I guess one question would be, what are you doing about grade from street to finished grade that you're then measuring up from? So from the curb to the home? Well, I think that's kind of a question that we really would like Scott to answer, because a lot of it has to do with stormwater management. And so Scott, do you want to speak to it? Yeah. The other one. There we go. Excuse me. So part of the issue with looking at the road elevations is that we have units on the site that are 60 feet wide that are on a street that has a five to 8% slope going down it. So we have units where the finished floor elevation is basically below the road on one end and then you get to the other end and it's up. And so if you think about the road being a diagonal and then a street and then the house being flat across, you could get like we've been talking about 28 feet on this end and 34 on this end. And so this is, and but general talking to Mabel Way in general about the grades from the street to the house, I start when I design, I start at the garage slab elevation and work back to the curb so that back can be generally I like to have one and a half to 2% driveway slope. So it drains back to the road, which we do need for stormwater management because all the stormwater running from the houses and the driveways needs to get into the stormwater collection and management system. And then so I typically, I start with that grade as my starting point and then tell these guys where the finished floor should be from there, because you generally want most of these, I think we're going up about 15 inches from the garage slab to the finished floor and then we go from there. And that's how we sort of, that was our baseline for determining that. And I think that's somewhat industry standard, I would say. I think one challenge, like we looked at a methodology of saying, great base it off of the street grade, but when the street grade is changing five feet across the house, it's like, well, which street grade? So like if we pick the one side, it can work. If we pick the middle, probably maybe still works. If we pick the right side, it doesn't work. And so then it's like trying to find a methodology that's just not impacted by those sorts of things is where we landed on just saying, I mean, I sort of like just saying, what's the grade below the front door? But I think it's something that- Can I get a hypothetical example of if the elevation of the road is zero, how high is the front stoop relative to that? I mean, what kind of distance are we talking about? How close is the house to the street trying to get visually in? Yeah, I think generally, most of the, again, just speaking the maple way, which is most of the discussion is on, I think those are set back about probably 30 feet from the curb or more. And again, many of them, there's probably balancing that cut fill, I think you're gonna find that stoop is maybe a foot or so above the curb, not much at all in general. I wouldn't wanna play gotcha, there's probably a unit where it's- No, but we're not talking about here and like, oh, the door's up there. Yeah, I think Scott mentioned that typically you like to be a foot and a half above the curb. Above the garage, which is maybe half a foot to a foot above the road elevation and up from there. So yes. Everything seems to align in that three-foot range. There are instances where it's off or not, but generally, as we've looked through, 10 different ways of slicing this up, whether it's the road elevation, the midpoint elevations of the home, it's about three feet that you end up needing for whatever metric you wanna pick. And I think in addition to the height of the actual home itself. And for me, like this neighborhood is all about densities, you know? And so it's not urban, but it ain't suburban, that's for sure. So it's, yeah, it's gonna, they're not townhouses connected to each other, but it's, you know, it's when I had that vertical. And this may be where Dan's going, but just to kind of bring it, focus the conversation a little bit. Thank you. The point here is that height waivers are prohibited. You know, Andrew's saying that everything seems to be in the 30 feet or so to the midpoint of the roof relative to the street. And so I think what they're asking for is, and does the board want, does the board think that the project with the homes designed as they are, with the relationship that they have to the street that we've just gone through, seeing how long the driveways are, is that meeting the height standards? And if so, does the board consider this, sort of, I guess I wanna say, backdoor way to get it, getting a height waiver. Is that, is that where we should go because the project does achieve the objectives? So if we, if we don't have the authority to waive the height, you have the authority to set pre-construction grade. Right. My, oh, sorry.  I was just gonna say, my personal opinion is, when a project's this large and we're pretty much setting the aesthetics of it with the design of the project which you presented and we're reviewing, you know, if we don't have the authority to waive height, then we have to look at what they're looking for as a height for a district. And if it's 28 feet, I look at that as the 28 feet is the perception, as you've said, of your pedestrian, you know, feel walking through the neighborhood. So if there's a mechanism that the board is allowed to implement as long as you stay within the confines of 28 feet from, let's just say, the front stoop, you know, to the midpoint of the roof, knowing that, you know, the back of the house isn't gonna meet that and going around the average of it's not gonna be it, but it's the pedestrian way and viewing it from there, I'm okay with finding a way of setting the, you know, pre-construction grade that meets the 28th foot. Isn't, well, there, and it's hard because you can't ride a reg for everything, but the last discussion, even a little illustration in the LDRs assumes that, you know, it's a billiard table and you're standing at the street. And so to me, it's kind of like that. And I don't know whether we define it as curb edge or right-of-way edge. Hypothetically, it's right-of-way edge, right? Because the city could build a sidewalk to the edge of the right-of-way, right? I mean, that's one way to look at it. Right. You know. And I think that the Scott's presentation is that that doesn't really help be more clear. And I don't even hear you saying that, like, we can't do it. I'm hearing you say, because it would make us change the architecture, I'm hearing you say it, because we can't do it because the street isn't a billiard table either. Right, but I do like the idea about midpoint. My idea is that we just don't want something where you're walking along the road and all of a sudden it's one building that just looks out of character and all. So as long as, and you obviously wouldn't want to sunken road, you know, because, you know, so to me it's like we need, it's the intersection of if you were draw a line from the midpoint of the house out perpendicular to the road or to the edge of the right-of-way, what's the grade at the edge of the right-of-way? As one way, just in it follows along. I think if I were to paraphrase what you're saying, if I were to try and implement what you're saying, what I would do is I would go through the plans with the find-to-come again with a specific objective and that specific objective would be to look to see whether there were any anomalies in the way these sites are proposed to be graded and if they're generally proposed to be graded evenly and the home types are generally proposed to, you know, not have a short home next to a really tall home, then I would say that they're meeting what you're asking for. Yeah, and you'll have the elevations of the edge of the right-of-way or the edge of the curb or whatever and that's... But I don't, is that, are you asking to look at the numbers or are you looking to ask it the overall perception? Because I think the difference is if you're looking at the perception, you're looking for differences, not actual numbers, but things that are... I don't mind a short home next to a long home and I think some of a short home next to a tall home or relative are only talking about a few feet here. I don't want uniformity. I'm talking about a way that we can stay consistent with our standards is that, you know, the height limit's 28, we just had a big discussion about this with another project. So to me, that's the rule that we're looking at and we're looking at the... I think most of this has always