[25:56] Okay.

[26:01] The Prince George's County Planning Board is now in session. I will say happy hallemines to everyone. If you haven't had any chocolate or if you want a second dose, but don't get too carried away with your hearing, this candy up here in the witches pot. And I understand, Laurie, Ms. Laurie, before we commence, are we ready? Are we ready out there?

[26:38] Okay, so let me know where do we have that basket so we can give it to him here.

[27:12] Okay

[27:32] No, I didn't see that.

[27:34] No, I didn't see that.

[27:35] No, I didn't see that.

[27:36] Yeah, I got it this morning.

[27:42] There's another magazine out there.

[27:44] Oh, my God.

[27:45] I just see that out there.

[27:46] But I just tried this copy.

[27:48] Thank you.

[27:48] I don't keep going.

[27:49] I've tried this.

[27:51] I don't keep going.

[27:53] Would you please?

[27:55] I've tried this.

[27:56] I just tried this copy.

[27:57] Thank you.

[27:58] Thank you.

[28:00] They're coming.

[28:01] They're coming.

[28:02] I still love the witch out there,

[28:17] dude.

[28:17] Okay, thank

[28:22] you.

[28:30] So, dude, we don't need children in the big camera.

[28:39] Okay, Prince George is kind of planning for us now in session.

[28:41] And if you Halloween, enough ends for a lot of you

[28:44] look very boring out there.

[28:47] You just didn't get with the program.

[28:50] Our first order of business is item two.

[28:52] The draft minutes of the planning board meeting of September 26, 2013,

[28:56] and October 3rd, 2013, is their motion.

[28:58] Move a program out of cheer.

[29:00] Second.

[29:00] We have a motion and a second.

[29:01] Is there any discussion?

[29:03] All in favor?

[29:04] Aye.

[29:04] Opposed.

[29:05] The eyes have it.

[29:07] We also have,

[29:22] I know we have item one.

[29:23] We have some resolutions.

[29:24] But I don't see that, it's just shut.

[29:28] Do we have them in it?

[29:33] Why have...

[29:38] We're just looking at these.

[29:43] I don't know.

[29:44] I thought it was for the capital challenge.

[29:46] We have a resolution for commendation for the capital challenge horse show.

[29:50] Whereas in 1994, Billy Glass and Oliver Kennedy,

[29:54] through the capital challenge partnership created the capital challenge horse show.

[29:58] This is a

[30:00] Major event which has become a part of the indoor horse show fall circuit throughout the United States, and the capital challenge maximizes and showcases the use of unique facilities and features the show place arena at Prince George's Equestrian Center in Upper Marble, which is owned by the Park Planning Commission.

[30:18] Thousands of competitors, spectators, and attendees come each year, and it's a nine-day

[30:25] capital challenge course show, and it continues to have, not only is it a fabulous horse show,

[30:30] but it provides a tremendous economic impact to the numerous businesses, the hotel, and

[30:35] the restaurant, industry, and Prince George's county, and on an enslaved business about

[30:39] the county in the state of Maryland and the region.

[30:42] Whereas the capital challenge horse show promotes Maryland's diverse equestrian culture and

[30:47] in the field of Hunter Jumper, honoring a special sport based on trusting relationship between

[30:53] riders and their animals, and whereas the capital challenge recently held this 20th

[30:58] event at Shilplace Arena, continuing that tradition of consistently setting and enforcing

[31:03] high standards for trainers and exhibitors and drawing quality horses to an outstanding

[31:08] and well managed event.

[31:10] Now therefore, be it resolved that the Prince George's County Planning Board of the Maryland

[31:15] National Capital Park and Planning Commission,

[31:17] commends the Capital Challenge Horse Show

[31:19] on a stellar record of accomplishment.

[31:22] Recognizes and thanks the Capital Challenge

[31:24] for its continuous patronage of the Showplace Arena

[31:27] and the Prince George's Equestrian Center

[31:29] and wishes the show's organizers

[31:31] continue to success in the future.

[31:35] So is there a motion to approve the resolution?

[31:38] Second, first, second, second.

[31:39] Second, second, second.

[31:41] We have a motion in a second.

[31:42] is there any discussion? All in favour?

[31:45] Aye. Opposed?

[31:46] Aye.

[31:47] Is there anyone here to oppose the staff's recommendations on items 4b through 4b or any board member who wishes to discuss any of these items?

[31:54] Madam Chair, after consideration of the record for items number 4b through 4b through 4b.

[31:59] I'm with the adoption of the staff finds an approval of the items on the consent agenda in accordance with the recommendation of staff.

[32:07] We have a motion in a second as a really discussion. All in favor. I oppose as having I was trying to get this post that before we start.

[32:15] Okay, can you come?

[32:18] Thank you.

[32:41] Item six.

[32:51] I don't believe.

[32:52] I

[32:55] don't believe you.

[32:57] Why do you use your devil?

[33:01] All right.

[33:05] Good morning, Madam Chair.

[33:06] Members of the Board.

[33:08] For the record, my name is Jill Kinazak, and I am with Urban Design Section.

[33:12] The case before you now is, I don't know, number 6, DSP 13021, Bible Life Christian Center.

[33:18] Subject application is requested for approval of a 1,700 and 2 square foot addition to an existing

[33:23] church building.

[33:25] On a 1.94 equal property in the R-55 zone, staff is recommending approval with conditions

[33:31] for DSP 13021, and the associated alternative compliance AC,

[33:39] The subject size is located in planning area 76B, Council District 8, and the developed here.

[33:46] The site vicinity map shows the properties located on the east side of Livingston Road.

[33:51] Approximately 650 feet north of its intersection with St. Barnabes Road.

[33:57] Subject property is an R-55 zone and is bounded to the west,

[34:01] A public bright-of-way of Livingston Road with single-family detached homes in the R-55 zone beyond and to the north south and east by single-family detached homes in the R-55 zone.

[34:14] This map shows this other property is not within any overlay zones, and this map shows that the property is already developed and you can also see the surrounding existing residential neighborhoods.

[34:28] On this map you see that there's very little slope on the property and some existing trees along the edges.

[34:36] This map shows that Livingston Road is a master plan collector right-of-way and is adjacent to the subject property.

[34:44] This is the bird's eye view of the property.

[34:47] Here we have looking north.

[34:49] The subject site consists of two existing parcels that form one large rectangle.

[34:55] With the short end fronting on the east side of Livingston Road right-of-way.

[34:59] Both existing parcels were originally developed with single-family detached homes prior to 1965.

[35:06] And the existing house, on partial 255, here, was expanded and turned into a church use with 72 seats under a permanent approved in 1994.

[35:18] This is a Vard's IV of the Property-looking West.

[35:22] You can see Livingston Road here in the background, the existing church building,

[35:25] And then this existing building to the south side of the property is a former house that now serves as a rectory for the church.

[35:35] And this is a better view of the rectory with looking east at the property.

[35:40] Looking east towards the property, excuse me, the church is in the front here.

[35:46] One existing 25 foot wide driveway, off of Livingston Road, into the middle of the site, serves both parcels and is to remain unchanged with the subject application.

[35:56] The existing 2007-11 square foot one-story 25-foot high church building is located in the

[36:04] northwestern corner of the site within 10 feet of the northern property line here, and within

[36:12] 42 feet of the right way of Livingston Road.

[36:16] The proposed 1,702 square foot, one story, 20 foot, 25 foot high addition, will extend the

[36:24] south of this building and will create a long rectangular building parallel to the road.

[36:31] The existing parking lot, which is located behind into the east of the existing church building,

[36:37] will be extended to the south and around the southern end of the new addition to accommodate

[36:42] We also have additional staff here for a second because this is an annual thing with the children.

[36:47] And so apparently we have visitors and so we're going to put a push from here.

[36:54] Everyone within our audience and our viewing audience, let me just say, we have fun on Halloween and we have fun.

[37:03] When we can, but do not get confused, we take our responsibility very, very, very seriously.

[37:08] So we are giving you our undivided attention on your cases today as everything goes

[37:13] day.

[37:13] So we just want to make sure that there's no confusion.

[37:18] We maybe we should misess for a moment, man.

[37:21] Let's do that.

[38:27] Okay,

[38:31] Prince George is kind of planning board as back in session.

[38:33] Ms. Koseck, I have six.

[38:36] Yes.

[38:37] I think where I left off.

[38:38] Yes.

[38:39] I was describing the plan.

[38:40] There is a existing 2007-11 square foot one story.

[38:44] 25-foot-high church here in the northwestern corner of the property, and then the proposed

[38:52] 1702 square-foot building edition will be at the south of this building, creating a long

[38:57] rectangular building that's parallel to Livingston Road. The existing parking lot is located

[39:03] behind into the east of the existing church, and will be extended to the south around the

[39:08] southern end of the new edition to accommodate the required parking. A proposed shallow wet

[39:13] Well, we'll be located in the southwestern corner of the site to manage stormwater runoff from the additional parking lot in building areas.

[39:21] The existing 184 square foot one and a half story 23 foot high residential rectory building is located in the south eastern corner of the property within 29 feet of the southern property line.

[39:36] And there is an existing 503 square foot, 15 foot high shed located to that, the southeast

[39:43] of that, within three feet of the southern property line.

[39:47] And then there is an existing paved driveway area located on the eastern side of the residential

[39:51] rectory building.

[39:53] No new improvements are proposed in this area of the site.

[39:57] There is a variance request associated with the DSP from the requirement of Section 27-441B,

[40:04] put note 52A for a minimum 25 foot set back from each slot line. Again, the existing shed is located

[40:12] within three feet of the southern property line. And the existing portion of the church

[40:17] building is located within 10 feet of the northern property line. Both of these conditions

[40:21] have been in existence since prior to 1965 when the residential properties were originally

[40:27] built. The new church building is internal to the site and is not encroaching to this

[40:34] For this, another reason is described in the staff report, staff has found the subject

[40:38] application meets the criteria for granting the variance and recommends the planning

[40:42] for the approved variance as part of the CSP application.

[40:46] AC-1301-2 is for the same issue relative to the existing Sheds encroachment

[40:51] into the required section 4.7 in compatible use buffer yard along the southern property line.

[40:57] Again, the staff recommends applying board to prove this AC.

[41:02] These elevations show the combined existing and proposed church parts.

[41:08] The top elevation here is the western elevation facing Livingston Road

[41:12] with the existing church on the left portion

[41:15] and the proposed addition to the right.

[41:18] The middle elevation here is the eastern elevation facing towards the existing parking lot area

[41:23] with the existing church to the right end, and the proposed addition on the left.

[41:30] And then this lower left elevation is the southern end of the building.

[41:35] This is the new addition portion of the church.

[41:39] And then the one on the lower right is the existing northern elevation of the church.

[41:44] Again, this is the existing portion of the building.

[41:47] The existing church building has a dark brown asphalt shingled gabled roof and is finished in beige vinyl siding on all elevations, and it also has ample white trimmed windows and a balanced design.

[42:01] Crossgable features provide some variation to the existing roof line, and the main door is located along the western elevation at the northern end of the building.

[42:10] For post-building, building addition will continue the same materials, but will also have

[42:16] a brick-fineared water table along the western and eastern elevations.

[42:22] This added feature enhances the appearance of the building, but seems out of places that

[42:26] does not continue along the existing building, or along the southern elevation of the

[42:32] addition.

[42:33] Therefore, South has included a condition in the recommendation section to require the

[42:37] water table to be extended around the entire building, including the existing portion, for continuity and to enhance the appearance of the overall building.

[42:48] The following is a short series of photographs of the existing site in area.

[42:52] This is looking at the western elevation of the existing church building from Livingston Road, Livingston Road in the foreground.

[43:00] And then this is the southern and eastern elevation of the existing church building.

[43:06] The proposed church edition will be here in the foreground and then the proposed additional parking

[43:13] area will be further in front of that.

[43:18] And then a different view of looking south at the eastern elevation of the existing church

[43:23] building.

[43:23] This area will remain largely unchanged except for the condition requiring the continuation of the brick water table along the building.

[43:33] With that, the Urban Design Section recommends plainboard adopt the findings of staff and approve DSP 13021 and AC13012 with the Associate Variance for Bible Life Christian Center, subject to the one condition found on pages 15 and 16 of the staff report and this concludes staff's presentation.

[43:53] Thank you Ms. Josec, I have other questions at this time.

[43:58] Okay, Jeffrey way.

[44:00] Do you wish to speak?

[44:06] Please come to have an identify yourself for the record.

[44:09] Good morning, Jeffrey way.

[44:10] I'd like to read the microphone a little bit.

[44:16] Thank you.

[44:17] Thank you.

[44:18] We are appreciative of the work of staff and we accept the conditions and the approval

[44:25] And, which to say thank you again for working with us.

[44:28] When we first encountered this process, I've had history with the Church for nearly 20 years.

[44:34] I was the architect of record when they developed the first piece of land, which was roughly a little more than half an acre.

[44:41] And so the Church through its good work in the community, and the Church of the Kingdom, has been able to acquire the piece of land that comes around to the rear,

[44:53] into the right, which was being indicated with the cursor, and it was our belief that the

[44:58] line was two acres.

[45:00] However, through the process of Livingston Road being widened, some years ago, a small piece of land was used for public space, and so the church resulted with 1.9 filmmakers, and it's actually that loss of 0.06 acres that necessitated this hearing.

[45:22] And so, with my experience in other jurisdictions, I know we're all sort of doing different things according to our requirements and the lay of the land.

[45:32] For example, in Washington DC, they have something called the 80% rule, which allows that if a lot is at least 80% of the statutory requirement that it can be processed and approved by the most streamlined process.

[45:46] So, although we accept the process and you appreciate the kind of work of the excellent work of staff,

[45:53] I would just like to bring it to the discussion, or at least for the record that the commission and the committee would consider some sort of rule that allows

[46:02] properties that are reduced by virtue of public works or something like that to be looked at favorably and with a streamlined approach.

[46:12] Thank you very much.

[46:14] Look into that, at least entertain a discussion with our elected officials on that, too.

[46:19] Thank you.

[46:20] Thank you.

[46:20] Are there any questions in this or way?

[46:24] Mr. Peterson, do you wish to speak?

[46:27] Come on down. Please identify yourself for the record.

[46:30] Johnny Peterson passed over by the Life Press Center.

[46:33] And I just want to thank you all for hearing our case this morning.

[46:36] want to thank the jail for the hard work that she has done and I just thought the work was

[46:44] commendable and I also want to thank you for the hard work he has done as well.

[46:48] Thank you.

[46:49] Thank you, Mr. Peterson.

[46:50] Okay.

[46:50] Will there any questions?

[46:52] Thank you.

[46:53] Was there anyone else to speak on this matter?

[46:55] Is there a motion?

[46:56] And here we are going to be a down-the-finalist of Stairton, a political site planned ESP-1-302-1.

[47:07] There's a permanent section 27441-B, and there's a footnote 5-5-2-A of the Zonan-Odeness and Oxford

[47:16] to provide AC-1-3-0-1-2 for the life-priced as center of substitute conditions as list of

[47:23] on pages 15 and 16.

[47:32] We have a motion and a second is their discussion.

[47:35] All in favor?

[47:36] Aye.

[47:36] Opposed?

[47:37] The eyes have it.

[48:01] Well, number nine.

[48:05] Oh, my goodness.

[48:06] Wait a minute.

[48:09] Is that the lone ratio?

[48:12] Oh, my goodness.

[48:14] Oh my goodness! The long rains are! Oh my goodness!

[48:23] Some launches,

[48:25] rockets, and some restless wrestlers, of course meet to hang up my guns, but I

[48:32] am the new sheriff in town.

[48:42] Thank you, Sheriff, and please continue to maintain some law and order. We need some

[48:48] Okay.

[48:52] I don't know.

[48:59] Oh, wait a minute. No. Oh, yeah.

[49:08] Okay.

[49:08] Mark, all right.

[49:14] You'll be here morning today.

[49:16] Oh, okay.

[49:23] Okay.

[49:37] I'll look for backup.

[49:46] Yeah, if she behind her back, it'd be clear.

[49:54] Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the planning board.

[49:57] For the record, this is Henry Zann with the Urban Design section.

[50:01] At the 9 in front of you is face one detail side plan for Westerla Town Center

[50:07] for 348 townhouses.

[50:11] The site is in play area 78,

[50:14] Council District 6.

[50:16] It's we've seen a developing year of the county.

[50:26] This exhibition, the larger Westerla Town Center,

[50:30] which is located on the north side of Pennsylvania Avenue, west of the Melwood Road.

[50:45] The site basically is zone MXT, is a mixed-use transportation or in hit zone.

[50:52] And adjacent to the rest of the other West Philadelphia development, this is the Smith's home farm, right, to the north of the property.

[51:04] There is no overlay on this side.

[51:09] Aero photo shows that the site is basically undivolved.

[51:15] A lot of environmental features on the largest site,

[51:21] but the site we are talking about today

[51:24] within this detailed site plan is basically has

[51:28] no significant environmental feature.

[51:33] This is the master plan right away map,

[51:35] which shows the Pennsylvania Avenue here, excuse me,

[51:39] and then major collector, which pathing through

[51:44] the portion of the site.

[51:48] This is just the bird-eye view of the larger

[51:52] west-field of town center.

[51:57] Give you kind of a big picture.

[52:01] This is the entire west-field of town center project.

[52:05] And there was five phases, and this is the phase one.

[52:12] Actually, this is the first phase of the phase one, because we're looking at this rectangular

[52:18] areas only for today.

[52:22] This is the detailed side plan.

[52:25] You can see the rectangular with the big circle.

[52:30] This circle known as the Eastern Circle of the residential portion.

[52:38] 348 townhouse unit as being proposed.

[52:45] They are full blocks, we're urban type of blocks in dense.

[52:52] And the surrounding the big circle.

[52:55] Alley has been, alley system has been used,

[53:03] yes.

[53:04] This is the exhibit of parking.

[53:10] This site has a very long approval history.

[53:14] 2007, excuse me.

[53:18] Let's fill a second play.

[53:20] We turned the larger property in the MXC zone.

[53:23] And after that, there is a conceptual side plan that has been approved for the logic side.

[53:33] And there is one revision, is 01 revision, to CSP 0704, which exclude more property from the rest of the Westfield Account Center.

[53:45] And then there is a condition was just reconfigured by the planning board last planning

[53:52] hearing to allow the fronloaded garage unit to be in this part of the town center.

[54:03] And there are one preliminary plan of subdivision covered the largest site of this

[54:12] One, yeah, covered the entire town center side.

[54:17] And then there are three detailed side plan.

[54:19] One is DSP-12017, which is the infrastructure detail side plan for face one, which covered

[54:29] this area.

[54:31] And then there is another special purpose detail side plan, DSP-12043, which was approved by

[54:40] In this year, a specific governing this signage, rack facilities and trails of the larger

[54:52] site.

[54:53] And then, a planable recently approved umbrella detail side plan is DSP-301, which

[55:07] the residential, you know, architectures for the, for the logic development.

[55:12] In this case, even though it's a face one, and then since the architecture has been

[55:18] approved previously, and then we, we don't have a specific model included in this

[55:25] details side by side, but the model will be used within the pool of the

[55:33] 1301.

[55:42] If you remember in the umbrella approval, one of the

[55:49] features, one of the components of that approval is to identify

[55:54] different type of street and according to street and the category, there is a the break

[56:05] percentage has been required for the development. You see here this is the face one covered

[56:15] in the state of Saipai which will be subject to the umbrella approvals break percentage

[56:24] requirement.

[56:27] They are two major tile house units as being proposed to be included in this

[56:35] face one. And then this one is the 16-footer. Basically, the width of the tile house is

[56:43] 16 in a feet. And different type of roof pattern, if you remember.

[56:52] Yeah, this is just

[56:55] pitch roofed one. This is the other townhouse model, which has a 20 feet front-age width

[57:07] of the building and then different combination.

[57:12] This is the flat roof,

[57:16] yes, this is another

[57:17] model.

[57:20] There's another one, there's the biggest one, most of them are located at the

[57:25] 24-footer, and they have different, you know, architecture elaborations here and also this

[57:35] did rear of the building. And then this is the flat roof allotions. This is the break

[57:50] percentage exhibit. Since the site included in this detail site plan is located here, exactly

[57:58] this rectangular shape. And then we have 50% along the grain. And those year lows are 70%

[58:11] break requirements. And in this, this black unit basically is a highly visible unit, which

[58:23] will have additional requirement for the break on the isolation.

[58:30] I would like to show the

[58:33] There is one special location of this detail side pie, which is over here, the applicant and their

[58:50] design section could not upgrade a palm,

[58:56] the design of this small section.

[58:58] I'll try to, yeah, bring it out here.

