From: Subject: Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 15:15:06 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: mhtml:file://C:\Documents and Settings\jzollner\Local Settings\Temp\03-171z.dec.mht X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198

           &nbs= p;            = ;            =             &= nbsp;        =20 STATE OF VERMONT

           &nbs= p;            = ;            =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;            =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;         =20

           &nbs= p;            = ;            =             &= nbsp;    =20 ENVIRONMENTAL COURT

 

}

Appeal=20 of Berezniak           &nbs= p;=20 }           &nbs= p;          =20 Docket No. 171-9-03 Vtec

 (Application of Wager)           &nbs= p;       =20 }

}

 

           &nbs= p;            = ;            =             &= nbsp;           =20 Decision and Order

Appellant=20 David Berezniak appealed from a decision of the Development Review Board = (DRB)=20 of the City of Burlington, approving modifications to an existing = building and=20 the construction of a 27-unit apartment building on the same property, = with=20 associated site improvements, including driveways, parking areas, and=20 landscaping.  Appellant is = represented by Norman Williams, Esq., who also represents nineteen other = interested persons[1]=20 who intervened in this matter; =20 Appellee-Applicants John and Dena Wager are represented by Carl = H.=20 Lisman, Esq.; and the City is represented by Kimberlee J. Sturtevant, = Esq.  An evidentiary hearing was = held in this=20 matter before Merideth Wright, Environmental Judge, who took a site = visit alone=20 by agreement of the parties.  = The=20 parties were given the opportunity to submit written memoranda and = requests for=20 findings.  Upon = consideration of the=20 evidence as illustrated by the site visit, and of the written memoranda = and=20 requests for findings filed by the parties, the Court finds and = concludes as=20 follows.

The=20 project property, owned by Appellee-Applicant Dena Wager, is an = irregular=20 1.2-acre (53,542-square-foot) parcel of relatively flat land with = frontage on=20 two streets: Archibald Street and Intervale Avenue, in the General = Commercial=20 (GC) mixed-use zoning district of the City of Burlington.  Because the lot has frontage = on two=20 streets, it is considered to have two front yards and no rear yard, with = the=20 remainder of the lot lines defining side yards.

An=20 existing building is located on the portion of the property with = frontage on=20 Archibald Street.  The = building,=20 known as the Burgess Electric[2]=20 building, was constructed in the 1970s and consists of a = 11,300-square-foot=20 concrete block building with a 980-square-foot shed attached to the rear = (northeast) corner of the building, for a total building square footage = of=20 12,280 square feet.  The = shed is=20 used for the storage of lengths of PVC pipe and other electrical conduit = material.

The=20 building houses a wholesale electrical supply business that supplies = materials=20 to contractors and does a small amount of walk-in retail business as = well.  The business=3D=20 operating hours are from 7:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.  Contractors come to the = property to pick=20 up materials needed for their jobs; they also come in to order materials = to be=20 delivered by the business directly to job sites in the area.  The business has five = employees,=20 including the manager, who work full-time on-site, and an outside sales = person=20 who comes to the building on a daily basis.   Approximately three = contractors=20 per day are waiting at the site before the business opens at 7:00 a.m. = to pick=20 up materials prior to starting their work day; throughout the early = morning=20 hours,  approximately = three=20 contractors=3D=20 or other customers=3D=20 vehicles are there at any given time, although each customer only spends = less=20 than ten minutes at the business. =20 Between 8:00 a.m. and noon, no more than one or two = customers=3D=20 vehicles occupy the parking area at the business at any given time.  The peak use hour for the = parking areas=20 by customers at the property tends to occur between 6:30 and 7:30 in the = morning.  Deliveries are = made to the=20 property daily at about 1:30 to 2:00 p.m. by a UPS truck.  Other suppliers=3D=20 delivery trucks are similar in size to the UPS van, except that PVC pipe = is=20 delivered approximately twice per year by a=20 tractor-trailer.

As=20 it now exists, the front of the building at Archibald Street is faced = with=20 brick, topped by a false mansard shingled roof edge.  It presents a blank brick wall = to the=20 street, except for a glass door in the center of the wall, allowing = walk-in=20 access to the office or sales area for the business.  The approximately 25-foot-wide = area of=20 the property between the front of the building and the street is paved = and used=20 for parking of one or two vehicles.