been sort of interpreted from the view of the street or whatever, typically. Or that's what we've generally done. So I don't know, maybe I'm wrapping myself around an axle here, but I just, I like the idea of tying it to the street because that's something that's very visual to people rather than just sort of the dirt or the lawn or some midpoint of the contour line, you know. So it sounds like we're, well, let me check this out. Are we all in agreement that we're trying to get to yes for this and justify it so that we're true to, I mean, we can't wave the height but are we in agreement that we're trying to find a way so they can do what they propose and it's legitimate in terms of the LDRs? I don't like that phrase getting to yes because that implies that we're just trying to do something that I think we're trying to follow the standards. Marla, have we ever dealt with an issue of a new construction house on where the front yard is at zero and the backyard is at negative five or something or plus five? Yeah, on Medalist Drive, which is one of the golf course projects, they have walkout basements and I did take a look at those plans. The way they got it to 28 feet with the walkout basement is their second story is part of the roof line story. So they have pitched roofs on the second floor. What do you mean by pitched roofs on the second floor? Which road, Marla? I mean, it's like a one and a half story so like the Eve starts at the first floor goes up and the second floor pops out of it. Yeah. Okay. Medalist? It may have been before your time, John, by just a little bit, but it's under construction now. There's a couple that are built. It's just south of Park Road, is that right? On Dorset Street? I see. But that was sort of a later addition to a larger project in a way, somewhat. Cause this is here where we're starting, we're starting it from scratch so we are allowed to alter the grade, so, right. Right, this was homes that were being more built into the topography that existed. I think to your point, like there's a number of ways that you could set this up. I think if you're looking to tie it to the street somehow, it gets a little challenging because the street is going up and down. And so we just need to pick a point in that. Right, so that's, I liked your idea of the midpoint. So you just go wherever that, you got all these little test points along the road. Yeah, and I think, I mean, as long as there's not a house where like the road's going like this, which again could be a problem. And that's kind of, and that could be happening in the site, you know, and that's, I think why? Cause you know, if the road's going like this and ever, I mean, I don't know if that would ever happen, but theoretically you could, and that's why we were just saying, let's just go from, you know, the average, if the house is sitting level at the road and the grade is going like this, it means the road is going like that because otherwise you would, so if you just look at the grade next to the house and take the average at this point and this point, it puts you somewhere in that middle. And I think the benefit that you have based on where we are in the conversation is that you have a grading plan. You know the way this project is designed. And it's not as though we have one house or two houses over here that are up on an an hill that are designed to get the benefit of the views. Unfortunately, we were operating under a different mindset for the last two and a half years, which is how we got to this point. But we got to this point because we were trying to create a really dynamic streetscape. And we weren't trying to, you know, engineer a couple homes to get the benefit of that. It's just the way it played out. And so what we're saying is we think the simplest and most logical way is to either pinpoint the two edges of the street side or the midpoint of the street side. I mean, I understand what you're saying. I just think it actually becomes maybe a little bit more complicated. A little probably. And I don't know that it, I still don't think it necessarily puts any of our homes out of compliance, but it may become harder to track. Yeah, I mean, the right of way would be closer to the house. So the grade would be, you know, higher at that point, it would seem. So I don't know that that would be problematic if the right of way midpoint edge was the solution. I think all of these things, you know, we could end up with an outlier here or there, one or two that didn't work, but largely it should work fine. And again, I forget other sidewalks in front of these houses or no. On not on the downhill mobile way. And I don't think it's, we should focus entirely on Mabel way because this problem is pervasive in the development. So, you know, the homes on Leo Lane may or may not comply. The flat homes on old farm road may or may not comply. Like if you're looking at their height relative to old farm road versus their height relative to their grading plan. And so I think, you know, it's really challenging to not just be looking at the design grades for the site work we're doing and those design grades are the points next to the home. It's a good point.  A number of those likely wouldn't be compliant in this situation either because you're building up above old farm road. And so it really is sort of not related to the home so much as the lot that it's on. And we've already identified one of the homes on Mabel Way where the architecture is probably a little bit too close. That's the one that said 26.75 feet from the finished floor elevation to the midway through the pitched roof. And so we're automatically saying, we're gonna have to change that architecture. We acknowledge that and we're gonna change it.  For one, we think we have nice architecture. I mean, you guys have seen the architecture for a while. We think it works well. It's complementary to one another. We're also additionally, we're tabling 14 duplexes on O'Brien Farm Road extension, which is unfortunate. It's the most affordable product that we have for sale. It's a high density product because it's vertical and it's unfortunate. The high likelihood is that there'll be a reduction in overall density because of that. That'll probably reduce the amount of inclusionary housing that gets built because we're lowering the overall density and it's an unfortunate position to be in. But we don't think there's a path there as the regulations currently exist the way there is a path through the rest of the project. So why, for example, my place, why did that get approved? Different zoning district, that's R-12 versus R-1. Oh right, okay, thank you, thank you. Though it received a height waiver at that point. So there's 14 homes on, what is it called, O'Brien Farm Road extension?  So of the 44 homes that we identified in the memo as being a challenge, that takes off 14 of them. And then there's, I'm just counting. So the 14 of the ones you're referring to, affordable? 14 are the, it's just the lowest price of the market unit, but it's a very affordable plan. But because of the additional density that we get through that, that triggers more affordable units. Marla, I have a question. Is there any reason they couldn't ask for a change in the zoning district there around that one part? No, they definitely could. They could, yeah, no, I mean. Do you mean an adjustment of the zoning district line? Yeah. Didn't that do something, Deirdre? We've already adjusted it as far as the process allows it to be moved the 50 feet that the DRB process allows for. No, I'm about changing it. Like we're doing it for Tesla, so I can't, we do it for you. Oh, absolutely. I mean, that's our intent is to say, hey, this is like phase four, phase five of the project. Yeah. No, I would encourage you to do that because we're, you know, the city's entertaining, we essentially spot zoning for the benefit of a national company. There's no reason we couldn't do spot zoning for affordable housing. These are right on the border of the C1LR.  