This conference will now be recorded. For January 5th, 2020, with me is Vice Chair, Bryant Sullivan, Mark Bear, Don Fillebert, Alyssa Erin, Jim Langdon, John Wilking is absent, as I understand. John, if you're out there as one of the callers, please let me know. But otherwise it'll just be the six of us tonight. In attendance also from the city of South Carolina is Marla Keene, our developer review planner and Delilah Hall, our zoning administrator. And anyone will have an opportunity, everyone will have the opportunity, which is due to listen and speak. It just is like a regular meeting. Are there any additions or deletions or changes in the order of agenda items from the staff or the development review board members? Okay, hearing none. Number two on the agenda is announcements. I always begin all of our go-to-meeting, online meetings with the announcement that says, if you are not speaking, please do click the little button that says either on your phone or your tablet or computer. That way, if it's a dog barking in the background or ambient sounds, there's nothing to distract us from the business or the hearing ahead. But there will be absolutely time for everyone to speak. That needs to speak. You can accomplish this in two ways. One is during the public hearing moment of each application. I'll pause and ask anyone that's on the phone or wishes to speak, a chance to speak. There's also a chat box if you're on a tablet or a computer that you can enter your name into that chat box to say that you have a comment. That's the same chat box you should use to let us know that you're here and what project, what agenda item you're interested in. It's necessary to do that in order to obtain party status. Should you wish to appeal a decision made by this board at some point? If you don't have access to the chat box because you're on the phone and you wanna let us know that you're here, even if you don't speak, send an email to Marla Keane, our development review planner. Her email address is mkeane, m-k-e-e-n-e at sbirl.com, s-b-u-r-l.com. And that way we'll have a confirmation that you were in attendance tonight. That's our virtual sign-in sheet that we use for all of our go-to-meeting agenda items. Okay, so number three is comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda. If you'd like to say something about something other than the items on the agenda tonight, you can either enter your name in the chat box to let us know that you have it.  So I'm gonna pause here and listen. And not hearing anyone. I'm looking at the chat box not seeing anyone that wishes to make a public comment not related to the agenda. I'll pause one moment in case anyone wants to add. They're not hearing any. I'll jump right into agenda item number four, which is preliminary and final plan application, SD 2101 of Larkin's LP to amend an existing plan unit development on 13.26 acres consisting of 121 room hotel, 84 room hotel, a 60 room hotel, a restaurant in a three unit multifamily building. The amendment consists of converting the 84 unit hotel to a 78 unit multifamily building at 720 Shelburne Road. Who is here for the applicant? The Larkin's here. Hey, Joe. Is there any, what else with you? Skip McClellan from Krebs and Lansing. Hey, James Family shares from Wagner Hodgson Landscape Architects. Great. James, anyone else? So I will note that the applicant, this is in the agenda packet, the applicant inadvertently mailed the butter notices 14 days prior to the scheduled hearing. Notice to a butter is required to be given 15 days prior to the scheduled hearing. But 24 VSA 4464 states that no defect in notice shall invalidate the action of the appropriate municipal panel where reasonable efforts are made to provide adequate posting and notice. That recommends the board review the application on January 5th today and continue the hearing to January 20th, 2021 even if there's not any outstanding issues for the purpose of allowing the opportunity for additional public input. amended a butter notices indicating this approach have been mailed, just so the applicant is aware. This is preliminary and final plan application just for anyone out there. What is preliminary final plan application? That means we're in the final stage of review and with the last six months, we've heard a sketch plan about this hearing. The applicant is asked to describe the project and the applicant, the board will step through the staff comments. We'll consider the conformance of the applicable land development standards and we'll invite public comments. We may choose to continue as we will in this one. If there are questions to be further examined in the future date, we'll be announced at the end of this stage of any preliminary final plan application. We'll vote on whether to close the hearing once closed, we'll issue a decision. The decision will be mailed to the applicant and those who have identified themselves as interested person. Again, if you're interested in this project, please enter your name in the chat box or send an email to Marla. No appeal of the board's decision is made within 30 days. The decision is final. The applicant may proceed with the project. This is the first preliminary and final plan application. So I would ask Joe, James and Skip to raise your right hand and swear and tell the truth that are penalty of perjury. I do. Okay, just to affirm that I heard from both Joe, James and Skip that they have said yes. So thank you for that. And now is the time where we have heard this in sketch plan, but that was a time where I asked the applicant to introduce their project again. Talk about what you wanna do here and specifically for us, what has changed since we last saw this project at sketch. Whoever wants to take that. I'll go first. Skip McClellan from Crubs and Lansing. The project remains a 78 unit multi-family building that's currently hotel suites. The changes that we've made, there was a discussion in the sketch plan application about providing access, a walking path, a pedestrian access to hard review road to the adjoining property to the east. And we've added that path. We've added some landscaping. Wagner Hodgson has enhanced the area. We've chosen an area to the east of the subject building on the plot here that you see on your screen. And Wagner Hodgson has enhanced that area with plantings and with boulders and with a path and so forth. So those are pretty much the major changes that have happened since sketch plan. So very little has changed. We're still not doing a lot around the outside except for enhancing the passive recreation area. We're gonna have the same bike rack, same bike situation that we had before, which is a 10 bike rack that's going to be in that area to the east of the subject building. And we're still taking an 84 room hotel and converting it to a 78 unit multi-family building. Is that right, Scott? Yes, we are. Yes, that's exactly right. No. Okay. So as we look through staff comments, we'll offer some notes and get some feedback from you. The first staff comment that we saw was a sketch of staff asked the board for direction on whether to provide a detailed review of elements of the PUD which are not proposed to change. The board generally felt that this was unnecessary. Therefore, this review is limited to the elements of the PUD which are proposed to change except we're noted. Just want to put that out there as we start this process. The second substantial note was regarding landscaping and screening requirements. It was noted a sketch that existing landscaping does not appear to match the previously approved landscaping. The applicant should either restore the site or propose an alternative. It appears the applicant has not updated their plans to reflect this and it's shown only existing landscaping. Staff recommends the board require the applicant to show the previously approved landscaping on the plans. Landscaping must be fully present prior to the applicant being allowed to occupy the proposed use. Staff notice this applies to the entire PUD, not just the area in proximity to the building proposed to be converted. So we've got old landscaping plans that staff use needs to be updated to reflect what's on them and what's coming. Skip, do you have a response to that? I believe that James from Wagner-Hodgson has talked to Marla today and they've made an agreement to provide the drawings that she needs so that we can have it all reviewed in time for the next whatever date that this gets pushed to that she'll be able to say it's okay at that point. Is that right James Marla? There was a conversation. Yeah, I could chime in on that. That's correct. So the landscaping plan that we had submitted previously was just the local areas to the change. So we're gonna submit a new plan tomorrow that covers the entire PUD. I have all of the existing approved, vegetated plantings noted from the 2017 approval, approved plan. So I will just double check the periphery stuff on the PUD and then submit that plan that shows that the existing landscape is intact. If there are any missing plants or trees or anything, I'll note those and then we will look at the value that we have proposed to be installing with this versus the value of those plans to make sure that you are whole landscape-wise. Great, thank you for that James. Thanks, Skip. The next pertinent comment from staff regarding the stormwater. Stormwater section has reviewed Larkin Copper Suites, prepared by Krebs and Lansing Consulting Engineers and offers a couple of comments. There's five comments listed in the packet. The second comment is one that sticks out to me, which is the wetland advisory shown on the Vermont agency natural resources, natural resources, adolescents recommended that the applicant contact the state wetlands division to confirm that the proposed mode path is an allowable use in this wetland buffer. Has that contact been made, Skip? No, no, that won't be required. We've done a delineation. Arrowwood Environmental has done a delineation of that area and found no wetlands in that specific area. I put together a sketch today called SK-1 and forwarded off to Marla. I didn't get any confirmation. I hope she got it showing that our path is well out of any buffers and there are no wetlands in that area. So in other words, no permission needed to mow that path because the wetlands doesn't affect the wetlands in your position. That's right, exactly. The map that was referred to there is an alert. It points to an area that may have a wetland, but we found no wetlands there. So there was no wetlands. I want to bring that up in just a second. Okay, good. So you can see where the proposed path is and Skip has indicated on the right-hand side of the drawing a wetland delineation that was done in 2019, showing that the nearest wetland is on the other side of Harborview Road and more than 50 feet away. And that there weren't any wetlands identified within 50 feet of the path. Okay, so it's resolved. Great, thank you for that. Appreciate it. The next significant staff comment is regarding bicycle parking and storage. Staff recommends the board require the applicant to provide short-term bicycle spaces near the entrance of each building in the quantity specified or demonstrate that such bicycle parking already exists in accordance with 13.14B1B. Skip, your response to that request? I'm sure that we agree. The bike racks are not out there today, but yes, I'm sure that we can find a place for these bike racks. And there's much indoor bike racks. If Marley, you're aware of that, that Larkins are proposing an indoor bike storage facility to go along with this also. So if that changes any of those numbers, then we would talk about that afterwards. But the answer is yes. Have you done an inventory of what bike parking exists on the site today? Do you know if any of the required bicycle parking is being provided? I personally, I do not. I do not, no. Okay. So we're gonna have to have you propose where the required bicycle parking is going to go. No, I think that just a quick site does that would probably. Our landscape plan is done really quickly. We are showing 10 parking bike spots by the, I guess, the eastern entrance where we have that new landscaped area. Right. So that's where it would be. All right, so that was for the building that's the subject of this application, but this does apply to the whole PUD. Oh, okay. I don't know that. I can go by tomorrow. So there's 13 spaces for the 121 hotel, 10 spaces for the 60 room hotel, four spaces for the restaurant. The 10 spaces we'll have covered because that'll be the 10 spaces we've provided for this conversion project, for this project. Right, but you need 17, 17, 17 spots for bikes. Also, that's not quite right. That's not right? Because there's the 121 room hotel, the 60 room hotel, the restaurant that are staying in addition to the 78 unit building. Oh, all right. The 78 unit building requires eight bicycle parking spaces. And keep in mind, these aren't like individual use, that's two spaces. So that's four use for the 78 unit building and then seven use for the 121 room hotel and five use for the 60 room hotel. And then two use, I guess, for the restaurant. Is that what they're called? You can have bicycle parking today. Some of that may be able to count. I just, I don't go there a lot. I went there once for a conference and brought my bicycle inside because I couldn't find a bike parking spot. So I'm not really sure where they are. Well, we'll make sure that's addressed in the drawings that we can submit. So in fact, James's drawings, James is going to have to submit a drawing for this landscape question. And so we can make sure that either a proposal or an explanation of what's out there is included in that. Yeah. I'll go back. That sounds great. I'll make sure. Are there any questions from the board before I invite public comments? Okay. If there's anyone out there that would like to comment about this project from the public, please do one or two things. Just shout out your name and let me know what you, that you have a public comment or alternatively you can write the comment in the chat box where I can read it or you can just tell me that you want to make a public comment in the chat box. I'm going to take a pause here. I don't hear anyone looking at the chat room. I don't see anyone. So then I would turn it, not hearing any, not seeing any, I would turn back to the board and to staff. We're going to continue this. There are any other questions that you'd like the applicant to answer before we set a continuation date? Hearing none. Marla, is there appropriate date for the calendar? We have some space for them at the next hearing on January 20th. It's a Wednesday as long as that's okay with you guys. Skip? Yes, that's great. Yes. Okay. That would move that we continue SD 2101 to January 20th. Is there a second? Is that a second from Don? Yes. Okay. Second from Don and we'll do a roll call. Brian Sullivan? Aye. Mark Bear? Aye. Don Filivert? Aye. Alyssa Aaron? Jim Langen? Jim, I didn't hear you. Are you online? John Wilking, not president. Matt Kodler, the chair votes aye. And we have continued. Yep, got you now. You got aye on a continuance? This is Jim voting aye. Yeah, great. Thank you. So 601, we've continued this agenda item for January 20th. Thank you very much. Skip, James, Joe. See you next time. Thank you. Thank you. I'll get my camera working next time. Thank you. Okay, we now move to agenda item number five. Agenda item number five is master plan application, MP2101 of South Village Community's LLC to amend a previously approved master plan for multi-phase 334 unit plan unit development. The amendment consists of increasing the maximum allowable coverage from 13.9% to 20% removing the educational facility, adding mixed use, removing requirement to construct additional dedicated southbound