[59:02] Do you need to review of this, of this face one,

[59:05] a design section paid a very special attention

[59:09] to the relationship of the UNIX,

[59:13] because it's comparatively very dense

[59:15] and a very, very, very in a way to have so many UNIX

[59:20] within a very small confined areas of the Alice system.

[59:25] And then we pay special attention to the relationship of the units and to avoid the rear of the unit to be directly fronting the front of the unit.

[59:40] And then, in this case, there's a one situation here, you see here, and highlighted in green.

[59:51] Basically, it has three units, which have the front, have the front of the other building directly seen.

[1:00:00] In the rear, back yard of the three units. And then, yeah, addition, I think, since it's very dense, you see, the full blocks are very dense as well, we try to ask for some green open space in the middle of the block in order to provide the relief in terms of the urban design.

[1:00:25] We recommended in the staff recommendation, if you can go to your backup page

[1:00:38] 36, there is a condition as Nancy.

[1:00:45] We basically recommend the applicant to remove those three units in order to avoid the situation that, you know, those three units rear yard basically fronting the front of the other units.

[1:01:05] The in order for this block to have a central located grain of in space.

[1:01:15] I think the applicant try, at least during the review process, to redesign this small section,

[1:01:24] and then they propose to screen this area from the rest of the front unit.

[1:01:30] And we'll go to one of the slides that provided this will be the view from the rear yard of those three units.

[1:01:43] At least one of them seeing the other front of the other building.

[1:01:51] And then another exhibit you see here that's from the other unit, the fronting rear of this one.

[1:01:58] I really appreciate the applicant's efforts during the review process.

[1:02:05] The issue is that the site is very tiny.

[1:02:15] The site is so tiny that from this point of this triangle,

[1:02:23] triangular shape to this point is on the 70 feet.

[1:02:32] 70, 70, 70, and then if you go from this point, you point to this point, the add and

[1:02:40] other 70.

[1:02:42] So the high block width of the front here to here is only a 140 feet, and then from this

[1:02:49] side, from here to here is about 78 feet.

[1:02:54] So it's so constrained, I mean the size is so small.

[1:02:58] You know, Dawkins shows some screening effort, but they're stoppedly with really no space to, you know, try to achieve the screening.

[1:03:10] Therefore, we still recommend that the entire, I mean, there's three units, as including condition number and one, and should be removed.

[1:03:25] You're talking about that condition, bro.

[1:03:28] No, no.

[1:03:29] Those units, yeah.

[1:03:30] I mean, that's why we have the condition.

[1:03:32] I'm sorry for the confusion.

[1:03:34] Yes, you're speaking of the three units that are enclosed within the green perimeter.

[1:03:42] Yes, sir.

[1:03:43] Yes, sir.

[1:03:43] Is there any way that if it was less perhaps two units would it make a difference?

[1:03:47] Well, actually you've the entire 3 unit got removed this the errors covers within this

[1:03:55] Green line is only

[1:03:58] Less than 8,000 square feet, so it's really small

[1:04:04] What 70 feet looks like I can try to measure the width of this room

[1:04:08] Anybody have the idea?

[1:04:10] Probably 40 feet already from that. What's it out? Yeah, yeah

[1:04:16] So it's very, very small and then given it to the building anyway, those are the major things.

[1:04:23] This application has been reviewed for conformance with MX T-zone and then design guidelines as stated in section 27274P.

[1:04:36] And then we'll finally have 27, 28, 5, B, 4, 4 of the details of the pipeline.

[1:04:44] And also the staff has reviewed for conformance this side for the previous approved conditions.

[1:04:53] We have a long history, so we have a lot of discussion of this applicable conditions.

[1:04:59] And then which includes the one CSP, one preliminary final subdivision as three details of the pipeline.

[1:05:07] This site is subject to Section 4.8, which is the urban and regional community landscape

[1:05:13] management requirement.

[1:05:14] That's the 4.8, and then it's basically consistent with the requirement.

[1:05:21] This site is also subject to woodland and white-life habitat and tree conservation ordinance,

[1:05:28] and also tree canopy coverage requirements as well.

[1:05:32] There's no objection, we see during the review of this detail siphon.

[1:05:39] The Westfilling Effective Development and Review Council has not response to the referral

[1:05:44] request for this detail siphon yet, and the translation planning section does not have

[1:05:52] any issues with the approval of this detail siphon.

[1:05:54] The referral comments were received kind of a late, but we eventually included the memo in your backup as well.

[1:06:06] Every design section recommends a pool of detailed sideframe,

[1:06:12] 1306 will face one.

[1:06:16] Westfield, a town center, including type 2-3 conservation

[1:06:20] plant TCP 2-029-12-02, with the 11 conditions as stated on page 33 to 38 of the

[1:06:36] report. The applicant has some revision will be proposed to the planning board, and I think

[1:06:47] the staff did not have time to fully digest them, and we would like to respond after

[1:06:56] the applicant proposed them. Thank you.

[1:07:00] Okay, are there any questions of Mr. Senator this time?

[1:07:05] No.

[1:07:06] Okay, Mr. Schiff.

[1:07:08] Mr. Dunn?

[1:07:10] Just get it.

[1:07:11] Okay.

[1:07:14] Thank you, Madam Chair.

[1:07:16] Members of the board for the record build shift with the Maui Miles Dileman Gilmore.

[1:07:20] I'll introduce the Calvertin here for the applicant.

[1:07:23] Have our design and development team and our applicant with us.

[1:07:28] the lead should round of course is here assisting me from the legal side and we're very

[1:07:34] pleased to be where we are with this application today. You've seen us a lot in the

[1:07:40] last few weeks because the project is moving forward which is a good thing and I

[1:07:45] want to thank Mr. Zany for all his work and everybody's staff. I could tell you

[1:07:49] we've met every other week for well over a year on this project and so we've worked

[1:07:54] through many, many, many, many issues, lots of mostly agreement, and then one issue that you'll

[1:08:01] hear about today, Mrs. Ang, updated that we do disagree with staff and we'd like some consideration

[1:08:06] of, but I do want to commend that for them, for their work. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Okay, and we'll

[1:08:11] get to that. The first phase of the project is 384 townhouses. It is a very urban design

[1:08:21] as is dictated by the sector plan by the previous approval, since intentionally urban, it has

[1:08:28] a major focal point, which is the circle in the middle of the project of phase 1, which

[1:08:35] you see on this parking exhibit, which is up now. That's circle, as I told the board before,

[1:08:40] but I'll remind you, is roughly the size of DuPont circle downtown. It is a major amenity

[1:08:46] for the project and we're happy to say that we're doing it with phase 1, so we'll be there

[1:08:52] just to the south of the slide, I'm not sure which looks like it's east, but of the circle.

[1:09:00] In the middle, you see a rectangular area that looks like it might be a street.

[1:09:07] That is an area that we have converted to a muse, a green strip, and as you see the project unfold, this muse will continue down to another major parcel,

[1:09:20] which is one of the main community buildings for the town center.

[1:09:25] So we will essentially have a walking mall

[1:09:28] from the main circle down to this community building that will be built.

[1:09:33] Mr. Zipajus, flag those areas please.

[1:09:36] Mr. Zipajus, can you put, there's a circle.

[1:09:40] You want to go to the larger slide.

[1:09:42] OK. Oh, OK.

[1:09:43] And then you can see a render a little bit there.

[1:09:46] And on the vicinity map or the context map to the right there,

[1:09:50] You can see there's much more of the property that continues off to the right in that green

[1:09:56] area.

[1:09:56] We'll extend early on in the project and discussions we met with transportation staff and others

[1:10:02] about the possibility of eliminating that connecting street that does nothing to hinder the

[1:10:08] circulation within the project, but it creates this pedestrian demenity that we thought

[1:10:13] was really nice for the project itself and you can see the circle in this slide is heavily

[1:10:19] landscape didn't monetize.

[1:10:23] There is on-street parking, worked into this proposal

[1:10:27] in addition to the code requirement for the units we have added on-street parking

[1:10:33] again to provide a little bit of extra parking, but also to create that urban

[1:10:37] field throughout the project.

[1:10:40] And we are continuing that throughout the project as we go forward.

[1:10:46] We believe the site plan, as presented, to staff and as Henry has outlined with you today,

[1:10:54] is an excellent implementation of the first phase of West Valley Town Center.

[1:11:00] I won't go through everything until but I do want to take a moment and focus on the conditions

[1:11:06] and the comments that we have, most of which I think staff, although they didn't have a lot of time

[1:11:14] I'm hoping do not have a big issue with if there is one that we will obviously need to discuss in some detail.

[1:11:25] I've taken the staff's recommended conditions and highlighted my proposed changes so that you can follow along.

[1:11:35] I wait for that to be handed out.

[1:11:44] On the first page.

[1:11:46] Are you ready to monitor?

[1:11:49] Yes.

[1:11:56] Okay.

[1:12:02] On the first page.

[1:12:03] condition 1 through A through E, no changes.

[1:12:09] Yes.

[1:12:10] We're going to.

[1:12:10] Yes, ma'am.

[1:12:11] You want to mark this as applicants.

[1:12:12] It's a bit one.

[1:12:14] Thank you, ma'am.

[1:12:15] And we'll accept applicants proposed by business to the conditions into the record.

[1:12:22] As applicants.

[1:12:22] It's a bit number one.

[1:12:26] Page 2.

[1:12:26] Page 2, which is really 34.

[1:12:28] staff report. Conditions 1, FG and H, no changes. H, 3, sub 3 is a change only in that. I believe

[1:12:40] the language that we stricken as the boilerplate environmental planning language. This project

[1:12:44] has been approved for FI and Liu by the district council and we didn't want to there to be

[1:12:50] in a confusion about that that we're proposing to you. This is I.

[1:12:57] I'll change to all the environmental signer, Mr. Rogers.

[1:13:04] Good morning.

[1:13:05] Good morning, thank you, Mr. Rogers.

[1:13:06] Environmental Planning.

[1:13:13] We, the use of Fian Lu was approved by the District Council's part of the CSP approval.

[1:13:20] And with the preliminary plan approval, there was a condition to have this note in full placed on the TCP1.

[1:13:27] And so it's our position that the entire note should be continued to be shown on the TCP-2 just in conformance with the preliminary plan approval and the TCP-1.

[1:13:42] And the reason being, I think we all understand that the use of FEMLU is approved, but just kind of as a reminder moving forward.

[1:13:49] And of course, we would prefer to see, you know, as much preservation reforce station in each phase as possible to meet the threshold to the greatest extent possible.

[1:14:01] Madam Chair, with that clarification from staff and as long as that is on the record that everybody understands this project.

[1:14:08] I think that would be excellent, thank you Ben, so we do not need to strike some of the delay.

[1:14:14] This is how you got that as an additional finding of this.

[1:14:17] Thank you.

[1:14:21] Moving on all the way through one K, no changes.

[1:14:31] One L, we asked to strike the last language which addresses in accordance with the approved

[1:14:39] that are playing the subdivision and again I think this is a clarification I believe this

[1:14:46] condition was addressing one issue regarding one of the out parcels which we have agreed to

[1:14:54] is address somewhere else in the conditions relabeling a parcel to an out parcel.

[1:15:00] But in fact, we do label all the meets bounds that the bearings and distances on the locks and blocks, but as you get down the detailed site plan, the individual townhouse locks are slightly different than the preliminary plan.

[1:15:15] So we didn't want to be confusion there, and I think subdivision was looking at an issue regarding one of the larger outparsals, not the individual townhouse locks.

[1:15:24] Yeah, I think it makes sense.

[1:15:27] Oh, we agree with that.

[1:15:28] Okay.

[1:15:30] One end is the one we have a little bit of a subset of discussion about a minute.

[1:15:34] Thank you.

[1:15:35] Thank you.

[1:15:37] Three is a condition two is fine.

[1:15:42] Three is a condition which we are just adding in the word temporary before entrance because

[1:15:49] ultimately there will be an entrance there and we didn't want it to be suggested there

[1:15:52] that we're going to choose.

[1:15:54] This is that?

[1:15:55] We all, okay, was that.

[1:15:58] Number four is a discussion we have a staff at one of our more recent meetings about making

[1:16:04] sure that the wrecked facilities related to this phase are timed with the completion of this

[1:16:09] phase.

[1:16:11] And so rather than saying 349th building permit overall in the project, we wanted to tie it

[1:16:18] a building permit trigger within this phase, which actually I think is a better result for staff,

[1:16:26] not to speak for them. And so we proposed that it would be prior to the 200th building

[1:16:31] permit for the townhouse units within phase one. We're a great kind of, you know, earlier than

[1:16:38] previous conditions. Thank you. Thank you.

[1:16:45] Number five is regarding the stream restoration

[1:16:50] work, and in this one we want to make a clarification that it'd be the 350th building permit

[1:16:58] or permit for single family units attached or detached, because I wasn't quite sure where

[1:17:05] the 350th was coming from, and we are proposing in phase one, 380 townhouse units,

[1:17:16] and we

[1:17:22] environmental planning. Our original recommendation was to have the timing for the stream

[1:17:31] restoration works to begin tied to a subsequent DSP. So I mean it would have to be

[1:17:39] started perform before a subsequent DSP were to be accepted and we would prefer not to

[1:17:47] to a specific building permit. So we are leaning more toward keeping the original language of any phase, following just phase.

[1:17:59] Well, if I may manage to, the reason we put it in, and the every size section put it in specific number of the building permit, because that will be easy to track, otherwise they may have different applications, you know,

[1:18:17] condition. The reason we try to put in 350 actually we try to do the 349 because in this

[1:18:26] phozo it's 348 house yeah we'll just say right after you that was this face you had to

[1:18:32] go to do that so that's why we have the 350 it's kind of a use it to remember and then to

[1:18:39] force.

[1:18:44] The only issue that I have in this may be getting what Megan's pointing to really

[1:18:49] is that we're working our way through the first phase, but as you know the building permits

[1:18:55] don't call come all at once, we will be doing some kind of clip. And we may come in with a

[1:19:02] to family building that could come on phase, while phase one is going, but say there's only

[1:19:09] 100 building permits for phase one, pull so far.

[1:19:15] And so if the discussion was that you wanted to make sure that the stream restoration

[1:19:21] was initiated prior to the completion of this phase, we're okay with that.

[1:19:28] And that's why we change the language, that's what we're looking for.

[1:19:37] But if it's prior to completion of this phase, but you could...

[1:19:43] This phase doesn't finish.

[1:19:45] Yeah. That was environmental concern as well.

[1:19:48] Was that the 350th permit might not be within phase one.

[1:19:52] It could be in a subsequent phase and we were trying to tie it to the construction of phase one.

[1:19:59] And it's building permits, not you announced.

[1:20:01] Right, and it's environmental planning doesn't necessarily it's not very easy for us to track the number of building permits when when we receive a permit to review

[1:20:09] So would be doing the tracking in that it's okay, because normally it's easier to track the numbers

[1:20:16] I know that from that it's in the private sector as well, so yeah, so so then we would leave it to environmental to track

[1:20:24] Well

[1:20:25] So when environmental gets a permit to review, we would just look to make sure that conformance

[1:20:31] with all the conditions of approval have been met and I mean without a specific inquiry

[1:20:36] for me.

[1:20:36] I'm not sure how I would know what I'm going to make.

[1:20:40] All right.

[1:20:44] Yeah, I'm talking with my client and you know, based on local code now, I would propose

[1:20:51] we stay with the 350th building permit.

[1:20:55] We might want to have a permit before permit.

[1:20:59] So we came to the language.

[1:21:01] And then if we find that we have some kind of a issue,

[1:21:05] we'll come back to the environmental planning and talk about it

[1:21:08] and they have to propose a revision.

[1:21:10] But at this point, I think if we say 350th building permit,

[1:21:15] we'll try to work with that.

[1:21:16] Can you hear the other language as in staff?

[1:21:20] And leave it as originally written, but adding that.

[1:21:24] And building before permanent.

[1:21:26] And I can't commission a Washington.

[1:21:29] So, by the way, I said, to leave for supply to the issue.

[1:21:34] What does same condition as a staff report

[1:21:36] just adding building in front of permit?

[1:21:39] OK.

[1:21:40] It would be prior to the issuance of the 350 of building permit

[1:21:44] For any phase following this phase, DSP 13006, the stream restoration has approved on the technical storm order management plan, shall begin implementation and then continue.

[1:22:01] Okay.

[1:22:17] For any phase following this phase, so keep the original language complete.

[1:22:21] Yes, yes, dammit.

[1:22:28] Conditions.

[1:22:30] Are you ready?

[1:22:30] Yes.

[1:22:31] Thank you. Conditions that we can are fine with the applicant. Condition 11. Again, we have a little bit of clarification.

[1:22:41] I've added in, I don't know if you're hearing this comment on other cases, but the access these mentioned shall be approved by department of permits and inspections and enforcement or the department of public works as applicable.

[1:22:58] And then to make this condition, which deals with the same subject matter as condition

[1:23:07] 3,

[1:23:09] I didn't want conflicting triggers, and so I copied the language from condition 3, that

[1:23:16] says prior to the issue, and so the 150, you can use an occupancy permit

[1:23:22] so that it occurs

[1:23:23] That's the commission.

[1:23:26] Staff agreed.

[1:23:28] Okay.

[1:23:29] So back to end.

[1:23:30] Back to end.

[1:23:31] Okay.

[1:23:31] Page 36.

[1:23:35] This is just, you know, this is a design discussion.

[1:23:39] It's somewhat subjective, of course.

[1:23:43] We are within the limits of the approved units.

[1:23:46] We didn't try to increase the number of units allowed.

[1:23:49] We prefer not to lose the three units.

[1:23:51] and we think we've come up with a design alternative that addresses the concern.

[1:23:57] Henry, I'm wondering if you could go back to all of the exhibits that shows that block.

[1:24:07] The one with the highlight.

[1:24:10] The first one, yeah, the green highlight.

[1:24:12] I'm going to start with.

[1:24:17] Thank you.

[1:24:18] When we first looked at this issue, when we submitted the plan,

[1:24:22] And we had, I believe, for parking spaces in that triangle that's in the green area because

[1:24:30] one of the things we've been working with staff on is the balance of having some extra

[1:24:35] parking as well.

[1:24:37] So then this discussion came up, and I think you can appreciate kind of the exercise that

[1:24:44] goes on here, which is to try to make every block clear so that a front doesn't face

[1:24:51] I think we did a very good job of that except for this one location so it becomes an issue right here.

[1:24:59] The rest of the site plan for phase one is fully compliant with that.

[1:25:04] So what we did at that time was eliminate the parking spaces there.

[1:25:09] We did manage to put some in and some other locations.

[1:25:12] I don't think we ended up with a net loss of parking.

[1:25:15] We're above the code requirement.

[1:25:16] And then we added a landscaping and amenity proposal for that little block to give some

[1:25:26] screening from the units there in the front space, the backs, and then we put a fence

[1:25:32] along the back of that stick of townhouses where the rear faces the front, and Henry's

[1:25:37] going to bring up the rendered plans.

[1:25:40] So that you can see there is the idea is to use a trellis type pergola type structure

[1:25:49] that is not a solid wall, which would not look attractive either, but provides some kind

[1:25:55] of break-in addition and then you would fill that with plantings around it that would add additional

[1:26:02] screening.

[1:26:03] We think that that provides sufficient screening of what I think is the most ownerous or

[1:26:10] concerning part of a front-to-rear, which is looking at someone.

[1:26:13] What, I mean, some of that you have passed, or Vengeance is there to, or no?

[1:26:18] We have the potential to put a sitting area in under the track, so

[1:26:28] that's pretty much to

[1:26:29] scale.

[1:26:32] What does that mean?

[1:26:32] That's just the illustration purpose.

[1:26:35] That's not.

[1:26:35] But part of the certification we would need to give a whole layout of that design.

[1:26:40] We think that that provides the opportunity to fully screen that view while retaining the units.

[1:26:47] We also think retaining those units keeps the balance of that block in terms of the urban layout.

[1:26:54] And remember, this is a intentionally very urban design without requirement or design intention of having pocket parks or full parks within each subblock.

[1:27:08] If you go back and read to the overall rendered site plan.

[1:27:17] How wide is the street from the front of the one house to the back of the other house?

[1:27:23] We know that there's this.

[1:27:24] I'm getting some help on that commissioner right now.

[1:27:26] But keep in mind this is an interior courtyard.

[1:27:28] These are private streets, so they're much narrower than the normal public street right away.

[1:27:34] It's 22 from the back of the one house to the front of the other house.

[1:27:40] out of the house, a little bit of distance, but the street, there's the all-ment-22, the

[1:27:47] whiff of the street.

[1:27:48] Yeah, the tone.