To=20 the west of the building is a driveway lane wide enough for a = tractor-trailer;=20 the driveway extends northerly across the property to exit at the = Intervale=20 Avenue curb cut. Between the driveway next to the building and the = westerly=20 property line is an additional paved area used for parking for = approximately=20 eleven vehicles.  There is = a door in=20 the west side of the building, as well as two separate entrances at the = rear of=20 the building: a loading dock and an overhead door.  A large additional paved area = is=20 available, though less convenient, for vehicle parking at the rear of = the=20 building, to the rear or north of the loading dock = area.

As=20 it now exists, the property is completely surrounded by a chain link = fence,=20 installed in 1993 after the property was cleaned up from years of = unauthorized=20 use and dumping, including the clearing of wooded areas on the = site.  At present, gates at both = streets are=20 locked after business hours.

The=20 area is a mixed-use area, with single and multi-family residential uses, = commercial uses, recreational uses, community uses and garage uses = nearby.  Across Archibald Street from = the=20 property is a multi-building, 20-unit affordable housing project known = as Thelma=20 Maple, with 35 spaces of off-street parking.  Of the spaces available to the = tenants=20 and visitors at Thelma Maple, 17 units account for 20 = tenants=3D=20 cars.  Moreover, the = Thelma Maple=20 parking area is used by unauthorized vehicles, especially in the winter = during=20 the on-street parking bans.

           =20 Along Intervale Avenue near the project are  2- or 22-story=20 houses, some in single-family use and some in multiple unit rental = use.  On both streets the buildings = are=20 located very close to the sidewalk. =20 Many, if not most, of the older houses in the area do not have = sufficient=20 off-street parking to accommodate the parking demand of their tenants = and=20 visitors.  During events = at the=20 nearby recreational facilities, and during the winter, it is difficult = to find=20 parking spaces on the street. =20 Appellee-Applicants=3D=20 examination of the availability of on-street parking was conducted on = only a few=20 non-representative summer days and did not extend into the evening as = would have=20 been necessary to reflect the nearby recreational uses=3D=20 parking demand.

Appellee-Applicants=20 propose to build a 27-unit, affordable housing project, to be known as = Roosevelt=20 Apartments, at the Intervale Avenue end of the property, in an angled,=20 three-story, flat-roofed building, designed so that the end of the = building=20 faces the Intervale Avenue frontage. =20 It would be higher than, and present a larger facade than the = other=20 nearby houses on Intervale Avenue. =20 Those houses generally have the gable end of a peaked roof or one = side of=20 a hipped roof facing the street, or, if flat-roofed, are not as = tall.  The building is attractive in = design,=20 with horizontal detail to reduce the visual scale of the building, and = with an=20 angled shape to reduce the potentially monolithic appearance of such a = large=20 building.  It is = landscaped and=20 includes a play area near the rear of the building.=20

The=20 proposed Roosevelt Apartments building does not include any basement = area or any=20 underground or partially-underground parking.  Appellee-Applicants propose to = provide=20 21 off-street parking spaces to serve the building.  They request a parking waiver = and, in=20 connection with the proposed waiver, propose that the tenants be = authorized to=20 use the eleven spaces at the Burgess Electric when the business is = closed, that=20 is, after 4:30 p.m. until just before 7:00 a.m.  The waiver request in evidence = as=20 Exhibit 16 also proposed the lease of ten[3]=20 spaces at the Burlington Housing Authority=3Ds=20 Riverside project, on a dual use basis, that is, to be shared with a = nearby=20 health clinic.

Appellee-Applicants=20 also propose to remove the chain link fencing and the gates on both = street=20 frontages of the property, to install a 980-square-foot addition on the = front of=20 the Burgess Electric building, with landscaping set into a jog in the = front of=20 the addition, a short pedestrian path to the front door, a mural = occupying the=20 area of a storefront window, and a remodeled roofline.  They propose to remove the=20 equivalent-sized shed from the back of the building, so that the total = area of=20 the building will be 12,280[4]=20 square feet as before. =20 Appellee-Applicants propose parking, walkways, and associated = landscaping=20 to serve the two proposed uses.

