yeah yeah items do we have any changes or other additions deletions no hearing on comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda does anyone have any comments or questions not related to the agenda hearing none sandra rendell to subdivide a three point nine two acre parcel developed with a single family dwelling into two lots ranging in size from point nine three acres to two point nine million acres at fifty one hundred four road we're here for the  three three and we decided that we wanted to subdivide off one small record with the intent that we would downsize from the bigger house to live in build a smaller home either my husband and i or our daughters also interest us believe doing it so that was what motivated us to do it and we worked with miles on the process so if we could step through the stuff comments building a maximum height of twenty eight feet or less and that's fine with us you know i keep in mind that there is no plan to build a house right now no plan to build a driveway so at some point there will be and there will be you know the asians elevations and plans that will probably come back to say you'll see again so at that point we're probably the condition of the twenty eight feet but i don't think it's going to change our our subdivision plans you know or we go on conflicts of interest very well on the board have conflicts of interest with the outfit known miles for a long time but i don't think it's a conflict sides the next item was that the adopt a condition that the weapon buffer not be turned into a lawn we're fine with that this comment the board require the applicant to amend the plan to show a split rail fence line of boulders or other prominent rather than a fence of days choose not to show a fence or are boulders i personally would prefer to do that just before moving on to page five staff recommends a condition that needed a thirty interest thirty two inch maple on hold for robe shall be impacted by construction of the driveway so that's something when you talk about because you can bring up that plan that shows the him number five the board required applicant to amend the plans demonstrate compliance with article sixteen of the all the r s which is the erosion control measures again that seems to me that if the future applicant would come in with it with our plan right now was showing a building footprint in a driveway or is understanding the request is intended to demonstrate compliance with the  all right so the back to staff recommends the condition requiring the driveway for lot to be located off the old farm road that's no problem that's the plan and finally back to the no no cutting of the thirty or thirty two inch maple along old farm road we had been told that with it was preferable for the driveway to be across from the driveway to fifty one old farm so that's the way we set a driveway directly across from fifty one  so we sighted our driveway to be as close to across the street from fifty old farm road which means that the one of the maple street trees would probably come down there one on the right and one of the right p and so we could we could move the driveway to go between the two trees but it would mean moving it you know further towards road and not directly across recommendation from the board that you heard that i believe so for myself i don't remember that might happen at sketch plan not knowing the were some trees here downside of staggering the driveway just that having to face each other probably not much on a low volume roadway for a single family home so that's why staff would support relocating to drive or to save the trees for the trees  other comments questions from the board number of are provided at a certain height you know right now if you want to do a tree or shrub row or we can identify that buffer area and make a note saying that it  it's a different owner than maybe plan for right now when we're five years down the road and they want to they know that they have a house building footprint and they know that they have a driveway that needs to go there and they know they have wastewater connection that goes here but they might want to do something else along that side of the road and then they can apply to the board to amend this approval  have that somebody say ok it's either fence or whatever the different options are because you have given those three options then the board doesn't know what they're approving and if you pick the option of trees you could put just two trees along three hundred feet at rate based on the way that it was written it says we can do any of those three yes you can do any of those three but i think it's important for the board to know what the spacing is because if they space some hundred feet apart you might say gee that's low too far apart we want to closer than that for instance we've got a good solution is to put in a fence now and your bio you tell your buyer you don't like it go back to the board and show them your berm with you with your specific trees needing to be demarcated she does want to i mean they've they've lived at this this property for years decades with no demarcation and there's been no impact to the buffer so i'm just wondering whether you're making us do something that it's not really that's it ultimately up to the board so this is a this is a strong preference if it isn't in the regulations it has been a strong preference  o have worked with a developer successfully for many years to ensure that wetlands are never turned into lawns or  there they're peeping into erosion control later i'm i'm in complete agreement with you when you're talking about a large project and ten homes that are backing up to swale in the back that needs to be maintained i totally get it this is three foot high fence i don't care but i think i think we're sort of pushing the outer envelope in this case that's a good point john of the comments that jennifer i agree a market maker i would move that we close that would