[1:27:49] Can you keep in mind, as I said, this is an internal circulation street, so essentially

[1:27:53] this is being used by residents not by cut-through traffic and throw-pair-type traffic.

[1:28:00] We think it's an understated internal focus area with landscaping and hard-scaping added

[1:28:10] that will achieve the screening and then the dance feature will help that as well.

[1:28:17] What are we looking at right here, the four front, the two units are just trying to orient.

[1:28:25] This is the rear yard, this defense, the rear yard of the unit, looking to the front

[1:28:32] of the other building across the street.

[1:28:34] Okay, but the four front would do those represent the three units in discussion that we're

[1:28:40] Now, this is just a illustrating on a view of the probably one unit.

[1:28:46] One, three, two, one, the back door.

[1:28:49] Is that the back yard of those three units?

[1:28:51] Yes, that's an image.

[1:28:51] Yeah, one of the units.

[1:28:54] Commissioner Girauder, I'm told that the distance building the building is 45 to 50 feet.

[1:28:59] Is that what?

[1:29:00] 45 to 50 feet.

[1:29:01] A little more.

[1:29:02] This wall is about five feet.

[1:29:07] But clarification from building to building not building back yard building to building to building to building to building

[1:29:18] And keep in mind again, I'm going to keep stressing this over and over this is an urban setting not a suburban townhouse community

[1:29:28] And this is the only one location in frankly if Henry, if you could go back to the overall site plan

[1:29:36] Well, hold on a second.

[1:29:38] Commissioner Shelby has a question I just want to make sure it doesn't matter for taking to that.

[1:29:42] Yeah, just like a 2.1 is I'm assuming there's no option for an elevated back deck on at least these town homes.

[1:30:03] Mr. Shelter, your point, my client is saying yes to these particular units if we wanted to add a prohibition to that, they would be amenable to that.

[1:30:12] It's just, I think, for private CD, the proximity of the building.

[1:30:17] So that was just the question because it does change, I think, the views that we were looking at in this picture.

[1:30:24] The second thing is the other slide that you had with the green triangle on it.

[1:30:28] I was curious if the layout similar to the southwest area of the circle,

[1:30:33] where there's a similar triangle to the left and bottom there,

[1:30:40] if that type of layout, it looks like it's a little narrower,

[1:30:44] but it looks like at least on the left,

[1:30:47] the southwest side where you have that similar configuration,

[1:30:51] at least there's not a situation where the town does

[1:30:53] of looking front to rear on each other, so I don't know if there was space to consider.

[1:31:01] As I was saying, we've achieved the front in pretty much the entire site and just the

[1:31:09] way this particular block laid out, we ended up with this problem because of the internal

[1:31:14] street network. So I don't think there's additional space.

[1:31:20] It would not appear the same

[1:31:23] configuration we'd have to move around the block some within the outside envelope.

[1:31:30] If you look at this green area and that is a circle or marked off, to me, if you take

[1:31:37] off this green block three units, you do end up with a bigger green space there, but I do

[1:31:43] think it takes away the symmetry of that internal block because you can see those units face

[1:31:49] the other block and they match the internal street where they face their fronts face the

[1:31:59] other fronts and taking units away there creates an imbalance in the symmetrical design of

[1:32:06] this internal block. We believe that the landscape and screening that we're proposing adequately

[1:32:13] addresses the issue, obviously my client would prefer not to lose those units and we think

[1:32:20] with the screening efforts that we can do and will be provided in more detail with

[1:32:25] certification that we can provide clear screening or no-pate screening of the views from

[1:32:34] that particular area and we have no problem with Commissioner Shows suggestion as to the

[1:32:40] decks.

[1:32:42] So, and then all that would be the prior justification and you could really step it up to make it really, really nice landscaping.

[1:32:53] Okay.

[1:32:53] I see you're fine.

[1:32:54] Not again.

[1:32:55] Okay.

[1:32:56] We say yes.

[1:32:57] Okay.

[1:33:01] Okay.

[1:33:02] Okay.

[1:33:02] So, Susan, I would, okay.

[1:33:06] So, that's something we'll have to just, unless there are more questions on this issue, that's just something we'll have to decide.

[1:33:13] So, other than that, and you've explained your rationale, you're, we're all in agreement on the revisions to the conditions as pro-the-vert, and we have stated it.

[1:33:25] That's correct, Badger.

[1:33:26] As we discussed today, we're in agreement.

[1:33:30] If there's not going to be a chance for me to have further comment on, and...

[1:33:35] Well, there may be, I just want to see, you have a number of people signed up, but it doesn't look like everybody wants to.

[1:33:40] All of the folks that are signed up as proponents for the applicant are here for a resource.

[1:33:47] No, wait a minute.

[1:33:49] Okay.

[1:33:49] No, but she doesn't want to speak today.

[1:33:52] All right, Ms. Camp.

[1:33:54] She's contented back over the room today.

[1:33:57] Okay.

[1:33:58] And Mr. Bruce as well.

[1:33:59] The back of the room today.

[1:34:02] Was there anyone who was to speak on this event?

[1:34:04] I have a number of people signed up, but no one else was to speak.

[1:34:07] Anything else you want to add in this description?

[1:34:11] I'm sorry if we have a question.

[1:34:12] Thank you.

[1:34:13] I have a couple more questions.

[1:34:16] So, mainly with regards to sort of this staging or the phasing within phase one itself,

[1:34:23] I think there was a few places in the staff report where it said more information

[1:34:28] before coming in that respect or then requested.

[1:34:30] But I think I saw her sort of the plan with respect

[1:34:35] to the recreation facilities.

[1:34:37] I may have missed it, but I was also curious

[1:34:40] as to sidewalks and landscaping and how those will be

[1:34:45] either completed with each phase.

[1:34:49] And the related question I had if there was any connectivity issues

[1:34:53] or the sidewalks in between residents who want to travel

[1:34:59] from this phase being complete to somewhere else if there's a bus stop or transit center, and

[1:35:05] if there's connections made irrespective of other phases being started later.

[1:35:13] Let me try to address that and if I miss anything, pull me back.

[1:35:17] But first of all, this is the main road that runs through there is the master plan, the extension

[1:35:22] of what we're calling Woodyard Extended, will come from the new interchange that we'll be

[1:35:27] doing after the state completes their bridge work.

[1:35:30] There are bike lanes and sidewalks on all of that street.

[1:35:38] There are sidewalks within the phases.

[1:35:41] I mean, within the blocks to assist pedestrian circulation.

[1:35:47] There were a couple of areas where we didn't have sidewalks

[1:35:49] and staff worked with us to make sure we did.

[1:35:53] And so we have pedestrian circulation throughout.

[1:35:58] This phase will be fully integrated into the other phases

[1:36:01] and the sidewalks will connect with the other phases.

[1:36:05] And ultimately, the town center will be fully connected

[1:36:08] with the pedestrian and cycling network.

[1:36:12] Obviously, it's going to come over time.

[1:36:14] This road, the main road, will extend further to the north

[1:36:19] and ultimately into the Smith Farm property.

[1:36:21] And it's part of the major circulation for the project.

[1:36:26] So when they're matching up with us,

[1:36:29] this road will be carried forward in that area.

[1:36:32] So the short answer is yes, that the vision

[1:36:35] for connectivity is there with it in each phase.

[1:36:40] Of course it will take time to evolve.

[1:36:43] We do see this as a continuous phase within phase one,

[1:36:47] depending on the builder's sales pace and scheduling of units as they come online.

[1:36:57] But the road in the circle within the road will be put on grade in constructed early on in the first days, before and resonance.

[1:37:09] And the landscape being is similarly-

[1:37:12] The landscaping within each sub quadrant would be done with that sub quadrant as their

[1:37:19] commenced and completed obviously construction sequencing impacts that you don't want

[1:37:25] to put something in and have to rip it out, but it would be done with an each quadrant

[1:37:29] of the days.

[1:37:32] This one more question, I appreciate the information that was shared on some of the environmental features, I think that discussion was on pages 14, 15 of the staff report, paragraph 17.

[1:37:46] There was some statement that alluded to different features that would be encouraged, and I sort of curious what we're going to, which of those might be offered, which ones were perhaps contractive for with the builders,

[1:37:59] or were optional features and you know what might be included throughout so I don't know if

[1:38:07] that's determined at this stage but I was wondering if you could maybe share some more information

[1:38:13] in that respect. I think that's sort of top.

[1:38:16] Are you talking about the efficiency in green techniques?

[1:38:19] Yes, exactly.

[1:38:20] Yeah, essentially the internal unit, the windows and the insulation, the type of efficiencies

[1:38:33] within construction of units, is being offered by virtually all the builders nowadays,

[1:38:39] but it is more importantly my understanding within your own building code now, a minimum

[1:38:45] level get you to these points as far as the e-level at the

[1:38:48] click class and that kind of thing. And the builders are providing the energy

[1:38:55] star appliances. I don't have that. We don't have each builder committed

[1:39:02] under contract, but we expect that each of them will have a building

[1:39:07] program that will include energy star or equivalent type efficiency of

[1:39:12] the HVAC and water units and water heaters and that kind of appliance treatment as well.

[1:39:21] And we do have a separate submission on the green building, something that was done with

[1:39:25] the special purpose safety as well, I think.

[1:39:34] Any other questions at this juncture?

[1:39:42] Okay.

[1:39:44] Is there a motion?

[1:39:45] That I'm sure like to move that we adopt the findings of staff and approve DSP-13006, a TCP

[1:39:56] 1-029-12-0202 along with the associated conditions as outlined in applicant exhibit number

[1:40:09] 1 subject to the following changes.

[1:40:14] First I'd like to ensure that we add the additional finding as proper by the applicant

[1:40:22] and formally read into the record, and it would be the second portion of the language,

[1:40:29] which was outlined in Condition 1H3 related to woodland conservation.

[1:40:38] The second change would be to Condition 1N.

[1:40:44] It shall condition one inch, shall be as outlined in applicant exhibit number one, however

[1:40:53] language should be added, which prohibits second-level decking on units 54, 55 and 56

[1:41:01] block G, condition number 5 shall read as follows, prior to issuance of the 350th building

[1:41:13] permit for any phase following this phase parent DSP 13006 closed parent. The stream restoration

[1:41:24] has approved on the technical storm war management plan. Parent SD 3989-2012 closed parent

[1:41:34] shall begin implementation. Proof of implementation shall be submitted to the Maryland National

[1:41:41] capital park and planning commission and the form of notification via the Department of

[1:41:46] permitting inspections and enforcement, period, the strain restoration shall be completed

[1:41:51] prior to issuance of any permit for any phase subsequent to the implementation, proof

[1:41:56] of completion shall be submitted to MNCPPC in the form of notification from DPIE and

[1:42:04] the Asville stormwater stormwater management technical plans and all other conditions

[1:42:10] is outlined in applicant exhibit number one.

[1:42:14] Have a motion.

[1:42:15] Is there a second?

[1:42:16] Thank you.

[1:42:17] Is there a discussion?

[1:42:19] All in favor.

[1:42:21] Opposed.

[1:42:22] The eyes have it.

[1:42:23] Thank you.

[1:42:24] Thank you.

[1:42:24] That included the TCP2, right?

[1:42:27] Say that.

[1:42:28] TCP2.

[1:42:29] Yes.

[1:42:30] Yes.

[1:42:30] I did.

[1:42:31] Thank you.

[1:42:32] Thank you.

[1:42:36] Um.

[1:42:41] Eight.

[1:42:46] What is

[1:43:10] it when someone gets a close to them that makes it?

[1:43:15] I don't know.

[1:43:24] I don't know.

[1:43:25] I don't know.

[1:43:26] I don't know.

[1:43:28] I don't know.

[1:43:29] Um.

[1:43:30] Do this.

[1:43:45] No.

[1:44:23] Um.

[1:44:24] Please.

[1:44:24] How are you doing?

[1:44:26] Okay.

[1:44:28] Okay.

[1:44:29] I.

[1:44:30] I.

[1:44:31] Good

[1:44:43] morning.

[1:44:46] that I'm sure most of the planning board happy Halloween to everyone today for

[1:44:57] the record my name is

[1:44:58] Mika Fields and with the urban design.

[1:45:00] This case is item number 8, DSP 99044-07, and Georgia's Plaza Chick-fil-A. The request is for the approval of a 5,000-30 square foot Chick-fil-A restaurant. This application also request an amendment of the table of uses of the 1998 approved Transit District Development Plan for the Prencherous Plaza Transit District Overlay Zone.

[1:45:26] to permit fast food, a fast food restaurant with a driver.

[1:45:31] Staff is recommending approval with conditions.

[1:45:36] The site is located within planning area 68 in Council District 2,

[1:45:39] in the city of Highett'sville.

[1:45:43] The area of the detailed site plan is 51.03 acres,

[1:45:48] and includes the entirety of Quinn Georgia's Plaza.

[1:45:51] This is located on the north side of East West Highway.

[1:45:54] This area centered around Quinn Georgia's Plaza's Metro is a proposed

[1:45:58] priority investment district in the general plan update.

[1:46:05] The site's located within the commercial

[1:46:06] shopping center or CSC zone. There is a mix of zoning in the area, including multi-family zoning

[1:46:13] in brown and also mixed-use zoning, largely in purple. There's also a small area of office

[1:46:20] along the western property boundary.

[1:46:28] The site's located within the transit district overlay zone.

[1:46:31] That's the hashing that you're seeing here of TDOZ.

[1:46:34] The site is identified, is within that 1998 approved

[1:46:37] Trans-Editure Development Plan for the French George's Plaza

[1:46:40] Trans-Editure Overlay Zone that's a TDDP.

[1:46:44] The TDDP or Trans-Editure Development Plan

[1:46:47] it only permits fast food restaurants in this area

[1:46:50] only when holy and closed in a shopping mall

[1:46:55] or Department of Riding your drug store

[1:46:58] within an office building, within a hotel, or accessory to, and as a part of, and allowed recreational facility.

[1:47:07] The subject proposal is for fast food restaurant outside of the mall structure, and is not fit with any of these categories.

[1:47:14] Therefore, the use is prohibited by the transit district development plan.

[1:47:19] Because of the requests, which includes an amendment of this permitted use list, the district council has mandatory review of this project,

[1:47:25] and the planning board provides a recommendation to this for Council on the use.

[1:47:32] This is the newest area we have for the area, which was taken a few years ago.

[1:47:36] It doesn't show some of the newer developments in the area.

[1:47:40] Of course, here you have the mallet, Prince Georges.

[1:47:42] There's some newer developments that aren't shown on the slide, particularly along the Velcrest,

[1:47:49] along to Leo Terrace, excuse me, where you have Velcrest Plaza,

[1:47:53] multi-family development in this area.

[1:47:54] You can see the recently constructed post-project here.

[1:48:00] The location of the proposed Chick-fil-A restaurant is along East West Highway in the southwestern corner of the site.

[1:48:13] This slide generally shows the contours and natural features of the vicinity.

[1:48:18] There are no significant natural features of the boundaries of the shopping center.

[1:48:22] The original and closed shopping mall was developed on the site in the late 1950s,

[1:48:27] prior to a number of environmental and school mortemannagement regulations, the TDP emphasizes

[1:48:33] the importance of some mortemannagement within the area for the long-term protection

[1:48:37] of this inacastia River of Oterrain, H.B.S.N.

[1:48:41] Next slide shows the master plan right of ways, there's no right of way issues associated

[1:48:46] with this area.

[1:48:49] Here's a bird's sight image that gives a little bit better over you of the area.

[1:48:54] Again, that Chick-fil-A restaurant pad that's shown here at the center of this image in the red.

[1:49:01] Proposal is approximately one quarter miles distance to the metro station.

[1:49:08] There are existing restaurant pad sites within the front of the mallet crunchages.

[1:49:14] Those are presenting restaurants, including an outback steakhouse.

[1:49:18] that is, here we go. Here is the Outback State Calcocation. There is also an Olive Garden that's been constructed, but there are no existing free standing fast food restaurants within this area.

[1:49:35] On April 25th of this year, the planning board moved to approve a McDonald's proposal located on the existing parking lot in front of there's a Home Depot in this location, just off this slide.

[1:49:50] That approval, back in April, the planning board could not find that that McDonald's proposal

[1:49:56] and in particular, it's drive through met the purposes of the TDOZ zone.

[1:50:02] The drive through service could not be found to promote the use of transit facilities

[1:50:05] or create a desirable or renewable relationship to enhance the character of the area.

[1:50:11] While the planning board did move to approve that McDonald's shown here, cost postpart,

[1:50:16] The approval didn't include a condition to eliminate the drive for your service from the proposal.

[1:50:22] A staff recommends that the planning board takes a similar position here today.

[1:50:25] The Chick-fil-A is even closer to the Metro than the McDonald's and staff continues to believe that the redevelopment of the Plaza should continue without auto-oriented uses.

[1:50:37] This

[1:50:42] slide shows illustrates the proposal for the Chick-fil-A.

[1:50:48] The 5,000 30-square building is, again, in that southwestern corner of that parking lot.

[1:50:54] Primary building entrances are proposed directly from the sidewalk along East West Highway.

[1:50:59] There's also a primary entrance from the existing parking lot along the north side of the building.

[1:51:05] This site plan shows this kind of red check here and also along the front, those shows specialty

[1:51:13] paving areas along the front and the side of the building, where outdoor seating and

[1:51:18] there's also a trellis that's proposed in this area. Additional details of these features

[1:51:24] should be included on the site plan prior to final approval. A double drive through lane is

[1:51:31] post on the east side of the building.

[1:51:34] With the single pickup window in this location,

[1:51:39] the double queuing lanes, they are directly

[1:51:41] adjacent to with considered a pedestrian zone along east to west highway.

[1:51:47] It's separated by that pedestrian zone by a low brick wall, it's generally in this location

[1:51:52] here.

[1:51:53] Showed in gray.

[1:51:56] While that low wall would continue to exist, there are some impacts such as vehicle exhaust

[1:52:01] and lighting.

[1:52:01] associated with the drive-through that would be likely if approved.

[1:52:07] Also, if the drive-through were eliminated, additional green area could be provided.

[1:52:12] Also, the building could be redesigned to incorporate screen walls for dumpsters and also loading,

[1:52:19] which is a building form that's more consistent with transit-oriented development.

[1:52:23] Currently, you have loading and dumpsters within that parking lot separated from the building.

[1:52:28] These

[1:52:32] next few slides should propose building elevations, which exhibit a more contemporary look for the Chick-fil-A.

[1:52:38] The top elevation here, that is the north side of the building that's facing the mall.

[1:52:44] And the bottom elevation is the south side facing east-west highway.

[1:52:48] This building will feature a series of flat roofs at various heights to create visual interest.

[1:52:53] beige colored brick will be used as the primary building material and steel and wood composite

[1:52:59] serve as accent materials on these building elevations

[1:53:05] Here are the side elevations

[1:53:10] This side here is particularly it shows that drive through elevation

[1:53:21] So just to point out a few things here

[1:53:24] That wood panel and the wood composite material you can see where that is generally proposed here

[1:53:30] That's also along the front facing east west highway

[1:53:35] staff has received a material sample with the proposed materials we do have it here today.

[1:53:41] I would like to see that material sample board.

[1:53:45] And staff does have a few concerns about the wood-like composite material.

[1:53:50] We're unsure whether the final product with these walls that material will achieve a

[1:53:55] appearance of quality and durability and staff recommends additional information regarding the

[1:54:00] final appearances of these wood wall features.

[1:54:03] The applicant also provided prospective images of a proposal.

[1:54:09] This is the view along East West Highway here.

[1:54:14] The staff report does recommend a few modifications to this particular elevation.

[1:54:20] Particularly the windows along this side of the elevation seem a bit small compared to the other elevations.

[1:54:27] And staff requested that some larger windows should be incorporated to give the building a bit more visual prominence

[1:54:37] that's warranted for that location along East As Highway.

[1:54:43] And this image here shows the drive through location.

[1:54:47] You can also see sort of the outdoor seating areas in this perspective image.

[1:54:51] Some of the window features incorporates incorporating green screens where you can have a blind climbing onto this screen

[1:54:58] you can see that, particularly in this slide.

[1:55:03] The next few slides are of the original architectural submittal.

[1:55:07] This proposed design is a bit different from Chick-fil-A standard architectural model, which

[1:55:12] many of us have seen throughout the county.

[1:55:15] It's a more traditional, a two-tone red brick building with tower features here and there,

[1:55:24] specifically.

[1:55:27] While staff supports the proposed design and front-of-view tier today, we do request some additional

[1:55:34] architectural detailing on the proposed model to provide a bit more visual interest while still

[1:55:41] maintaining and keeping with a different architectural style that's proposed.