The four homes on the right side of the screen are actually in the C1LR, and so can get a three-story waiver and be built as planned. And I think that would be our intention and why we're sort of saying we can just table that, we get over the next three years, try and get a zoning amendment, get them back in and get that addressed. So there's 44 homes that we identified in that little graph in the memo that are more than 28 feet. So top of page three, the little graphs. So you can kind of see on that one on the bottom right, all the things that are to the right are homes that are taller than 28 feet. If you slice off the 14, O'Brien Farm Road extension, if you slice off the four in C1LR, and there are another 10 in, no, 14, in the 26.75, that effectively slices off. It shifts that graph so that the height relative to 28 feet is smaller. It gets rid of the peaky ones and it makes them all closer to zero. So if, I know it's sort of a general, my point is that if they make these adjustments, then the scenario that they're proposing to measure it from the ground in front of the building becomes less dramatic. It's a smaller adjustment than four feet or five feet. Scott, let me ask you a question. When you did that modeling on the Mabel Way Homes, did you do all of them at the largest of them? Yes, yeah. So that's another thing too. So that probably narrows that gap even more so. Right, so if you were to make the adjustment, with those three things, the C1LR, O'Brien Farm Road extension, getting rid of the 26.75, it's just a smaller, it's a smaller ask. Much smaller, yeah. And what do you lose in that scenario? We lost that model with those 26.75 feet tall. And I think we can look to try and adjust that. I would say, the permit hopefully could be structured to say as a condition of approval, if we can modify the height of that plan to get it down, that we could still build it. And we would look to try and do that. And then we'd lose the townhomes, but we would go for an amendment to the LDR down the line in front of the Planning Commission. And it would enable us to proceed with the construction and closing the hearing and getting rolling on this project in the near term. And so I think dealing with those issues is perfectly fine in that regard to get moving. I don't think this comes as a surprise to anybody, but we are highly motivated to close this hearing tonight. We actually have a lot riding on closing this tonight with being teed up.  Can I ask you a quick question? This is like more of like a minutia detail, but just something you mentioned before. You mentioned a 16 inch heel trust for, is that just so you can do bad insulation in the ceiling or? Yeah, so it's just like it raises the heel just a little bit and it gives you a few extra inches, but it's just for the cellulose insulation, I think they want like 20 inches at this point in the energy code of continuous. And so it can't like the pitch of the roof can't be like pinching down on the 20 on the end. So you have to jack that up the full 20 inches to get to the, so it's just a weird little. Have you looked at doing spray foam so that you wouldn't have to have that 16 inch? You can gain that roof area back down. Yeah, around the perimeter, we could potentially do that. Yeah, no, we haven't. I mean, it's never, we've never been three inches from failure before on that. But yeah, certainly in terms of trying to get that other plan down, it's something we could, we would look at. Because then you could just put the rafter right on the top plate and then you just do seven inches of spray foam. Yeah, yeah. Okay, so where are we? I'm glad I don't have to summarize what we've talked about because I'm hanging on by a thread. So, board, help me, where are we with this? Where are we headed? Marla, chime in if you can. One of the questions is kind of from Marla, do you think based upon what we've discussed here that you have enough information to write a decision? I need to know if the board's gonna be okay with their proposal. One of the two, they have two proposals. One is to take the two street side corners at the dirt or the second is to take the midpoint of the street side at the dirt. And then Andrew sort of, in the sense your team wasn't in agreement about take the door at the dirt. I think I call the second one the front door dirt, you know, because it's the midpoint of the home. The door's always in the middle. What's the grade right below the front door? That's the one. But does the door actually center of every unit? You know. That's why I kind of like the average of the two corners and it's similar to the average of the Yves. Right, plural. I agree with you Dan, just because it does say two in their average pre-construction grade. So I feel comfortable saying it's the average of whatever's between the two corners of the building. Right, because it also prevents us from getting that anomaly of the front door that then drops down or something like that. You gotta get the middle right. The front door. You know, you can have a garage in five feet down but then you've got to, you're working with a plus two and a half, you know, with your 28 foot. We're definitely comfortable with that. Yeah, sure. So just so I understand, are the lots assigned different housing types? So if I come to you and say I wanna buy, I want this lot, but I want that house on this lot, which is what happened in Hillside for a lot of, this is a different deal. So there are the difference between, so Hillside had on single families, you had a downhill home condition, which had a slew of houses. You had an uphill home condition on single families, slew of houses, and then the same thing with the uphill and downhill townhomes. This has similar, except it has more different kind of zones that we're playing with. Okay. And so on Mabel Way, you have a number of homes that you could put there, but you couldn't put those homes on Leo Lane. Okay, got it. Thank you. Thank you. We had a lot of like, there was a ton of stuff to deal with, you know, it's kind of like silly, but like on Leo Lane, you could only build like a home that was like 50 feet deep on one section, right? So we had to design plans that were 50 feet deep versus on other homes, you could build a deeper plan that was narrower, right? So you, and so it's kind of set up for footprints that fit within the setbacks. Okay, thanks. So I feel like I've heard, you know, three members feel like they could live with the two street side corners at the dirt as the adjusted pre-construction grade. That's less than a majority of the board. So I'd like to hear from some more folks before we decide that this issue is concluded. And if not, I mean, you can decide in deliberation, but if you're going to do that, I would suggest keeping it open, keeping the hearing open, because if the answer is no, it's not going to fly.  I can live with it. Yeah, you were one of my three though. Okay. I would agree with that approach too, and just say that I think based on the discussion we've had here will be in the details of how we write the decision to make it clear why that works in this situation for a number of factors. So I agree with them, the average of the two. And I have to admit, I'm hanging on to this, understanding this by thread, but I trust other people, so I'm good with it. Okay, John. Yes. Am I on mute? We heard you. I'm sorry? He was asked to be on mute, I said we heard him. We heard you, yeah. Great, thank you. All right, are we ready to move on then? Okay, so let's... This is only one item. I do. The next ones are gonna just seem really straightforward. That's why we wanted to start it early, Mark. So we... See, I told you I didn't jinx this. We are... I just jinxed this again, didn't I? We are looking at a draft decision here. So let's go through and work on the issues. There is a table. The comments start at the table and then we'll move on whatever page that is. I can't see, page three. So let's move to number one. During deliberation, some members believed this phase should be complete prior to issuance of the 100th zoning permit. Staff recommends the board discuss. Is this the clause related to the completion of the sidewalk that's been the issue of debate? Yeah. Okay. And how many 125 units is 125 of what total? And 55? No, this is not about the sidewalk. That's the... This is just the barn improvements. No, it's a sidewalk. Sidewalk within, like next to the barn, sorry. Oh, okay. Oh, yes, so I see that. The Old Farm Road sidewalk. Number 28 is number eight. We're talking about... Phase nine. 125 out of 150? 155. 