not require the feds to be specified at all do not know that we don't we don't require them to come back with specific planting that they allow them to do the fence and market in the in the plan if they want to come back and change so they are in favor of a fence john you're not in favor of for joy i have no problem of the fence i have no problem with with thirty five trees i have no problem with two   don't think there's a i don't think there's any downside here and i would favor just doing something as simple simple as possible use words and then let me get up to the next person and then we can close it probably doesn't have to be continuous split rail the whole length he could be a section here and then you have the space and have another section here just to sort of create a visual barriers to where the well and boundary is  when they come back or someone else comes back to propose a home on the site and they want to change that from a split rail to another that couldn't be accomplished at that time to me let's just be sure that we're talking about you worked through many of the staff report items and but nonetheless there were still some open items for further discussion further evidence further information to be gathered by staff as well as by items in the application as it least staff in the op can seize them today so item one they are numbered but will kind of work through look for the red items and and the associated titles  in this particular case we asked for at the last meeting discussed a modification of the condition as it relates to the use of herbicides in proximity to the wetlands all within welland areas there are certain parameters within the land management plan that does call for those particular uses herbicides under special circumstances as part of the restoration plan as well as there are certain management issues within the wetland permit that was issued by the state so we asked for that condition to be modified to reflect those two documents and staff has prepared a proposed condition that is acceptable to the up again this great item two is about sidewalks and south village was originally designed with the concept of having sidewalks on both sides of the road where there were homes and so basically each home had the opportunity to have a sidewalk in front of it and you'd be able to utilize it for those purposes intended for sidewalks in this particular case there is a portion on the west end of the site there that where there is a six homes three on each side of the road the south side happens to benefit from a proposed recreation path which will be doubling as a sidewalk on the north side of the applicant had proposed a sidewalk system to service those homes public works has asked that that be eliminated from the project we had a little bit of discussion on where what we could do to basically kind of find a middle ground as we left the meeting last time  it was offered by the applicant that they would maintain construct and maintain that particular sidewalk system and the question of the time was whether there were any issues of a private entity maintaining a feature within the public rights of way we understand that just revenue is here from public works to help provide additional detail in that regard as well is it to support their original position so perhaps now just in  think so going to speak a little bit about this project and a lot more globally if you bear with me first i do want to address the generous offer of others to maintain city infrastructure there are certainly some legal issues with that however ten times out of ten all that means is five years down the road someone is looking to get out of that commitment and they're looking to the city and factors a development that was built in early arts who's doing that exact same thing right now they're trying to get out of conditions about maintenance and ownership you do this long enough you realise that that's never a solution that works long term people always want the city to maintain city infrastructure so we would be opposed to that type of a agreement i think i think you dave is highlighting the section of kind of an orphan sidewalk to the right you see a hatched area which i believe is environmentally sensitive which is why the overall footprint and impervious has been reduced which is another reason why there's not a connecting sidewalk to the east is that correct if the east that's correct ok i don't know the number and you you probably know just as well as i do that maybe thirty percent of south burlington homes have sidewalk in front of them you know certainly not half you know because there's and there are entire neighborhoods have no sidewalk most neighborhoods a sidewalk on one side so now the the notion or the obligation that this is somehow becoming a standard is troubling to us in and of itself the issue of an area of sidewalk that's just that much more problematic for us to get to and turn around it's not continuous it just gets more time and here's where i want to speak a little more globally we have south village phases one two and three sort of mill phase one to aim to be over there counting their three phases the o'brien development spear meadows  help me for all the ones i'm missing city center source well i'm talking about ones that are kind of under construction now or in the permanent pipeline the public does your service departments within the city fire police public  works to maintain existing levels of service it's becoming a losing proposition i'm in fact the city council last night issued their budget guidance to the city administration and probably guess what the number of entries are looking for it's a little number state education taxes going up eight percent that's even before it's the local budgets there are constant budgetary pressures on the municipal side of government i certainly understand that new houses mean new taxes historically in south burlington all this and all this growth has barely