turn lanes on Spear Street and reducing the total unit count to 321 at 1840 Spear Street. Who is here for the applicant? I am Robin Jeffers from SD Ireland and South Village Community's. Hey Robin. Hey Marshall from Civil Engineering Associates. Patrick O'Brien from SD Ireland and South Village Community's. Hey Patrick. And Corey Mack is here. Corey Mack from RSG. Great. Thank you, Corey. So this is one of three applications dealing with South Village Community's but we're gonna take a care of master plan application first for those that are watching or listening at home. This is just dealing with the master plan application right now. It is a master plan application and so I need Robin, Dave, Patrick and Corey to raise your right hand and swear to tell the truth under penalty of perjury. I do. I do. For the record, I heard all four say I do and tell us a little bit about Robin if you'd like to, or Dave, tell us a little bit about the master plan amendment here. So we have, this is Robin. We have met one, there's five triggers for a master plan amendment and we have met one of them and that is in the category of lot coverage and we are asking for approval of an increase of lot coverage to 20%, 30% is allowable on the SEQ. We're well under that threshold where we wanna get that straightened out so that we can move ahead with the additional applications. Additionally, we are asking for two conditions of our original master plan to be no longer required and those are left turn lanes on Spear Street at South Jefferson Road and Preserve Road. And third, we have asked that our description be amended. We're no longer going to be having a school use. We are intending a mixed use lot and our numbers are reducing from 334 to 321. Right. And some of this is because just to sort it out in my own head and for clarification for everyone listening and watching this. Some of this is familiar ground because it is connected to other flat applications. I believe, I mean, we've heard some of this in sketch but we've also heard some of this in other applications dealing with the turn lanes. Is that right, Marla? Do I have, there's so many different projects. It's hard to keep which one's straight, but. Right, a lot of this has been previewed and discussed as upcoming as part of other applications. This is the culmination of many conversations. Not to dive right into the southbound turn lanes but there was a decision made in a prior application that has been approved by the DRB regarding the southbound turn lane on Spear Street, correct? That wasn't something, just want to refresh my memory. That wasn't something we discussed at SCAP. So it was something we decided in a master plan. Excuse me. That was fine, right. That's final application SD 1929 at which time the applicant asked for removal of the requirement to construct the southbound left turn lane at the south entrance. So they're asking for that again and that's addressed in staff comment number one. They're also asking for removal of the condition two of turn lane at the north entrance. That's got some of the staff comment number two. Right, which was not previously discussed with staff comment number two. It was not previously formally requested though sort of informally discussed at SCAP's point of mobile. So not to take things out of order here but if we already approved a methodology for requiring a study to determine whether or not there needs to be a southbound turn lane in a prior in an approved applied application just playing out the idea. If we're changing it in the master plan we also didn't have to redo it in the other application. No, but the staff comment does note that this would be considered requesting for the same thing and therefore not allowed request. No, I understand. We talked about other recent applications with the Stow Club Islands test. If there's no change in circumstance or change in regulations there's no, they're not allowed to make the same request again. Right, got it. Okay, so regarding the 13.9% to 20% coverage that it is we can allow up to 30%, is that correct? I'll put the basis of the design district a lot. And okay. So the question is whether remove the requirement to construct an additional dedicated southbound turn lanes I'll let the board, you know, offer their thoughts on that. I thought we had a pretty decent compromise and I tend to side with staff regarding the wanting to keep that in place which requires sort of a call at the, I forget the number but this is the 240th zoning permit application or something like that. I'm trying to review my notes here. Where's the chair? Can I add to this? Yeah, please, Rada. I have a response which I'd like to read but we, but just to the comments that you've already made we believe that the situation is ripe. We have met the thresholds or on the threshold of meeting the threshold. And we also have a different traffic plan now which takes it to consideration full build out. And when we asked before the traffic plan that we had did not. So we are presenting a traffic plan that is updated accounts for full build out. And again, we are at the threshold of the number of zoning permits that you required the last time we reviewed this. So we feel the time is ripe to review this and to consider the second request as well for the preserve road. Okay. So the first request regarding the turn lane on the southbound left turn lane on Spear Street. We're in the previously approved application. We said not that you have to build it but that we have to have a traffic study when you reach a certain zoning permit threshold to determine whether or not to build it. And Robin, what you're saying is that you're there and that you have done the study already? We have done the new traffic study. It's what we submitted with this application. One of the thresholds was 30 units in phase three needed to have had zoning permits, 29 do now. And there are four applications on Delilah's desk in her queue that have been made. As soon as any one of those is issued will be at that 30. The other was for 240 units which was an alternate, not a same condition. Overall units and we have also met that threshold. So both thresholds have been met. We have a new traffic study that is for the full build out and it covers both of those left-hand turn lanes in its scope. So Marla, thank you, Robin. So Marla, is this nearly right? Is this now the time that we review the traffic study to determine whether a southbound turn lane is warranted or is it, or is it, or do you disagree? So if what Robin is saying is that they're at the 29th and it makes sense to consider it now since the condition you can see on your screen was for the 30th. I'm sure that those other zoning permits will be issued but it seems like it's now is the time. So they did submit a traffic study. The traffic study is included in the packet. There were some comments in the stuff, or some questions in the comments about the traffic study. Oh dear, sorry, it's a little stepped away and I'm trying to present and read my notes at the same time and it's much more difficult. So maybe it'd be good to review stuff comment number two because that pertains to the traffic study in general and then we can sort of discuss how we're feeling about this traffic study and whether those two, it's the time is right to consider whether to remove the condition to construct two southbound turn lanes. So yeah, hearing that, hearing that we're at 29, nearly 30, this is gonna come up fairly soon. The now seems to be appropriate. I have not dove into the traffic study so I don't, but the staff is recommending at point number two that South Village provide testimony regarding the impact. Is that, is there someone here that can do that? Yes, Corey Mack from RSG is here to do that. Okay, Corey, can we get you to give us your analysis? Is it summary? Corey, I think you're muted. Okay, thank you. So it's always funny when you proceed and you think you're not muted and nobody tells you otherwise, so thank you for telling me. All right, so specifically with a comment that we've received here, it says provide testimony for the traffic regarding the impact of Midland Avenue. So that's a pretty specific piece of the work that we've done. So what Robin referred to earlier was an update to a traffic study that we've done, which basically took a look at the full buildout of the latest development program and prepared trip generation estimate for the entire multi-phase construction of South Village. And then it included those volumes into the traffic count that was conducted by V-Trans in June of 2016. And in doing all that, we kind of wiped clean all the traffic that was already going to South Village and then added in all this other estimated traffic to develop this model of full buildout for that area. And that traffic study also included the turn lane warrants as we were just talking about for both the Northern Preserve Road Intersection and the Southern South Jefferson Drive Intersection. And both of those cases, neither of those two intersections met the traffic volume warrant for installing a turn lane. And then there's a couple other considerations beyond just traffic volumes, including a safety warrant and a roadway context warrant. And let's take a little bit more engineering professional judgment and I kind of go through those point-by-point in the traffic study also. And ultimately coming to the conclusion that at this time a turn lane, a southbound left turn lane is not warranted at this location. Specifically with regard to the comment about Midland Avenue, we addressed the Midland Avenue connection in a previous memo and I didn't include it in this and I'm sorry for any confusion with that. But that connection with Midland Avenue, there's two things that are gonna happen there. There's the potential for traffic from the Dorset Farms Community to the East to kind of go through the South Village to access Spear Street. And at the same time, it's gonna provide a route for people in the South Village development to go to the East and access Dorset Street. And so we estimated that is about a bit of a wash. There's reasons why you'd wanna go to Dorset Street versus Spear Street in either scenario. So just as much as that there's going to be an increased southbound left turn lane, a left turning demand on Spear Street, there would also be a reduced southbound left turn lane, left turn demand on Spear Street from the South Village which would now be turning right from Dorset Street. And the other way we considered traffic volume increase on from this Midland Avenue connection was just as a regional traffic shortcut potential, would people use this as a shortcut? And we estimated a very low traffic volume in the design hour, I think it was about 50 vehicles and the peak hour that might do that. And that's basically looking at the other East-West connections like Nolan Farms Road nearby and the traffic volumes we see there. And in all reality, I don't think that this will be a very convenient shortcut. I don't see a lot of people choosing this route to get from the East to the West. It does provide a bit of an access to Allen Road but overall you're driving through much more of a community development with stop signs and a roundabout and a more congested traffic area than if you were to take the other options that are available to you at Nolan Farm Road or Barstow Road, I believe to the South. All right, did you just say 50 vehicle trips per hour would be using it as a regional shortcut route? Yeah, I would have to look at the exact number. I looked at it this morning, I think it was like 56 in an hour. And that would be traffic that is like cut through traffic not associated with either Dorset Farms or South Village, yes. How does that compare to the total generation of the project? It's much less than the overall project. I think it's 300 trips in the PM peak hour is estimated from South Village and 200 and I shouldn't just say that, I can look, I have the report right here. So I can get you that exact number. It was 250 in the current development program in the AM peak hour. So it's much less than what you'd expect and that's just people that are thinking they're gonna avoid congestion or maybe looking for a scenic route on their way to work or something that day. Overall, I'd say that it provides people with more access better mobility connections to get from various points and provides greater congestion relief on the overall road network by having these connections. So that was in response to the specific comment about the connection to Midland Nav. I know there's also some discussion about whether or not the 2016 traffic count is appropriate to use at this time. I still think that it is a very relevant traffic observation. The number that was counted that day is higher than numbers that we've seen since then. And if you look at the VTrans red book which collects traffic data from around the state, 2016 was sort of a peak year in traffic volumes regionally and ever since then they've been suggesting recommending a reduction to adjust that a 2016 count downwards to represent current conditions. And that's not including any types of COVID impact or anything like that, obviously. So I think that the 2016 is a relevant traffic data point. I'm sorry, yes. Corey, could you explain that? I'm sorry to interrupt, but could you explain that further? 2016 is peak because of why? Just regional traffic observations and behavior. It fluctuates with the economy and various other things that are going on. So just regionally what VTrans has counted, 2016 was a bit of a peak. And VTrans offers adjustment factors to represent a 2016 date as current year volumes. And that adjustment factor is right now below one. So that would be basically reducing the volumes that we count in 2016. So I believe that the count still represents peak hour conditions. Better than what we'd count. Like if we were to go out today and do it tomorrow, we'd have to do some factors to adjust for COVID related adjustments. Okay, thank you for that. You're welcome. And I guess, unless there's more specific questions, I think that really covered what I was hoping to point out. Does the staff or the board have a question for Corey regarding traffic? I just will say I did it the other day and it is no speedway. It is not a route that people will take to first fast access to Shelburne Road or Spear Street and Dorsen Street. It's lots of turns and little roundabouts. So I agree. That's I'm sure by design too, so. Okay. There are no other questions about traffic. The next item that the staff has pointed out regarding the master plan is the recommending, we're dealing with coverage, recommending the board require the applicant to provide a calculation of building and log coverage for each of the involved zoning districts and a calculation of total building and log coverage which will occur if the concurrent applications are approved. Staff considers such computation should include the roadways because that's how the coverages were originally computed and have been computed for all of the projects involving the construction of new roadway. Staff notes that there has been some inconsistency and provided coverage calculations in the past that recommends the board allow ample time to review the provided coverages. Sample time for staff to review the provided coverages I assume that's what that means. Robin, do you have a reaction to that comment? Yes, we sent Marla today that the log coverage, including everything is 15.77% with the proposed improvements and that does include all the roads and coverages. We also asked our consultants, was there any fluff factor in there? And they said, yes, there is a, actually they build in a fluff factor of 10%. So we are confident that that 15.77% number is accurate, if anything, it's on the large side. Any