They=20 propose that the driveway be one-way onto the property from Archibald = Street,=20 past the loading dock area and to the parking lot for the housing = project, so=20 that all Burgess Electric business traffic would exit through the = Intervale=20 Avenue curb cut.  They = propose that=20 the Intervale Avenue curb cut and the Roosevelt Apartments parking area = serve=20 two- way traffic. =20 Appellee-Applicants do not propose to control the Archibald = Street=20 entrance or the lane from the loading dock area into the Roosevelt = Apartments=20 parking lot with a gate capable of being operated only by authorized = tenants=20 after hours, to prevent unauthorized parking use of the Burgess Electric = parking=20 spaces.  = Appellee-Applicants propose=20 to incorporate into the proposal and to comply with the conditions = imposed by=20 the DRB in its approval, including the reduction of the width of the = curb cut=20 and traveled lane from Archibald = Street.

Question=20 5 of the Statement of Questions

The=20 question of whether the proposed project constitutes an alteration or=20 enlargement of an existing non-conforming use depends on identifying the = existing Burgess Electric building=3Ds=20 compliance or non-compliance with any of the requirements in the Zoning=20 Ordinance applicable to the proposal. =20 We must then analyze whether the proposed project results in any = new or=20 greater non-compliance with any dimensional requirements or in a failure = to meet=20 parking requirements.

The=20 existing Burgess Electric building appears to comply with all the = dimensional=20 requirements for the district.  = No=20 front or side setbacks are required. =20 The building and its existing paved areas appear easily to meet = the 80%=20 lot coverage requirement.

The=20 question of what parking requirements apply to the existing Burgess = Electric=20 building use depends upon which use category is appropriate to describe = the=20 business.  Both wholesale = sales and=20 wholesale distribution uses are conditional uses in the district.  While these terms are not = specifically=20 defined in the ordinance, they can both be given meaning if the = distinction=20 between them is that a >wholesale=20 distribution=3D=20 business delivers to retail outlets or contractors off the business = premises,=20 while a >wholesale=20 sales=3D=20 business provides the purchased materials and supplies to the contractor = at the=20 business premises.  This = distinction=20 also makes sense of the difference in parking requirements between the = two=20 categories in the Zoning Ordinance, as more customers will come to and = need to=20 park at a >wholesale=20 sales=3D=20 business than a >wholesale=20 distribution facility.=3D  Accordingly, parking = requirements are=20 set by the Zoning Ordinance at one space per 150 square feet of gross = floor area=20 for a >wholesale=20 sales=3D=20 business, and one space per 500 square feet for a >wholesale=20 distribution facility.=3D

The=20 Burgess Electric building use does not fall within the definition of the = >warehouse,=20 retail=3D=20 use category; that category applies to >the=20 sale of goods, either in bulk or as individual retail items, to the = general=20 public or to [members],@=20 from a warehouse type of facility, such as the examples of Costco or=20 Sam=3Ds=20 Club given by the City in its memorandum. =20 Nor does the Burgess Electric building use fall within the = definition of=20 a general >warehouse=3D=20 use category; that category applies to buildings used primarily for the = storage=20 of goods or materials, and although the category may include = distribution, it=20 does not include direct sales to contractors, as occurs on a daily basis = at the=20 Burgess Electric building.

It  is more difficult to determine = what=20 percentage of the Burgess Electric building use should be categorized as = >wholesale=20 sales=3D=20 as opposed to >wholesale=20 distribution,=3D=20 as little evidence was presented from which the Court could make that=20 determination.  However, = the result=20 in this decision is the same regardless of the percentage used.  Even assuming that the entire = facility=20 should be categorized as >wholesale=20 distribution facility,=3D=20 the existing use would require 25[5]=20 off-street parking spaces as calculated under the Zoning=20 Ordinance.

Under=20 '10.1.4,=20 an existing structure or land use is not subject to the parking = requirements of=20 Article 10 of the Zoning Ordinance, so long as the kind or extent of use = is not=20 changed; the section also requires that Aany=20 parking facilities now serving such structures shall not in the future = be=20 reduced below such requirements.@=20

Appellee-Applicants=20 appear to have assumed that the existing parking now serving the = existing=20 Burgess Electric building was the approximately eleven spaces to the = west of the=20 building which are to be striped and retained in the proposal.  However, prior to the proposal = the=20 existing parking serving the Burgess Electric building also included the = two=20 spaces in the paved area in front of the building, plus the large = expanse of=20 paved or at least flat area in back of the building leading to the = existing=20 driveway exiting at Intervale Avenue. =20 The existing area in the back available for parking is at least = as large=20 as the area on the side and the front, although it is not striped for = parking=20 spaces any more than is the area in front or to the west of the = building.  Because of the expanse of flat = area=20 behind the building available for Burgess Electric parking prior to the = present=20 proposal, the existing building is not nonconforming as to parking.  That is, it has room for 25 = off-street=20 parking spaces, though they are not striped on the pavement. 