kept up with inflationary pressures and labor contract agreements so the notion that excess revenues from new development will simply pay for people  doesn't pan out we're at the point with in public works where very soon one of two things will need to occur we presently have three sidewalk groups equipment and people to serve them and seven main truck those numbers need to increase if we're to a maintain existing level of service if people tell us that's fine give us we're service i'd be surprised one if you if we add another sidewalk plo street plow and two people to operate those in amortize those equipment labor costs over twenty year period it's about two hundred thousand dollars a year which is two thirds of a penny on the tax rate polices are we talking about  for their staff to grow because the development the fire department is talking about perhaps a new shift and or another substation somewhere these things are all these things all cost a lot of money so to the extent that we can eliminate frankly in my opinion representing the city unnecessary piece of infrastructure to us to maintain it keeps us from that edge it pushes that timeline further out  proposing in my budget this year you know another three hundred twenty thousand dollars of equipment to new people and the general fund is going to happen and when be approved but when these things eventually come public those needs are going to be there this is dave what's the front is there a hundred fifty five hundred eighty feel that you know that this isn't the straw here but this is more the discussion is more important the less connected or maintenance is or maintenance areas are the more problematic it is to maintain the more of them they are this notion that on their behalf the need sidewalks on both sides we certainly have pushed back elsewhere another another recent developments and we just see this at this particular section of sidewalk three blocks i the down the road that's the more time it takes us to do a route and eventually though the math on that you know when you're the number of things you need to maintain keep growing on the new minute on the numerator side denominate the denominator is not keeping up so we see this is something you know to use the act to fifty parlance would be an undue adverse impact on our ability to provide services to this project and to the rest of the city the question if the s discussed with the developer the need at all for the sidewalk on that side but the fact that it would be continuous is a little bit more palatable to us i would have been more in favor of it being continuous i certainly understand environmentally why it's not i'm not suggesting we put impervious through a sensitive area but that you're doing it the direct answer your question would be yes i'd be i'd be more in favor of a continuous section of road coming to you wouldn't be here resisting it if it were continuous no you folks don't see me much  we try to deal with our stuff with stuff so you hear an issue but i'm also thinking you know i want to hear from the developer in a minute but for right now you're he basically this if you say it's not the straw it's in fact a fairly trivial impact in another itself correct this one is and then the next four or five trivial impacts suddenly were suddenly that's an extra hour of maintenance on a roof but we're only here for this project current i'm reluctant to make the people you know how you them from the yardarm because of what's going to happen in the future there they're here now with the impact of the specific impact of their project now i need again a little development education why is the sidewalk there and help me understand a little bit what's directly across the street from that is that what the path is that that doubles as a sidewalk just to explain right now there is a recreation path that runs along the south side proposed for gratian path running around the proposed site of the roadway and what's knowledge was designed intended to have sidewalks on both sides of the street and south village face to went forward with sidewalks only on one side of the street and ultimately that approval was was appealed because it did not have that concept of sidewalks on both sides of the street ultimately that was redesigned and really approved well and brought back to the city and approved in an alternate way that basically provided that particular amenity on both sides of the street where there were homes on both sides of the street south village was designed as a traditional neighborhood where communication between people on i'm sorry i don't see these three these this little collection of homes are sort of off by themselves are not particularly well integrated into the rest of the project  and correct me if you really disagree so that it can't it came accommodate without this drop in anybody's aesthetic sense a somewhat different character than the rest of the country in the rest of the development which is pretty far away it's it is different well i'm asking to talk of the developer you know that i'm trying to get the reasons let me say this i've lived in houses here with with a sidewalk and without a sidewalk there's something to be said both have a sidewalk to cross the street walking the tightrope and the second one was as david mentioned in phase two we proposed sidewalks on one side of the street and we were appealed so ridiculous as that may sound that's our reality in we could probably get over the safety factor but our concern is it's likely the same person is going to appeal this simply isn't me sound because we don't have sidewalks actually the only one who sounded fairly compelling to me is the safety factor how busy is a street how busy will it be i mean it's i don't know how you do for you to find this is a collector  the street that will connect dorsett farms to south village it was such it will probably have some traffic of people going back and forth between the neighborhoods also i