questions about coverages for the board or the staff? Yeah, this is Marla. So that's what you're saying is the overall coverage. Total log coverage for all of the South Village PUD. Do you have a computation of coverage by zoning district? We only are in one zoning district. You're in the FQNR and SCQNRP, are you not? I don't know that. I honestly thought we were only in one zoning district. Dave may know otherwise. So Marla, Dave Marshall here. Can you explain why it's important to identify the amount of impervious area in the national area of impervious area in the natural resource protection area versus the designated development area? Absolutely, so the authority of the board under PUD regulations is limited in three ways. The board can waive all regulations except for log coverage by zoning district, parking in the front, and structures less than five feet from the property line. So regardless of what your overall coverage is, if you had say 10 acres of NRP and one acre of NR and you 100% covered your NR, the board won't be allowed. We need to see that you're below all the coverage in the NR or the LDR in order to have a project. Well, I guess the only response I have to that is pretty obvious just by inspection for this project that the way the zoning was actually drawn around the three phases of approved footprint area associated with the master plan that all of the impervious areas located within that particular district. The only thing that might be outside of it would be the causeway that was required by the city to connect phase three to Dorset Farms. So that's the only thing that's outside of, I believe outside of double check is part of that zoning. Actually, that's not even on this particular project, this applicant's property. There was a 60 foot right away offer dedication from Dorset Farms to the city and that's where the particular roadway was located. So are you saying David, there's only one zoning district that this property's on? Yes, that the developed portions are located within, yes. Because the road is now public road and not part of the... It doesn't matter if the roads are part of the long bridge for the purpose of the PED. The roads were paved as part of the PED. Okay. All we're saying is that the causeway, the roadway that runs out east from Dorset Farms out to, excuse me, Wesley from Dorset Farms to phase three was actually located on property not associated with this applicant, but it was on a rights-of-way and offered dedication from Dorset Farms to the city. So when that project was originally approved, they offered that particular property to the city for a future road connection. So all I'm saying is that in an area that is outside of what is authorized as development area or the higher density zoning district for this area, I don't even believe that that roadway is located on the applicant's property. Well, it's something we shouldn't resolve here. I don't know the answer. Why don't we put a pin in that one? So I guess what I'm confused on is with regard to the allowable density, the lot coverage. Marla, are you saying that the divisor for the computation of that number is actually the area in the particular zoning district as opposed to the entire property, which is inconsistent of how the master plan originally calculated the allowable lot coverage in this area? Right, there's two, there's two computations.  And the second is what the board is held to under the authority of PEDs, which is no more than the allowable lot coverage on the zoning district by zoning district basis. And you're correct that that was not the time that this project was approved. So if we found that the development area within the higher density zoning district was at 80%, where would that place then? And I think that then they would have to figure out where that puts us and that's why we wanna make sure that we are taking an accounting now to make sure we don't have a problem that we need to figure out a solution to. Well, I can tell you right now, it's gonna be a lot more than 30% within what we were allowed to develop the property within as part of the original master plan approval. So I don't know if there's an end to this means with regard to what you're trying, what you feel that the street that we need to go down on this. Well, I think if you're saying now that you're well over the 30% at minimum, there's a need to establish a baseline of where you are because that may affect amendments this project in the future. So what I'm confused on is, yeah, it just doesn't make any sense in regards to where we're going with this. I mean, right now the original project was based on 30% lot coverage for the entire property, the entire 223 acres. So now that we are reduced down to approximately 60 acres of development area as part of the master plan, you're now saying that we are a illegal project because we've actually developed it in accordance with the master plan. Well, you haven't shown me any numbers. So I don't know if that's true or not. Well, I'm saying right now that it's more than 30%. So are you telling me that this is an illegal project? Not in compliance with the regulations? If you have more than 30% lot coverage in the SQNR, it would not be approved today. That's fine, but this wasn't approved today. It was approved in 2005 as part of a master plan to specifically avoid these situations. In that master plan at the time, the zoning was in two different zoning areas or one zoning area? There was one zoning area. Right, the SQQ was just the SQ at that time. Yeah, I'm not sure. That's my frustration is that the expectation at the time was that you could not create more than 30% lot coverage within the POD project was designed to be much less than that. We did a best estimate of what that number would be and it was 15% in change. Over time it's grown, it's now 15.77%. Well below what the 30% that's identified was identified originally within the master plan and what was around. And I'm still frustrated that there's any caps other than what the original zoning allowed, which was 15%, building coverage and 30% lot coverage were well below those numbers. Now we're running into a situation where you're saying that project is non-compliant. And I find that fully inconsistent with what the intent of master planning is all about in master plan approvals. So we've done everything with regard to footprints and maintenance of the proposed project development area within the authorized footprint areas. And now we're being thrown this at us. So I guess I'm really confused on where the city is trying to go here. Dave, I think you really done the new conclusions here. The purpose of this comment is to establish a baseline from which to evaluate future approvals. The previous comments and decisions on the South Village development have been very remiss as it pertains to coverages. As we've seen with the Aiken Street development, the project has crept up and locked coverages and there's been no accounting done since 2005. So this is an attempt to re-establish where we are and get a grip on things going forward. Not an attempt to undermine the project or to prevent things from going forward. It's an attempt to understand where we are so we can make informed decisions. Well, I guess my frustration is you already told us that the development review board doesn't have the ability to waive the lock coverages. So if we acknowledge right now stipulate that we're over 30% lock coverage within the, and our zoning district that I don't know where we go from here. So what is the point of coming up with that number if it doesn't mean anything in regards to where the original master plan approval set this particular project towards? Well, that provision has been in place in the regulation since the S&Q individual zoning districts was developed. I have a problem with that, but they weren't developed when this particular project was master planned and approved by the city. So- And what I'm saying is you're asking me a question I don't know the answer to today. That's unfortunate. All right, well, let's put a pit in that right now. Dave, that's my recommendation. And let's move on to staff comment number four. Regarding land development proposed in an area previously identified as a permanent open space. It's sketched the board to ask the applicant to demonstrate there was no land development proposed in an area previously identified as permanent open space in the approved master plan. It's a challenging proposition according to staff. Staff recommends the board identify sheet S10, S1.0 as a representative of approved open space. Staff further recommends the board require the applicant to provide a plan showing the bounds of these lots. Staff considers this information is rarely available to the applicant but has not been consolidated onto one sheet. We accept this as a condition of approval and we have also submitted tables noting all of the open space in each phase to Marla. Thank you, Robin. Welcome. Okay, that's it for the staff comments except for the issue of figuring out whether we count coverages in one zoning area or two. I'm not sure how to rectify that situation right now. Does anyone on the board have a comment regarding that? I have one more comment, if I may.  We note that on paragraph three. There's a comment where staff recommends requiring the applicant to provide road geometry. We note this request is not applicable to our application and further the information is already available on all the plans filed with all previous approvals. And while this wasn't highlighted in red, we are asking this condition to be removed because it's not applicable to this amendment. What, Rob, what page are you on?  Paragraph C, bottom half. Can you explain why you don't wanna show us your centerline geometry for the purpose of established link collector roadways? We believe that all of our plots show all of the geometry that you need and this would be a huge exercise in civil engineering and it's not needed or required. We don't understand the benefit. What is the benefit? These roads are already built. It's all the information's on the plots and trying to show that on one particular sheet of paper is just not practical based on the fact that this is 220 acres of land here. So we're just trying to understand the importance of this when all that information's already available. If you would like us to attach the plot plans to the back of the S1.0 master plan sheet, we can do that. That's the most practical way of wrote. The other thing we wanted to do is just make a correction in regards to the listing of the roadways. Preserve road was never intended to be a collective roadway and it shouldn't be identified here. It's specifically supported by the fact that the original review of the project requested that we not necessarily make the roadways but we ensure that at least the rights of way were maintained for those particular collector roadways. And that is, again, starting at the Allen Road intersection with Spear Street heading east along Allen Road East. And then both turning to the South, South Jefferson, and then turning easterly again along what is now called Midland Avenue. That was one of the two collective roadways. The other was North Jefferson that heads to the North. So as to enable future development to occur north of this particular property and be supported by a collector roadway. So anyways, all that particular note, if this gets reutilized in any particular way, we want to ensure that preserve road is not included in that listing going forward. When you look at the plan, that particular roadway has a right of way with the less than 60 feet, which again supports the original requests that the city and Bruce Hoard directs specifically from the public rest of government with regard to what would be considered to be collector roadways for this project. Okay, thank you for that, Dave. And thank you for bringing that to our attention, Robin. You're welcome. Okay, I would like, is the board of any other comments before I ask the public if they would like to comment on the master plan? Okay, hearing none, if there's anyone in the public that would like to comment specifically on this master plan application. And the items that we just discussed, please either enter your name into the chat box function or just say your name and I'll give everyone opportunity to speak in an early fashion. So go ahead at this time and say your name or enter your name into the chat box. I'm pausing now to listen and to look and not seeing anyone who wishes to speak or to make a comment in the chat box and not hearing anyone. I would then turn to staff and the board to say we can, we obviously have some decisions to make here. We can continue to hear more or we can close. What is the pleasure of the board and staff here? Well, I'm a little concerned that there's this unresolved issue and I'm wondering how what steps could be taken to reach some resolution. Well, that could be decided in our deliberation or it could be something that the applicant, the staff works out. I mean, those are two ways to do it. Not sure if there's a third. Yeah. I'd like to involve the city attorney in our discussion regarding the law coverage issue. I think that's a reasonable request. And we can take that into deliberations. Well, I guess what I'm getting at is we can either continue hear the attorney's opinion on whether or not that it's required or other questions that we might have then discuss that in deliberations. The question is, do we close? Is there anything that we may not need to hear if we get that opinion? Are there any other decisions that we need more evidence or more testimony before talking about the master plan? So, Matt, if I can just add one piece of information including the permitted, proposed or permitted amount of impervious area that is all located within the NR district because again, the zoning regulations that were put into place subsequent to the original South Village approval basically drew everything around the three different phases of footprints at which point there was 68 acres of that particular area. So if you divide the 68 acres into the total proposed slash permitted lot coverage then you come up with just shy of 52% lot coverage within the NR district. So you can take that with you with regard to at least an acknowledgement from the applicant that we are well beyond 30% in that particular zoning district then we'll let the board choose to proceed one way or the other. Okay, thank you for that, Dave. Appreciate it. Mr. Chairman? Yes, Patrick, go ahead. If it was tabled, when would we be heard next? So, yeah, so if we were tabled is another word to say continuing allows us to hear additional testimony. So there's a value in continuing a project but there's also a delay because once we close then we have a time period in order to deliberate an issue and decision. So the conscious approach would be to continue at this case and a lot with that would depend on the scheduling that Marla puts together for us in terms of when we could reconvene regarding the master plan if we decide to continue right now. Marla, do you have any idea? Yes, so previously in the summer the board gave me clear direction to finish what we started before we take on new things. So we have saved room on the February 2nd. What about January 20th? January 20th? Yeah. That agenda is full. Agenda is full. Okay, so I think the most cautious approach we can given that we have some substantial unanswered questions that we'd like to seek consultation on whether or not we enter, whether or not we hear more testimony. If we don't need to hear more testimony then it's a quick hearing on the second. If we do, maybe longer. But we may get the information we need and be able to deliberate shortly after that. So I would move that we continue master plan