[1:55:46] And overall, the staff does support the architecture, which is a less franchise image for Chick-fil-A.

[1:55:50] In

[1:55:58] closing, if approved with conditions, including a condition to remove the drive through service,

[1:56:04] proposal will meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance, previous approvals, and requirements

[1:56:09] for approving a site plan within the transit district overlays zone.

[1:56:13] Staff would also like to note that the site plan, it does need the requirements of the 2010

[1:56:29] that planning board, so with that, the Resign section recommends the planning board adopt the

[1:56:35] findings, and if you're a detailed site plan, DSP 99044-07 that subject to two multi-part

[1:56:42] conditions on pages 20 and 21 of the staff report, and staff would like to include one

[1:56:48] correction of the condition into the record. On page 21,

[1:56:58] condition 102 requests that the applicant

[1:57:01] include some additional buyer retention measures in these stormwater management design.

[1:57:06] And if you look at the last sentence in condition one, oh, on page 21, the word deficient

[1:57:14] sole volume is used that was intended to be sufficient, sufficient, you like sufficient

[1:57:21] soil volume, not sufficient.

[1:57:25] Okay.

[1:57:26] And with that, this concludes my presentation.

[1:57:28] Thank you.

[1:57:31] Okay.

[1:57:31] Yeah, there are any questions in the field at this time.

[1:57:35] Okay, Mr. Schof.

[1:57:36] Thank you, Madam Chair.

[1:57:38] This field just one question if the board doesn't recommend

[1:57:43] to counsel that there's a drive through it.

[1:57:49] Does there a possibility to shift the pad side a little bit

[1:57:53] north and east to allow for greater outdoor seating

[1:57:58] or maybe the applicant can also address whether this would be an interest to them.

[1:58:03] But some possibility of that nature or even a walk-up window is opposed to a drive through.

[1:58:10] I think the board could certainly recommend that.

[1:58:13] And I'd be willing to help rewrite conditions if you want to go in that direction.

[1:58:18] Thank you.

[1:58:21] Other other questions in the skills of this time?

[1:58:23] Okay, Ms.

[1:58:33] Silas.

[1:58:36] You need a minute?

[1:58:37] You can take a

[1:58:50] good morning for the record, Dan Lynch, with MacMay Hosi here on behalf of Chick-fil-A.

[1:58:56] We are here, obviously, in support of staff's recommendation, approval of this detailed site plan, but you have some requests, revisions to the post-conditions that this appeals to the board.

[1:59:10] But just a little bit of background, and this feels that you bring up the aerial photo.

[1:59:15] Thank you.

[1:59:20] Some of you may or may not be familiar with the development history of pre-stores' plaza at least since 2000.

[1:59:27] I personally have been working on this site since, I think, the original Trans Edition development plan was adopted for pre-stores' plaza.

[1:59:35] And the redevelopment on pre-stores' plaza has pretty much moved from east to west on the property.

[1:59:43] It's feels cookie through some of the other restaurants, paths I had to have, but the real

[1:59:48] history here started with the target that is in the far, that's correct, and this

[1:59:53] feels it's now circling.

[1:59:54] That was one of the first buildings or redevelopment that occurred under the TDP for print.

[2:00:00] And as part of that, we also developed, in front of the target, a pedestrian class that that kind of tied the target, the shopping center, into the pedestrian crossing between Prince George's Plaza and the metro station.

[2:00:15] After that, we proceeded further west on the site and at the Outback State Council.

[2:00:22] And as part of that outback proposal, and as well as a pedestrian class, the whole screen

[2:00:27] wall along the entire Prince George's Plaza frontage was developed, and that was developed

[2:00:32] in phase that says this was continued to move west on the site.

[2:00:37] After the outback was developed, and we moved to the other side of the main entrance, and

[2:00:42] came up with the olive garden, and that was the last major development on Prince George's

[2:00:48] as a site in the probative past five to six years.

[2:00:54] My client originally thought it's application

[2:00:57] for the Chick-fil-A back in August of 2012.

[2:01:03] And since that time, I think we've been working with staff

[2:01:06] to address some of the concerns that been raised by Ms. Fields today.

[2:01:12] What we have, what you have before you in turn

[2:01:14] to the site plan and the architecture

[2:01:16] There is a direct result of the conversations we've had with staff and their concerns raised

[2:01:22] in terms of introducing issues and associated drive through to the principles of the site.

[2:01:30] For example, when we met with staff at SDRC on this, one of the concerns raised by them

[2:01:37] was that we didn't have a sufficient direct access to the property from East West Highway.

[2:01:43] The host will see now that there is a entranceway on East West Highway, as well as special brick paving

[2:01:51] pavers tying this used directly into the pedestrian walkway along East West Highway.

[2:01:59] They also were concerned about the fact that our original drive through a Q&A area wrapped around the building

[2:02:06] as opposed to being located to the east of the building.

[2:02:10] They felt that that killing area kind of cut off the pedestrian acts to the site.

[2:02:15] So again, that based upon some of the staff's suggestions, we came up with what you'd see is this kind of creative location and layout of the killing and the drive through window.

[2:02:26] The final thing that we kind of introduced this and it was in conjunction with the staff's recommendation was, you know, this is supposed to be a very pedestrian oriented area.

[2:02:36] And so what we did is that we introduced the outdoor eating area that you'll see located there in the north west corner of the site.

[2:02:47] We located it there just kind of set it back a little bit from East West Highway, but we thought that was probably the most appropriate location for that.

[2:02:57] So again, we're trying to make the site a little more vibrant and kind of like make a little more lively and kind of draw it into what's going on in the rest of the transit-ish peer-printures as well as that.

[2:03:10] Now, while all that was going on and again, we're trying to do something a little different here, we also started exploring revisions to the architecture.

[2:03:20] As part of the original approval, we were submitting the standard Chick-fil-A architecture that you'll see down in brandy wine,

[2:03:31] that you'll see at this regard, and that you'll also see at Bowie and District Heights.

[2:03:36] It was your standard Chick-fil-A prototype pretty much which you'll see in this county as well as all the other jurisdictions surrounding to this Columbia.

[2:03:45] We tried to do something a little more different, a little more special with the architecture

[2:03:49] to kind of get away from that corporate image, and we came up with this design that we're

[2:03:56] present to you here today.

[2:03:59] And we feel that it really is kind of like the trajectory that Chick-la is going to be heading

[2:04:05] in the future.

[2:04:06] We're probably going to start using this on other sites.

[2:04:10] There are also exploring using this on the sites of Virginia because they're very, very happy

[2:04:14] about the direction that the architecture on this site came along.

[2:04:18] A lot of the design here that you have before you

[2:04:21] is kind of like, as I've been explained,

[2:04:24] where it's explained to you on the architect

[2:04:25] and by my client, is that Chick-Colay kind of considers itself

[2:04:30] to be one of the premier fast food restaurants.

[2:04:33] And then one of you have ever visited one of the restaurants

[2:04:35] will know that, for instance, it's not supposed to be

[2:04:38] table service, but if you're in a table waiting for your food,

[2:04:41] they'll be brought to you.

[2:04:42] They're also clean up the food after the leak.

[2:04:45] Services, what Chick-fil-A is all about.

[2:04:47] And you also considered the quality of food

[2:04:49] to be very, very special.

[2:04:51] So with that in mind, they decided that it was time

[2:04:53] to change the architecture to make it look less like a fast

[2:04:57] with restaurant.

[2:04:58] You kind of bring it to a step between a fast food restaurant

[2:05:02] and irregular sit-on restaurant.

[2:05:05] And that's the direction they tried to head

[2:05:06] with the architecture.

[2:05:09] And it really kind of is displayed

[2:05:10] in the materials being used.

[2:05:13] As pointed up on this field, there's really kind of like four primal materials being used

[2:05:18] in the architecture here.

[2:05:19] You have your brick, steel, the wood, and the glass.

[2:05:24] And they've all been tied together to kind of really make this building stand out.

[2:05:29] The design itself, as opposed to what you see in the old Chick-fil-A, and you see a lot of the

[2:05:35] competitors, they look at these tower elements in their design where they put their logo.

[2:05:40] we've got away from that in this design,

[2:05:43] we're basically using height and depth to create

[2:05:45] a little bit more visual interest.

[2:05:48] Also, again, going back to the quality materials being used.

[2:05:52] And also, the color of the building material,

[2:05:55] a little more subtle than the red brick.

[2:05:57] I'm using that subtle color in the building

[2:06:00] that we're able to let the Chick-fil-A signs stand out

[2:06:04] without being overwhelming.

[2:06:06] The use of fringes is the black in the steel

[2:06:10] in the Brown and the Woods kind of helps distinguish elements of the building here.

[2:06:15] So they really think that this is a very high quality building.

[2:06:19] They kind of reflect what they consider about the food that they serve as part of the population.

[2:06:26] Quality food, quality design, and that's really what comes out in this Chick-fil-A.

[2:06:31] I think if you go across the country, you'll not see another Chick-fil-A that even matches what you have here today.

[2:06:36] And they understand, I mean, this is a very important quarter for Princeton, which is

[2:06:42] counting for the transit district, and it's safe to come up with something that I was

[2:06:45] really going to stand out and make this very, very special.

[2:06:47] And you'll see that to this design.

[2:06:49] I mean, even though the outdoor seating area, you'll see that the Pagola still Pagola around

[2:06:54] the outdoor seating area, and I make it very, very attractive.

[2:06:57] You'll see that carry through, and can you pull up more of the perspective that we're providing

[2:07:03] to the next one?

[2:07:04] That one.

[2:07:07] This is already in the record right here.

[2:07:10] Yes, that material water is in the chemical case file.

[2:07:13] That's correct.

[2:07:13] You submitted that.

[2:07:15] One question.

[2:07:16] What's your reference to the wood type material?

[2:07:18] You're talking about the composite?

[2:07:20] It's recycled.

[2:07:21] That's right.

[2:07:22] It's recycled by plastic bamboo.

[2:07:25] No, no, no.

[2:07:25] It's actual wood.

[2:07:26] It's just recycled.

[2:07:27] But when you said we were using that in the design.

[2:07:31] So it's recycled wood.

[2:07:32] That's correct, yes.

[2:07:35] also it goes also towards this kind of the least certification which

[2:07:38] was recommended that's fine. So this kind of like a positive chair but it is

[2:07:43] made of wood. Strictly wood no no no no no recyclable plastic.

[2:07:54] Hold up hold up hold up hold up hold up.

[2:07:58] As indicated it is there's a resin the hole to material together but other than

[2:08:02] a resin it is wood that's fine. And that's just so you understand I had no problem

[2:08:06] answering. We just want to make sure it's since it's been recorded that it's on the map.

[2:08:09] It's okay.

[2:08:10] Okay.

[2:08:11] Okay. Thank you.

[2:08:11] So it is.

[2:08:12] It is strictly because the rising keeps it together, but that once again, it's part of

[2:08:16] using your cycle materials as part of the construction process in this building.

[2:08:21] So, again, they really think, if you look, it's very, very different.

[2:08:24] It seems to itself, and every other rash run, fast, we rash run in the county.

[2:08:28] It's probably in the metropolitan area.

[2:08:30] The other thing that I found very, very exciting, very nice about this is the green screens that

[2:08:34] you'll see on all four sides of the building.

[2:08:37] Something that don't, I don't think in any other building,

[2:08:40] that's been presented as four.

[2:08:41] You'll see it's even tied into the purgala

[2:08:44] over the drive through a green screen there

[2:08:46] where we've put in some type of local species

[2:08:49] that climbs up and creates a nice vine.

[2:08:51] You'll see that on a lot of the windows

[2:08:53] to a green screen.

[2:08:54] You see that along the outdoor eating area.

[2:08:56] Again, that's something that, you know,

[2:08:58] in rather than using a different detail

[2:09:01] and the building, we're actually using natural green products

[2:09:05] to help make this building that much more attractive.

[2:09:08] So you'll see again that we step the way

[2:09:11] from the normal Chick-fil-A building.

[2:09:14] But we really tried to present this board.

[2:09:15] This community was something

[2:09:16] that was very special, very different.

[2:09:18] Something that's going to set it apart from my real

[2:09:21] fast food restaurant in Prince George's County

[2:09:23] as well as the metropolitan areas.

[2:09:33] Now, to get back to the real, where we are right now,

[2:09:37] As Miss Fields indicated,

[2:09:41] we agree with most of the conditions that are attached to

[2:09:44] the recognition of approval, but I have some posts that changes those conditions until

[2:09:50] I circulate to the board.

[2:09:58] And I like to be asked that the mark is offensive, but one,

[2:10:17] the Minister of

[2:10:18] Channel from the City of Booye Harris, and I have to give him a copy.

[2:10:29] This is, we're going to accept this, your proposed revised conditions into the record in

[2:10:34] And I previously gone through these proposed changes with the staff, and I believe with the exception of my changes to condition 1, A, B, and

[2:10:45] J, I think these staff think we're currently approaching this.

[2:10:50] A, B, and J?

[2:10:51] And those all are directly related to the general.

[2:10:54] Is that correct, Miss Phil?

[2:10:56] Yes, I believe so.

[2:10:58] Okay, if there's something, so I won't go back for it, but if there's something that we missed, then jump it, okay, before we go into the next one, okay.

[2:11:07] All right, let's, I'm going to skip over the drive through changes, and I'll go to what I can say to be moving to the easier changes to the condition.

[2:11:16] Okay, let's skip down to one, one, C, two. That's right, one, C, one.

[2:11:30] It's now one A.

[2:11:33] Oh, well, depends on what you use.

[2:11:35] No letters in the new letters.

[2:11:36] So you're, it's actually one is the original condition.

[2:11:41] Okay.

[2:11:42] Okay. Okay.

[2:11:42] One to the back of the house building.

[2:11:44] That's correct.

[2:11:44] Revised to stop building elevation from east west highway to improve the appearance by enlarging

[2:11:49] the window and reducing the space in between each window.

[2:11:52] As explained from this field,

[2:11:54] that area of the building contains storage, it contains our freezer, it's really an area

[2:12:01] that we don't have any leeway from an interior standpoint to change. The size of those windows

[2:12:08] make the larger. If we do the window end up in the middle of a wall or then to pierce our freezer space,

[2:12:14] that is really the storage area for the building. Now the alternative would be to put in some type

[2:12:21] of a window. But again, we believe that if the track from the overall architectural appearance

[2:12:27] of this building, that's one of the reasons why you'll see that in lieu of increasing

[2:12:32] size of the window, we place those green screens below each window, the kind of add more

[2:12:37] natural feature to the building. So again, we aren't able from an interior standpoint that

[2:12:42] is really guiding the location and the size of those windows, so we are able to increase

[2:12:48] those windows in terms of putting a real window at that location, and I believe Miss Fields

[2:12:52] based upon her review of the entire layout agrees that change.

[2:12:58] That's correct.

[2:13:00] We're not going to go through each one since, okay, I mean just we're not going to go back

[2:13:07] up with responses unless and until we get to the one that's at a problem.

[2:13:11] Yeah, so if I can just say our discussion was, we agreed that we understand that there's

[2:13:18] technical and practical difficulties with changing the

[2:13:20] administration on the side of the building.

[2:13:22] What the applicant is agreeing to is a modified

[2:13:24] condition C3, which states that they will provide additional

[2:13:30] birth detailing and articulation through modification of the

[2:13:35] brick patterns, colors and architectural treatments to provide

[2:13:38] visual interest along all elevations with specific emphasis on

[2:13:42] the south elevation facing east west high west.

[2:13:44] They believe that we will find some other solutions that will

[2:13:47] make this elevation as effective as possible without changing the window locations.

[2:13:52] So we're satisfied with the modifications to condition, existing condition once seen.

[2:13:58] We believe that that change too, that she just spoke to does it for us to consider and frame us that.

[2:14:13] And then we skip down to what was formally one,

[2:14:18] which starts with storm on a management features

[2:14:23] and P because those that will go hand in hand.

[2:14:30] The TDP for Pinsure is a plaza that calls for a possible use of some type of alternate storm management facilities such as biotension.

[2:14:42] However, one of the problems that we have on this site is that given the significant patch of soils,

[2:14:48] It's really not going to do something about a bi-retention on the site, in addition, the bi-retention, if we did implement it on the site.

[2:15:00] A lot of silts, you see, a lot of other debris, such as garbage, they are coming through the storm management systems.

[2:15:09] And we believe that a biorecension facility would be completely overwhelmed, based upon the fact that most of the plaza parking lot is not subject to storm management.

[2:15:21] So what we're doing out there, things are going to be overwhelmed.

[2:15:24] Well, could possibly be overwhelmed with the amount of self-antrashed.

[2:15:28] So we think that we'd much better under these circumstances

[2:15:31] to utilize a facility that that we're proposing is a proof

[2:15:44] of this part of our stormwater concept plan.

[2:15:48] We're right now are looking at doing a storm filter system

[2:15:52] And that storm-fist filter system as proposed will exceed the county requirements by 8.5%.

[2:16:00] So we're going to be doing much of our out there that is even required by the county, as opposed to what would be accomplished on a bi-retention system.

[2:16:09] So we have actually included on the final page to serve our changes here.

[2:16:13] You'll see the second page, a men-advining to address this issue with regard to storm water.

[2:16:19] And again, I think given a fact that we're really trying to protect the environment out there

[2:16:24] if we're looking at what you're going to accomplish with buyer retention as opposed to stormwater

[2:16:28] filter.

[2:16:29] I think the filter is going to accomplish much more for the overall transit district.

[2:16:34] Okay.

[2:16:37] Thank you.

[2:16:40] I'm sorry.

[2:16:40] Commissioner.

[2:16:42] I just want to question on the how does this then capture the planning islands that are demonstrated

[2:16:49] on this slide?

[2:16:50] Is that included elsewhere?

[2:16:52] Part of me. I'm sorry. In the middle of the O paragraph, it's been struck through it also speaks to interior planning islands from the surface light.

[2:17:07] And I think they're on the slide that we're also looking at are those captured elsewhere.

[2:17:10] Those also proposed to be deleted.

[2:17:14] Well, we are showing what is proposed in terms of interior violence on the site, we're not

[2:17:19] proposing to add any additional interference as part of our stormwater concept approval.

[2:17:24] So what is shown here complies with the landscape manual as well as our stormwater management requirements.

[2:17:33] So any other plenty of violence, I think we would have come about if we are doing some type of fire retention.

[2:17:37] Okay

[2:17:44] finally then we'll get to the issue with regard to the drive-throw and again this really impacts

[2:17:51] this gross two-conditioned formal condition 1A, B, and J, of the staff's recommended conditions.

[2:18:00] 1A, B, and J, and that's correct.

[2:18:05] The revised conditions as shown to you request that A, 1A, B, the B, the lead it and then we have a substitute condition for J which now becomes

[2:18:14] position H.

[2:18:22] Now the first thing I'd like to note for the board is in this board, back in April,

[2:18:28] occurred the case similar request for McDonald's, the located just on street from here and

[2:18:35] Home Depot parking lot. This board recommended approval of that detailed site plan, suffix

[2:18:42] who condition that the drive-through component be removed.

[2:18:49] Since that time, the McDonald's decision was appeal to the district council, and on Monday,

[2:18:58] the district council, as an order, approving McDonald's with the driver.

[2:19:05] It based its determination on pretty much what we're doing here today, and that is

[2:19:12] It looked at the very creative site design proposed for that site, and if you remember, they

[2:19:18] located their drive-through behind the building, and the use was significantly screened

[2:19:23] from east west highway by a wall along the best-screen way.

[2:19:27] It dials also on that site proposed, not or evening area, again, to bring the site into the

[2:19:35] best-screen area and you can kind of make it interact with that.

[2:19:38] So when the district council adopted its order, that finding was added, and I think that finding

[2:19:45] is very pertinent to what is being proposed here today, as part of the Chick-fil-A.

[2:19:52] What we are proposing here is the Chick-fil-A located on East West Highway in an existing

[2:20:00] shopping center parking lot.

[2:20:02] So, each was highway dislocation, as you know, six lanes with.

[2:20:08] A lot of cars driving back on each was highway.

[2:20:12] At the same time, you have a location that is within close proximity to the metro.

[2:20:18] So, what do you then have?

[2:20:20] You have both the vehicular traffic and you have the deshring traffic.

[2:20:26] And you're trying to balance those.

[2:20:27] And what's being proposed here by Chick-fil-A clearly balances those.

[2:20:31] to, I wouldn't say conflicting, but two things going on in this property.

[2:20:37] But that's really big, and that's why we came up with this site design.

[2:20:43] A site design that, again, brings this product building all the way up to the pedestrian way,

[2:20:49] creates a connection between the sidewalk along East West Highway and the interest of this building.