would add that these would be the only three homes in all of south village that would not have a sidewalk in front of them if we did not put a sidewalk there which kind of singles them out so as your question about value it probably doesn't change the the dollar value when someone goes to get a mortgage but as far as the value would i just looking at all the neighborhoods around me and almost every in every neighborhood in the last twenty years had sidewalks on one side and not on the other it could have been thinking of an old farm road i'm thinking of for sisters  we have a historic sense of not doing this this is the oddball situation where we're doing it this is the odd ball well the i get the long term argument and the the the but i home willing to make these people for that reason you know sacrificial goats know has to lift the plow you know four hundred fifty feet just doesn't impress me in this particular case you know we can address frankly that they if they want to address just enjoying with a better budget or a higher impact fee i don't know it just with terms of where we are at the minute three choices one is no sidewalk second choices sidewalk city maintains that their choices the sidewalk the developer maintains it through some sort of arrangement with the well i do by justin's argument that having that the private developer responsible for the public amenity is probably i find that p but if they were here they would probably say that you can't subjugate your ownership and your responsibility to another party and just waive the liability just because someone else agrees to do it it's still our lane we still own it we would still be subject to any type of action for maintenance and we the city have sovereign immunity a developer working perhaps on our behalf or a private entity within the public right of way lack sovereign immunity and we would probably lose our sovereign immunity  jennifer i personally won't miss the sidewalk if it's not there i don't have sidewalks in my neighborhood if i want to talk to my neighbor or we talk in the driveways or cross street and i live on a fairly busy street one more option is a special tax district we could just charge them  neighborhood the applicant agreed in and his condition to pay twenty thousand dollars to the city in support of those efforts in this particular case the op can just asked that some additional clarifying language that actually ties this condition which for the first time actually provides a specific timeframe on when the payment is due to these conditions so there's no mistaking on how many times you have to pay twenty thousand dollars that's item four we'll call it under landscaping in screening requirements the staff asked that we provide specific information on the cost of the proposed multifamily buildings we did provide that t under affordability we've talked about this quite a bit and work with staff and staff came up with a recommended condition and we are amenable to that condition  and development standards insert the words and development standards  one we are allowed to construct two hundred sixty nine communities mark two we are currently at approximately one hundred fifty units built we don't know exactly how much because the builders we sell to may for example have dropped off a couple of permits to that so that's why using a proxy one hundred fifty simple math equates us to being over a hundred units away from having to make a decision to build or not to build affordable units we are not required to build any affordable units we can start building at two hundred sixty nine we have not in any way shape or form applied for any applications to build affordable in the application before you will not bring the number of approved units approved in south raleigh tuned to two hundred sixty nine  the final part of poole already has conditions that spelled out the process of building affordable units and this coupled with the referenced sections in the old d r s should give this deal the comfort that they need to approve this application for you financially for the project we're not you know will need to come forth with the application yes we are close we have worked with staff for almost a year on but we can't put the cart before the horse we do not want a condition that responsible and responsible approach to where they're going to be sited because you all want and we all want you to build the whole three hundred thirty four units we want this project to be a success we want the traffic to be calm just think my my concern is getting to that two hundred seventy thing you know and there's hasn't been any big picture thinking about where those are going to go and it's going to be like hoops let's just stick them here and we can't do that that's just my concern so there were some clarifications provided to staff in regards to what the intent of meeting both short term and long term high school parking it appears that we're now on the same wavelength so we're happy for all th see the consent decree there was concern from the public last time that the application i was presented to the to the city was inconsistent with the consent decree that was entered into as part of the settlement both master plan and phase one alternately once staff and ourselves and the ability to share information it actually indicated that not only were we depicting the no development areas accurately as well as the limited development areas accurately but actually what the dick consent decree had shown was a portion of this lot being in the no development area the actually tucked return resizes lots and took them all inside the development area so there were no issues in regards to anybody's implied use of you know development area as part of their own property so we're just trying to  know that several people are concerned that we are limiting discussion to phase three not phases one and two we have asked our attorney city attorney and he came back and said you can't open