application 2101 of South Village's Communities to February 2nd. Is there a second? I will second that. Okay, seconded by Don. We'll do a roll call. Brian Sullivan? Aye. Mark? Aye. Don? Aye. Aye. Alyssa? Aye. Jim? Aye. And John is not present. And Matt Kota chair votes aye. 601. And we've continued MP 2101 of South Village's Communities to February 2nd. Okay, moving on to the next agenda item. Don't go anywhere. Robin and Dave and Patrick. Which is preliminary and final plan application SD 2102 of South Village's Communities LLC to subdivide four existing undeveloped lots totaling 23.2 acres into eight lots ranging from 0.3 acres to 14.1 acres constructing 21 homes in 11 buildings on a lot 11.1, which is 1.2 acres and 11.2, 1.1 acres and constructed permanent farm access road and pavilion on lot 11C at 1840 Spear Street. Who is here for the applicant? Robin Jeffers? Patrick. Hi, Patrick. Dave Marshall. Dave Marshall. Okay, this is preliminary final plan application. So I ask you all three to raise your right hand and swear to tell the truth under penalty of perjury. Thank you. All three have acknowledged to do and for anyone listening this is preliminary final application which means we are on the final stage of review. Within the last six months we reviewed a sketch plan and provided oral guidance to the applicant. In this hearing the applicant will describe the project. The board will step through the staff comments and consider whether it's conformance with the apical land development standards. Well, as the chair, I'll invite public comments and help answer any questions that people have. The board may choose to continue this at a later date or questions that remain to be examined. If there's information we still need to receive a future date will be announced prior to concluding the item. And at the end of the stage the board will vote to whether to close the hearing and once closed we'll issue decisions on the application. The decision will be mailed to the applicant and to those who have identified themselves as interested persons. If no appeal of the board's decision is made within 30 days the decision is final and the applicant may proceed with the project. Okay, so let's talk specifically about SD 2102 now and tell us a little bit about the project and what has changed, if anything, since sketch. Robin? The application consists of 11, pretty much what you already read, 11 duplexes six oriented westerly towards a common element the farm and the road far away five duplexes will front on North Jefferson. The two southern most units will front onto Allen Road East. Two private roads are proposed and alley for rear loading of all the homes and a private permanent access road to the farm is also being proposed. Land is non land that's proposed to not be developed is proposed to be divided in two parts, one to the farm lot and one to be seated to the HOA as additional open space to have a grassy play area and a pavilion. Great and we last saw this at sketch on in September of last year and so we'll go through staff comments now the first comment is the applicant she's generally meeting the required setbacks with exception of one or two units on farmway which do not meet the front setback minimum by a couple of feet staff recommends the board discuss or the applicant desires a front setback waiver in these locations and if so that they enumerate the specific waiver request if no such waiver sought the board should require the applicant to modify their plans to meet the required setback. So which is it would you like a waiver? Which ones are we would like a waiver similar to has been approved in all the other phases of South Village a 10 foot front yard setback a five yard side yard setback and a five foot rear setback. Yes, but the request is that it be the enumerated to the specific where the locations are or are you just asking for a blanket waiver? We're asking for a blanket waiver. Okay. Is there a Marla is there a is there a reason why we should we should focus on just the few units that are not within the setback or as opposed to issuing a blanket waiver? Why don't we pull up the proposed development plan and consider that question is a good question. Is the plan that you want to show Marla? No, would you show the fifth sheet in the plan file? I don't know what sheet, what page it's going to be in the file that you're in. In the plan file. Okay, hold on a second. Let me stop sharing. So it looks like it'll be one page past your preview there. While you're looking because I think that once we pull this up it'll be useful for the rest of the discussion too. Okay. Sounds good. While you're looking I just wanted to point out that all the lots in South Village do have approvals matching these same setbacks. And they have waivers. They all have 10 foot, five foot, five foot waivers. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome.  Yep. One more I guess. Oh, that was two more. The back one? There you go. All right. So the setbacks as shown are pretty close to 20 feet. Some of them are 18. And Robin's asking for 10 across the board. I just wanted to show this just, you know give you a feel for what that might look like and see if anybody had any concerns. I don't, but that's not my decision. Wait. So these are also going to be 20, but you know if you grant a 10 foot setback waiver they may not, you know they may squish them out a little bit and that would be, since they've indicated that these are likeness only or whatever the call out was. It wouldn't be necessarily these exact locations they might be squished out closer to the roads. Which would match the existing homes. Okay. Now we have a blanket five foot setback waiver for the existing homes. 10 foot front setback, five foot side, five foot rear. And where we're off by one or two feet this is where setback is 10 feet. No, as shown, this lot doesn't have a waiver. So as shown, they're 18 to 20 feet setback from the front law line. So this is gone. If all the other property single family homes and other duplexes on in self village have that waiver for a setback. I don't know why we wouldn't allow these homes in this proposal to have a similar setback. Any other comments from the board regarding the waiver request? I don't really have much of an issue with the waiver request, but I guess I'd almost prefer to be approving a plan rather than a generic sort of concept. And, you know, we look at this and they asked for a 10 foot blanket waiver which I understand the rest of the project has, you know but and then they all get built pushed out, you know so that they're tied up against the street. Why not just show it that way? And that's what we approve. Yeah, that makes sense to me, Mark. The other question I have for the applicant is is this a typical sort of style that's reminiscent throughout in other parts of the project with this back alley and the parking, you know behind the units and the project fronting. I know you have the alleys but I guess my question is these look like like double or triple wide driveways not, you know, double stacked driveways for a one car garage. It's just a lot of asphalt. Yeah, you weren't here when we went over this. Yeah, I know I wasn't. I don't think, Mark. So each of the garages are approximately one and a half widths wide. Okay. And the driveways are four car widths wide so that there's room, adequate room for parking for a duplex. What is required for a duplex? Or maybe not required, but what are you guys trying to achieve? We're trying to achieve four cars in the driveway, two cars for each unit. But if you have a parking garage, if you have a one car garage and a spot behind it, but you're trying to park four, all right, do these have parking garages? Do these have garages? They have a garage, but it's not a very big garage.  I understand that. Okay. Can I ask the board, did anyone have any concerns that sketch on this? It just seems like a lot of driveway for duplexes. Mark, just to interject, I got a very similar comment from the DPW director on this. And Delilah, if you can pull up the supplemental image, he said, it felt like a lot of payment. And I explained to him, Robert's testimony, and he sent me this image and said, what about something like this? So I just wanted to share that. Okay. The supplemental DPW comments? Yep. Okay. So Mark, if I may, we keep in mind that these are the affordable units. So yeah, they're smaller. And I think that if it was a normal size garage, it wouldn't look so, the driveway wouldn't look so bad. But it still would because you're talking about a four car wide driveway.  It just, it feels more like a parking lot than private driveways, you know, with a lot of landscaping. All of the duplexes approved in phase two and phase three all have the same driveway. The difference would be that they're front loaded as opposed to rear loaded. And in phase one, all the triplexes also have a quad loaded driveway and on the center unit, there's a double loaded driveway. Okay. But those also had a sort of like a median strip between them. They do not. They broke up the asphalt. In the triplexes, there's a median strip between one of the three units, but not between two and all of the front, all of the front loading, there is nothing. It's just wide asphalt. Okay. Now, I know we said we, Patrick you said this is the affordable section, but are all of them affordable or 50% of them affordable? 50%. Okay. So you've got 50% affordable, but 50% of market rate. Why don't you just make the parking of the garages normal size for a single car so that you can use it as an actual parking garage, of an actual parking space and then just have a single bay behind it. So you got two cars per unit. Well, economics. So these are affordable units. So we need to keep the construction costs down in order to make this work. We're aiming to have the market rates be a comparable unit. Okay.  It just feels like a lot of asphalt and it's out of scale with the rest of the development. I think if the landscape drawings were shown, it's very much softened and it doesn't look the way that it looks from this perspective. Okay. I don't know. The only one that I have an issue with about that. Before I go, do you want me to go landscape or do you want to discuss the image of the DPW image and? I'd like you to show the landscape for Mark Spicer. I got the landscape up on my screen. Okay. Yeah. Any comments on the image on the left that DPW sent? That's the one where you have the center median. That's not in South Village. No, that was a suggestion of what maybe it could be. Right. All of ours are flush together. I doubt you have the space between your parking lot. Your garage looks like the two single car garages looks like it's probably combined the width of a standard two car garage. I think we gave them each an extra four feet.  It's planned to hold a car. It's planned so that it could hold a car and your garage, your trashed odors. In likelihood, it will hold your kayaks and your trashed odors and your canoe and your bikes. Okay. Well, if you did that on the, if you did the extra four feet on the inside, you could certainly do what DPW is suggesting and having each of those driveways be broken up a little bit. The other factor is giving room for people to park. And if we put the island in the middle, we just have to widen it out more. Right, there couldn't be any less asphalt. It would just be more spread out. So you're basically providing three parking spaces per unit. I know you're saying people aren't gonna use the garages, but you're providing a parking garage. And in any other application, you could be using that as an actual parking space. Here you're saying, yes, I've put a parking space, but we're not counting it. So we're providing two paint spaces outside of the unit per unit. That's correct. And there is very little other parking in South Village. There is on street parking, but parking continues to be a challenge. And the feedback we received at Sketch from the community was that parking was a concern and they wanted to be sure that it was addressed. Okay, well, like I said, if I'm the only one that has an issue with it, I'll kind of stop talking. It's just, I just see it as, typically we look at providing two spaces per unit. And that's sort of semi-typical. Now we're providing three spaces because you're saying one of the spaces is basically a storage space, not an actual parking space. I am. Okay. The second item, staff note on this application, in terms of coverage, the applicant is proposing a maximum building coverage on the involved lots, 25.5% and maximum lot coverage of 42.9%. This occurs on a lot 11.1, maximum allowable building lot coverage. Without a waiver is 15%, 30% respectively. A lot of 11.2 is also proposed for building and lot coverage requiring a waiver. Staff recommends the board taking into consideration consistency with the remainder of phase one, determine affirmatively whether to grant building and overall coverage waivers for these lots. We are requesting approval of the building coverage as presented and we offer that we are seating the open space to the farm and the HOA. And if retained, a lot coverage would present quite differently. The dense design is in keeping with the traditional neighborhood design of South Village overall, where homes are densely located with common shared spaces adjacent. And we are formally requesting no waiver for the increased lot coverage. Okay. Thank you. Is there any comments from the board or staff about this request? Okay. Question number three or agenda or staff number three, project is bounded by the farm to the north, wetlands to the west, roadway to the south and east, no landscaping or fencing is proposed to delineate the wetland buffer. Staff recommends that the board require the applicant to propose a landscaping boundary at the edge of the wetland buffer outside of the operating farm and to further establish an area of buffer and wetland as an area left to revegetate naturally with provisions for removal of invasive species. Staff concerns this must be done prior to closing the hearing cannot be a condition of approval. Is there a plan to delineate the wetland buffer? Robin. We have a plan. I was going to ask if the image could be brought up of what was submitted of the wetland buffers to see two-point something. In the supplemental stuff that was sent today? No, it was sent to the package. Yeah, it's in the plan package. She's going for it's very colorful. Whoa. Is it possible for me to use a cursor? If you go up to where it says drawing tools, you can grab a little highlighter or a little glowing ball and move it around. Drawing tools. Where I see a paintbrush? At the top? No. No, there's a paintbrush. It looks different when she's not a presenter, Delilah. The paintbrush is what you want. Oh yeah, paintbrush. Okay. I'd like to read the response that we created first and then I'd be happy to take up the paintbrush and illustrate our proposal. But the recommendation as written would eliminate the grassy play area planned and proposed for this area. The area is and will remain relatively flat. It's always been mowed and cut regularly. The neighborhood landscape committee and the HOA board and the South Village Land Stewardship Board were also consulted all were in favor of the civilian in the grassy play area. We are supportive of delineating the wetland proper, but not the buffers with split rail fencing. And I can show you that with the paint on the upper northwest corner. We would not want to include the elbow and the leg that's on that southern boundary, which has been nothing more than a man-made ditch and it's never been a natural feature. And the request, we recommend that the buffers be allowed to be continued to be mowed and to made use of as a recreational entity. We have submitted letters from our wetland consultant