[2:20:58] screens the drive-to-component with that existing wall located along the entire

[2:21:04] printer's just glass of front-inch and basically creates a very nice outdoor space

[2:21:13] that kind of like brings that pedestrian traffic into the site and makes it that much

[2:21:19] more vital. So again there's a careful balance that the district council

[2:21:25] a way, wind it up with the drive through a sociable McDonald's.

[2:21:30] And it basically found that, based upon site design,

[2:21:34] based upon its creative design techniques,

[2:21:36] that there was a balance that could be met

[2:21:39] without impacting the underlying nature of the transit district.

[2:21:44] And one thing I think is very, very interesting is that

[2:21:46] if your own community planning division also made this finding,

[2:21:51] And, unfortunately, this memo that I make it into your backup package,

[2:21:58] I'd ask that this

[2:21:59] remark, this app does exhibit too.

[2:22:03] The community planning division, back in February, looked at this site.

[2:22:11] And there were one of the group that sat down with us and asked us to make some significant changes

[2:22:17] with regards to moving and building up, creating that connection, outdoor space, it basically

[2:22:23] helped us come up with the redesign of the drive-thru. And after we revised the layout, they

[2:22:33] should amend my land and they'd have February 13. Again, this is not in your back of materials,

[2:22:38] so I just want to make sure you did see this. They should amend my land, they'd have February

[2:22:43] of 13th, where they can basically conclude it,

[2:22:46] and you'll see here on page 3, and it's the one

[2:22:50] to the third full paragraph down.

[2:22:57] Based state, and I believe this is third sentence,

[2:23:00] the proposed design of the restaurant

[2:23:02] and associated parking and drive-through areas,

[2:23:06] provide for pedestrian access and places

[2:23:08] of building close to the street, reinforcing

[2:23:11] and pedestrian oriented character that balances

[2:23:15] that the particular oriented nature of the drive through use.

[2:23:19] If the development plan is amended to permit the proposed use,

[2:23:23] there should be a few negative impacts to the envisioned development pattern.

[2:23:30] They go on the states that the transition development plan emphasizes the important

[2:23:35] of pedestrian access and circulation and identifies the public rights away as

[2:23:40] the location of primary and pedestrian system and forces of pedestrian

[2:23:44] and choosing focus of pedestrian activity.

[2:23:47] The proposed application informs the land use recommendations

[2:23:50] for commercial retail uses and incorporates

[2:23:53] an innovative drive-through configuration

[2:23:55] that deserves the pedestrian primary pedestrian network

[2:23:59] along East West Highland.

[2:24:02] This is from your own community planning stuff.

[2:24:05] So I have a question before we set the center.

[2:24:07] So how come this didn't make it to our back?

[2:24:11] It was a surprise to me when I discovered this yesterday.

[2:24:15] But I brought it to this field of attention this morning.

[2:24:18] They submitted a revised memorandum within the last, I think, two months.

[2:24:27] They submitted a community planning.

[2:24:31] In that revised recommendation, it took a different position with regard to this.

[2:24:36] So they no longer supported what we're doing.

[2:24:39] That's right.

[2:24:40] So, the only reason why community planning was what happened in this, let me explain.

[2:24:46] The application was re-referred to community planning to look at the architecture, the revised architecture of the building.

[2:24:55] So, then when it came back, I was a little bit surprised to see that they had changed their position.

[2:25:02] Since you only think they're looking at was the architecture.

[2:25:05] They like the architecture, but now for some reason, they don't like what we're doing

[2:25:10] on it with the use.

[2:25:13] So we had basically a change from, I wouldn't say 100 cents a quarter, but again, they

[2:25:18] need some very, very strong statements, supporting the application to that complete, that

[2:25:24] first paragraph that it read to you was cut down by three sentences, everything positive

[2:25:28] stated in that section of the memorandum was deleted.

[2:25:33] So, I'm not quite sure, from a community to planning standpoint, how you can change your

[2:25:40] recommendation, especially given the fact that the underlying nature of the use has not

[2:25:45] changed.

[2:25:47] And the only thing they should have been looking at is that time, as far as I was aware, with

[2:25:50] the architecture.

[2:25:51] So, that's why I brought this man ran into the boards attention because I thought it's

[2:25:54] very, very important that they see that the chat volumes back in February of this year felt

[2:26:03] that there would be a few negative impacts to do vision development pattern.

[2:26:10] Okay. The February 13th, 2013, memo from chat volumes through Cynthia, Appent and Jamaica

[2:26:17] field has been marked as applicants exhibit number two and we'll accept it into the

[2:26:22] reference.

[2:26:23] I don't know about it.

[2:26:24] Okay.

[2:26:27] Questions?

[2:26:29] Okay.

[2:26:30] And with that, I'd like to say that I think there's very strong state in here from

[2:26:34] community planning.

[2:26:36] And I believe that this should count so in action on money of this week with regard to a

[2:26:48] site, you know, with similar elements, you know, with similar efforts made with regard to

[2:26:55] create a site design, really kind of sets a standard as to what, how you can balance

[2:27:04] the vehicular nature of this use with the pedestrian oriented nature of the transit

[2:27:14] those details slide plan with the amendments the conditions contained in applicants exhibit

[2:27:20] one.

[2:27:21] Thank you.

[2:27:22] And I have to answer any questions you have.

[2:27:27] Commissioner.

[2:27:28] Thank you.

[2:27:29] Just sorry to come back to this.

[2:27:32] I wanted to check this staff on.

[2:27:34] I think it was one of the figures of clarification originally on some of that text.

[2:27:39] This goes back to the tree plan.

[2:27:41] things.

[2:27:44] So I guess, Ms. Fielder, are you comfortable with that?

[2:27:47] Deletion, I looked at it again and I'm wondering if the second sentence might be retained

[2:27:51] with that change from deficient to sufficient, as you originally suggested. Of course, I'll

[2:27:57] also welcome the applicant's opinion.

[2:28:04] I think that the finding that's been provided that we did discuss this also with our environmental

[2:28:11] planning section about the appropriateness of by-retention in some areas and why some areas

[2:28:18] other techniques are encouraged. I think the applicant's justification regarding particularly

[2:28:27] maintenance of by-retention features versus what they're currently proposing. I think that's

[2:28:33] likely accurate that they're their current proposal, which I believe it's an

[2:28:40] a storm filter system, that will adequately manage the storm water without adding by

[2:28:50] retention, which could become a potentially a musician's or maintenance issue. The condition

[2:28:56] 1-0 wasn't requesting additional planting islands. It was requesting a modification to their

[2:29:03] design so that those islands could catch or also catch or swim water.

[2:29:10] But the islands are to be retained, they're showing here on the plan.

[2:29:15] They won't be designed to catch or swim water, as applicants indicate that would be likely

[2:29:20] collect trash and block the system.

[2:29:22] And that what they are proposing does exceed, not just need, we were concerned about that,

[2:29:27] it does exceed county requirement.

[2:29:28] But so we think that that additional funding made us so comfortable.

[2:29:34] Okay.

[2:29:36] In terms of yourself, I also will state that we did look.

[2:29:39] It's essentially using permeable papers on the site.

[2:29:41] And again, the soils out here are just so compact that it's just to make any sense.

[2:29:46] So I mean, I fully understand.

[2:29:48] I mean, I was involved with the development of post park.

[2:29:51] And one of the problems on that property was that everything drains through that property

[2:29:56] into the creek, and my client, post-prime.

[2:30:00] We spent the significant amount of money upgrading that strain. And I think everything that we do

[2:30:07] after it is just going to help benefit that. And if we can provide better storm management control,

[2:30:13] then we realize there are a lot of retention. I think that's what I got.

[2:30:20] Does anyone else have any questions or miscellaneous at this time? Mr. Chandler.

[2:30:45] Thank you. Members of the planning board for the record, Jim Chandler, city of Hayatville.

[2:30:52] Here today to speak on behalf of this project, the city has no wish you would be revised

[2:30:59] architectural.

[2:31:01] We would agree that it is superior to what was previously presented in the proved.

[2:31:06] With respect to the applicant's proposed changes to the conditions with the exception of revisions

[2:31:15] to conditions C, we're not supportive of any of the revisions.

[2:31:19] We don't believe it's appropriate given that we receive the revisions less than 10 minutes ago that we would be able to assess what impacts the conditions would have on the site plan.

[2:31:32] That being said,

[2:31:37] we are not supportive of drive-throughs within the TDOZ.

[2:31:41] We are in the process of updating this TBOZ, and if the district council finds it appropriate

[2:31:49] to include drive-throughs in a TBOZ, a question whether or not that process is necessary.

[2:31:55] Furthermore, let me make you question whether what process is necessary and updating to a TBOZ.

[2:32:04] Now, CDOZ is read as you can, you can have a variety of uses, but all those uses are intended

[2:32:13] to support pedestrian and transit oriented projects.

[2:32:18] This project is not support CDOZ.

[2:32:22] I appreciate the fact that they have taken a variety of looks at the drive-through use and

[2:32:28] how it could be mitigated in reducing terms of impact.

[2:32:32] The effect of the matter is, and Mr. Lynch can correct me if I'm wrong, up to 50 or 60% of the clients that Chick-fil-A's trying to attract will be using their cars.

[2:32:45] That is not consistent with TBOZ.

[2:32:48] This project no matter how you try to orient the drive-through use will not support pedestrian and transit oriented uses.

[2:32:59] As far as the landscape manual and some of the changes, the applications is requesting, we understand

[2:33:08] there are a variety of considerations that are primarily the mall and some of the stormwater

[2:33:16] issues they're trying to address.

[2:33:18] We believe that they're making headway and we don't oppose any of the landscape changes

[2:33:25] that they are providing, that being said, the specific changes in the revision to conditions

[2:33:31] which is not had time to take a look at.

[2:33:35] With that, we have no additional comments.

[2:33:38] The question is Mr. Chandler at this time.

[2:33:42] Okay, thank you.

[2:33:45] Mr. Mechka, can you come back up for a second and

[2:33:51] I accepted applicants one and two into the

[2:33:54] Okay, this is okay. Tell us again, please because I don't know what the district council did on the other case

[2:34:01] You said that on Monday they issued an order. That's correct. So a written order of the moving that you've seen.

[2:34:08] Yes, okay. I have that you have that you're going to submit it to the record.

[2:34:17] Okay, I decided to just point the won't be signs of tomorrow. Okay,

[2:34:23] so they approved it and it's just that sign and

[2:34:27] Can you give it to our council for a second

[2:34:30] So she can take a look at that,

[2:34:40] and then a Mr. Maktari, when I'm going to take two minutes

[2:34:46] to give a couple of minutes to take counsel and opportunity to read this.

[2:34:51] As a matter of fact, let's take a quick two, two, three minute break, two to five minute

[2:34:56] break actually.

[2:34:57] And then Mr. Maktari, you can get to say what it is you want to say.

[2:35:01] Thank you.

[2:35:51] I have to go to Don't Sheet.

[2:36:05] The plan of board's back in session, I think.

[2:36:11] Okay.

[2:36:13] Then the lighting is ready though.

[2:36:20] And we had some questions, and my question

[2:36:23] before the break.

[2:36:25] My question was to Mr. Lenshewant the District Council order.

[2:36:30] And I'm Ms. Borden, can you address that this becomes the order?

[2:36:34] Thank you.

[2:36:35] I believe I can.

[2:36:36] Deborah Borden, Associate General Counsel.

[2:36:40] I was handed a an unsigned, what looks like a draft order, a affirming planning

[2:36:46] board decision in the McDonald's Heightsville case, DSP 9900601.

[2:36:53] The document I was handed is not signed, it's not dated.

[2:36:58] And, therefore, I'm assuming it's a draft, we don't know if this is the order that will be signed.

[2:37:08] And, you know, therefore, it really has no effect at this point.

[2:37:12] What the planning board has to do in this case is make a decision based on this record, based on this site.

[2:37:19] This is not the same site although the sites are close together, but they are not exactly the same.

[2:37:24] one thing this site is closer to the metro for another thing this site is located in a pad

[2:37:29] site that's associated with a, with a, with a, with a, with a, with a, on this one that stayed

[2:37:33] that last part again the other site is that, with a, this site is, this site is located, as

[2:37:40] it has site, associated with a, with a pretty short as a, the other one is not. So these are

[2:37:45] not the same sites. What the planning board is, is has to do it is making a recommendation based

[2:37:53] on this record and based on this site and based on your knowledge and your expertise and

[2:38:00] the information that you have on this site.

[2:38:03] What did you say about the metro session?

[2:38:05] The metro station is actually closer to the Chick-fil-A than the McDonald's.

[2:38:10] So that is closer to this site.

[2:38:12] It is closer to this site.

[2:38:14] So that should also inform your decision.

[2:38:18] whether you change your mind or change your recommendation from the recommendation that you

[2:38:24] made on the McDonald's site is certainly up to you and it's available to you, but I would

[2:38:29] suggest to you that it should be based on information in this record. And if you, on the other

[2:38:35] hand, want to make the same recommendation as to the drive through that you did with the McDonald's,

[2:38:39] again, it should be based on information in this record. I don't think that it's appropriate

[2:38:44] to use an unsigned draft as basis for anything because we don't know what the district council will actually sign.

[2:38:55] Thank you, Ms. Warden.

[2:38:56] Okay, Mr. Lynch.

[2:38:58] Unfortunately, the order will not be signed by tomorrow, but what Ms. Warden has before you is what the

[2:39:06] the principal council to the district council provided to me, and that was what the district council

[2:39:14] moved for approval on Monday. And as you'll see, it refers to an exhibit, and this was

[2:39:22] the thing exhibit that was before. This is the same time we have the difficult-

[2:39:27] So, as you said, the condition that was inserted was, we first to an exhibit, revised lay-outs.

[2:39:36] And that lay-out was presented as in the record in the McDonald's case, and that shows the tribes through component for the McDonald's.

[2:39:44] I understand this ordinance point that these are two separate cases.

[2:39:50] But the fact that matter is is that the district council is making a final determination on both of these cases.

[2:39:58] And as indicated, I stated that the reasoning of the district council was that in the McDonald's case we demonstrated that we were able to balance the pedestrian against the particular nature of the use

[2:40:16] As opposed to the pedestrian nature of the transit district, then they found that we did a very good job of doing that.

[2:40:23] And all I'm saying is that's an example at the district council found.

[2:40:27] And obviously the district council approves the TDDP for administrative supplies up.

[2:40:34] So they found that that's termination.

[2:40:37] That's, again, we complied with the TDDP.

[2:40:40] And again, using similar techniques here, I think that's, you know,

[2:40:45] use this as an example, we are detecting, so we use

[2:40:48] here probably even superior to what was done in the

[2:40:51] McDonald's case.

[2:40:51] And I'm just saying that the district council, who

[2:40:55] makes the final determination, madeifying that we will not

[2:40:59] impact the TDP, who will support the TDP, and the same

[2:41:03] case will hold true here.

[2:41:05] That's really what I'm doing.

[2:41:06] I'm just using that as an example to show that, yes,

[2:41:10] you may, you ask this to remove the drive through on a

[2:41:13] McDonald's.

[2:41:14] But the district council disagreed with that determination, and you know, found that through the creative site design where it was sport, the underlying nature of the GDP and the transit district.

[2:41:27] So that's really what I'm doing. And again, it's unfortunate, you know, I wish I had a sign copy of that resolution. It's just a matter of timing.

[2:41:35] You know, if this is tomorrow, I will have it. But again, that's what was provided to me by the principal council that the district council.

[2:41:42] And that's what the district also moved to approve on Monday of this week.

[2:41:47] Okay, one of the things I need to do before I, the extended question is, this has been a lot of discussion about the order, even though it's unfined.

[2:41:59] And so I think I need to accept it into the record for whatever provident value it may have at this structure.

[2:42:06] So, it may not carry a lot of weight in the structure, but there's been a lot of reference to it.

[2:42:13] So, why I'm going to accept it, it's the right, is that because it's a three.

[2:42:19] For it, it's whatever probative value it may have.

[2:42:22] And a vice chair.

[2:42:25] Well, I agree with council.

[2:42:30] that the district council of course as they also say they will have the final determination.

[2:42:39] But I'm wondering if the district council actually took a vote on the side of it.

[2:42:45] Yes, the vote on Monday.

[2:42:47] They did on Monday.

[2:42:48] That's correct.

[2:42:49] That's correct.

[2:42:52] Leave me.

[2:42:53] I was here waiting with being a brother.

[2:42:55] I'm sorry.

[2:42:55] I was here to witness.

[2:42:57] Okay.

[2:42:57] About.

[2:42:59] not not the country to counsel, but it is usually the district council's practice to take a vote to order or to direct staff to prepare and order.

[2:43:13] They don't normally get into the details of the order, so it can be a little daunting to know what it is they've approved until the order comes out.

[2:43:21] When you ask my question, if they're going to sign,

[2:43:23] who's saying it's going to be signed tomorrow?

[2:43:26] I was informed by the clerk of the council

[2:43:28] that was going to be signed and bailed out tomorrow.

[2:43:30] Okay, so the signed and bailed tomorrow,

[2:43:32] there's no distrepownful hearing tomorrow.

[2:43:36] So that should be a reflection

[2:43:37] on what's approved might be very much like our resolutions

[2:43:41] that we approve, and then we vote on that.

[2:43:45] If you were to, or to what's distributed

[2:43:47] to the members of the district council on that,

[2:43:49] For review. I got it. And then the motion was ready. Got it. However, okay, but, okay, the procedure has changed since then he's got it.

[2:44:00] It's just a few years.

[2:44:05] If the board finds it, it would like me to go and check upstairs.

[2:44:10] Well, I don't know about that, but this is going to the council.

[2:44:17] So let me just do this because I want to get on to the other matters as well.

[2:44:22] So there's anything else that you want to state.

[2:44:25] No, nothing further again.

[2:44:26] I just thought my show was clear that what was presented was what was told to me was.

[2:44:31] Well actually that was distributed to the council on my head.

[2:44:35] Thank you.

[2:44:36] Okay.

[2:44:37] Commissioner Washington.

[2:44:40] In applicants exhibit number one,

[2:44:42] I just want to you to restate again, please Mr. Lynch. It was conditions 1AB and J as well as

[2:44:53] new H which related to the drive through is that correct? Yeah, I reckon you misfeels as well.

[2:45:00] That's correct. The reason why if there is a drive through, there's none in a room in the area. It's constructed, we've struck the wall. And also, really trying to be able to bring a certain compliance with landscape manual and screen loading space. So, this field's felt that every green tree's would accomplish the same thing as a wall.

[2:45:17] Very good. Thank you.

[2:45:20] Okay. Are there any other questions? Does the board have any questions of anyone? Is there motion?

[2:45:27] I would like to move that we adopt the findings of the staff report and recommend to

[2:45:36] district council that approve the amendment to be the use table with the modification

[2:45:42] to delete the drive through component of the eating and drinking establishment.

[2:45:46] and approved DSP 99044-07, subject to the conditions in applicants exhibit one keeping the original for one A and one B.

[2:46:09] Also, J,

[2:46:14] deleting, I guess, J and adding H.

[2:46:18] I'm sorry, the flip side, keeping Jay, the leading the added age, and also adding the

[2:46:26] finding on page 3 of the applicant's exhibit.

[2:46:28] I would like to make one refinement as well to direct staff to consider an edit to 1a where it

[2:46:43] space and to consider in consultation with the applicant the possible shift of the site

[2:46:55] somewhat to the east and the expansion of the seating area on the west since the recommendation

[2:47:02] with my motion is to not approve the drive through area that is to the east and that was reflected

[2:47:10] earlier in the record with some of my questions and comments.

[2:47:14] Second.

[2:47:15] We have a motion in a second.

[2:47:17] This is a question I need some clarity.

[2:47:19] Let's go on a second.

[2:47:20] Okay.

[2:47:21] I'll take the on the first.

[2:47:22] Okay.

[2:47:23] I'll be seated.

[2:47:24] The practical implications.

[2:47:26] So because the recommendation is not to include the drive through.

[2:47:31] I would like a sentence or something that effect that might allow for the sight,

[2:47:35] the building to be shifted to the east where that drive through was.

[2:47:40] and to expand the seating area on the west.

[2:47:47] It would just be consultation between staff and applicant or you mandating that or just asking for discussion.

[2:47:56] I would ask staff to as a playing board doesn't need to come up with the language and I'm comfortable with consulting with the applicant to come up with the appropriate wording.

[2:48:07] Okay, but if it is the goal to do the shift or to explore doing a shift, that's what I'm saying.

[2:48:16] Okay, that's two very different things.

[2:48:21] I would like this shift, but I don't feel that it's necessary, so I would.

[2:48:27] Okay, so if it is for...