it up to talk about phase one two that would be it would be a bad thing we have a very nice little word for it but basically it's something we just don't have the authority to do so we are not able to discuss phases  the two hundred seventieth they would have to find a way to do that when you also have to find a way to apportion we distribute in the other two phases right these are happening simultaneously where they're building on phase to order procedure not sure if that was a sketch plan meeting which case there is no decision made it's just a discussion between the applicant and the board so the board well all i'm saying is it's just it appears to be such a minor thing for the city that they're going to be over there anyway they're going to come in they're going to drive the whole cat across the wetlands across the bridge they're going to do the string the sidewalks me probably thirty five thousand dollars and five or six years maybe forty and i haven't seen anything falling from them so i think probably only a little bit and probably the time those three houses are  just the background on why this portion of the path is in place today so this is actually the water main route that comes from dorset farms and comes in all the way along this proposed roadway and feeds into phase one so that was constructed back in two thousand and five and that's been a convenient place where the grass is not grown up and people can still walk out there and eventually get to as patrick points out the quite pa skeptical that they'll ever be able to meet the actual forty laws you require me to put that aside it can't be met legally either as rental housing or as a condominium there are different requirements for each but we you know the market decision to build the units and have a market that was strictly to developers decision  the comments questions from the public then for yourself i'm johnny anderson and i wrote you a letter that you referred to but because you referred to the letter i simply want to comment thousand nine hundred seventy six square feet of commercial space a twenty thousand square foot movie theater building with a thousand seats a twenty two thousand five hundred square foot restaurant medical office a thirty five hundred square foot restaurant with drive thru services in a bank  developed of a planned unit development proximately forty acre parcel in total we're proposing to had forty eight units of affordable housing to the site it is a four story structure  parking ok parking will be on grade with a main entrance level on the first level and then three levels of of affordable units above  are we've got thirty three studio units twelve one bedroom units and three two bedroom units there are three things that we are requesting as part of the sketch plan at case that we'd like to discuss one being  requirement which is to propose an eight point five foot set back from the property line it is similar in context to other properties in the area we also would like to look at a front yard coverage requirement that is about eight percent higher than the thirty percent allowable within the front yard and a building total building height waiver  all people can use the parking we would propose to have twenty four spaces of parking still available under the building in the same footprint as the current existing parking lot so we're not increasing coverage of the lot we are proposing to the north a location which will have a flat area and open space area for recreational purposes  we would have a small little patio location to for the direct use of the tenants within the building some bicycle storage amenities outside as well as looking at some interior storage requirements  so there's a flat area to the north of the building west of the parking lot that can have so it's a storm water retention area but it will be no it's actually turning right was a little triangular so he said right in there that will be level or play in plain so you can actually walk on it but there be storm water retention below and that's just outside of the storm water seventy feet action probably about sixty feet that way something in that order of magnitude and the base of the triangle or the top of the triangle is what the top over here is probably another sixty feet roughly in line in linear feet those can be right up the back so if you look at the next slide that shows the layout that's going to be kind of the grade of the parking area that's there currently only a parking parking garage below concentric or whatever that perfectly because so this is sort of her part of garage apartment garage except this is a little lower as it is this downhillers and is it still relative heels down this and is probably a foot or two lower than the actual parking structure over here just because great is tapering off this way and it actually continues to go down as you go westward a we would we would maintain that slopes of so the water drains that direction so the parking structure i'm going to say it was i'm going to say there is nine foot clear opening here but as you go further down gets to about eleven feet of ceiling height because the grade of the parking structure or the parking lot below the building tapers down have a couple questions one so this concentrates all the affordable housing for this very large b u t in this one four story structure  back to where we started the last conversation so now we're just talking about forty eight units and let's talk about and for which the the let's not confuse ourselves the the label affordable housing is kind of units studio one unit cetera sure and how you came to there are why it's that way there are sixteen units of housing each level three total level there are twelve single bedroom units there are twelve sorry thirty three single betterness twelve studio units and then there are two that have a two bedroom we think that market still exist we think we're trying to serve that part of market very strong market