and a sign off from the state agency of natural resources and their wetland consultant that the wetland is of no value. Leaving the buffers to vegetate naturally as suggested in the staff notes would eliminate the play space and be detrimental to the farm. Cutting has been necessary for weed control on the farm and continuing to have a viable farmland is a necessity to us. So now I'm gonna grab my little highlighter. This is cool. There's an existing fence proposed that runs right along here. And we proposed that we would put a fence right around here that would designate this area of the buffer. It would leave the pavilion in place. It would leave the grassy play area, which would be flat. What staff is suggesting is that the line be here, which would affect, in effect remove all of the play area that we had planned for. So we wanted to ask for support for this plan. Okay. Ford, what do you think? What was it, Jim? I guess, Mara, would you just briefly summarize your objection to this? So the city's wetland regulations allow certain one-day uses in the wildlands and wildland buffers. And so, Endown Village was sort of founded on this principle of natural resource protection. And I'm trying to pull up a couple of things as I talk. So, the wetland protection standards of 12.02 allow encroachments that do not adversely affect the ability of the property store carry flood waters to reduce sedimentation or to affect functions and values. And the DRB is a big thing about allowable impacts. I think there is not anything there used to be. And then I was going to pull up South Village's design. They had this whole thing, and Robin, you probably speak much more eloquently to this than I can, but about preservation of open spaces and it's part of your HOA documents. Is it not to preserve open spaces? Do I, have I misunderstood that? The 116 plus acres, we call the preserve. That's actually how we name it. We have extensive wetlands. They're valuable wetlands that we have preserved. We are actively have them in habitat restoration. And we consider those high value wetlands. And yes, that is key to our being a conservation community. So does that have a specific geographic boundary? Pardon? So does that the preserves have a specific geographic boundary associated with it? Yes, it's all the land to the east of North Jefferson and South Jefferson Road. Oh, that way, okay. And then it goes into nowhere. The Great Swamp. The Great Swamp for miles and miles. This particular area has never had any value. It has always been mowed. The section we're seating to the farm will continue to be mowed. It can be mowed in agricultural use and it will be. And the soccer field that was once approved and soon going to be re-proposed will need to impact the buffer zones if that's gonna be approved. Okay. It's a great opportunity for a recreational amenity. That's how we presented that sketch. And we thought we had full support for that. We're pretty surprised about these comments. The important thing to remember is that this has been continually maintained. It's been farmed. There's been sunflowers going out there recently. There's, this is nothing but a lawn that gets wet in the spring. Thank you for that, Badger. I would add on this drawing the, where you have the gold on the bottom and you can see the rec path underneath it. The improvements in the sub base for that rec path were all already installed when Allen Road East was installed a long time ago. Those impacts have already happened. So the other irony here is that when South Village was approved we went through the process of working with the state and the federal wildlife agencies and getting all of the applicable wetland permits to fill. The irony now is that they do not, the state does not care to have jurisdiction over the class three wetlands like this in the city does. So it's been a complete flip. Pat, Mr. Chair, Dave Marshall here. I just wanted to provide a little bit more information with regard to this wetland. There is a narrow ban that extends out from the West Village side of the main body, the wetland and then southerly and then the southeasterly and then easterly. That's actually a farm ditch or ditch that was put in place by the original farmer for the property and we gas that was there to dewater the wetland. That ditch actually extends furtherly easterly through the proposed development area. That particular area was not identified as a wetland because the slopes of the land were such that no water would sit in the bottom of the ditch but in this upper section which sits on the very highest point of the landform of South Village, that is an area that the farmer didn't do a very good job of putting some slope on and hence wetland vegetation did establish itself in the bottom of the ditch. But nonetheless, it's a ditch that would allow any farming activity or it was a man-made ditch that we could go and maintain the ditch. So it's one area that we didn't feel had a high amount of value as far as trying to put fences around that particular one but if we were going to preserve an area that would be the main body of that particular class three wetland as part of the management of this area of preservation of what originally Mother Nature said was a wet area. And as such, it would still enable the land users that historically or in the past 15 years have been utilizing this particular area but it still achieved some of the intent of putting up fencing and trying to protect the wetland. In many of these cases, when we're putting up fencing it's intended to keep single-family lot owners from dumping their stuff in the wetland. And we really don't have that situation here where this is an open space area that is intended for passive and active recreational use. So those are all the thoughts as far as the background and how I'd like the board to think about that going forward. Okay, thank you for that, Dave. So no other questions about the wetland delineation? I move on to staff comment number four. Well, wait, Matt, it's Brian. I want to make sure I understand this. So it's a class three wetland which is not regulated by the state but the city of South Burden has a buffer requirement if I understand correctly. I guess this is Marla. Do we have any standards to guide us on how we go about waiving that buffer or what is that thought process like? Yes, so 12.02E are the standards for wetland protection. The board may allow encroachment into class three wetlands and wetland buffers upon finding the project's overall development, EPSC, strong water treatment, vision for stream buffering, a landscape plan, achieving the following standards. And the standards are the encroachment will not adversely affect the ability of the property to carry or store flood water adequately. The encroachment will not adversely affect the ability of the proposed strong water treatment system to reduce sedimentation and the impact of the encroachment on the specific wetland functions and values of the wetland is minimized and or offset by appropriate landscaping, strong water treatments, stream buffering and or other mitigation measures. So it's just our standard three wetland protection standards. Okay, and could I ask that the applicant address those standards? Robin, if I'm not remiss, there was a report submitted by the wetland ecologist to that effect as far as addressing those particular standards. That's correct. There's a letter submitted by Patty, Swift Green, the wetland consultant and one from Tina Heath at the state and each consider that this wetland has no value. And then to add, it has been farmed and it has been continually mowed and an extensive portion of it is going to be seeded to the farm. It will continue to be mowed and cut in agricultural use. Okay, thank you. Any other questions, Brian or anyone else? Okay, moving on to staff comment number four, which is staff recommends the board required the applicant to modify the plans to show that the recreation path will be connected, including any required grading and landscaping appears this project proposes to complete the remaining segment of the recreation path, although a small portion of the path of the Western edges beyond the edge of the land. Is that correct, Robin, Dave? That was correct. We only showed the improvements for a lot four. Indeed, the path does go all the way to the left to a lot 11A where it is intended to be completed. It's already three quarters complete on 11A. So there's only a small section left. You can revise the question. Yes. Sure. Thank you. Yes, we will. We would also just support a condition that articulates that it needs to be connected. Right, okay. Thank you. Regarding water supply and wastewater, staff considers the applicant must obtain preliminary water and wastewater allocation for the proposed 22 units prior to final flood approval. Staff recommends the board continue the hearing until such time as allocations are obtained. The wastewater applications were submitted and obtained last week. Justin Rabadou signed off on them. Staff have copies. Water was also applied for. And we object to continuing the hearing just for water, but we are good with a condition that prior to any zoning permit being applied for, water allocation must be obtained. Okay, great. Thank you for that. Appreciate it. Staff comment number six regarding proper line on Allen East Road and North Jefferson Road located within the proposed 10 foot wide recreation by about a foot. Staff considers recreation pass should not be located within private property, recommends the board direct the applicant to move it to be wholly within the right of way. As a pack of publication, the director of public works has not reviewed the plan. Staff anticipates we'll have an update. Do we have an update? Sorry, I was just taking notes on what Robin just said about watering wastewater. More on the DPW-1? Yeah, there's the department of public works. Oh, just the comment that I talked about at the beginning. Recreation path. The property line on Allen Road is located within the proposed 10 foot wide. Oh, yes. So that was already with that comment was already in coordination with DPW director. So that is considered. So the recommendation above comment number six is look at the recreation path entirely within the right of way. And then comment number six about DPW comments, the only additional comment he had was what we talked about earlier with the impervious, the wide expansive impervious. Oh, I see, I see, I'm sorry. I took that out of order, her data context. Great. Thank you. Matt, Dave Marshall, we have revised the plans and we'll submit them to staff to reflect the requested change of the recreation path wholly within the right split. Okay. Item number seven, staff recommends a board request to recreation and park committee feedback on the proposed design of the, we're talking about the open space, the parks and design development. I thought I saw Kathy Franks on Catherine Frank is on. Catherine, is this a okay time to ask you if you've reviewed if your committee has looked at the parks? So Kathy Franks on the bike and pet committee. Oh, that's right. I'm sorry, Kathy. Oh, have you looked at the bike path? Do we have, do we have a, the rec and park committee? Have they looked at this? Have they discussed it? Do you have any feedback to share? To be honest, Matt, I sent it to the staff coordinator and I didn't get any feedback. So I probably should have hoped them again. Oh, Matt, I didn't. So I don't know if they took a look at it. Do I comment on it? Have you talked to them? No, in fact, this came up at sketch that it was articulated. I remember John Wilkins, John Wilking, I'm not saying that right, specifically addressing this that if parks and record anything to say, they should have said it at sketch. And honestly, we anticipated that as well at sketch. We committed to bringing this to the neighborhood to the HOA and the stewardship board who are responsible for all the open land. And they were all on board or farmers were also consulted. And it was our understanding that if there was to have been discussion that it would have happened back at sketch. So we don't under, and as this is a private amenity, we don't understand why it's going out to the city community. Okay. What has the authority to ask committees to review things that are, that they happen to be efforts on? But shouldn't that have happened at sketch? Well, it could happen any time. It could happen prior to tonight. We want to make sure that we as a board give our fellow committees an opportunity to weigh in and not deny them that chance. That's a commitment we've made to have made. And if we've given them that chance and they have no comment or for not to comment, that's certainly, we can't force them to make a comment if they have no opinion. So we'll route that one to ground. But yes, I do remember the discussion at sketch asking them what their thoughts were on having this amenity because they are experts in many, or they do spend a lot of their time focusing on different amenities in the city, even if they're privately held. And we appreciate their input. So that's the background there. Thank you. Number eight, the recreation path on Allen Road in East, in North Jefferson Road, wait, this is different. The recreation path, this is item number eight. Page 10, the recreation path on Allen Road East in North Jefferson Road is supposed to be approximately one foot in the development lots, the remainder of the public right away, the grass strip between the recreation path and the street is seven and a half feet. Staff is coordinated with the director of public works who supports reducing the grass strip by one foot in order to locate the recreation path entirely within the right of way. Staff recommends the board require that gets the biggest change. It might, the reason I paused is that, is this different than the one foot that's in the right of way that was in the staff comment number six? No, I apologize, Matt, it needed in there twice. Okay. Do we get credit for doing twice as much work? Yes. We're still fixing that, right? Yes, we are. That's correct. All over again. Okay, let's talk trees. City arborist doesn't recommend the Japanese tree lilacs or the crab apples because of clearance issues. Well, you have a response to the city arborist recommendation and if you have a plan to change these. We had our landscape revised last week per Craig's comments and they were submitted last week for his approval. Staff has received these. We believe the condition is that. We also asked that it be shared with Craig that the sidewalk and the road would be private because it appears Craig was not advised of that as comments had pertained a lot to do with public. But we believe we're completely different. Yep. We're also happy with the condition that the plants meet the city, meet the approval of the city arborist. Okay. Great. Thank you for that wrong. Matt, did you see the revised plans? I do not know. Marla, do you know? Do you know if the city arborist has seen the revised tree selections? I know that revisions have not made it around yet because they were submitted after staff comments. We don't want to send them around unless the board is ready to send them around. Okay. Moving on to lighting. Lighting is only proposed at the intersections of the alley with Allen Road, East and North Jefferson Road with Preserve Road. The poles are supposed to be 12 feet high and keeping with emphasizing the farm road is the front of the homes and the alley is the rear. Staff recommends the board require the applicant to add lighting at the intersection of the farm road with Allen Road, East. Robert, what's your response to that comment? We agreed and we had our lighting plans also revised last week and submitted them last week to staff. Okay. Thank you for that. I sketched the