As=20 proposed, the project removes the two parking spaces in front and all = the spaces=20 in back, leaving only 11 spaces[6]=20 to the west of the building and 1 inside the building, plus the loading = spaces=20 in the back.  Under = '10.1.4=20 the 25 spaces serving the existing building cannot be reduced below that = number=20 without a parking waiver for the Burgess Electric parking, as well as = the waiver=20 for the new parking that would be required for the Roosevelt = Apartments.  Accordingly, the application = must be=20 DENIED, without prejudice to Appellee-Applicants=3D=20 application to the DRB for an additional parking waiver attributable[7]=20 to the Burgess Electric required = parking.

Appellant=20 also argues that the total lot coverage of the project will become=20 nonconforming, that is, it will exceed the 80% allowed in the Zoning=20 Ordinance.  The = application=20 narrative in Exhibit 5, at p. 3, described the lot coverage as 79%, and = noted=20 that the project qualifies for an inclusionary housing bonus of up to = 92% lot=20 coverage.  The lot = coverage of the=20 revised application was not recalculated at trial; any further or = revised=20 application should address this issue as well.

 

Question=20 3 of the Statement of Questions

Aside=20 from the issue of the parking attributable to Burgess Electric, we must=20 determine whether the project meets the parking requirements of the = Zoning=20 Ordinance for the Roosevelt Apartments use. 

As=20 calculated in footnote 7 above, absent any waivers, 46 spaces would be = required=20 for the 27-unit apartment building. =20 Appellee-Applicants request a waiver to supply only 21 spaces, = based on=20 an anticipated lower demand for parking for affordable housing units, = together=20 with the 4:30 p.m.-to-7:00 a.m. use of the Burgess Electric spaces, and = the=20 availability of public bus transportation nearby.  On-street parking is not = always=20 available, and there is a high demand for it from other neighborhood = uses,=20 including rental housing with insufficient off-street parking and = parking for=20 events at the nearby recreational facilities.  To avoid making the on-street = parking=20 problems in the neighborhood any worse than they already are, it is = important=20 that this project have an adequate number of off-street spaces available = to=20 it.

Affordable=20 housing units in the Burlington area require fewer parking spaces per = unit than=20 do market-rate housing units. =20 However, based on the analysis of the census data for families in = this=20 census district with a household income even lower than the maximum = eligibility=20 income for this project, and an analysis of the Burlington Community = Land Trust=20 (BCLT) tenant and parking data adjusted for non-drivers, the appropriate = measure=20 of parking demand for the Roosevelt Apartments units is one vehicle per = dwelling=20 unit, not the 0.67 vehicle per unit suggested by the BCLT data.  The BCLT data, even after = being updated=20 and corrected for some non-drivers, is derived from information obtained = for the=20 issuance of parking stickers for tenants, so that it does not = necessarily=20 reflect the total vehicle ownership of tenants who choose to park on the = street=20 rather than to apply for spaces.  = In=20 addition, the BCLT data undercounted now-vacant apartments.  Thus the minimum number of = spaces that=20 should be provided for this proposal is 27 spaces, unless other waiver = criteria=20 are also met.

Because=20 the project proposal provides only 21 spaces for the this use, we must = also=20 analyze whether any other reduction in the required number of spaces can = be=20 based on the dual use of the Burgess Electric spaces, or on the = availability=20 and projected use of alternative transportation modes, that is, = the=20 public transportation bus system, or walking or bicycling.  '10.1.19(a),=20 (b) and (c).