[2:48:29] It is for, yes.

[2:48:31] Okay, because I don't know that we've got enough information to determine if the code or could not.

[2:48:35] So yeah, I'm comfortable with exploring that.

[2:48:39] I'm seconding that.

[2:48:40] And the only question I has mentioned in your motion

[2:48:42] that you include the change that staff made on page 21

[2:48:47] to change from deficient to sufficient with that change.

[2:48:53] Mr. Jarrod, I believe that was removed with the-

[2:48:57] That was in the case of it and replaced by the finding

[2:49:01] in the last page.

[2:49:10] Is there any additional discussion,

[2:49:16] all in favor?

[2:49:17] Opposed?

[2:49:18] I said it.

[2:49:19] May I have to worry?

[2:49:21] I apologize.

[2:49:22] I said it.

[2:49:23] You signed up by the two we have already in the motion stage.

[2:49:26] So I apologize.

[2:49:29] Okay.

[2:49:31] For the record, may I have to worry?

[2:49:33] University Park.

[2:49:34] As long as I preserve the right to be a person, a record, that's all.

[2:49:40] You

[2:49:45] know what? We'll go ahead and do that. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Okay.

[2:49:50] We were not notified about this particular project.

[2:49:57] Pretty important for us to be part of it. Thank you.

[2:50:01] Okay. Well, we're going to find out what happened here too.

[2:50:04] If I could make sure I'm just prepared.

[2:50:06] If Mayor Tabori signed up to become a party director before you closed this case,

[2:50:12] And I think he has all of those pellet rights that he just asserted.

[2:50:17] Correct.

[2:50:17] I had the promise that didn't get to me.

[2:50:19] I saw him start over there, but it didn't get to me.

[2:50:23] No, I understand that.

[2:50:24] I was addressing the comment.

[2:50:25] Yes, sir.

[2:50:26] Which related back to preservation of his pellet rights.

[2:50:30] Yeah, but I'm also listening to the part when he said he didn't have any notes.

[2:50:34] If I can't see,

[2:50:36] manager to board is a party of record he signed up on May 21st, 2012 so I'd be curious

[2:50:43] why you didn't get it yes you are sorry you didn't get it back report in the mail at least

[2:50:48] weeks ago we'll look into that we'll be able to explore that and if you're signed up for

[2:50:54] And aren't you sign up for the next one too?

[2:50:57] Yeah, so I am.

[2:50:58] Okay, so that's a difference for you.

[2:51:01] Okay, thank you.

[2:51:03] Thank you very much.

[2:51:06] Okay.

[2:51:12] You know, why would we do this?

[2:51:13] We need to go ahead and take item 11.

[2:51:20] Item 11 is the draft resolution for West failure for the conceptual site plan 070401.

[2:51:28] I don't know.

[2:51:28] So we have any, oh, I'm sorry, I had the chance.

[2:51:31] To the record sheet, I'm just recommending a approval of that

[2:51:33] draft resolution, which was a case was approved by the board last week.

[2:51:36] Okay, I'm in danger.

[2:51:38] So move madam, please.

[2:51:39] We have a motion in a second.

[2:51:41] Is there any discussion?

[2:51:42] All in favor.

[2:51:43] I opposed the I.

[2:51:46] I said, okay,

[2:52:00] I have said that.

[2:52:02] That afternoon, Madam Chair, a member of the Board for the record.

[2:52:05] My name is Susan Loverse with the Urban Design section.

[2:52:08] And I, too, want to say happy Halloween, 2013.

[2:52:13] I'm just thinking, 13.

[2:52:15] The 2013 must mean something for this Halloween.

[2:52:18] I don't know why, but.

[2:52:21] Thank you.

[2:52:22] Thank you.

[2:52:23] Before you is.

[2:52:24] I love your colors.

[2:52:27] University Town Center, parcel S.

[2:52:31] This project is a revision to previously approved a detailed

[2:52:35] site plan for the same site. The current proposal is located within Councilmatic District 2.

[2:52:44] On the north side of East West Highway in the northwest quadrant of its intersection with

[2:52:49] America Boulevard, America Boulevard is the main street of University Town Center.

[2:52:55] The property is owned MXT and is also in a DDOC. As the overlay map shows, the edge of

[2:53:03] the OZ is just to the east of the subject property and the aerial map indicates the current

[2:53:10] conditions on the site which is a surface parking lot. This aerial gives a perspective

[2:53:18] looking to the south. I believe this is called Metro Building 3 and have referred to it

[2:53:27] that way in the staff report and just beyond that you see the current surface parking lot

[2:53:34] that serves that building at this time and then you also see the entrance into the site

[2:53:42] off of democracy Boulevard and you can also see partially a part of the road that connects

[2:53:49] here is called Liberty Lane and America Boulevard is here and serves the town center.

[2:53:58] This is a right-in access and a right-out and there's a medium in the center of east-west highway.

[2:54:07] This is another version looking north and the subject site is located at the bottom of the screen.

[2:54:16] And you get a little bit better picture of America Boulevard as you can see the buildings that were built

[2:54:23] and onto the face of Metro 3 that created the streetscape of America Boulevard.

[2:54:33] The property is relatively flat with the water actually draining to the east,

[2:54:40] as shown on the topography map here.

[2:54:45] So the highest portion of the site is located at this corner,

[2:54:49] the intersection of east, west, highway, and America Boulevard.

[2:54:52] A master plan of right-of-way map indicates east-west highway as an arterial and bell-crest

[2:55:00] road located to the west of the subject site as a collector.

[2:55:08] I've talked about the existing conditions on the site which is a parking compound and we'll

[2:55:15] get into the detailed site plan now.

[2:55:17] This drawing, which is the unrendered version, but the engineering plant actually shows stormwater management,

[2:55:27] located below the building in this location.

[2:55:30] And water is hiked out into a drainage swell and other system over to the east and north of the site.

[2:55:40] Okay, this is a rendered site plan, and what you're seeing here is looking down onto the building itself,

[2:55:47] which shows the second story of the parking compound on the roof of the building.

[2:55:53] The main part of Safeway is located to the west of this line, which is sort of a separation line.

[2:56:00] And all of this is the safe weight area except for some loading area back in here and then

[2:56:08] the ramp that goes below there.

[2:56:10] So this portion of the parking garage is actually two-story.

[2:56:15] This is single parking up here.

[2:56:18] Now if you are entering the site off of democracy Avenue, you pull in to the parking garage

[2:56:26] at this location and you can also come around the building and pull in this location.

[2:56:32] If you come to the second story, there will be entrances to get into the food and beverage

[2:56:37] store through an elevator system system in two locations.

[2:56:44] It should also be noted that buildings, B and C have tenants at the second floor and there

[2:56:50] be parking and entrances for that second floor office and or retail from the second floor

[2:56:58] of the parking garage.

[2:57:02] So this project proposes a total of 85,524 square feet of development

[2:57:10] and it is for a 52,000 square foot food and beverage store and the remaining is a combination

[2:57:17] of retail and office. This request also includes amendments to the use table, to the building

[2:57:26] height, to reduce in with the design of the streetscape, as well as some detailing in the

[2:57:33] streetscape. So the MXT zone is governed for density and intensity of development through

[2:57:47] floor area ratio. And through previous bonus incentives earned for this project, the overall

[2:57:55] FAR allowed for sub area 3 is 2.245 floor area ratio. And this is on page 7 of the staff report.

[2:58:07] The total FRA floor area ratio proposed for this including this project is 1.347.

[2:58:15] So there is four area ratio still available out there

[2:58:19] for additional development.

[2:58:21] And that's important because there is another parcel

[2:58:24] yet for development that is open in the sub area.

[2:58:29] The amendments that are being requested include the change

[2:58:35] to the use table.

[2:58:37] Now the use table states that the food and beverage use

[2:58:44] is only allowed as a, it has to be located within office building a hotel, a wholly enclosed

[2:58:55] shopping mall or within an accessory to an allowed use.

[2:59:00] And in this case, it is the anchor to the main mixed use development.

[2:59:05] So the question is, it was it ever considered that a food and beverage store would be of

[2:59:12] size being proposed.

[2:59:16] So the staff is recommending approval of this change to the use table

[2:59:23] because we think that the main element being an anchor store that the TDP may not have

[2:59:32] recognized a food of every store of this size. I think it was really trying to prohibit small

[2:59:39] convenient stores on independent pad sites, which would be more on keeping with suburban

[2:59:45] development than a more urban product like this mixed use multi-story development.

[2:59:53] The other thing that the applicant is asking for is relief from the minimum building height

[2:59:58] and the TDP.

[3:00:00] State that uses other than residential shall be four stories in height.

[3:00:07] And in this case, let me pull up the architecture.

[3:00:16] In this case, the building height ranges

[3:00:19] in height from approximately 18 feet in height to 44 to 48 feet in height. And the difference

[3:00:29] When you're talking about stories versus actual, you know,

[3:00:35] let linear feet of height, it makes a big difference because

[3:00:41] the stories for a forest story building could be ten feet between each floor.

[3:00:48] On the other hand, with a commercial development, when you have retail at the first floor,

[3:00:53] often times, the building is 20 feet on the first floor, and perhaps 20 feet on a second

[3:01:01] floor.

[3:01:01] And the reason for that is that the high ceilings are very common for this type of commercial

[3:01:08] development.

[3:01:09] So, we felt that this project could be recommended for approval for that amendment to the

[3:01:19] building height.

[3:01:19] Another amendment, the applicant is requesting relates to the streetscape requirements, and in 2001 the district council granted an approval to both the conceptual site plan and a primary amendment at that time for the streetscape to reduce it from 40 feet to 28 feet in width.

[3:01:45] And what the applicant originally submitted was 28 feet in width, but since they submitted

[3:01:53] the plans, they've been working with the State Highway Administration, and they've learned

[3:01:58] that they are requiring a five-foot bite-late bike lane along East-West Highway, which means

[3:02:07] that they need to move the curb back in additional five feet, and one of the design elements

[3:02:12] of the building has some pillars that come down from a roof element in front of the safe way

[3:02:20] that will basically take up an additional three feet. So they're asking for this reduction

[3:02:28] from 28 to 20 feet. And in looking at that, the staff went back to the original approval by the

[3:02:37] Council when they reviewed the reduction from 40 to 28 feet, and we looked at the three

[3:02:42] conditions that they attached to that approval, and we address each one in the staff report.

[3:02:48] And the first thing that they wanted to make sure was that if there was a reduction in the street

[3:02:56] with streetscape width, that the first 15 feet of the building height shall include,

[3:03:01] For at least 80% of the linear frontage of the buildings, build two line uses to

[3:03:06] enliven the area adjacent to the sidewalk and to the pedestrian zone.

[3:03:12] So what we've done here is to look at the building along East West Highway, and you can see

[3:03:21] with the amount of glass along the frontage, it allows for the programmatic elements that are occurring

[3:03:29] inside of the buildings to be seen, and there's that exchange of activity that's happening

[3:03:34] within the streets gate, and within the building itself.

[3:03:39] So they do meet the 80 percent criteria, and we are quite pleased with the exterior finish

[3:03:46] along East-West Highway, but I'll get into more detail on that as well.

[3:03:52] So we are recommending approval of that.

[3:03:55] The second condition that the District Council placed on that reduction in streetscape was that the parking garage along East West Highway was subject to a condition that the first floor shall employ such techniques as building offsets, variations and building materials or color and attractive vending to avoid monotonous facades.

[3:04:15] And in this case, what the applicant has done is they have proposed that this portion of the parking garage be set back 15 feet from the rest of the streetscape and they have the pillars coming down along the streetscape and then there is an art and art panel that will be placed up and upper portion of it, which will also add to the experience as the

[3:04:45] the pedestrian moves along that edge.

[3:04:48] So what I have is a, let's see, I need to escape out of here.

[3:04:56] And I'm going to go to another video that we have here.

[3:05:10] Now, this is a video that we have been working

[3:05:13] on the technology of taking applicants, proposed architecture,

[3:05:18] and the information that we review on the site plan and so much and put it into a 3D model so that we can provide for the planning board and the district council the ability to sort of see how it really would feel.

[3:05:32] And in this case, what we created was, as if you're the pedestrian walking along East West Highway, what that streetscape would feel like.

[3:05:43] Okay, so I'm just going to let it go here and just talk a little bit

[3:05:47] Well, it goes through so this is building C here on the corner and this is the entrance into the transit district and you can see

[3:05:55] As you're walking along the development, you'll see what's happening in building C

[3:06:00] You're going along you've got the street trees on one side and then here's the parking garage

[3:06:07] So the parking garage is here and there'll be landscaping and some double rows of trees along this edge and some

[3:06:13] meeting, and then up in this area will be a panel of artwork, which doesn't really show up

[3:06:18] here, but you'll see it in some more.

[3:06:23] And so this would be basically how it feels.

[3:06:26] Another issue that's coming up with the conformance to the previous conditions of the district

[3:06:32] council has to do with the treatment of the street along this edge, and at what it was

[3:06:38] 28 feet wide, we recommended the continuous linear planting bed.

[3:06:44] But now that it has to be reduced down to 20 feet, we're recommending that these areas

[3:06:49] actually, the trees actually be in pits, and they'll be concrete between each one

[3:06:55] with a soil, a structural soil underneath, and it will make it feel a little wider.

[3:07:02] So instead of being the actual eight feet, it will extend beyond that.

[3:07:05] So as we move through this, you can see here's the three-foot encroachment of the columns that come down off of the safeway front.

[3:07:20] There's the main entrance into the safeway.

[3:07:24] And this is a planting bed along here.

[3:07:26] And then you can see what's going on in the safeway itself because that's all glass along that edge.

[3:07:37] This is some of the signage area indicating the different uses.

[3:07:40] And this is a second entrance located here and then also there is a little elevator for ADA accessibility right at that pad side that will allow people to get in at that location.

[3:07:53] And then as we come up to the corner you can see the pyline sign that currently exists for the project and as you turn the corner this is America Boulevard.

[3:08:02] There and there's a

[3:08:06] It plaza located at that edge.

[3:08:12] Okay, so then the other thing I was going to show you is another model

[3:08:17] Which is done on a 3D of the whole project

[3:08:21] A quick question of video was there a the basement level entrance there off of no what's happening is as you're going

[3:08:30] off the grade on East West it's very slight I give you're out there I think I've been out there

[3:08:36] you know 50 times and I've never really noticed that there's much of an incline but there really is so the

[3:08:41] finished floor has to be flat and as you go up the road is going up you have to come in and go down a few steps to get to that second entrance

[3:08:57] Okay, so this is the model, the 3D model that our staff came up with in the Information Management Division, and this shows the corner of East West and America Boulevard.

[3:09:14] This is the plaza area that's being proposed.

[3:09:17] This is building B. Safeway comes around this corner

[3:09:22] and extends about to this location.

[3:09:26] And then beyond that is the two-story parking garage.

[3:09:30] And that's building C.

[3:09:32] So

[3:09:35] you can see the curvilinear nature of that corner element.

[3:09:41] And how the garage is set back at that location,

[3:09:45] coming around. This is, so, building C will be the main entrance into the transit district.

[3:09:54] It transitions from a church or other religious institution located on this site directly

[3:10:00] east. And there is a slope that occurs between the project down to the adjacent property.

[3:10:10] And there's landscaping along that edge and we have a condition about treatment of that landscaping

[3:10:15] make sure that the retaining wall system and everything is attractive. And then also another

[3:10:21] issue that came up was that you get into the first floor through the front doors that will occur

[3:10:28] at this location and to get into the second story you would come in along democracy Boulevard as a

[3:10:34] pedestrian and go into a lobby and then go off the elevator. Or if you're in a car you drive around and

[3:10:41] go into the parking garage and you drive and you park up here to go to the second floor.

[3:10:46] But the other thing I asked them to do was to add another entrance into that lobby from

[3:10:52] the garage and they agreed to do that so that if you're already parked in the garage and

[3:10:56] you're shot to the safe where you can get to the other stores on the second floor.

[3:11:00] And the applicant agreed to do that.

[3:11:05] So, this is the east side, east facade.

[3:11:11] Okay, what you're looking down here is Liberty Lane,

[3:11:15] which has green areas associated with the Metro 3 building,

[3:11:19] and this is really the back of the safeway and other structures there.

[3:11:25] So the loading will come into this area back here,

[3:11:28] but there is also a secondary entrance at this location for the vehicles.

[3:11:34] You can see they're planting on the rooftop.

[3:11:37] That's a requirement of the transit district development plan that they provide 5% and you

[3:11:43] can see through the Metro Building 3 here to see where the garage doors are for the loading

[3:11:49] area.

[3:11:53] This is building B

[3:11:57] and there you see Liberty Lane here.

[3:11:59] So, there's on-street parking located within the lot for the tenants here and across the street.

[3:12:11] And this is an entrance to that can be used by pedestrians to go up the steps or use the elevator to get to the parking garage over here.

[3:12:21] So it allows for people who might be parked on this garage to come down and visit these use these, you know, visit the tenants in these sites, but also to go down the main street.

[3:12:34] And that's very important for that project because they need more people coming back and forth through that main street.

[3:12:46] And then another point that we've talked about is that this Pylon sign, which is existing out on the property today,

[3:12:53] The applicant may try to move it from this Plaza area over to this island, if it's allowed

[3:13:03] by the overall developer of UTC and if transportation sightlines can be maintained and so

[3:13:10] forth.

[3:13:11] So you probably remember a condition that we had about that that they should be allowed to

[3:13:15] move that if they're able to work it out.

[3:13:20] And then this plaza area is an area where you can get a safe way food from their prepared

[3:13:34] areas within the building itself.

[3:13:37] And then also the Starbucks coffee shop is inside of this safe way.

[3:13:43] and you can come out and sit in this area.

[3:13:45] And these three panels here are not see-through panels

[3:13:50] because that's an area where they have a lot of refrigeration

[3:13:54] and storage and that type of thing.

[3:13:55] So we ask them to make them decorative

[3:13:59] in like an art exhibit type design

[3:14:03] that could be changed out seasonally if they would like to

[3:14:07] in order to, you know, make that a little bit more lively

[3:14:11] in that corner.

[3:14:30] So those are the three conditions I covered regarding the reduction in the

[3:14:35] streetscape from 28 feet down to 20 feet and we do recommend that the planning board grant

[3:14:40] that partly because of the state highways new requirements for bike lanes within any project

[3:14:49] that you know has front-age. We're bike lanes are required and then the last requirement for the

[3:14:56] amendment that would be is requested by the applicant.

[3:15:00] And is that the property frontages are to be developed in accordance with a particular streetscape within the TDP, which includes a double row of trees and you saw on the model that they can only fit one linear strip of trees in certain locations.

[3:15:19] So, this staff recommends approval of all of the amendments, which include basically five amendments,

[3:15:29] four of which are required to be approved at the district council level.

[3:15:34] So, in that case, you're making a recommendation to them.

[3:15:45] So, this plan was also reviewed by the standard referral agencies,

[3:15:52] our transportation planning office reviewed it for conformance to the TDP and found that it

[3:16:01] did meet the requirements for adequacy based on the parking generation requirements and

[3:16:10] allowances within the TDP. There was also a reviewed by the environmental planning section

[3:16:19] regarding environmental requirements within the TDP, and I do want to mention on the record,

[3:16:26] and I will need to add it into the resolution that they are meeting the TRE Conservation

[3:16:32] TRE canopy coverage requirements as well for the project, and community planning division

[3:16:41] reviewed the project as well with a recommendation of approval of the project as well as the

[3:16:47] amendments,

[3:16:52] the transportation planning section also reviewed it for pedestrian related and

[3:17:00] bicycle related analysis, and they are recommending that additional bike parking spaces

[3:17:07] be provided throughout the development for a total of 28 bike parking spaces.

[3:17:13] They are also found it from a pedestrian standpoint to be worthy of being approved.

[3:17:22] And at this corner, I wanted to explain to you what's happening with the plaza.

[3:17:27] At this location, you can see here is that secondary entrance where you have to go down the

[3:17:33] steps to get into the first floor of the safeway.

[3:17:37] And then this area includes benches that are stone and then they'll be there, you know,

[3:17:45] all year round, they won't be removable.

[3:17:48] And then there's also the opportunity for removable seating elements that may be more colorful

[3:17:56] with umbrellas and that type of thing.

[3:17:58] There's also a recommendation by the City of Highestville to include a sculpture or some site

[3:18:05] some sort of art element in that plaza area,

[3:18:09] and the applicant is willing to accept that condition.

[3:18:15] There are conditions relating to the irrigation system

[3:18:18] to get that completely finalized part of signature approval.

[3:18:25] And let's see, here's the architecture.

[3:18:28] The use of materials is brick with some composite materials that are used along the front.