board director, the applicant to make the farm access road. The farm access road in front of the homes which requires the emphasizing the road over the alley. Staff recommends the board discuss whether the applicant has successfully made it apparent that the homes on a lot 11.1 face the access road rather than the alley and consider whether it required the applicant to pave the portion of the farm access road adjacent to a lot 11.1. It's also a recommendation pertaining to lighting issues above. I feel like we talked about this in sketch. But, Robin, do you have a response? Sure. All the homes are rear load, which the drawings to pitch with the front porches and the walks in the front and the garages in the rear. We are fine with the condition that says all units shall be rear loaded on lots 11.1 and 11.2. If that makes things more clear for folks, we did not hear any questions at sketch or here actually that validated that you couldn't tell that those were rear loaded with fronts that were facing the common elements in the road. No, my comment about sketch, sorry, Robin and Ruff was that I thought we talked about not paving the road, the farm road. Oh, we wanna talk about pavements. The farm road is currently, sorry, I thought we were on the rear load garages. It's both in that comment, but go ahead. I'll keep going. The farm road is currently unpaved and we see no reason to pave the road. It wasn't intended to be a farm road and have a natural road look and feel. It's generally only used seasonally, has very low traffic and saving the ongoing expense of repaving makes the most sense financially for the farm. Yeah, don't pay for the farm road, in my opinion. Okay, sorry about elevations, staff notes, provision of elevations of proposed structures is required in PUD applications. The applicant is effectively requesting a waiver of this application requirement. That recommends that if the board accept the sample elevations, which we have, that they specifically call out elements which are required to create street-facing orientation. For example, doors should face the street. Porches with slope roofs should be used. Multiple illustrations must be present on each story for each unit. It's stabilized, not grass. Walkways should extend from each door to the sidewalk. So when we say specifically call out elements, are we talking about adding that as conditions? For example, are we just asking them to describe it in the narrative? So normally an applicant is required to submit elevations. The board, the applicant can always ask for a waiver of an application requirement. It doesn't happen very often. Normally we get applications that contain all the required elements, but in this case, they may never request. So as to save costs, hiring the application and support the affordable. Be able to put more money towards the homes themselves, which is a reasonable request. So if the board is going to say, okay, we accept this sample image in lieu of elevations, since the applicant has testified that they're not proposing to construct these exact homes, what about these homes? Is it that the board is saying, yes, this is what we are approving you to build? So those would be specific conditions that referencing, what about these homes is approved? Can I speak to this? Go ahead. What's that? Go ahead. I just wanted to add that we submitted and I see them here on the sign in the viewer that our design review standards. South Village has very strict design review standards that have been adopted into all approvals for phase two and phase three. And we support having them apply to this lot 11 and actually the lot 48 as conditions of approval. The standards are very precise regarding front entries and front walks and where they go and their orientation and fenestration. They're incredibly well-defined. They were largely worked out with staff at the time that they were created and they're more extensive than any of the call outs that Marla has brought up. And on the 48N, which we'll get to, staff has actually noted that the South Village design standards are acceptable in lieu of elevations for a lot 48N. So we would like to request that same consideration for a lot 11. Okay. Mark, what do you see here in the samples in terms of seeing if it meets the goals? The stuff I've seen in the samples, it meets the goals.  I think they would have, and I mean, I'm not trying to speak naively, but I think they would have to struggle not to have it come off as front-loaded with the proper design as they predicted, depicted in that one sample photograph, which is typical for out there. So, I think seeing one elevation would probably be fine, but I'm comfortable that it's gonna be designed and built as narrative and as I see it in the site plan. Right. And the 13th comment is a recommendation that the applicant provide front and side elevations for the homes which face south to ensure this criteria is met. That's fine. I mean, you know, trust but verify. Well, we wanted to put forth the word be amenable to a condition that says that the units directly alongside Allen Road East will front on Allen Road East and our design review standards really handle all the rest. They talk about how wide the front porch has to be and how wide the sidewalk has to be. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. I remember all those. I'm fine with that condition. I'm fine with that condition also because it's obvious those units are gonna front on Allen Road East, the way they're, you know, it's laid out and logic. Okay, that was the 13th staff comment. That's all we have for right now. This is a good opportunity for anyone listening at home to offer a public comment. If you have a public comment regarding SD 2102, you can either enter your name in the chat box, enter your comment in the chat box or just say your name and I'll call on you. I'm gonna pause now and listen and look. Matt, I have one more comment. Yep. Okay. Let me just make sure there's no public comments out there and then we'll return to, we'll let you go. I don't see anyone that wants to make a public comment in the chat box. I don't hear anyone. So I will ask the applicant if they have any questions for the board or comments. Go ahead, Robin. We do. The next section, the affordable housing density bonus. Staff has made a recommendation that the board make a condition about square footage when zoning permits are drawn. And we disagree with it. The original statement that was made during the miscellaneous application for the affordable plan reads that the four area of affordable units on lot 48N and lot 11 shall be no less than the market rate units of the same type on lot 11 and 48N. And we think that this language is enough to have compliance. We disagree with the statement that it's made. We read this example as saying, for example, every 1500 square foot market rate, there needs to be a 1500 square foot affordable unit and that we need to continue in that same balance. For example, if there was a 1600 square foot market, there needs to be a matching 600 square foot affordable and so on. We want the flexibility to be able to have two and three bedroom units. We recognize that there has to be a match in the affordable and in the market that there have to be comparables. And we're currently under obligations to provide a square feet of every unit that we build to zoning when we apply for a zoning permit. This is an overarching condition from phase three. This will not change for this phase. This will be included. And we feel that this vehicle is working. Further- We can clarify that. What, so, Robert, so the objection to what are the square footage of the first zoning permit issued on a lot 11? If market rate shall be the maximum size of all market rate units and minimum size of all affordable units, the challenge that as you see with that condition is what can you summarize that for me? The challenge is for our very first building permit, it establishes a flat rate or a flat size. And our understanding is that you have to have matching sizes. You have to have comparable affordables and comparable market, but not that they, not that you're going to pick one flat square foot size and it's going to apply to every unit that doesn't allow for any flexibility between two bedroom and three bedroom units. So go ahead, Mark. I mean, I agree with Robin on that, but I think there has to be some way of, you know, accountability to show that there's a match.  And it doesn't allow for sort of some two, some three, but I do see that we do need to have some accountability to show that if you submit for five, you know, three bedroom market rates, you're not submitting for, you know, five or six two bedroom affordable. It has to be a balanced approach and there has to be some way of showing that improving it. Right, and that's where I'm trying to describe that we're already obligated to give Delilah a spreadsheet with every zoning application, whether it's from a preferred order or from us that says what we're applying for the address, the unit and its square footage. And on that spreadsheet, it's further delineated already. Which units are affordable? Which units are not? Which are the lot 11 units? Which are the law 48 units? There's no mystery. We're not trying to hide anything or trick anybody. No, so I guess I would ask Matt or, you know, Marla or Delilah, you know, what precursor to this request for this condition, which does seem to put a lot less flexibility and a lot more rigidity on, you know, the applications and the zoning permits going forward. So MS-2002A has a condition that the floor area of the board has to find herein, which is in fact different from the floor area in the LDRs. Of affordable units on law 11, shall we know less than that market rate units same type on lots 11 and 48 in. So if you build a, like you were saying, if you build three bedrooms for all of your market rate and two bedrooms for all of your affordable, you're never gonna need that condition. At sketch and MS-20, sorry. I hear the answer. Go ahead, Marla. At sketch and at the hearings of which there were many for the, what is it, MS-1903, the applicant testified that these units would be identical to one another. So this is the testimony. We said affordable would be the same as comparable market and we're saying the same thing. I'm not saying that we're gonna have a three-bedroom market and three-bedroom affordable. I'm saying I wanna be able to have a two-bedroom affordable and a two-bedroom market and a three-bedroom market and a three-bedroom affordable. We totally get that we have to go one by one or two by two. However you wanted, we get that. We're in agreement with it. We're just not in agreement with flat rate sizing. So, Matt, I think I see where this, I guess I'd call it a breakdown of communication is that Marla, you took that Robbin said that they're gonna be identical units across the board and that statement says that, okay, whatever your first zoning permit is, that's your minimum for the affordable so that they match. But if Robbin saying there's gonna be some two and some three, we have to have an equal number and equal size of each in market and affordable. Right. So, Mark, Dave Mosul here. We're gonna have to go to the code. Go ahead, Dave. Oh, I'm sorry. One thing we talked about how to ensure that happens is we actually come in with two applications at the same time, one for the market rate and one for affordable. That allows staff to recognize that they are the same as far as characterization. And then that would allow for them to be built in a manner consistent where we don't go too far in one direction and forget about the affordable. So, we were just trying to find checks and balances that would work through this particular system with the understanding that the intent is to make sure that the affordable units are not left behind and that whatever is produced as far as a market rate that we all have the same affordable unit. And we were just looking for tools on ultimately how to do that, but still provide the same flexibility in regards to characterization of the units. Well, we don't want to have 22 units that all look the same. We would love to have some variability. That's what neighborhoods typically have. And we're just wanting to make sure we didn't get caught in the corner where if we literally took the language out of the staff report, we would be basically putting ourselves in a corner. It was the first application on what the character of everything else would be. So, I think we're all headed in the right direction. We just want to make sure that the tools are there to ensure that all parties are comfortable with how we can achieve the goal. Yeah, and I think you're right to characterize it that day. We're not trying to say you have to build a two-bedroom or three-bedroom and you choose it the first go-around. What we want to ensure is that you don't build all the market rates first and then leave the affordables later. And if we had a condition that achieved what you described with a marching two-by-two, I'd happily sign off to that and not hold you to having all of the units built as per the first... What condition already exists in MS-1903 that they have to build one-for-one on Law 48N and Law 11? Say that again. I'm sorry, Marla. A condition of MS-1903 is that they have to build one portable for every market rate on Law 1148N. So they have to go two-by-two. The question is, is there a quarter to do that? And now, and we are giving them the flexibility to vary whether it's a two-bedroom or three-bedroom, but if they've got a match as they come in and they've got to be built, then the permits have to be pulled at the same time. I'm just emphasizing here. So if they come in in pairs and say the first pair is 1800 square feet, each 1800 square foot market rate and 1800 square foot affordable. And then the next pair is 1500 and then the next pair is 1200 and then the next pair is 1,000 and then the next pair is 800. Is that a problem? Is that a problem for? Is that a problem with compliance with the boys decision that these must be indistinguishable from market rate units? You know, that was a big discussion in MS-1903 that these units all be, that you can't point at them and say, this is where the affordable housing is. I don't see that as a problem because you're not building 6, 1800 square foot market rates on one side of the street and 6, 800 square foot affordable housing on one, the other side of the street. You're basically doing a mix of size and density, some 18, some 15, some 12, some 18, 800 square feet, but it's an equal mix of both market and affordable. So it's not like you're gonna look at the 800 square foot affordable and say, that's the affordable house because you have an 800 square foot market rates, either side by side or adjacent or whatever. I think the spirit of the law is being met and I think the intent of the law is being met as well with doing matching one-for-one. Yes, I understand why Marla brought it up now. Yeah, I agree. But I don't have a problem as long as it's one-for-one and it's done in a way that we achieve the affordable housing units in the same schedule and we're not leaving it for the end. I think it complies with a statute with our land developer regulations, but anyone else has a different thought, please say it now. No, I don't have a different thought, Mad, and since it was an issue that I felt strongly about, I'm glad to see that it's being addressed here. Yes, I think that the key here is parity and parity between the two types of housing and I think we're okay. Yeah. Okay, so I've asked for public comment. I did not hear any listening one more time. So now we have to make a decision whether to continue this to hear more testimony or to close it because we've heard everything that we need to hear. What is the thought of