we believe there's a demand for like a millimeter generation looking for places that are close to close to public services small scale so those are all along here the one bedroom units are back in here so there's a bedroom which is separated off from the main living space and then i think to better muniz their home their own one story right through the stuff thomas yup we're we're proposing a four story building total building height is to be forty seven feet allowable is thirty five feet within this district  we had i don't know if you have the view from shelburne road intersection a fiat drive in children road yeah so that's this is a picture taken of the location of this rendering so you'll see you know it's pretty loose rendering but this is the outline of the concentric building and  gardens is right here and we will see portion of the top floor of this proposed apartment building from the intersection taken right here it's all dug up at the moment but the intersection where the the si views from citizens bank location and mcdonald's but it's pretty screened with trees so it's hard to get a good visual from that perspective this is probably the most representative of from a public way i was that so we're looking from in front of zen garden so to speak design gardens entrances right here it's the end and unit of the commercial building and then you'll just the upper part of this upper floor of the fourth floor of our proposed apartment building above that behind that history if you go to the picture up above just scroll down just to have drawn it is treatment yeah i mean there's actually trees in front of it which are represented in our graphic but this will actually this tree isn't going to go anywhere and it's going to to staff because there's kind of a drop off and so it actually isn't that much higher than where shelburne road work that's part of part of our calculation as well and that's from the board on the building where you know i'm looking at the google street view and and it's pretty well the landscape including in front by mcdonald's all that so frankly i can't see those buildings from the that the building itself front elevation be eight point five feet from the property line there's adjacent buildings in the area which are similar in nature in terms of their respect their respect to the road and we also are there's a thirty percent allow both front yard coverage requirement in this area and we're at thirty eight percent  coverage thirty eight percentage beyond that for total lot coverage within the front yard setback so those are two things that will also have to discuss we think it's more progressive approach having the building up towards the street frontage tree lined areas being proposed as well as a sidewalk in front which connects properties to the north as well as back towards shelving road and we have an entrance off of that sidewalk into the main building and into the lower level here we're also proposing screening for the parking lot on this lower level as well we look at  here yes it is were on the up kind of the opposite side of the road on the palace nine side kind of from their parking area i would say how far will the first floor apartments be from the street if you get your a half what's that  going to say probably a little over twenty feet maybe and i'm not absolutely sure about that there's a little bit of a green space buffer in the sidewalk and i don't know exactly where the property line context fits within the building if you count the parking area how many stories of units to three stories of units  based on the scale it looks like it's about twenty five feet from the edge of the street to the edge of the building we will get you and actually get many just you know just like you might  into a wetland buffer race i think right to the rear yeah you back up to this were right up against it with the storm water retention area basically and even though in order to really facilitate this infill you've got to be fairly close to the road but you the but the benefit is that you're that you're running up and two watts of excess green space in the back so so you building and the parking lot on the proposed building will share a curb cut this is very interested in seeing the configuration of this sort of fix so there's not the safety concern we've discussed with the applicant and the undergoing some pretty major improvements right now so maybe this application in the time to address the curb cut but we want to sort of check in with the board to make sure that we're on the right track in bringing this up and it's something that we want to track maybe not now but as a later part of developing this p d was the curb i'm sorry is that the group that did you pay i'm just a little bit down further to see this area here so so part of that discussion was to have this entrance into the parking garage underneath the concentric building kind of opposite the entrance t nine and provide kind of a separate one in one out perm cut for the parking for this development and the back part of this parking area back here so would have entailed creating a green space here there is some permanent issues which i think krebs in lansing can probably get into more so than i but we felt to be a potentially safer application in terms of separating access into here and here rather than having one very wide open cut accessing the fire road drive so it's just it's something that's worth considering  i think it actually reduces the amount of impervious area but there's some stormwater calculation issues which make it a little bit more difficult to get to be current so we share the staff's a belief that we can  improve there are a lot of ways to improve that access the challenge that there has been a technical challenge and we're happy to have our engineer discuss that in it to the extent we can find a solution that doesn't look right for lack of a remote up endorsed box of our oh there's another plan here but it there's