[3:18:40] And also this type of the applicant can probably explain it better than I can.

[3:18:49] And then the prospective views indicate what it will look like in this case, this is the North West Corner of the Site at Liberty and America Boulevard.

[3:19:03] So you're looking at Billings C and this is the area where the lobby is where you can go up to the second floor.

[3:19:10] And you can see the tenants all along this edge and this may be office at the second level.

[3:19:17] And this is a perspective of a safe way along the frontage of East-West Highway and another look from the opposite direction.

[3:19:32] Okay, and this was provided by the applicant to provide some discussion about transportation systems as you come in and out of the site and how there are multiple areas to exit the project.

[3:19:48] because you cannot come out and take a direct, come out of the project and take a left turn

[3:19:57] because there's a median and so forth. So this concludes the staff's presentation.

[3:20:05] Thank you, Mr. Ruth. Okay. Commissioner Washington.

[3:20:08] Ms. Louis, thank you for one of our presentation. We received revised conditions this morning.

[3:20:17] Yes, those conditions are the staff's final conditions.

[3:20:21] Okay, so these substitutes in their entirety, what you have in the report.

[3:20:26] Okay, I just want to move on.

[3:20:28] Thank you.

[3:20:29] You're welcome.

[3:20:31] Okay.

[3:20:31] Are there other questions on this?

[3:20:33] The rules at this time?

[3:20:34] Thank you.

[3:20:35] You're welcome.

[3:20:36] Okay, Mr. Tesco.

[3:20:39] Thank you, Madam Chair.

[3:20:43] Before I get settled in, we do have representatives of Mr.

[3:20:46] of the city of Highettville and Mayor of support from University Park.

[3:20:50] As the customer, I'd be happy to defer and let them speak first.

[3:20:54] And before I go to the presentation.

[3:20:56] That's fine.

[3:20:57] Okay.

[3:20:58] Mr. Chandler, followed by Mayor to Boring.

[3:21:02] If you do so too.

[3:21:06] We appreciate that.

[3:21:08] Madam Chair, remember to the board.

[3:21:09] Again, for the record, Jim Chandler, with the City of Highettville.

[3:21:13] City enthusiastically supports this project.

[3:21:16] We support the record.

[3:21:16] Thank you.

[3:21:20] I'm always told to never touch the microphone, so we do enthusiasm to support this project,

[3:21:27] and it has been a long time coming.

[3:21:30] Certainly, we believe the conditions proposed by your staff are excellent conditions.

[3:21:36] We support them.

[3:21:38] We have that you grant approval to this project.

[3:21:43] That's pretty simple.

[3:21:44] Okay, thank you Mr. Chandler, were there questions?

[3:21:47] Yes, I'm Mr. Chair for Mr. Chandler,

[3:21:49] Mr. Chandler, come on back.

[3:21:50] I'm sorry Mr. Chandler, I'm not a problem.

[3:21:53] Thank you for your comments.

[3:21:55] I was curious, I know the city has done a lot of nice work

[3:21:58] on some bike lanes recently and I was hopeful

[3:22:03] that there could be some connectivity

[3:22:04] with what's being proposed or suggested

[3:22:06] with state highway on east west

[3:22:08] with some of your efforts.

[3:22:11] And I don't know if you have any additional comments in that respect.

[3:22:16] The other thing that I think we might get to later was also if you have any initial views.

[3:22:22] And I think the request to look at a possible left hand turn, I believe,

[3:22:27] into the property or site from East West Highway with the break in the median.

[3:22:32] And I didn't know if that presented any issues for the city or with the queueing between those major intersections.

[3:22:38] certainly I'll take the liberty lane breakthrough first. The city for House

[3:22:47] five or six years has engaged with SHA on various projects at this site about

[3:22:53] an additional turn lane or signalized intersection. It is our understanding based

[3:22:59] on SHA's comments that they would not support signalized intersection. However,

[3:23:04] That being said, if they would grant that we certainly would be supportive of it, we understand

[3:23:10] that the need for additional access to the site and would be very supportive of it.

[3:23:15] With respect to the bike infrastructure, our position has been if it makes sense to

[3:23:21] include in the project, we are certainly supportive of it.

[3:23:24] Our concern is that the requirement for the bike lane would create a 300 foot bike lane that

[3:23:31] would not have a start and finish.

[3:23:34] We've made these comments known to MDOT that there seems

[3:23:41] to be some inconsistency or problems with the way

[3:23:44] the policy is applied.

[3:23:47] And certainly, we look for those bike lanes to be incorporated

[3:23:50] on a little bit more comprehensive level.

[3:23:53] Certainly, we don't want to create any unintended consequences

[3:23:58] in terms of providing those on a bicycle with the impression that it is a safe area, and

[3:24:06] then all of a sudden, the bike lane that was there sort of disappears, and it was mentioned

[3:24:13] certainly, it's SHA's call, we're aware of it, we support even delaying that element if

[3:24:21] SHA was supportive of that provided that the easement was there to create that sort of

[3:24:27] I hope he has a bite-late.

[3:24:31] Thank you.

[3:24:32] Very rough.

[3:24:33] One related question I had was with respect to, I guess, the, there's some discussion in the staff report.

[3:24:42] I think also provided by the applicants, justifications.

[3:24:46] On the, I guess, saturation with the market and some of the residential, and certainly I think more, I guess,

[3:24:56] More greater residential component here would have been welcomed.

[3:25:01] I guess what my concern is is the viability of the retail alongside the anchor.

[3:25:08] I don't know what the current vacancy rate might be with some of the other retail at the University Town Center,

[3:25:16] but I'm just wondering if there's been any additional sort of market feasibility studies

[3:25:26] I would reach the same conclusion in terms of, yes, we believe it's a better project with the residential.

[3:25:33] That being said, the need for an anchor at this site has been, I think, the greatest contributing factor to the struggles of the University Town Center.

[3:25:46] certainly having 176 more units on top with 300 plus potential customers on top would certainly make sense, but we don't we believe there's enough existing and planned residential within the TDOZ to support this.

[3:26:08] Thank you very much.

[3:26:08] Thank

[3:26:11] you.

[3:26:13] Good

[3:26:25] afternoon everyone.

[3:26:29] Again, Madam Chair, thank you and Honourable Members, thank you for allowing me to testify

[3:26:35] here today as always this pleasure to stand before you.

[3:26:42] The town would like to read into the record their position and then I'll make a couple personal

[3:26:49] comments afterwards.

[3:26:53] First, if you want to distribute this, the top, the top one.

[3:27:03] Have a copy.

[3:27:05] Okay.

[3:27:06] Thank you.

[3:27:07] Okay.

[3:27:15] This is with reference to the detailed side client DSP 05084-02.

[3:27:21] The University Town Center parcel asks this letter sent on behalf of the Town of University

[3:27:29] Park to present its formal position concerning the application of echo UTC LLC for DSP

[3:27:38] 0508484-02 DSP, the Safeway Project, located on University Town Center parcel asks

[3:27:45] Council voted on October 28, 2013 at Sport the DSP with conditions proposed by the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission staff.

[3:28:00] I might add that with the exception of one individual who had to abstain for conflict of interest reasons, we will completely unanimous in this vote.

[3:28:11] and frankly, we're quite enthusiastic supporters.

[3:28:16] The Council of Water to make two additional requests.

[3:28:20] These are the Council is concerned that all of this project is located in a TDO zone.

[3:28:28] There is no adjacent bus or taxis stop or pull off.

[3:28:33] The town operates a circulator bus that could add such a stop to its roof.

[3:28:38] They're by allowing residents access to the property without using a car.

[3:28:45] The Council supports installation of such a stop or pull-off.

[3:28:49] We understand that it is unlikely that SHA would approve a bus taxi stop or pull-off on

[3:28:56] route 410, which would be an optimum location.

[3:29:00] As an alternative, the Council requested the DSP include a condition that the applicant cooperate

[3:29:07] with the owner of the adjacent internal roadways to create a bus taxi stop or pull off for loading

[3:29:15] and unloading of passengers on America Boulevard. Democracy Avenue or Liberty Lane, and that if

[3:29:23] this is achieved, the applicant can be required to provide a bus shelter at the site. And require

[3:29:30] that the applicant, it's airs and assignees be required to install a traffic light at the left turn

[3:29:36] in into the project of the Democracy Avenue and Route 410 East-West Highway upon approval

[3:29:44] by the State Highway Administration.

[3:29:50] So, yeah, let me just finish and then I'll just make a couple of comments.

[3:29:56] Finally, the Council expresses appreciation that the applicant will provide.

[3:30:00] At all stormwater management on site, our community is downstream of the proposed project and will benefit from this decision.

[3:30:08] Thank you very, thank you for your consideration of the council's position.

[3:30:14] Okay, thank you, Mayor Tabori, and I'm going to accept the letter into the record.

[3:30:18] I'm just going to call it university parks, if there's a bit number one.

[3:30:23] Okay, and you had some personal comments.

[3:30:24] I mean, a couple of first of all, I'd like to thank the applicant for willingly coming to our meetings and engaging in the dialogue that they did, but also like to thank Susan Rose for her assistance, as always.

[3:30:44] I think that this project has been a long time in coming.

[3:30:49] We've all waited for this project and I think it's been really nice to be able to get here and to be able to talk in a very quiet and productive way with all the parties involved and I appreciate that very much.

[3:31:13] Thank you, ma'am.

[3:31:16] Okay.

[3:31:18] Okay.

[3:31:23] Come on, Dan.

[3:31:24] Let's do the desk.

[3:31:27] Madam Chair, for the record, Matthew,

[3:31:29] to desk with a lot from a Mac and me,

[3:31:30] Rosie and Greenville.

[3:31:31] I'll be half of the applicant.

[3:31:35] In full disclosure, I have a confession.

[3:31:38] I had to explain to my client that you typically saved

[3:31:41] the best projects for last on a planning board agenda.

[3:31:44] That's what kind of we're not ordered there at this morning, so, with that being said.

[3:31:51] Again, whether there's any truth in that or not, or if we can.

[3:31:54] That's your story.

[3:31:56] I'll leave that to you in this question, but that's what I told them.

[3:32:00] Again, with that being said, it goes without saying.

[3:32:04] That's the occasion.

[3:32:05] Well, I try to wear your favorite calling.

[3:32:08] We're matching at least.

[3:32:12] Happy Halloween, by the way.

[3:32:13] Thank you.

[3:32:16] I would be remiss if I didn't introduce our team who have worked tirelessly on this project

[3:32:22] for over a year, really.

[3:32:26] And so if you could just allow me to just do that, Mr. Jim Castillo who was in the front row

[3:32:32] with me to my left, you're right.

[3:32:35] He's a senior director of development and construction for echo royalty,

[3:32:38] who is the parent company of echo UTC LLC.

[3:32:43] With him is more bolder, who is also with Echo, she's the development construction coordinator.

[3:32:49] We have Mr. Jack Hollin with the MBNA, who is the lead architect on the project.

[3:32:53] Trinney Rodriguez with Parker and Regas Landscape, and she's the landscape architect on this project.

[3:33:00] Matthew Jones with Boulder Engineering, he's the PE, and we have Mr. Mike Lenhardt, who is a traffic engineer.

[3:33:07] We also have G.S. Proctor and Associates who helped us with other aspects and Mr. GFVs that

[3:33:15] was here on there, we have.

[3:33:17] That's who we are.

[3:33:18] That's our team.

[3:33:19] Again, we have worked very hard on this project and as you've heard, this project has been

[3:33:24] a long time coming.

[3:33:25] This board approved a site plan back in 2005, which, from a time to the purposes, is not too

[3:33:31] dissimilar from what you see before you with some significant changes.

[3:33:36] Primarily, the 176th presidential unit, we've removed and the parking garage, we've reduced,

[3:33:42] based upon that from 660 to about 289.

[3:33:46] So that is the request before you to amend that approved prior approval to allow this

[3:33:52] development to move forward.

[3:33:55] Before I get into any more, I do want to also echo Mr. Meritabore's comments with respect

[3:34:02] to your staff.

[3:34:03] We have worked very hard and long cordially with both urban design staff, transportation staff, and all of your staff is a whole community planning.

[3:34:13] Particularly Mrs. The Rouge has been wonderful on this project.

[3:34:18] We are under a very tight time constraint, which is why we've requested the resolution on the same day.

[3:34:24] And we have all worked collectively, all parties involved that you heard speech today on that.

[3:34:30] And I think because of that, you'll see when I have my one exhibit that

[3:34:36] requests the changes are very, very minor.

[3:34:40] So, let me just highlight some key points.

[3:34:43] Mr. Roos did a fantastic job in her staff report,

[3:34:46] outlining everything.

[3:34:47] We do have four amendments.

[3:34:50] Three, I guess you could consider.

[3:34:51] You're working from her revised conditions.

[3:34:53] We have her revised conditions.

[3:34:55] So, I don't want to jump the gun, but my exhibit, which I want to

[3:35:04] So we're kind of taking the staff report conditions and putting them on the back burner for now.

[3:35:11] But as Mr. Ruse indicated, we do have four amendments in the TDP.

[3:35:17] One is the amendment to the table of uses, which is table 17 on page 144.

[3:35:22] The second one is to reduce the minimum building height in sub-aryx, sub-aryx3.

[3:35:29] The third is to reduce the bill to line and pedestrian streetscape, which are actually two and one.

[3:35:37] That's P1 and P52.

[3:35:40] And then the fourth one is an amendment to S8 in the T2DP, which is figure seven on page 33.

[3:35:46] Okay, that's that.

[3:35:47] Just let's just let's set that up again.

[3:35:48] Okay, one is the revision to the use table on page 144 of the TDP.

[3:35:56] Oh, those.

[3:35:57] Okay.

[3:36:02] Okay.

[3:36:03] One way.

[3:36:04] One way.

[3:36:04] Okay.

[3:36:07] And these are all reflected in the service staff report, which we wholeheartedly agree with.

[3:36:12] So I don't want to spend a lot of time on this.

[3:36:13] I don't know.

[3:36:15] And she did a great job of cutting a pay, including our justification for that.

[3:36:20] So I'm just outlining them.

[3:36:21] Again, one is to revise table of uses.

[3:36:24] The other one is to reduce the minimum building height

[3:36:26] from four stories to one story.

[3:36:29] Three is to reduce the bill to line and pedestrian street

[3:36:33] scape along around the four sandwiches

[3:36:35] are reduction from 28 feet to 20 feet.

[3:36:39] And then the fourth and final one is to remove the requirement

[3:36:42] to have a double row of street trees along East West Highway,

[3:36:45] which is figure seven in S8.

[3:36:48] OK.

[3:36:49] OK.

[3:36:50] I think the staff report and the justification statement and as the roots of summary of each of those amendments is more than adequate and how it'd be happy to accept them as our position and testimony here and incorporate and adopt our justification to those so we can speak this along.

[3:37:10] Kind of buttressing what Mr. Commissioner Shove as Mr. Chandler with respect to the residential units and impact on retail.

[3:37:17] I do have some some failures and percentages currently right now excluding the movie theater,

[3:37:24] which the movie theater operates kind of differently than the other retail.

[3:37:28] Excluding the movie theater, there's about a 60% vacancy in retail at the university town center.

[3:37:37] With respect to the existing residential, this is from a Washington Post article that I pulled.

[3:37:41] It's a couple of years old, but I don't think it's changed all too much in the last two years given the recession and the lack of anything going on in UTC, but according to that post article

[3:37:53] There were only 37 of the 112 units in independent plaza or sold, so so 37 of the 112 had been sold

[3:38:04] The plaza lost 22, which was the 22 luxury unit building

[3:38:09] there were a hundred percent vacancy.

[3:38:14] What Mr. Chandler provided,

[3:38:24] you're indulged, you're indulged is one second.

[3:38:27] What Mr. Chandler provided, which we included in our justification statement, so I thank him for this research,

[3:38:34] is in the TDOZ area, which is all the sub areas, including this one.

[3:38:40] There are either open, under construction, or proposed,

[3:38:45] 4,461 residential units.

[3:38:50] So, having the 176 units included in this process

[3:38:54] doesn't make sense anymore.

[3:38:56] And it's the primary reason why it never

[3:38:58] before to begin with the 2005.

[3:39:01] So, to move this forward and to get the much needed anchor

[3:39:04] at UTC, we've requested that this amendment

[3:39:07] to remove those hundred or seventy-six units.

[3:39:12] Any commercial retail developer will tell you, you need to have a strong anchor for the

[3:39:17] survivability of any project.

[3:39:19] And although there are probably a hundred reasons why UTC has failed, the primary reason

[3:39:26] were severe development of the states coupled with the market, but mainly the development

[3:39:31] of the states.

[3:39:32] And not to throw Bloomberg family or anyone who

[3:39:36] preceded us under the bus, but it was built inside

[3:39:39] out, said about side-in.

[3:39:41] So when you travel up and on East West Highway,

[3:39:43] and within UTC, there's no indication, there's no

[3:39:46] announcement that this is a commercial retail establishment

[3:39:50] as envisioned by the TDP.

[3:39:53] This probably should have been, I think,

[3:39:55] we can all agree that this should have been the first thing

[3:39:58] that was done, and then everything

[3:39:59] and subsequently after within UTC developed.

[3:40:02] That's not what happened.

[3:40:04] And then with the exists with the development

[3:40:05] of the residential buildings,

[3:40:07] it shut it off from Precious Plaza, which didn't help.

[3:40:11] So we believe that there is a critical mass

[3:40:13] whether existing or in combination with what's proposed

[3:40:16] to support all the retail that's existing and vacant

[3:40:20] as well as our retail and conjunction

[3:40:22] with all the additional development

[3:40:24] that's going to be occurring in and around this area.

[3:40:28] So, what this project does, it does so much more than just develop parcel S.

[3:40:34] And that's what we, and I think you've heard from the support from the town, as well as the city,

[3:40:39] and the fact that we've had nothing but support from any community that we've mentioned.

[3:40:44] This project, you know, rising tide raises all ships.

[3:40:48] And this project we believe will be the catalyst to actually save UTC.

[3:40:52] and also energize the ability for parcel and hopefully to come online with a new development

[3:41:01] so you actually have that street wall streetscape.

[3:41:04] So, again, although we're looking at this just for parcel S, I really hope that the board

[3:41:09] takes into account the actual overall global impact.

[3:41:12] This one project will have on Piedsville University Town Center as well as the University Park.

[3:41:16] So, with that, let's there specific questions I'd like to have our revised findings and

[3:41:26] conditions introduced as applicants exhibit one.

[3:41:30] Okay, let's see if there are any questions at this juncture.

[3:41:33] I'm

[3:41:37] sorry,

[3:41:50] Commissioner.

[3:41:50] Thank you, Mr. F.

[3:41:52] to discuss. Just a few questions. One on the structure is I think obviously very well designed.

[3:42:03] I guess I was curious if you'd gotten any comments from the CDC building or tenants

[3:42:10] or the adjacent church on the corner with respect to the project or its design. And I guess what

[3:42:19] getting at is whether there's some architectural enhancements that were considered or might be

[3:42:25] adventurous with the east and north sort of parts of the structure. And I think we had heard

[3:42:33] in our previous application today, some notion of screening landscape screening type materials.

[3:42:45] I don't know if those types of enhancements were considered or might be of interest. I guess

[3:42:49] concern with is this is this is a budding the front of a major office building. I know they

[3:42:56] they probably use other entrances and exits as well to like a Samarit Boulevard. But it looked like

[3:43:04] it was fairly you know more of a parking structure on that side for where it faces the office building

[3:43:11] and I didn't know if there were any comments from that tenant on this long. The short answer to

[3:43:17] questions. We provide all the notices required by law as well as your procedures and policies.

[3:43:24] I, we were never contacted by anyone of the, the owners of Metro 3. The, the only, we,

[3:43:31] I did receive a phone call from Representative Wells Fargo, who owns Parsleyland. He took

[3:43:36] a back and a foreclosure sale. But it wasn't worth respect to architecture. It was a parking

[3:43:43] question, as well as the town of University Park in the City of High School.

[3:43:48] So no other, we were not contacted by anyone else with respect to that.

[3:43:52] Consideration, however, was given with respect to the East property line.

[3:43:58] There was a prior condition regarding landscaping and a wall feature adjacent to the church

[3:44:04] property.

[3:44:05] What we're proposing is a little different design.

[3:44:08] We think it actually is superior to the what was previously approved. The previous approval kind of had a wall that had some wave detail to it as far as the way it went to travel north the south and the plantings.