the staff and the board regarding that question? This one, what additional information do we feel we sort of need based on all of the discussions we said we would kind of put a pin in it while we're during this meeting? I believe all the pins were in the previous application. Okay. We didn't have any pins. Okay. My sense, no pins and needles. My sense, Mark, is that there's a lot to deliberate on. I know the board sometimes deliberates and then wants to ask additional questions that needn't delay anything to have that additional caution built in, but I would advise a deliberation before closing just to make sure that we're not missing something here. Yeah, that's not a bad idea, Marla. So we may just open the meeting and close it. Okay. Yeah, which is just a very perfunctory, we've done these before, but the status of the master plan shouldn't affect this, correct? Like there's unanswered questions of master plan. That's another reason to keep this, to continue this. All right. In my opinion, I think we should continue, but for the purpose of having a deliberation and determine whether or not more testimonies are required. Otherwise we close it, we deliberate, and then we have to make the decision to open it back up, which I would prefer not to do. So the applicant may not like that solution, but I think this is the best way forward that we can then hold the deliberation to discuss whether we need any more information, come to some sort of conclusion, and then if we need to open it back up or not open it back up, if we need to then have a further discussion to ask for more testimony, we can. And if not, we can simply close it and begin the clock on issuing a final decision. Any other questions for the board? Yes, could this be the January meeting? I don't know, Marla, can this be the January meeting? No, we should keep them all together. And like I said, the January 20th meeting is full. Okay. So I move that we continue SD 2102 of 1840 Square Street South Village with February 2nd. Do I have a second? I'll second. Okay, seconded by Don, roll call. Brian? Aye. Mark? Aye. John? Aye. Alyssa? Aye. Jim? Aye. John is not present, and Matt Kota votes aye, 601, and we will deliberate and continue on February 2nd. We'll discuss, and then just gonna go on February 2nd. Okay, next item on the, thank you very much. Next item on the agenda, don't go anywhere, Robin, which is, where are we? Sorry, number eight, number seven, preliminary final application SD 2103 of South Village Community's LLC to subdivide an existing 1.92 acre lot into five lots ranging from 1.4 acres to 0.67 acres. Into a 10.1 acres to an existing 12.6 acre agricultural lot for the purpose of developing a two family home on each lots, 92 to 95, establishing the fifth lot as a permanent open space, expanding the existing agricultural lot at 1840 Spirit Street, who is here for the applicant. Robin Jeffers from the Ireland and South Village Community. Patrick or Brian? Thank you for your sound engineering. Great, and as for the public listening at home, as discussed before, this is preliminary, the final plot. I provided a description earlier, preliminary final plot is the first stage of the, or the final stage of the hearing. And then I have to ask Robin and Patrick and Dave to raise the right hand. That's where to tell the truth under penalty of perjury. Okay, all three affirmative and so let's talk about this project now. Tell us a little bit about it, Robin, Dave, Patrick, about this application and what we're gonna be looking at. What's the application is for four duplexes oriented westerly towards a common element, the farm, private access road, 20 feet wide, and 109, and then a private drive extending southward from that where there's a hammer head turnaround for the private drive to serve two duplexes. Okay, then this application establishes the open space as well, is that correct? Yes, yes, sorry. Yep, yep, that's important for us to consider. Okay, so revealing the staff comments regarding lot size. Staff recommends the board determine effectively what the proposed lot should be granted setback and size waivers, buffer recommends. In making this determination, the board asked the applicant why they are not proposing shared lots like in the remainder of phase two and that the board consider whether the lots that's proposed are consistent with the remainder of phase two, so why not shared lots, Robin? Oh, is it okay if it's all right with you? I'm gonna answer one and two together. Sure, go ahead. Is that all right? Having our requesting setbacks of same as a lot of 11, 10 foot front, side five feet and rear five feet, which is what's shown on the plans. We staff talked about a 13 foot setback condition for the preserve road facing unit if needed. We're good with that. This isn't keeping in balance with all the lots in South Village who have received these waivers in the course over the course of time. I think some of this is repetitive, so I'm skipping over stuff. Why these are not the same as the balance of phase two? These are in large part because these units are smaller in size and the lots are smaller in size. We don't really review, figure, view our phases of having great differences. We view all of South Village is having many of the same attributes. This is due in large part to the internal design review standards, which are incorporated into most of our approvals. Farmway is designed to bring affordable and workforce housing to the market at the least expense possible in both building and continued ownership expense for the new owners and the smaller units in the smaller lots equal less taxes. So that directly answers your question. We're also dealing with a very fixed area and limits. So we are seeking a waiver for the lot coverage on these lots. And note that the newly created open space removed from the larger lot effect changes the math specifically or more if it were counted. The condensed housing is consistent with the overall South Village design. There were some questions about that from staff and so we did shoot an image over this morning I believe or yesterday regarding a lot to width ratio if people wanted to see that. Comparing the sameness of this layout to the balance of South Village. Hold on a second, I'm trying to bring it up. Well, Delilah is looking for that. I have a question that pertains to the whole area. Am I correct and understand? First of all, what's a snub or a stub road? Is that a dead end? Marla? Yeah. Okay. Am I correct in understanding that there's a road that goes in that's paved and then it narrows and continues and it will be gravel and that's considered a driveway? Is that, do I have it right conceptually? You have it right. It's there for closing. Could Delilah put up the landscape drawing? What is the purpose of having the gravel driveway and not just having it all be paved? We agree that it could be paved. We wanted to show the difference where the road ended and where the driveway began. The driveway dogs down significantly from the private road. And if you can zoom in any closer, there's actually a paver treatment for the turnaround on the driveway side. We were asked at Sketch to make it very clear that the 199 foot road was indeed a 199 foot road and that the driveway was different. The road is 20 feet wide. The driveway is 12 feet wide. And why is that? I mean, did we ask you to specifically do that? Is there not enough room for it to be a road? I'm just trying to understand the rationale for this. The LDRs only allow a private road to be 200 and feet. Yes, you asked us to do that. Yeah, you're under the wire. Thank you for clarifying that. No problem. I do recall that discussion. Additionally, we added, which is on the different landscape package, we write about where it says pavers per landscape plan. All right, I'm just looking for your plans right now because I don't deal with this on a daily basis. And I've got one tiny little screen that I'm working with, so bear with me. That's okay, I can talk about it. At the entrance of the driveway, we also added white three rail fence, which runs also all the way along the western boundary of the property. It comes into the driveway from both sides. So if you were standing on Preserve Road and you're looking down the private road, you would see that area of fence and know that you're definitely transitioning from a road to a driveway. You're not gonna think it's a road that goes through. We also added a sign that said private drive. Staff found that objectionable. We're not committed to it one way or another. You can have the sign or not have the sign. We do think the fence meets the requests that you made for us at Sketch so that it is visible from any angle to denote a driveway from a road. Additionally, the road is curved. It's wider, it has street trees, it has a sidewalk. It's got everything a normal road would have. It has a streetlight at the end of it. The driveway has none of those things. It's narrower, it has shrubs. It's a little fancy fence. Ed, we do want it paved. We want the ability to pave it. We're kind of driving all over here. There we go. I think I jumped ahead on some of the stuff because I just kept talking. Yeah, that's all right. But I like to tick them off as they come in. So we heard your answer regarding why not propose shared lots. We did not discuss the maximum building coverage. You're proposing a 40.1% maximum lot coverage, excuse me, building coverage and the maximum lot coverage of 54.5%. I'm looking at the dimensional standards for the master plan. We are seeking that as proposed and we are asking for a waiver for that. And we also note that we are creating an open space which is no longer in the math for the covered area which makes a big difference. Yep. Yeah, I'm agreeable to that, but the board is in the comments. If not, move to three comments from the Director of Public Works regarding this. Has there been a update, Marla? Yep, I heard from Justin who did not have any comments on this application. So he just didn't have anything to add. Okay. Number four, several parcels of open space were proposed on this project with substantial network and trails. In addition, as part of the master plan of future public recreation field was approved near the intersection of Allen and Speer applicant staff been working towards construction if the recreation field pursuant to the agreement with city council. It sketched the applicant proposed to leave the open space east of the parcel un-maintained. Staff considers the board shafts applicant to justify this request by quantifying the proximity in the area of recreational space available also for the development. Staff notes mode, level areas are desirable for recreation recommends the board, consider asking the recreation parks committee whether adequate spaces are provided or if this space should be managed as well. What is the agreement with the city council, Brava? What is the agreement with the city council? Says applicant staff have been working towards construction of the recreation field pursuant to the agreement with city council. I don't know what that means. That is not. That's a soccer field. It's the soccer field and it's on lot 11B which is not part of this application. It is something that we continue to talk about and move forward on, but we're not there yet. Right, so that's presented as context for what the available recreation is near the project. So back at sketch we presented images of this area in its natural state, which is that image. We also presented images of groomed areas of the same and ungroomed areas of the same elsewhere in South Village, the same dimensions. And we also talked to the South Village Community Stewardship Fund who are in charge of all the open space in South Village and they're given that power through our declaration and bylaws. And it was they who said that they wanted to see it in its preserved natural state. We presented it that way at sketch. We did not receive any negative feedback. It provides a beautiful buffer in between the backyards of the houses that currently exist on North Jefferson Road and what will be the backyards of the new homes. It's nice, it's not flat if you were to mow it. It's not like you could have a flat playing area. It has a 10 foot drop from one end to the other, which you kind of can't tell because of all the brush. It's really quite beautiful. All those purple flowers are verbena and lovely stuff is growing in there, including those two pretty little trees. We thought enhancing it with additional plantings of trees which are shown on the landscape plan would make it a really nice, essentially a natural area that buffers backyards from one another. And their trails, their walking trails through there? The bike path goes right through there actually. It's a beautiful bike ride. You can barely make out a little clip of pavement on that left-hand side of the image that just disappeared. Yeah, I've been back there. Yeah, I don't. So can I interject here for a minute? Sorry, I feel like we're getting a little bit, and this is obviously my fault because I wrote the staff comments. It seems like Robin's testimony regarding this open space relies strongly on it being the backyard. And the most substantive comment pertains to residential design and orientation of the homes. And so that's staff comment number 12. So I would, perhaps we can revisit what this open space should look like after we talk about what's the front of the homes and what's the back of the homes. Okay, all right, put a pen in it. That makes sense, Robin. So let's move to staff comment number five. Staff recommends the board consider the following criteria individually and an aggregate. We're talking about street block and pattern. Sorry, my sapper yard just fell asleep next to me. Staff comment number six, staff recommends the board discuss whether they consider this criteria to be met or if the applicant has failed to create a 200 foot roadway. If the board accepts the street and drive with configuration, staff recommends the board to conclude a condition requiring the driveway and the driveway aprons to buildings 94, 95 to retain both as gravel and the dimensions shown. Okay, this is where we jumped out of order or we talked about whether or not to, you want the right to pave it or not. So I'm prepared to address five, six and seven in aggregate. Sure, let's do it. That was my understanding. Pat. Yep. And I'm gonna repeat what I just said, but what the heck? I'll go fast. At DRB, let's get the DRB directed us to make private drive more distinguished from the private road. We worked extensively with TJ Boyle landscape architects to achieve this goal. The private road is 199 feet long, 20 foot wide, curved, street-tried, sidewalks. The private driveway is distinguished by being framed by fencing at its entrance. The driveway differs from the road in its 12 foot width and as a border of shrubs, it does not have any gate. It is further designated by a private drive sign mounted to the fence at the entrance which frames the entry to the driveway. This creates a visual from the street level perspective. A gravel drive is shown to distinguish the drive from the overhead or plans view perspective. We believe the fencing detail most distinguishes the private drive visual at street level. We're good with removing the sign. We're okay with removing the fence if the DRB does not agree that it is not needed to distinguish the driveway, but believe it does this task well. We're not good with the requirement that the driveway to remain gravel as it should be a hardship for a future owner, someone who has ADA requirements and requires smooth rolling surfaces. It was our understanding that the visual differentiation was what the DRB sought from us at Sketch and the fence dimensional differentiation, landscaping, curbing and sidewalk perform