155. So that's 75. I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. There's 155 homes in this phase. Okay. I won't belabor the point, but it's amazing that we would build almost, essentially almost completely build out the whole thing before we do a pedestrian and livability and electric bikes and all the things that we're trying to promote and that our rec path committee is trying to promote and our recently adopted climate change plan that we're city council adopted. And yet we're holding off on building this. What are we calling it? Is it called a rec path or a bike path or something? Oh, this is, sorry. Maybe it'd be helpful if we pulled up the... It's the rec path from Old Farm Road to... No, no, no, it's which one is? It's just the sidewalk on the... We're just jumping ahead a bit, Dan. We will definitely get to that. Okay. So there is the pedestrian connectivity that's already being constructed and well in advance of that. It's being constructed as part of the first phase. So it's running parallel to the sidewalk that we're talking about. It's just on the other side of the street. Yeah, there's another document. So the comments related to the rehabilitation of the red barn on Old Farm Road and the addition of the picnic pavilion on Old Farm Road. And so we had proposed that as 75% completion. We had proposed the completion of the natural playground with the slides and the benches and everything which is on the west side of Old Farm Road at I believe the 75th zoning permit. And we had proposed the completion of the open space field on lot 18 at the 30th zoning permit. And so we do have a staggered implementation of open spaces that correlate to the phases where we're building and which allow for the project to sort of fund itself as it moves forward in a logical fashion. I think especially given the increase in interest rates and the sort of woes in the market for housing that front loading too much stuff becomes risky. And so we've tried to space these investments out in a way that makes sense in a way that sort of builds over time. I talked through previously during the phasing discussion. So just as like a kind of recap. And so you can see on this plan the phases where the parks are located in the red on the west side. And then you can see the barn amenity there in yellow. And the barn amenity is a very large investment in the community. It's oversized for the 155 homes honestly and being delivered sort of in conjunction with the entirety of the PUD. And so that's why it's sort of set at that 125 threshold. It will be completed before the build out of the neighborhood but try and space it out. So what are our thoughts board? What are the chances that it won't get built? So sorry. The board kind of set this 125, previous hearings kind of agreed that this 125 number was representative of a number that would be sufficiently an incentive that the applicant wouldn't choose to like say, get to the 100 and get to the 90% point and be like, you know what the barn costs more than we're gonna make off of the last 10 homes. So let's not build the barn. The 125 number was intended to be a point at which, you know, they would still want to build more homes therefore the barn, if it were 125, it would get built. But I think that the reason board members previously felt that maybe 100 was a better number is because they wanted a bigger spread on when the amenities would come online. So if you go through the, there's some open spaces that are proposed to happen at the, what the 75th ones, the first ones coming online, lot 18 and 19. Lot 18 at 30, lot 19 at 75, lot barn lot 35 at 125. And to be clear, I mean, the PUD has 400 units in it. So it's not, it's like in the first 25% of total units. And that's not counting, you know, tens of thousands of square feet of commercial space. I mean, in terms of traffic density, we're probably talking about 6%. I think we calculated at one point, 6% of overall traffic is associated with 155 homes. So if you're looking at it from that perspective, like this is being built within the first three or 4% of impact or trip end demand, which would be your sort of user base thoughts. I guess one way to look at it is which, which of the phases are something sort of in the public domain, sidewalks, roads, traffic improvements versus a dog park. Or yes, it's a lot, you know, barn recreation area, amenity. Obviously I could go walk on there. Hopefully nobody would say, hey, you don't live here. You know, but it's sort of tied in with a development or a playground or something. So I think to me, that's how I think about some of these things, you know, infrastructure type stuff is something that doesn't have to be built at unit number one, but we want to be more aggressive about, you know, so that's how I view it. So I guess as we go through these different phases, think about that. So if I could just make one comment there. So I think our thinking on the, you know, if you look at that, you know, to your point, Dan, of the sidewalk is sort of part of the road. And so that's sort of kind of the quasi-public infrastructure that's being put in versus even though the barn lot that we are intending it for the public, that's sort of an amenity that's beyond kind of pedestrian infrastructure. The way we phased it is tied into the construction of that overall barn lot because there's a lot of work that has to go in there and we don't want to mobilize sidewalks. And then the other piece too is that it is, I'm not saying it's totally redundant, just because you have something on the other side of the road that's parallel to it, but it's not as though there isn't that pedestrian connectivity. It's not as though you've just got a road that doesn't have a way for pedestrian to get it down. Okay, where do we go from here? I mean, if the, I think this might give you heartache applicant, but I think that the board has kind of heard the argument and we can deliberate on it. Okay.  We're okay with that. Okay, okay. All right, let's move on, number two. I don't want to read this whole. Don't think that there's an issue with number two. It sounded good to us. I mean, I think if you want to read it for your benefit, but we're grateful for that. I think relocating Old Farm Road, we don't want to be owning that road after we relocate it. It's a major city street. We can't be responsible for plowing it. So that was the intent there was, hey, we're gonna build it curb to curb. We're gonna redirect from existing to new and the city needs to take that right away. Like we can't be, otherwise we're just not gonna open the road. And I think the intent there is to say, if we've completed the road and the city hasn't taken over ownership, our 126th zoning permit should issue and not be held up by the fact that the city council isn't taking the road because we don't want to be responsible for owning a city street that's a major, you know, not just a little road serving our homes. It's, so that was the intent there was to craft. Is there any reason why we wouldn't, you wouldn't want to potentially speed that up to be able to hand it off to the city before 125 units? Well, we absolutely will. I mean, the 125 is the end. I mean, we're not gonna start building a, that's gonna take two years to get that road built. So I think it's, you know, it's just, you have to have an end date to have it complete. That's what we worked on with on staff as opposed to a start date to have the leverage be the end date that you have to deliver. But I think the, just the fear there was to just say, hey, like if we've built this whole road, compliant to the plans and the city council decides they don't want the road. You know, well, I don't know that we can't control what they're doing. We just don't want that to then stop our project. So that was just kind of clarifying that. And it sounds like staff comment supports that. So I think we're all on the same. All right, let's move on. Number three, staff continues to recommend phase eight and phase 10 be combined into a single phase to reduce permitting complexity on an already incredible, incredibly complicated project. Are you okay with that? I would rather not. I mean, it's just changing the plan that's been set that we've been talking about. I mean, we've provided infrastructure budgets for all 10 phases. I mean, it seems to make things more complex to me that I have to then alter the infrastructure budgets and I have to alter all of our internal budgets. I have to alter all of our contracts with our subcontractors that are broken out via these phases.  So here we're talking about, sorry, can you see on the right there's sort of the teal color and there's a little green blip above it. Those are the two things we're talking about being combined. So how important is that Marla given the headaches it will create for the O'Brien? Well, I think that it would be really unfortunate if the old farm road gets relocated and completed and accepted by the city and the little green part doesn't get extended.  