[3:44:24] We've actually increased the plantings along that side and we've got a two-tiered wall to provide a flat space to actually provide more plantings from the eastern property line and the church property to screen democracy and then that side of

[3:44:37] the garage insurance. The north side of the building, as Mr. Ruth indicated, along the

[3:44:44] front edge of Metro 3, there is on their front edge, there is sidewalk and plantings

[3:44:51] to soften that up, but we've also wrapped what Mr. Ruth's calls building be, which we've

[3:44:58] on the plants building, be wrapped at a...

[3:45:01] Around America and along liberty, because we think that's a key corner right there, because that enables pedestrians within UTC to come down and access the top level of our, whether it's office or retail as well as the street level retail. There's a vestibule in there with an elevator.

[3:45:22] So you can get up to the top floor of vice versa, people coming out of the safe way you park on the top of the store on the structure parking

[3:45:29] can come across down into that vestibule and then write on to the corner of America's and liberty.

[3:45:36] And you're pretty much half a block away from the heart of where the movie theater is and the main circular class of UTC.

[3:45:45] So although we weren't contacting or requested, I believe we've done more than our level best to address those types of

[3:45:52] questions and concerns. Yeah, I guess I don't know exactly what the view is from that building,

[3:46:00] but I think most of the tenants actually have an elevated view down, but at least around the

[3:46:05] entrance and exit. You know, I know that those perpendicular streets are supposed to be more like

[3:46:12] alleys, but that's pretty much the view of the office building right there that we're looking at.

[3:46:19] I mean, I guess the flip side of that coin also,

[3:46:22] for Mr. Schrovis, because we've removed the 176,

[3:46:27] 11, 17th story, those office workers still have daylight

[3:46:31] and views going out to East West,

[3:46:33] and we haven't covered that, but, you know,

[3:46:35] so that's another way of looking at it.

[3:46:40] So, with that, I would just move to have applicants

[3:46:43] unless there's any other questions,

[3:46:45] applicants exhibit one, introduce,

[3:46:47] which is a request for a revised finding and a revised condition, and I have one addition to

[3:46:52] add to this as well. Okay, let's have your proposed revised conditions, Mark. Well, you've

[3:47:00] pretty marked it. It's accepted into the record as applicants of the number one. Okay, and you

[3:47:04] have a question too. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And maybe perhaps you were about to do this

[3:47:09] this yesterday. Let's go. But I would appreciate your comments with regards to the two additional

[3:47:12] were class from university park?

[3:47:14] Yes, that was my one addition to this.

[3:47:17] Yes, of course.

[3:47:19] And Mayor Subore reminded me when I handed him this exhibit,

[3:47:23] so I will address it.

[3:47:27] The first, the first, on page one, which is all underline and blue,

[3:47:31] and what I did is I try to make it easier for everyone.

[3:47:34] Blue and underline is addition, red and struck out is deletion,

[3:47:38] which we don't have any deletions, they're all additions.

[3:47:40] But the first one is a request for a required finding, which is shown on page 8.

[3:47:49] I'm sorry.

[3:47:55] I had 10 copies.

[3:47:57] I thought I didn't know.

[3:47:58] Yeah.

[3:47:58] I said that.

[3:47:58] We're good.

[3:47:59] They're up there.

[3:48:04] And I reviewed all these with staff, both Mr.

[3:48:07] The Bruce and Mr. Tory previously.

[3:48:11] Basically, the first request is for an additional finding.

[3:48:14] And I will tell you where it says transportation conclusions from little sea all the way to the bottom of number one in parentheses.

[3:48:28] That is straight from Mr. McCarty's referral. And what we're doing there is in the staff report under this particular section.

[3:48:36] Mr. Ruse, just indicated, you know, she decided to this referral as in the backup.

[3:48:45] So for the resolution, I think the intent is to include this language from the referral

[3:48:50] into your resolution with the additional language of the last paragraph on the first page.

[3:48:56] That makes sense.

[3:48:58] So, I guess what I'm saying is, little C1 and then item 1 is that's all from your transportation staff.

[3:49:08] That's me.

[3:49:09] I used to monitor and have a chance to read it.

[3:49:13] And then you're adding.

[3:49:15] And then we're requesting that the language below that which starts with the planning board does not adopt the above condition because the applicant will bond.

[3:49:22] and I think it was for, we're asking for that to be included into your resolution as a finding.

[3:49:28] And the reason for that is a condition for the left turn lane with a light is, and here accounts,

[3:49:36] I can advise you on this, but this is a detailed side point, although this will try to indicate not to be formed,

[3:49:44] but they look at circulation as far as adequacy for the TDP, adequacy is based upon parking.

[3:49:49] And so the language of what's proposed as a condition really is what you would typically

[3:49:55] see in a preliminary plan of subdivision for an adequacy of transportation finding.

[3:49:59] You would require the bonding improvement or what have you prior to a building permit.

[3:50:05] This project can be built with or without the left turn lane regardless of whether SHA

[3:50:11] or proves it or not.

[3:50:12] And I think what Mr. Chobori, this kind of goes into the item number two, Mr. Chobori's

[3:50:17] the purpose and I think the purpose and intent of making this requested condition by Mr.

[3:50:23] Victoria was, if SHA grants the meeting break in the left turn, which they've indicated

[3:50:29] at least on the left turn, they are inclined to do. They're still vetting the meeting

[3:50:33] break. But if they do that, a Warren study, if required, will have to provide it, which

[3:50:38] we agreed to do, if the light is warranted, we will install the light. But that's solely

[3:50:44] within the discretion and the authority of SHA under the access permit guidelines, not within

[3:50:51] your authority to impose under a detailed site plan for adequate suite of transportation

[3:50:56] because that doesn't exist all those circulation and parking, you do look at a detailed

[3:51:01] site plan.

[3:51:02] So what we've asked and I think staff is an agreement is just to have that finding in there

[3:51:08] so that it's clear to the world and it can get hopefully in the search for in the town

[3:51:12] some comfort that we're not trying to get out of putting in a light by any means and I've

[3:51:18] indicated verbally and I indicate on the record if SHA requires and the light is warranted

[3:51:24] for the proposed left-in we will install the light.

[3:51:28] But I think conditioning and conditioning that on this DSP is improper.

[3:51:32] So that is, that's the requested item on page 19, item 15 of this staff report,

[3:51:44] I don't know if you want to.

[3:51:45] Fed that a little bit or if I can move on.

[3:51:48] I just want to give everyone a chance that I just said okay.

[3:51:51] Set the next.

[3:51:53] The next one is a revised request for to condition one little eye.

[3:51:59] And that is what Ms. Lerous indicated.

[3:52:02] We would all like to move the existing Pylon sign into the island within America Boulevard.

[3:52:08] However, we haven't really had an opportunity to study that as far as what it's going to be involved

[3:52:13] and doing that, the approvals, sight distance and everything.

[3:52:16] So the way that the condition read, which I'll take responsibility for, it seemed to indicate that we were required to relocate it.

[3:52:27] I just added if feasible is just to provide the flexibility, if infrastructure, site, line, clearance, and what

[3:52:33] have you, doesn't allow it that we're not stuck with, not being able to sort of find a plan because we can't with design.

[3:52:40] So I've just added the word if feasible.

[3:52:43] And then I would add in this was talked about this morning in response to Mr. Trebori's letter, so I didn't have time to

[3:52:51] would have typed out, but with respect to the towns request for their first condition, I would

[3:53:01] propose the following language to be added to condition 1, so would be 1, 0, 1, 0,

[3:53:19] and all the

[3:53:25] So, the position one would be one, Oh, would be an afternoon?

[3:53:28] What I want to ask for is to add a condition to Mr.

[3:53:32] Russel's conditions.

[3:53:34] So it would...

[3:53:35] It's the town's condition one.

[3:53:38] I'm just...

[3:53:39] I'm just...

[3:53:39] I'm just re-ording it.

[3:53:40] Yeah, okay, okay.

[3:53:42] I just trying to figure out how, okay.

[3:53:45] So it would be...

[3:53:47] I mean, one is called out by a brighter certification of the DSP,

[3:53:51] the following revision, or information shall be supplied.

[3:53:54] And then I would add item O to read the applicant shall explore the possibility of providing a bus.

[3:54:03] It'll slow.

[3:54:05] Okay, sorry.

[3:54:05] So, where are they going to?

[3:54:07] One O.

[3:54:09] I got that part.

[3:54:10] You.

[3:54:15] I got the O.

[3:54:16] I have that.

[3:54:17] I'm just trying to figure.

[3:54:18] Are you taking any language from his condition verbatim?

[3:54:22] No.

[3:54:22] Okay.

[3:54:22] That's what I want. Okay, so I was kind of following. No, this is this is all new language. Okay, I got that. And we discussed that.

[3:54:30] We just got this. And I'm just a Mayor Tory, but I'll be far to make sure that it's still not written with one of them.

[3:54:36] Okay.

[3:54:37] Yes, man. Of course.

[3:54:39] It'll say the applicant shall explore the possibility of providing a bus.

[3:54:46] possibility of providing a bus slash taxi stop along its frontage

[3:55:02] of America Boulevard

[3:55:06] and if feasible shall provide said stop that

[3:55:24] provides sheltering that provides sheltering

[3:55:36] surface.

[3:55:40] The uppercut.

[3:55:42] I'm a if feasible comma Shell provides said stop.

[3:55:50] Grandian provides shelter over which provide shelteres

[3:55:57] and

[3:55:58] the, as the consultants will have.

[3:56:01] We don't look it.

[3:56:02] because we only really learned about this within the last 48 hours.

[3:56:07] Our thought is, because we control some of the parking spaces along the

[3:56:11] marketable of our two, restriped one or two of them to provide for this bus stop.

[3:56:16] I think your urban designs that may have some concern on providing what we think of as

[3:56:20] a bus shelter along this corridor because it may take away.

[3:56:24] So what we had envisioned was using the corner of America and Liberty where we have

[3:56:30] and oning to provide a bench and or maybe a bigger

[3:56:34] oning in that location to provide the sheltering.

[3:56:37] So I'm trying to capture the intent and spirit

[3:56:39] of Mr. Taboris for Quest 4 of Shelter,

[3:56:42] but not handcuff me to a bus shelter.

[3:56:45] We're seeing those steps up and shelter.

[3:56:48] Can we say the applicant shall explore the possibility

[3:56:51] of providing a bus slash taxi stop

[3:56:54] along its frontage of American Boulevard.

[3:56:57] and if feasible shall provide says stop which shall include sheltering. Perfect.

[3:57:08] That's acceptable to the applicant. I'll defer to Mr. Tory and Ms. Lovers.

[3:57:15] OK, so we do just on a preliminary analysis. It does look like there's a little extra room

[3:57:23] at this corner to maybe expand the sidewalk in that area and still have room for parking

[3:57:31] and so forth. So we think it's a good idea to provide that. It has to be analyzed and we

[3:57:38] would do it prior to signature approval of the plans. Okay? And it's all on parcel asks,

[3:57:46] which is the application before you. So I hope that it's in control of the applicant to

[3:57:52] be able to make a decision on that issue. And that's part of, and that's why I'm trying

[3:58:00] away from the cooperation with any joining under the law.

[3:58:04] Yes, it's floor, floor, floor, floor,

[3:58:06] possibility, it's feasible, it's feasible, we've got you trying to

[3:58:10] let's qualify.

[3:58:11] But we agree that it's in everyone's best

[3:58:14] centers if we can provide it to do it and we're happy to do it.

[3:58:17] I just, I don't want to, I can't say 100% to do it,

[3:58:22] because if we just haven't looked at it,

[3:58:23] but we think we can make it work.

[3:58:25] I guess

[3:58:29] what I didn't understand about the last part was,

[3:58:32] But she said shell provides, with all those profiles, and their shell provides, said stop,

[3:58:39] which shall include the shell turning.

[3:58:42] And I just, I didn't get the, but that's okay with you.

[3:58:46] So that's okay with you.

[3:58:48] I mean, we think they're sheltering already that would already exist with the awning, but we

[3:58:52] can certainly look at it.

[3:58:53] But that's what I'm trying to make sure that if you're saying they're sheltering that

[3:58:55] already exists with the awning.

[3:58:57] What I want to, and again, what I want to do, I'm not trying to compensate that.

[3:59:00] I'm trying to use the panel at the same time, not handcuff myself to do it.

[3:59:05] That's shelter.

[3:59:06] We got it.

[3:59:10] Okay.

[3:59:11] Madam Chair perhaps those last shalls at the end of the sentence should turn into

[3:59:18] Should's in the statement.

[3:59:21] And if she should.

[3:59:23] Well, I mean the shalls, okay.

[3:59:26] I don't have a problem with that because you've already.

[3:59:28] So I see the both of them.

[3:59:31] Yeah, shall provide says that I just before I had just says that's

[3:59:37] happened, sheltering, but that's so that they're not with it.

[3:59:39] We can do, we can do, I mean, I'm safe to stop and sheltering.

[3:59:44] Okay, that's that's probably easier.

[3:59:46] That's, but that's what I said earlier.

[3:59:48] I thought that you weren't accepting that, okay.

[3:59:50] No, no, I said and or which, but it just actually because not and sheltering could

[3:59:57] and she'll throw over here and stop over here.

[4:00:00] Good, an initial sentence, yes, so it doesn't, it couldn't. Yeah, so the end doesn't get us there. I think that. How about us? How about we say stop with sheltering? Okay, well there we got, okay, okay, stop with sheltering, okay. I think, but I first said that's what I'm going to say stop. Yeah. Yeah, but this has come back to basically. Yeah, okay.

[4:00:29] So I would just, I'd like to give Mr. Taboria a chance to just respond to that language publicly

[4:00:44] for the record.

[4:00:45] I have Taboria from the University Park. Yes, we're in agreement with that.

[4:00:49] Okay, thank you, Mr. Taboria.

[4:00:54] And then with respect to the town's second request.

[4:00:58] I think we've adequately addressed that in my requested finding.

[4:01:02] Okay.

[4:01:02] All right.

[4:01:04] Now let's do what the final name is.

[4:01:08] This boarden where you get, okay, and then Mr. Mark Kary, and this you want him to go first?

[4:01:12] Well, I can.

[4:01:13] Okay.

[4:01:14] Let's be very brief.

[4:01:15] Deborah Boarden and Associate General Counsel.

[4:01:16] Yes, I did look at this and spoke with Ms. Lerous about this.

[4:01:20] I do concur that the issue of the ward analysis for the traffic signal as well as the issue of the

[4:01:32] you and is certainly something we can open on, but it is not something that is subject to

[4:01:38] our approval.

[4:01:40] So the agreement is as written the findings is perfect.

[4:01:47] Mr. Markari, any comment?

[4:01:50] Very briefly, Madam Chair.

[4:01:51] I think because the applicant took very positive and proactive approach with this left

[4:01:57] And the signal, we were hoping that SHA would be cooperative and come up with a more concrete answer.

[4:02:05] But I fully agree with our social general counsel that this is something that SHA has to make the final call.

[4:02:12] We were hoping by then we would have this.

[4:02:14] But so I think a finding is more appropriate than conditioning because we don't want to put the applicant between a hard and rough place.

[4:02:23] between rock and harbolic.

[4:02:27] Sorry, it's a highly win-com.

[4:02:32] But I fully agree with being a finding

[4:02:34] greater than condition, I can get more appropriate.

[4:02:37] Okay. I'm going to write this down, Mr. McCarrick.

[4:02:47] Madam Chair, again, I would incorporate it up. This statement is just a occasion and a submit

[4:02:52] on the record.

[4:02:54] Okay.

[4:02:56] Okay.

[4:02:57] Ms. Nishau.

[4:02:59] Thank you, Madam Chair.

[4:03:00] I did have just a couple more questions or comments.

[4:03:05] One thing that I'm not sure we've discussed yet is sort of the pedestrian circulation.

[4:03:13] One of the first, I should be complimentary, you know, if there's any, if there's a personal

[4:03:20] example of the need for complete streets, this is it, because I walk in front of this property

[4:03:24] almost in a daily basis, and I will be much appreciated in the sidewalk, I'll go in there.

[4:03:32] But what I've observed also is the occasional pedestrian crossing east west highway midblock,

[4:03:41] And so I'm mindful of that with the anchor moving in and also with what has been, I guess,

[4:03:51] directed west of Bellcrest with the fence near the pedestrian bridge.

[4:03:58] So that may be a little outside of our ability to influence here, but there might be a need for

[4:04:08] consideration of the similar fence on the median, at some point there, between, I guess, this

[4:04:15] property and the other side of East West Highway, because that does seem to happen.

[4:04:21] There's some parking, I think, there with one of the churches that sometimes used for, I

[4:04:27] think, the community college or other areas nearby, so there's some pedestrian activity

[4:04:35] It goes across east west, so I don't know if this is the point to necessarily put in the

[4:04:44] fence, but I would certainly like to highlight that as a concern, it might become more

[4:04:49] prominent over time.

[4:04:53] The other thing I'd just highlight as well is the anchor tenant safely that's coming in

[4:05:00] than fairly proactive, I think nationally, in the region, specifically with some of its environmental aspects.

[4:05:08] I think some of these are noted in the staff report, but I just also mentioned that, but we've, it's

[4:05:15] the Fezda and only establishments have obtained a legal certification, which I think is outstanding.

[4:05:24] And hopefully there might be something along those lines planned here.

[4:05:29] And I didn't know if that was already determined or planned if you had any insights on that as well.

[4:05:36] And this comes up on other cases that we've had and we've discussed as you know,

[4:05:41] and the board knows you don't qualify or get certification until the project is constructed.

[4:05:47] However, we do intend to incorporate meet elements towards a scorecard.

[4:05:53] We don't quite know how we're going to actually calculate out, but, you know, we're doing

[4:05:58] thing.

[4:05:59] First of all, most, you know, we are meeting the 10% TCC requirement, which on the

[4:06:03] infill urban development is a lot harder than it sounds.

[4:06:07] We are meeting that, which incorporates some redelements, stormwater management through ESD,

[4:06:13] quantity and quality.

[4:06:14] That's important, and the town was very interested in that.

[4:06:17] We're doing 100% quantity for a 100-year storm quantity as well as 50% of additional impervious and 100% of existing impervious.

[4:06:33] We intend to use low emitting materials, water-efficient landscaping, kind of like a trip element, construction, waste management practices, reduction of light pollution.

[4:06:44] There's a condition in the approval to reduce the foot canals along democracy along the church side, the public alternate transportation being set close to the metro, community connectivity and site selection for infill.

[4:06:59] So, I don't know what those are going to score out as, but we are looking at those through MBA and the architect as well as our landscape design.

[4:07:06] So I can't answer definitively right now, but there are green elements that we would count towards lead within this project.

[4:07:20] So with that, I would just respectfully request the board's approval, including the amendments as well as the revised condition and finding.

[4:07:27] Thank you.

[4:07:28] Thank you.

[4:07:28] Any other questions?

[4:07:29] Mr. Tidesko at this time.

[4:07:31] Anyone else?

[4:07:32] Okay.

[4:07:33] Thank you.

[4:07:36] Motion.

[4:07:37] Madam Chair, I would like to move that we adopt the findings of staff.

[4:07:42] And recommend to the district council approval of a request that changes to the use table and the minimum height of the building and approve amendments to P1 P52 and S-8 and approve DSP-05084-02 along with the Associated Conditions is outlined in SAS memo dated October

[4:08:11] 24, 24, and as revised or augmented as outlined and applicant exhibit number one, there

[4:08:21] will be a change to transportation-related finding as well as revision to condition one

[4:08:30] I and a new condition one zero, which was read into the record earlier, but I guess for the

[4:08:40] take a clarity. I'll restate it and it reads as follows. The applicant shall explore the

[4:08:46] possibility of providing a bus slash taxi stop along its frontage of American boulevard

[4:08:56] and in comma and if feasible shall provide said stop with shelter.

[4:09:10] We have a motion and the second is there's discussion, all in favour of the motion.

[4:09:19] Opposed?

[4:09:20] Yes, have it.

[4:09:21] We need to take item 10 and ensure that the resolution is corrected to reflect the action just

[4:09:32] We have a motion in the second, is your discussion, all in favor?

[4:09:38] Opposed, the eyes have it.

[4:09:40] Item five was removed from the agenda.

[4:09:42] I take it.

[4:09:42] We have no item three, right?

[4:09:44] And I'm going to hurry up and ask this question.

[4:09:45] Is there any additional business to come before planning board today?

[4:09:48] Hearing none.

[4:09:49] Planning board is adjourned.

[4:09:53] Thank you.

[4:09:55] All right.

[4:09:56] Happy Turkish reading, everyone.

[4:10:10] We turn out like this dog.

[4:10:16] We go to the higher part of the dog.

[4:10:20] How are you?

[4:10:23] I'm talking about all my videos.

M-NCPPC Planning Board Meeting

Agenda

Transcript