As=20 proposed in this application, the dual use of the Burgess Electric = spaces cannot=20 justify a reduction below the 27 spaces discussed above.  First, Burgess Electric would = have its=20 heaviest parking demand between about 6:45 and 7:45 in the morning, so = it would=20 be more essential for tenants to remove their cars promptly before 7:00 = a.m.=20 than it would be if the shared use were a 9-to-5 office building or a = restaurant=20 or movie theater or a retail use with later opening hours or later peak=20 hours.  However, the most = likely=20 tenants to need these spaces would be those returning latest at night, = after the=20 21 spaces proposed for the apartment building had been filled.  The likelihood that they = actually would=20 get up in time to remove their cars early enough to meet the needs of = the=20 Burgess Electric use, without some sort of public ticketing or towing=20 enforcement of the shared use time frame, would be likely to depend on = how late=20 they returned, and on whether they were working a late night shift.  More importantly, unless both = the=20 Burgess Electric driveway intersection with Archibald Street and = the=20 entrance to the Roosevelt Apartments parking lot from the Burgess = Electric=20 driveway are equipped with gates that are closed at night and are = operable by a=20 card reader or key pad and only by authorized tenants, there will be no = way to=20 limit the nighttime use of the Burgess Electric spaces to those = authorized=20 tenants, even if they are willing to get up very early in the morning to = remove=20 their cars.  Further, = without a gate=20 between the Burgess Electric parking area and the Roosevelt Apartments = parking=20 area, drivers who entered the apartment lot at night and found it to be = full=20 would be likely to drive into the Burgess Electric lot the wrong way, to = minimize the chance that a space in that lot would be gone by the time = they went=20 out of the Intervale Avenue exit of the apartment lot and around the = block to=20 the Archibald Street entrance to enter the Burgess Electric lot from the = correct=20 direction.  Late at night, = the=20 parking of such a >wrong-way=3D=20 car backing into an angled space would not be likely to pose a = substantial=20 safety problem, but it would create a safety conflict in the morning, as = it=20 would have to drive out the >in=20 only=3D=20 driveway onto Archibald Street, conflicting with vehicles attempting to = enter=20 that driveway. =20

With=20 regard to the >alternative=20 transportation modes=3D=20 justification for a parking waiver, Appellee-Applicants presented = evidence of=20 the availability of bus service and the proximity of the downtown = Burlington=20 area for access by walking. =20 However, Appellee-Applicants did not meet the requirement of = '10.1.19(c)=20 to show the projected use by these tenants of either alternative = transportation=20 mode.  That is, the two = bus routes=20 serving this area are available to the tenants only from just before = 7:00 in the=20 morning to about 6:30 in the evening, Monday through Saturday, with a = reduced=20 schedule on Saturday.  On = Sunday the=20 area is served by a single bus circulating on a city-wide Sunday = route.  If tenants had jobs on an = evening or=20 night shift that were outside walking distance, they would be more = likely to=20 need to keep a car.  = Further, if the=20 bus routes are convenient for daytime commuting, a tenant with a car = might be=20 more likely to need a daytime parking space to leave a car in the lot, = so as to=20 commute to work by bus or by walking. =20 With regard to walking, because this proposal is not in the = immediate=20 downtown area, the Court has insufficient evidence of how far the = essential=20 neighborhood services are and how far people are likely to walk to = access=20 them.  Without such = evidence of the=20 projected use of these alternative transportation modes, no additional = waiver=20 below the 27 spaces can be based on the criterion in '10.1.19(c).

 

Question=20 4 of the Statement of Questions

This=20 question asked whether the project=3Ds=20 design is appropriate under Article 6 of the Zoning Ordinance, = Aincluding=20 but not limited to whether the Project relates harmoniously to the scale = and=20 architecture of existing buildings and/or disrupts traditional = neighborhood=20 patterns.@  Appellant=3Ds=20 post-hearing filings discuss the >relates=20 harmoniously=3D=20 issue and also discuss whether the on-site vehicular and pedestrian = circulation=20 is adequate.  = Appellee-Applicant=20 argues that Appellant failed to raise this latter issue in the Statement = of=20 Questions, so that it should not be considered by the Court.  However, Question 4 allows the = Court to=20 consider on-site circulation under '6.1.10(d)=20 as it is within Article 6 and was litigated at = trial.

On-site=20 circulation

The=20 on-site circulation designed for the project reduces the Archibald = Street=20 (Burgess Electric) curb cut and driveway lane in width so that it would = be=20 clearly a one-way entrance-only driveway, connecting with and exiting = through=20 the Roosevelt Apartments parking lot through the two-way curb cut onto = Intervale=20 Avenue.   With = signage=20 requiring those vehicles to stop at the entrance to the Roosevelt = Apartments=20 parking lot from the Burgess Electric =20 driveway, and preventing vehicles from entering the Burgess = Electric=20 driveway in the wrong direction from the Roosevelt Apartments parking = lot,  such a vehicular path should = be=20 safe.  The fact that = vegetation in=20 the corner of the neighboring property blocks visibility for vehicles = passing=20 from the Burgess Electric driveway into the Roosevelt Apartments parking = lot=20 would not be unsafe if the stop bar and stop sign were properly located = just=20 past that corner.  With an = appropriate condition requiring such a stop sign and stop bar, and = >wrong=20 way=3D=20 signage at that location facing the other direction, the proposed = on-site=20 circulation would meet '6.1.10(d).