It's gonna look pretty silly. And so that's where we're coming from with that. Yeah, and I think the phasing plan says they're completed simultaneously. So the green phase is tied to the turquoise phase. Like they're not, it's just a budgeting thing. Like I just don't wanna renumber all the phases because it goes to all of the infrastructure budgets. Oh, can we just, so it's just a numbering thing. So they are gonna be built at the same time. Same time, yep. So Marla, does that resolve it? So we can write a condition that says phase eight and phase 10 to be built simultaneously. Well, not just built simultaneously but must be part of the same zoning permit. Yeah. I mean, that's fine because they're both gonna be due by the 125th permit. Right, okay. So I think it's, yeah. That's fine. I'm fine with that. I just don't wanna have, we don't wanna just have to combine, like I said, it's just all the estimates, all the contracts with the subcontractors. It's all set. I want Andrew having an aneurysm, so you gotta need them. We got more things to talk about to get to there. No, it's just a easy one. Number four, the applicant has requested the fitness elements of this phase be not installed until phase 16, which is tied to the development of the ICLand staff recommends the board discuss. So going back to the map, just to point out where this is, sorry. The dark red phase in the middle, right where your cursor is, this is the fitness trail. And so they've asked that the fitness trail equipment I guess, like the push-up bars and things, that the trail itself go in, but not the push-up bars and things until the light green along the bottom of the outside of the page. Yeah, I mean, the intention here is like, this is a, it's an exercise loop. There's like eight stations. I think one of them or two of them are on in the maroon part. And it was just like, why are we gonna put like one work-up station in when we don't even have the complete loop built? Like it just seems like it's fine to have a little walking path through there, but like what are people really gonna do with this? Because the majority that goes down and around. Up and back, yeah, exactly. If we're not doing the whole loop, like let's just, we're obviously gonna finish that because it's downhill of all of these homes and we should finish it and put the paths in and stuff. But we can come back when we permit, build the rest of it and add the rope climb station and that type of stuff. Makes sense to me. What do you think, Mark? I'm agreed. Okay, all right. Let's move on. Number five, the board directed the applicant to separate phase 11 and phase 12. So there would be additional open spaces developed prior to the 50% point and the C1LR zone. Since this phase is necessary for access to phase 11, staff considers it should proceed that phase and recommends the board direct the applicant to reverse the triggers. Can the triggers be reversed? So. Do you have a plan? I think the plan would be helpful. So this is talking about that same dark red again and the dark green to the right that includes the dog park. Is the dark green the archeological area? It's the archeological area. It's the dog park and the playground. So I think that the solution here it might be to connect the red over to the brown via the walking trails. I mean, as we've talked about this with you guys over the hearings, the playground and the dog park have been tied to the development of the C1LR area. That's a big amenity. And you've already got the barn and the natural playground and a lot of 18 open space and those things. So it's a total oversight that you know, we're not going to build that to the edge of the maroon. Like we would connect it up over to Mabel Way where the brown and green are all intersecting. And I think we could easily just change, so the playground and the dog park would stay a future phase but that loop would be complete. So you can walk from Mabel Way down and then back up through on the rec path and around to everything. And that's just an oversight. So wait, clarify when does the dog park and the playground get triggered? So we had discussed that previously as we were using a 50% of the PM peak hour trips from the C1LR zone. And the intention there was to say we might build more commercial and not residential so we weren't using zoning permits because you could build six or eight commercial uses, no dwellings and then not trigger it. And so we were sort of trying to find a method to say when we get to half of the trips we're hoping are gonna be there. Staff brought up a good point when we were talking about this with them yesterday that maybe we need both. Maybe we need to say 50% of trips or 250 zoning permits or something like that so that it's also not the case that we just build a bunch of residential and then don't end up building the park because the residential has a low trip count. I think we're open to any of those suggestions. Just this is intended to be an amenity for the C1LR. And so I think tying it to the residential phase would be a departure from what we've been talking about. A lot of the question, a lot of this is obviously this 125th unit and I most probably would not paying as much attention as I should have at prior meetings but where does the 125 come from? Why was it chosen? I think it was just a reasonable amount of homes coming online that were actually occupied as opposed to under construction because there are other amenities that are coming online beforehand. So it's partially regionalized where the homes are located, making sure that there's amenity for them. And then as you're bringing on other homes, you're putting in infrastructure that supports them but part of it is just having the density that supports the investment and also justifies the level of amenities. Okay. And then some of the, are any of the high density or some of the affordable units that have been talked about? We talked about a prior meetings if it was some at properties or some was talking, when you, some of the potential projects was, you know, a quote unquote, affordable apartments. That would go towards that 125 count if there's units in there? No, so the 125 count is for this residential phase because the multifamily zones have their own amenity packages. They're gonna get the benefit of everything that's built as part of this the same way, you know, all the hillside, all of the hillside east and all the multifamily, it's all gonna be shared and open to the public, but each of them has their own triggers for what they have to deliver as well. But there is, the summit project is in hillside. So it's a different, it's a different permit. Okay. And there is a park immediately adjacent to that. The summit project has the natural playground backing up. So the hillside's more to the northeasterly? Yeah, so if you scroll up, you can see the park that's getting delivered at the 75th permit and that park backs up and has an actual physical staircase connecting to the affordable housing project that summit is doing on a lot of them. You can see their project, there are a lot 10 and a lot 11 and you can see the playground at hillside on lot four and you can also see the new playground butting up behind them. Okay, so I'm just, for Claire and I know I'm, let's get through the rest of the points and then we'll take the last phase 17. That's the, I'm just trying to. Okay, are we ready to move on? Number six, during deliberation, some members believe this phase should be complete prior to issuance of the 100th zoning permit. Staff recommends the board discuss. And that was. Okay, there it is, number one, 16. That's the sidewalk, correct? Right, from this development down to 116. Right. Look, can I just see the, go back to the, can you go back to the map? I'm trying to get a sense of the 125 or, the 125 is a subset of 400? No, the one. Yeah, it's a sub, I mean, there's a, I believe around 400 units in the, I don't have it memorized, but there's, it's something like that. And it's, and it's, it's, it's right. It's not, it's not the, it's not the apartments. It's just primarily the single family unit. No, there's 155 homes proposed for final plot. And there's 400. So the, the 125th zoning permit is triggered just on the 125th of the 155 single family and town homes in this phase. There are 115 homes in the existing hillside phase. And then there are 94 units going up with the two, two summit buildings currently. So I'm trying to. And the density of this PUD is around 400. Right, okay. But for this particular application, we're really, we're talking about a 125 out of 155. Okay. Yeah. And I'll, I'll be blind. I, I can't live, I can't live with that.  