the job of distinguishing the driveway from the road. That's what I have. Okay, thank you, Robin. We're going to eight for their questions. Well, I think that the board really needs to go into this at length because this is what the focus was at the Sketch conversation. And so the driveway being gravel or not gravel, you know, I think it's the applicant has presented which are on the screen as how they are going to differentiate the road from the driveway. It includes a number of things. It includes the road being wider than the driveway. It includes a different surface treatment. It includes this hammerhead turnaround. Now it includes a fence and a sign. It includes different landscaping. Whatever of those elements the board feels, if the board feels that they have successfully differentiated the road from the driveway, then, you know, Robin is asking that they not be required to have gravel. Is it still differentiated? Are there other measures that, you know, are definitely the things that do it and that gravel is not necessary? So the first question is, have they done it? And the second question is, if they have done it, have they done it too much? Are there things that can be kind of scaled back? So I understand that a private road can only be so long, but if they paved the driveway, why is that a big deal if they paved the driveway? Why is it a big deal that the two be differentiated? There's something I'm not getting here. Well, I think the intent really, what I recall the board tasking us with was if you were standing on Preserve Road, looking down Farms Edge Way that it wouldn't look like one long road. That's why we narrow it down. That's why we have the white fence on either side. That's why we have the radius with the pavers in a private driveway sign. I think the only way you would be able to differentiate from above is if you were a bird. Therefore, I don't believe the pavement versus gravel really is applicable. So the board of sketch felt like they wanted this to be very clear that it was not a circumvention of the rule or a loophole, but an actual road and an actual driveway. Have they done enough? Feel like a game show. Have they done enough? Well, the gravel versus pavement is not to me the decider of whether or not it's too much with the differentiation. I think I like the gravel because that was a distinction, but if there is a concern about wanting to preserve the right to pave in the future, could there be a condition which says they have to, are we essentially creating a situation where we're banning the use of pavement in the future? If we insist, I don't know if it's worth it. I'm also really concerned about accessibility.  And I gravel just, I don't know. I mean, we're trying to solve one problem and in doing so creating others, I think. Yeah. Could you please zero in on where Farm's Edge Road meets the driveway? I just want to point out the other features, that's all.  I'm sure that we've, I know I have recently been driving down a roadway or even a shared driveway. It's typical in other communities. And then it pairs down to a shared driveway for two homes and there's a private drive sign on it. This is really kind of what we're talking about. Yeah. Is that consistent in South Village? Are there other places where there's, you know, feeling of do not enjoy this as a private area? I believe there's only two other private drives in South Village. There are others. There's several flag lots that all have that appearance and then there's one additional shared driveway with two houses off the end of it. It's off of Preserve Road. You guys want to see who's bringing it up? Sure. Say again where it is. Preserve Road. Preserve Road. The Google car went that far because I think the Google car only went so far into South Village. I don't think it's on anything we submitted. It didn't occur to me. I guess. It's on your screen. Hey, Matt. This is Mark. Yeah, I apologize. I'm gonna have to step out. But I just want to throw out there I do think that I think the differentiation of the gravel driveway helps for my sampling of a private road but I hear the issue of the accessibility and I guess one thing I'm not sure how silly the idea is but if the actual linear driveway is gravel but we allow the actual parking areas, you know, the parking areas in front of the units to be asphalt. That way sort of like it does neck down, narrower and gravel but we can actually park on asphalt for the accessibility and maintenance issue but you still get that differentiation. Just a thought. I could lean either way in terms of the fence, the private sign, the necking it down, the additional landscaping but I just wanted to throw out the issue of I like the gravel driveway but I hear the accessibility thing and say if we allowed asphalt on the actual parking areas but the driveway road is maintained as gravel. So I'm not, I do have to run guys. Mark, are you coming back? I'm gonna try to come back but it might be a little bit. Okay. Okay. See you Mark. Thank you. I don't think the Google, Google has driven fully into your development there so we'll go back here. Okay. We follow up with the final fence and the private drive Robin, can you say to the third time what your, the staff was that these are excessive what was your thoughts about revising that? We thought and I had just highlighted it but I guess it's gone. Should I do that again? This is fence. This is fence and this is a sign. Not that whole thing. Those are pavers, that's not a sign. If you're standing on preserve road can you zoom out a little bit, Delilah? Please. If you were standing on preserve road and you look down, this is no longer accurate. When you draw, yeah, it changes when you draw when you change those. All right. Let me do this. There we go. Essentially, if you're looking this way, the fence very clearly articulates the private drive from a vertical point regardless of whether it's paved or not paved. We had suggested putting a private drive sign on this curvature piece that's very visual with the line of sight down the road. We're, if the fence does it for you and we don't need a private road sign we're not hung up on that. We could go with it or without it. We do think the fence provides the visual that you asked for. If the DRB doesn't agree with that, we're not stuck on it but I would actually say I prefer the fence over not being able to have gravel because I do think the accessibility is an issue. Right. Does that answer your question? It's okay. You're okay moving the sign. You're moving the sign. We're okay with removing the sign. We're okay if you hate the fence but we think the fence does what you asked us to do. Yeah. More so than that gravel. More so than gravel. Yeah. And also this whole border right here with the farm is that three rail fence. It's not like it's just a little section of fence popping out of nowhere. The entire fence, the entire farm when we're done here we'll be surrounded with the three rail fence. Yeah. Yeah. I'm gonna agree with that. No sign. Fence is fine. Thank you. The stub road. The stub road. We did talk about this at sketch. This ends at the farm. This dead ends at the farm. Well, it dead ends here but then the driveway goes to the farm and the farm actually has a, there's a piece of the farm that comes down to all the way to North Jefferson Road. So unless we want to run through or over the farm which is not feasible, there is no way to continue this road. So it's not, it can't go to another parcel. No, it can't. That lot 63 right there is farm. Open space. This right here is all farm. This is connected to all. Open space. It can't be developed 50 years from now from someone else. No, it will never be. That's not really the angle. The angle. And I'm not saying that the porch should deny this necessarily but I want to point out that the angle isn't that it could actually connect. The angle is that it could potentially not be a stub road at all. It could be to multi families with a shared driveway or two triplexes with a shared driveway and a third triplex facing for the road which would get them the same number or even more potentially units. And like I said, I'm not necessarily recommending that this is a terrible idea. I'm just saying that that's not that the idea of connecting to an adjacent parcel isn't the only solution to not having a stump road. I may add that there's confused. Go ahead, Patrick. I just want to add that there's a lot of history to this lot. Marla is correct. Multi family buildings do work and we don't have a situation with a private drive and we actually did propose multi families and the village, the entire South village showed up at the hearing and went absolutely bonkers. So we withdrew that. We went through several iterations with the neighborhood committee and staff and this is where we land. I think Marla may recall the number of letters she received from residents and their attorneys, all threatening to sue if we were to put anything larger than what we have currently proposed on that one. What we are proposed is the result of three years of compromise. Okay. We don't put a road in there. We can't develop it. Okay. I've heard enough. Regarding a lot shall maintain a minimum with depth ratio of one to two with a ratio of one to two five and one five to propose lots do not meet this criteria. Plots 92 and 93 are wider than they are deep. Plots 94 and 95 are closer to one to one. Homes that are main to the development including DuPont's home base two are generally less consumptive than those proposed for this parcel. Staff considers that the space allowed to each dwelling unit is taking consideration. Units on lots 94 and 95 here to meet this criteria but not on 92 and 93. Staff considers an alternative configuration could result in this criterion being met. So lots shall maintain a minimum. How do we, how do you deal with that, Robin? We say that these lots are congruent with all of the other lots at South Village. We submitted that photograph, an overhead view of all the other, of many other lots. A huge bunch of them showing that all the duplex and triplex essentially fill up the lots like these. These three of them actually have a tiny bit more backyard than is normal, which we worked pretty hard to achieve. Lot 92 is very normal for a duplex or a triplex in South Village and we feel that these are very much congruent with the overall traditional neighborhood design which is the dense format. The lot ratios have been forgiven before. It's the only way to honestly shoehorn all these units in there. But we also touched on this on sketch and what we talked about was we could push the houses from the South to the North towards Preserve Road. But I remember, I forget who it was on the board said that they would prefer to keep it as is and just give the houses a little more room. Yeah, I do remember that description. There was a comment from staff about, yeah, changing the lot sizes, but these lot sizes, if you notice the footprints that are barely visible at the bottom, these entire lots are no bigger than a house on the other side of the road. The city doesn't recognize or acknowledge the footprint lot. So that's not really relevant to this discussion. Those as far as the city are concerned are homes ownership. We believe they are congruent. If you need to bring up that image for comparison, I'd ask you to bring that up. So middle width to depth ratio, that is something that in a PUD, we can wave. Diplomental submission, Robin, if you've told me what it was called. It's called regard to lot ratio or something like that. It is a photo. Is it a stand? Okay, they're trying to find a stand alone. The name of it is regarding lot to width ratio image. Okay, I don't think you have it in that way. I think it's only in the compiled supplemental PDF. Okay. Then it's page 30 of the supplemental. All right, I am there. Yes, I think this is the one you're looking for. That's it. That's the one you wanted? That's it. So you'll notice this is a triplex. Duplex, duplex, triplex, triplex, duplex, duplex, duplex. They're all in shorts. I could probably describe them more romantically, but they're all in short squatty. And the house fills up most of it with a tiny bit of yard. I believe we are very much in keeping with what's already been established as the development pattern in the South Village. And it's when you have dense development pattern, this is the result. Are there questions? Yeah, is there anyone on the board have a comment regarding the minimum lot width depth ratio? Not hearing any. I'd move on to street and sidewalk parking standards. Staff recommends the board discuss whether they'll accept the applicants to propose private roadway width for consistency with the remainder of South Village or require the roadway width to be 24 feet. The dead end road is proposed to be 20 feet right now with a five foot grass strip between the roadway and the sidewalk. Minimum roadway width is 20 feet without parking. The reason for 24 feet without parking streets are required to be 24 feet. That includes a dead end road, I assume. The private dead end road. Is that correct, Marla? I'm sorry, it's the 24 feet is the private dead end road, not the driveway. Right. So private dead end roads are required to be 24 feet. You propose the 20 foot feet wide with a five foot strip grass. What's the reasoning for what's the reason for going 20 feet with five foot grass strip? What's the purpose behind that? We went with the 20 feet because that's what all the private roads are at South Village and it was my recollection from the sketch that the fire chief was fine with the 20 feet. It gave us more flexibility in the lot design and providing more parking for units in their driveways. If we were to make it 24 feet wide, we just, you wouldn't have room enough for cars to park on the side of the road, but you would have less driveways. When the fire chief noted that he accepted it, we thought it was good. It is the same as all the other private roadways in South Village. And Justin is fine with it. Okay, any questions about the width of the roadway? Okay, comment number 11 regarding on-street parking. Sufficient space for one lane of on-street parking shall be provided on all streets except for our chariots outside the SEQVC and SEQVR sub districts. On-street parking is not provided as discussed above. Staff notes the board has approved lanes with no on-street parking elsewhere in South Village and recommends the board discuss whether to require on-street parking on this dead and private road. With on-street parking, the road width would be required to increase from 20 to 26 feet. You don't want, I assume, parking on the street and you want to keep it at 20 feet. We would like to keep it at 20 feet. Have room, again, for the double-wide parking and the driveways. It's consistent with the rest of the South Village, correct? Yes, yes it is. Okay, any questions about on-street parking? Okay, staff comment number 12 dealing with residential design. Staff considers the revised configuration could significantly less compliant with this criterion. And because of its inconsistency with other prior approvals, recommends the board direct the applicant to return the home orientation presented at sketch, including sidewalk connections to the recreation path with fence segments at the proper line to service the lineation of the open space. Specifically, staff recommends the board require the applicant to orient the two northern most homes towards Preserve Road. The remaining six homes toward the eastern open space. Staff notes that the applicant's South Village design review standards document incorporated in the final plot approvals for South Village require each home to have a front walk connecting to the street or a common element. Alley's and lanes, which staff considers the private dead end street are n