proposed there's a lot of existing vegetation on the site as we just discussed so one thing  about with stuff and you could weigh in whenever you'd like we'd like to obviously count a lot of the existing vegetation that's on the site currently we've got a proposal to put additional trees along the front streetscape of the building yes but my first inclination is that fire department may have some say on where those are located but i'm not sure at this time we're just proposing them  and it's going to be very very difficult for our application in on this site to have enough trees to meet your requirements here are your typical requirements so we may ask that we look at landscape opportunities in the greater p u d which help us achieve the total landscaping requirements of this project so we might want to spread the landscaping so this shows the current configuration of the street curb cut and proposed vegetation a long drive and here and again just trying to get it so to fulfill the landscape requirement we would be putting a lot of landscaping in front of the building and then also putting planting against the to decide that that sculpture is sort of a landscape feature maybe so yes it's possible you know or like the kind of like the more trees a couple of months from  over here if we can't get there we would be looking to plant to you know perhaps across the street from the theater maybe somewhere else but you have any plans for the street waving in front of the building there is existing street lights but big stuff yeah it was built in the time it was built in the day well how do you feel about taking it down and that is the border open to allowing the applicant to place required landscaping that cannot be planted around the new building elsewhere in the p d and if so do you does the board have any suggestions where you want to let the applicant propose and then you can review it at the next level the applicant is is busy looking at this p d as a whole and i think they'll be best suited and in terms of telling us where that might be a possibility square feet roughly is a typical single better unit how about the studio just slightly under that i'm going to tell you what i'm talking about here there is a i mean that's really small there is a  housing that's the term i'm looking for housing quality standards that are in forces that i'm sure you guys must be familiar with that that is the minimum qualifications forty four a know i get that i'm trying to put you in a position i'd like to see the building the position where it could be and i'm resisting your forty eight units for that reason and only for that reason you know if you or if you want to stay dramatically there's only a few people in the room you're below the standard that at least the government thinks is safe and decent housing that is there is a threshold that there's a mocked up unit within another property of this this base model here and we've all walked through it physically it is a small unit it's you can look at it in context of a hotel room size unit  but there are many of these with and there are small kitchenettes there are many of these and built ins that we have to accommodate that type of usage i guess i'd like t board to think about whether that's keeping in mind you know what what what the stick in his hand is forced without so much we got with a little less regard for the market and a little more regard for  frank so so a studio apartment size is what is required at what level i thought i didn't i didn't have it in mind they might have the number quicker than me i knew it started low one bedroom unit through one hundred standard is six hundred fifty square feet that disappeared instantaneously at at at fourteen hundred dollars a month i get that wouldn't be distorted market that's well it may be a distorted market but the point the point i'm trying to make is if you want these to be little a affordable meaning somebody who can normally afford one thousand dollars a month instead of somebody who can afford fifteen hundred dollars a month they may have to get smaller on square footage and and while that doesn't necessarily fix somebody who's coming in with a voucher it does help our market as a whole it makes makes it more for them so i it's you know it's opening up down shelburne road there are people who are going to be working there they can walk to the grocery stores they can walk to the bank they can walk to food options so get to the bus and get close to downtown it doesn't change things pretty dramatically if if it's a commuter you know local community commuter kind of thing you know i got all that i just got off an airplane from iceland five and a half hours economy class and by god it wasn't that expensive you know what i'm saying but you know seven weeks at the chiropractor the market is not an all purpose justification that from a profit with this one one one attitude is if you want to build this is the price point otherwise you don't get a building you can see if you want to build you know like this type of unit i understand it's not for everybody i get that question is should it be for so it's a four and a half to tommy matte size in japanese and we've done a little bit of research into these they're they're popular in the big cities take san francisco for example which has an enormous housing affordability crisis where these are becoming quite popular and there's certain key things that you need to do to make them comfortable living there actually have a quite comfortable ceiling  height lots of glass per square foot of of unit and you have to look closely at the built ins it's fine tuning the amenities within the unit so i know i'm less concerned with the they don't think what a relief valve they need a place where they can go to get out of their apartment you're right and we've talked to staff about where we can provide that we haven't defined that clearly in here but having a common space before them  ely replacing this and