It's kind of like the same thing around the issue of like, and I don't know how to tie it to, we don't have a, obviously don't have like a trigger, like with a traffic count trigger or we can kind of play where there is no like, you know, well, regional planning commission has already got monitoring of how many pedestrian because there is no existing path there, but I just, I just, you know, it's, it's. But I guess my question would be what aspect of it can't you live with? Because we are delivering other amenities and infrastructure in advance. It's just a portion of the amenity infrastructure package that's triggered on 125. And if there's nowhere to walk to, because the homes aren't built, what's the point of the sidewalk?  Well, no, it's, it's the point of, it's the point of waiting, not putting in a sidewalk until essentially 80% of the homes are built. 125 out of 155 are called 75%. Putting in that portion. Because we are building other sidewalks and rec paths in advance of that with the pieces that are connected to the homes. Right. I just know that we're gonna have 124 families that have no safe way to walk from, I guess it's north to south. That's kind of my point. Yeah. You know. No, I'm in agreement with you Dan. I mean, I know this is a negotiating point and it's a negotiating point, not just between the board and the applicant, but again, bringing in the neighbor. But, you know, it really, for me, it's the same thing. It goes to not providing an amenity. It's more of a safety feature. You know, you're adding 124 families who, it's not just the families who are gonna be walking, but the additional traffic on that road where people do walk, you know. And I know it's a completely different, you know, experience right now compared to what it's gonna be like when these things start getting built. And you're just adding a public safety hazard that, you know, 100 is like my bare minimum, you know, for when that sidewalk should be built for the amount of additional traffic and pedestrians are gonna be, you know, existing within the confines of this development down to 116. I know there's alternate routes, but people 99% of the time take a path of least resistance, which is get on the road, walk straight down. So. And I think that's a valid point. But where are they going? And I think right now people walk down Old Farm Road because there is no other route. When well in advance of the 125th, there is going to be, I mean, you just heard and closed the hearing on the project that is going to be providing of which we are paying 450% of that pedestrian connectivity across that property going to Tilly Drive, which is what most of this connection has been discussion about is how do people get from Old Farm Road to Tilly Drive to the market? Because walking to the end of Old Farm Road doesn't get you anywhere, except a really dangerous intersection that nobody, no pedestrian in the right mind is crossing because you've got the pedestrian infrastructure going the other direction and across community to community drive. So. I think we could very easily commit to having the connection to Tilly Drive built, to our property line well before the 125th unit. It's in phase two of the development. I mean, it's the second infrastructure phase. It would be happening right out of the gate for the project. And so we could add that to the phasing plan with a trigger, a zoning permit number for sure. Would that help you, Mark and Dan? I missed what was said. I was thinking about the previous statement. Which is the Leo Lane phase two connection? So there's on where Barn Road is. Drive and Barn Road. So coming on the south end, southeast end of Old Farm Road and that connects at that little spur there. That will connect across the UVM Medical Center's property to the rec path on Tilly Drive, which then walks up to the store. I could say that if, this is city right away. And if the city wanted to build a sidewalk, it could do it. We tend to extort our pound of flesh out of developers like you, just cause it's easier. Like you guys build it, you're doing something. So that's, we see, build a bike path. Do this, build a road to city specs and we'll take it over. So it's not, you, what's the word? The burden shouldn't have been placed solely on you. If the city believes in its vision of transportation and safety, they should have just built it itself. Well, I think the argument there is that it wasn't needed till this development went in. Right, right. But we're making the developer look like the bad guy offending the neighbors and stuff. Yeah, and I would actually make the argument that there's probably has been a need up there for years. But I think the intention has been that O'Brien brothers at some point was going to develop it. And so it's been put off. I mean, that's speculation, but I think that's a widely held belief that improvements have been made to old farm road because of that reason. I think it's, you know, I don't want to steer away from the sidewalk, but the sidewalk connection was tied as a request of the board to the relocation of old farm road. And you asked the question of where did the 125 come from? I've spent months laying out this project schedule how to fund this project, how to bond for this project, because we have to pay for everything twice because city makes you have that amount of cash available to them to take over their infrastructure. And it is incredibly difficult to build this project and to make everything be able to be funded. And that was where we were able to land on the timeline. So it wasn't just a meetup. Hey, let's get to 75%. It was, we need to be paying to build Leo Lane. I need to be paying to build the park next to Leo Lane. We need to be redoing the barn and we can't be doing the barn, but the barn is right next to a bunch of new homes we just sold, right? So like that's an imminent resident impact. And so there are all these competing priorities. And when we balanced it out, that was where we could get to. So it wasn't just arbitrary. That was another part of it was how to make this work in a way that we know we can make work. And we've been, I think, pretty good about delivering on our commitments because we do our homework to figure out what we can commit to and what we can't. And I think moving the relocation of Old Farm Road up to the 100th permit, tabling the sidewalk. The sidewalk is a small item, but they're tied together. And I think that Old Farm Road to Relocation is an enormous project that needs that space. Okay, thank you. So where are we with this? Deliberations. Okay. What did you say, Mark? Deliberations. Yeah, I guess so. I would just make a very strong request. There is a lot riding on that component. And I know that, you know, no one wants to feel any pressure on that point, but it is, I mean, it will stop this project. So just keep that in the back of your mind when you're making the decision on it. Okay. Thank you. And to that point, I believe that in our application, we propose the language that would help to sever the issue and I'll reiterate that in a submission to you all, just to make sure that it's in the... So if you're asking the board to close, you can't submit new stuff. Okay, well, it's in the original application. So I'll just point, I'll send you an email that just points out where it is if that works. Thank you. Can I just get one clarification for deliberations? The 125, you're saying was based on 75% of the units being built? I think that's quick math. You know, I'm saying that it was based on when we knew that we could deliver it from a funding perspective and a timeline perspective in a logical sequence across the development of the project. And I know you don't build everything out, then move on to the next phase. Sometimes you finish certain percentage, then you open up the next phase, but how many units are in the Leo Lane? 45. About 45. And then how many is in the Daniel Drive Barn Road and South Mabel Way phase? 49. Okay. And then Mabel Way North? Mabel Way North would be another, I'm not sure. I haven't done as much work on that. I guess the question is, where are all the units getting built to get to 125? Well, what's gonna be left? Or is it opening everything up, you know, at some point and you're gonna fill in the lots? We're gonna move very expeditiously through Leo Lane, which is the first 45 units. Sure, because it's right there. Yeah, and we're also including all the affordable units there too. So we have units that we're building at a loss there to actually deliver them up front. And then Daniel Drive is a very dense road too, as is Barn. So I think we're delivering a lot of units right up front which gets us close to that number.  They're the bigger homes, they have the higher price tags. And we're also gonna be moving sequentially on Leo Lane. So similar to the town homes, whereas on the single family homes at Hillside, you could pick a lot. We're gonna be moving sequentially down the road. So it makes it easier for construction. It also makes it kind of less choice for the buyer for better or worse. I'm trying to think of like all of the details, you know, of the phasing and the conversations we've had with contractors. But I think that there's some work being done where Mabel Way and relocated Old Farm Road connect. And so I think the theory was that we need to be building Mabel Way all the way through because there's also like utilities for Mabel Way or drainage or whatever that are running down the new Old Farm Road orientation. And so I think the theory is to get around on Mabel Way and then get Old Farm Road reoriented so that everything sort of comes together in sort of a logical fashion. One other thing too is that if it eases your concern at all, Dan, is that we're not gonna wait again until the last second because we're gonna have a lot riding on hitting that deadline. Because otherwise we're dead in the water. And ourselves leave the site and we're gonna be like, oh man, we should have started that six months earlier. If you recall, we originally proposed a start date and an end date. Like we said, we'll start by the 50th zoning permit and end by the 100. And then we said, that's too complicated. Let's just do an end date, which is how we wound up at 125. But I do think originally we gave you a sort of idea of when in the process we would be getting the improvements underway. One last quick question. And the gray section, which is the Old Farm Road sidewalk essentially, because that's off quote unquote off of your property. How many linear was like 300 feet? 250 feet? 500 feet? I would take it was more like 500. Yeah, okay, right. And roughly what's the cost per linear feet of sidewalk? Sidewalk costs about $8 a square foot. And then I would say this one's a little more. Yeah, because you got the complex. Herb costs $26 a linear foot. It's not an easy thing to install. Right. Is there, what's a ballpark cost for that? Well, we have to relocate all the, some of the power poles, you know. I think we have a, it's an expensive project. So like 300,000 a million? Not a million, 300,000 to 500,000 I think. Maybe a fair estimate. Thanks. Okay. Moving on, I think we're getting to the end. Number seven. Staff recommends the board require the applicant to revise the mixed use design guide to have a maximum of four stories. So this, I think just, I think we're just like crossing our, we were misspeaking here and communicating on what we're doing in this area. So we provided, you know, the vision board that you guys saw with the different buildings on it and everything else. And we referred to buildings as four stories. And anytime that we referred to something as four stories, it was not counting a parking garage level. So it was four stories of the product, whether it was residential housing or mixed use. And I think there's some confusion because the parking is actually a story. And so if the design guide is approving four stories and the parking is a story, then we're not getting four stories over the parking. And so we had asked about just clarifying that. And I think, you know, that's where this is. But you would, it made somewhere in here that the, yeah, it's number two above. So if you were to pan up just to the previous page in the black text, number two talks about the number of, talks about the height of the garage and how it wouldn't be part of the stories because it doesn't. All we're looking for is the same height we have on the summit buildings, the same height we have on the approved hillside lot 13 and 15, which is the four stories of residential over a parking story. Again, with the grade, the parking story is likely to be exposed on one side because of the hillside. And so that's where we're sort of saying. So I think if you're good with two here, then you are good with the staff comment because that's just, it's the two things go hand in hand. If two says your buildings are four stories and the garages aren't gonna be a problem, then three- Underground parking not being considered a story. In the condition here, the board finds that the board intends to approve a waiver where necessary if the garage is substantially below grade and would peer to a casual observer to not meet the definition of a story. So if you're good with that, then I think you kind of have to be good with three because then it's saying the same thing. It's saying you get four stories of stuff and the garages. Yeah, if it's four stories on top of a parking garage, that's what we're looking for. I think I'm gonna get confused by the terminology, but we're looking for a parking garage and then four stories on top of it. Four stories over a podium base is really the way we refer to it. A podium being the parking component with four occupiable stories on top. I do believe the design guide mentions a fifth story, which in our mind, or I guess by this logic, would be a sixth. We definitely don't need that. Right, and that's what this comment's saying. So we don't need the sixth story. Right, that's exactly what that's saying. We can amend it to remove that and be four stories over a parking garage. That's no problem. So if you ever propose a five-story building, it's a surface parking garage with four stories above. Correct. Yeah, of occupancy. Yeah. Okay, let's move on to eight, several pages down. Explain to us how the dog park will function with a wooded area near the entrance. I apologize, I spent a lot of time looking at height and not a lot of time looking at this wooded area, but I presume if the wooded area's in the way of the fence, we need to just remove it and we can alter the plans to remove it or if it's something that can be worked around, we'll work around it. So I don't know if you wanna pull up what the specific, I mean, we're happy with whatever you guys come up with here. I mean, I don't... I think we should pull it up because there wasn't a suggestion. It's that you, it's not, it's, there's entrance to, it's like the last landscaping plan. Yeah, it's like the L, yeah. I think that might be it. No, dog park two up from there. So up at the top, you can see that white cloud. Oh yeah. It's kind of in the middle of the dog park and it's right by the entry. Yeah, I think, I remember this. I think we'll just put the fence around it. So... What? There's no, there's no grating happening in there. I think the idea was the dogs will like run around in the woods. I like that idea, you know? Yeah, I think it's, the question wasn't so much that there shouldn't be woods in the dog park but maybe they shouldn't be right in the entry because that's going to be the biggest... Yeah, it looks like, I mean, the cloud is just a little bit in there. I think, you know... No, we're not talking about specifically in the entry area but the fact that once you leave the entry area you're immediately in woods as opposed to in an open area. And is that a good idea? And the dog park committee... Well, isn't there another entrance further down? There is another entrance.  If they're scrubbed or little three or four inch trees you're going to clear those out. So it feels more like one of these open wooded forests like Red Rocks or something like that. But that's... Sure, the dog park people are getting pretty vocal about what they want, exactly. But this is an improved plan, right? So if it says existing wooded area to remain and the intention is to do something else then we need to change the plans to say what the intention is because I can't go out there and approve a CO for something where you've done something other than on the plans. Got it. Yeah, I think I would say, I mean, we're not just going to like leave a bunch of untouched scruffy woods there. So I would say, you know, maybe pruned existing woods or something. Pruned. Selective clearing. Neat. Neat. That's not weasel. That are wooded. Any trunks below six inches, breast height gets removed. All branches up to eight feet are cleared. So it's just trunks and open. Anything like that would be good. We can provide language if you, you know, or if you guys just want to say. Well, I think if they're going to close it, we're not allowed to provide language. So I think all of that sounds We're comfortable with what you put in there, Marla. Our intention would be to make that a nice like. Right. The feature. Yeah. All right. Number nine, we'd like you to indicate the limits of tree clearing on the erosion prevention and sediment control plan. I could do that. I did have one question. I think there's a typo here. It says a lot 124 and the IC district. And so I wasn't, I think I know where you're talking about, but I wasn't 100% sure. What I'm guessing is that you actually mean between a lot 24 and the C1 on large. Who's talking? Can't hear really. Sorry, John. He's moving up to the podium. So yeah, I think there may be a typo in the comment. It says a lot 124 between the residential area and the IC zoning district. And I was looking at this this afternoon, and I think you might be referring to between lot 24 and the C1LR district, but I wanted to confirm that from Marla or someone. That's what I thought you were probably referring to was right there. I think what we're referring to here is the plant. No, it's sort of. Yeah. Cause there's no lot 124. What's the big open? Was it 47? 