unit on the first level with a common area space that could provide kind of a little relief valve for getting out of your unit to do a roof  so good quality just small you know what we don't have any control over quality here you know i try and influence him wherever i can so sometimes you listen sometimes you  agree that we need to think about size and so forth because maybe it's that maybe it's too many units or the square footage but i like it because i don't want to with the location it's a good idea to put something that's a good that's been a dead spot for a long time it's good to do something with it just you know that was a long trip from i was just i don't know if you can discriminate on height or you know the size of the person that i would not be allowed take won't be a problem it's probably to look at them let me ask you just took off the wall hypothetical question i don't know the economics of it but would you trade more height for bigger units what if what if you went to sixty feet because frankly i'd be you know based on the site and what i've seen so far i'm not sure i see the harm in that you know i mean you're building more buildings so the cost per unit will  go up it's just i i know where you're still you're saying it's i don't know if it it maintains that small a affordability model when you start increasing it very last this this at this is a true edition of forty eight units to what was your existing p u d so we haven't touched at all on traffic is there any distaff of any concern about the not at this point they're going to be updating they're going to have to update the traffic study that they presented for the narcan terrace building also parking and traffic those numbers will have to be updated so we will have that information at the next level so those sorts of questions and public comment questions motivated amendment was postponed till the sixteenth that since i had already i had said that time aside so i showed up anyway and i had a conversation with the three  be my argument hoping you will show up going i've been having a back and forth with paul i thought he was supported by the time we got through good but it's a little bit like donald trump you know it's a moving target next i've gotten i've gotten a little pushback in case that he says adds another level of complexity supposedly that he got from legal  will have to check with mr dorn whether i get to speak to legal counsel but he wanted to have a small meeting with him and legal counsel and me and somebody from the planning commission you know i think you already got perfectly this this city has lots of trees in certain places and in lots of cases older projects have grown up and and the trees the stars as ray will attest to start is little two inch trees and end up as seen in trees in the deal is if you have to cut down that fourteen inch seven two inch trees which is fine until you can't run until you run out of room we we're actually on a project last year ran out of room and we put them in the right of way of market street one stops two seven inch trees cost the cost and honestly if you look at the projects use and said said what's approved approved was a two inch tree so you should be able to replace it with a two inch tree the question at the right now the planning i don't agree with that we go ok well that's fair that's fine but if a tree die is if approved tree is undermining a building if a tree if a tree needs to come down for whatever reason and you suddenly go from let's say you had a big tree you got a thirty inch tree and now you've got a spread around thirty inches of tree it's a real problem it's not an easy thing to fix i can tell you i've run into it all the time and and we have projects that are completely covered with trees that frankly would look a lot better if they weren't getting to strangled and and we should i think there should be something in front of it in front of in the same in the same manner as people are coming to us and saying can we get credit saving the trees that we have and not necessarily have to put everything history on as long as it's well landscape why shouldn't and i could tell you the reason why planning as alternative mitigation effort you know it's not saying you know to do anything but you saying rather than well we'll fourteen trees to replace whatever you can do i don't even know if you need to mitigate it if you if if if it's already if you've built a project that  well covered with with landscaping is and is attractive there there actually comes a point where it's too dark it's if you're making a mistake you know that the project gets hurt by it the there's any number of reasons not to do it and still be writing trees where it might affect traffic so what i would suggest is is we've got an arborist there in a lot of towns that have an arborist and if an arborist came out and said yeah this this is this is a well landscaped site you know plop one here one here one there and we'll be all set we should we should give the response in the same way that we give the fire department the police department or whoever the ability to look at something and say yeah that's enough we should be able to do that with their worst i don't disagree with the ones who get what i'm suggesting is that we should bring this in front of planning in principle to get them to figure out in detail how to deal deal with it because they're it's not our job to write it it's theirs but there's a problem right now and it's it's not a problem every day but it's how many times a year do you think you run into th really we create too many headaches the too many things that need to come in front of us every time but i don't have that's not my biggest problem i would be perfectly happy to come here and show you i got way too many trees let me let me show you where i want to put the three or four but i am of the opinion that that our staff is perfectly capable of saying of saying yes i agree or i disagree with with the need