47, yeah. I think it's 47 that there's like some wooded areas to remain and there's not tree protection. Yeah, it would be helpful if you could point that out because I'm not sure where you're referring to. All right, like you were saying, this is a lot of work. It's also a lot of work on our end. I feel it. So sometimes we're losing our minds here. I mean, there's no objection to putting tree clearing limits on the, you know, just sort of. That's absolutely true. We can probably just say yes and move on. So it's a plant coordination thing. Okay. We'll make a note that the actual words need to be fixed. Okay, good. Thank you. Moving on to 10. What did you work out with a fire marshal? I think, you know, we had a good meeting with those guys. I believe that where they landed was just many of the things they listed in here, you know, they're okay with the roadways. They've asked us to submit some alterations to like the curb radiuses at the turns. They've, they want the, like a bigger radius, or maybe it's a smaller, but like they want to be able to turn the corner without hitting the curb better. They want us to relocate some street trees at the intersections to make sure they're not like bumping into them when they turn. Notable curbs. Some amountable curbs. No parking signs. Some locations and a whole bunch more known parking signs added. And I think our intention was to work with them on a, you know, phase by phase basis to hopefully get, you know, make those changes as an administrative, you know, thing at the, before the zoning permits issue. But nothing, nothing unreasonable in the package center. I don't think we settled on that. That we didn't need that. So people. You haven't settled on the package center. They agreed that it wasn't necessary. Okay. So delivery vans can go on the street? Yeah. They can't go on the, on the lane. Okay. East view, is it East view lane? The private alleys. They don't want them. Right. Okay. Which we have to probably provide some signage about. Okay. All right. Number 11. I think we've covered moving on to 12. What's 11? For my notes. A height. Okay. Thank you. And all of the, just for the record, all the blue stuff we've dealt with, you know, we've met with all those agencies. Everything looks good. There's no issues there. So number 12 says members were divided on this final sentence and agreed to discuss in deliberation. So let me see. Should the applicant later wish to use the construction staging area for construction in the C1LR or one C zoning district or there being unanticipated but finite delay, they may apply for approval to do so at that time. And so we did, is it, can I share what we talked about in deliberation? Yeah. So I think the board agreed that our preference would be for you to close it down and reapply to open it up later. Well, not necessarily close it down, but if it, if the application is in before they've finished construction of the 155 homes that they could just keep, keep going. Great. But if it was more than 18 months. Okay, sorry. Yeah, we talked about this on the 10th or the 6th, I think we're okay with the 18 month. There's no permits for 18 months. It has to get removed and that is what it is. Okay. I think that's it. Are there any other questions or comments, Dan? Did you say you wanted to say something else? You're good. Everybody else good? We had added a couple of notes to the back of that presentation we submitted today knowing that we wouldn't be allowed to submit anything after tonight if you closed the hearing. Just a few little cleanup items. So like the owners of record are, you know, and then there were some notes about the thing. But the one that I did want to point out was related to the quarry blasting. So there were like some findings of fact, I think, on, let me just find it here on page 35 of the decision. I just want to mention this to you guys while we're here. Blasting will be contiguous and will happen in winter of 2022 and 23. I think that we're just sort of pushing up against the reality that like the blasting may not happen in winter of 2022 and 23 because, you know, it's December, we have to get a zoning permit which could take 60 to 90 days. You know, we're going to start on Leo Lane, not the quarry. So I don't know how much weight like sentences that aren't in the decision make, but I think it's likely the quarry blasting would happen later in 2023. And there's also a likelihood that we may phase the quarry blasting with the residential blasting. So there are essentially two phases of blasting associated with the home sites, like the stuff that's way to the north and the stuff that's to the south. And so we may do like 50% of the quarry with the stuff to the south and 50% with the north, but we would just ensure that it's contiguous so we're not having like a third, you know, it's happening at the same time as the residential stuff. It just might be split up. So this just, I just wanted to clarify that if it was meaningful to you all. Does that raise any flags for anyone? In addition to the points that Andrew put up here on this presentation, there was, I don't know if it was a typo or it was maybe from a previous iteration, but under point one on the findings of fact, it says there's 18 commercial development lots. And I think there's actually 24 is where the current number is. Just a correction there. Thank you. Good point. Any other comments or corrections? The only other thing was, you know, really, I, you know, I know you guys are gonna do the, you know, you have the deliberations and maybe a lot of this just falls on Marla and I can talk with her at any point, but really trying to focus on, because this project is so big, tying like changes to plans with when they're being asked to be built, right? So like there's some stuff in here about amend the dog park plan to add like stone dust, but the dog parks like, you know, getting built during the, you know, maybe three or four years from now. And so as much as when we're trying to get a permit to start Leo Lane in January, we don't need to be amending plans for the dog park, you know, just keeping that in mind that, you know, so if it, if there's any way to sort of say, just really try and, because otherwise we're just getting a mountain of stuff to these guys related to it, you know, hundreds of different sheets to try and get the first zoning permit for the project and it could really delay. I understand what you're saying. I don't think that works. It's a final plot and it requires a record plan set. I think a lot of the other non-plan things can definitely go later. Like you and I had previously talked about, but I think that you guys are pretty tight on the plans already. Okay, well, yeah, I think, you know, they're, like I said, that you know better than me about what can and can't, but yeah, just like bearing that in mind, I mean, we have, you know, like, because we have to, with the bonding for the phases and the infrastructure budgets and there's just big checklists. Yeah, I think like the legal docs, definitely where we're gonna do later, but I think the plan edits themselves need to be. That's, I mean, we have most of them here so we can get moving on them. And Carolyn, who's not here, but. All right. Just as much as you can keep that in mind when you're structuring the permit, we really appreciate it. And I think staff will as well in the future, so. Okay. Would someone like to. Public comment. Thank you. We're gonna take a break and ask for public comment before we take a vote. Are there any members of the public? Certainly no one's here. Anyone online who would like to. Okay. Go ahead,