Harmonious=20 relationship

The=20 alterations to the Burgess Electric building, and the design of its = Archibald=20 Street facade, meet the criterion of '6.1.10(a).   Replacing the=20 asphalt-and-chain-link front >yard=3D=20 and blank brick facade of the building with the proposed addition and=20 landscaping will  make it = more=20 compatible with the Archibald Street streetscape, as most of the other = buildings=20 in the area are located very close to the sidewalk.  The proposed roof cornice will = be more=20 compatible with the nearby nineteenth and early twentieth century = buildings than=20 was the false mansard shingled roof edge. =20 The jog in the front of the building, landscaped with two small = trees,=20 will be more harmonious with the mixed residential and commercial = neighborhood=20 than was the large expanse of flat blank wall.  The mural area will evoke the=20 proportions of a storefront, even without an actual glass storefront=20 window.

On=20 other hand, although it demonstrates many good design features, the bulk = of=20 the  proposed housing = building at=20 its Intervale Avenue frontage does not relate appropriately to its = context and=20 does not relate harmoniously to the scale of existing residential = buildings in=20 the vicinity along Intervale Avenue. =20 '6.1.10(a).  The placement of the building = end on to=20 Intervale Avenue, the angled shape of the building, the porches, and the = horizontal cornice features at the roofline and the top of the ground = floor=20 story, are all good design features, but they do not counteract the = effect of=20 the bulk of the Intervale Avenue end of the building.   To meet the requirements = of=20 '6.1.10(a),=20 the Intervale Avenue end of the building would have to be reduced in = height or=20 bulk at least to the depth of the first set of apartments on that end of = the=20 building, so as to present to the street a more harmonious relationship = and=20 prevent the building from looming over the neighboring buildings.  It is possible that a = two-story or=20 peaked or hip roof section or other redesign of the front segment of = that end of=20 the building could meet the standards of '6.1.10(a),=20 but it is not the role of the Court to suggest any specific redesign = parameters.=20

 

Based=20 on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that=20 Appellee-Applicants=3D=20 application is DENIED, for the reasons stated above, without prejudice = to=20 submittal of a revised application or revised designs for an affordable = housing=20 or other project on the same property as the Burgess Electric=20 building.

 

Dated=20 at Berlin, Vermont, this 7th day of July, = 2005.

 

 

 

______________________________________

Merideth=20 Wright

Environmental=20 Judge


     [1]  Documents filed by Appellant = were also=20 filed on behalf of the other interested = persons.

     [2]  The business operated in the = building is=20 Green Mountain Electric Supply; however, the building is still commonly = referred=20 to as, and retains the sign for, Burgess = Electric.

     [3]  = Appellee-Applicants=3D=20 memorandum, at footnote 5, refers to five spaces as being >offered,=3D=20 rather than ten.  Section = 10.1.13 of=20 the Zoning Ordinance allows consideration of the availability and = duration of=20 off-site parking spaces up to 400' distant, but it must be documented in = writing=20 prior to the approval.  No = such=20 documentation was in evidence; in addition, the distance of these = potential=20 spaces from the project was not provided to the=20 Court.

     [4]  The project proposal in = evidence as=20 Exhibit 5 states (on page 2) that the total square footage of the = Burgess=20 Building will be 12,787, but that narrative appears to have predated the = reduction in size of the proposed front addition to the=20 building.

     [5]  Calculated as 12,280 square = feet divided=20 by 500 square feet per required space equals 24.56 spaces, rounded up to = 25.  By comparison, if the = business=20 were calculated at 90% wholesale distribution facility and 10% wholesale = sales,=20 30 spaces would be required;  = and if=20 the business were calculated at 75% wholesale distribution facility and = 25%=20 wholesale sales, 49 spaces would be = required.

     [6]  Of these eleven spaces, four = are sized=20 for compact cars, which may be technically allowed, as eight compact = spaces are=20 allowed within the total of 32 spaces provided on site for the project = as a=20 whole, '10.1.15,=20 but in any future proceedings before the DRB, the parties should = consider=20 whether it is realistic to expect that building contractors would = routinely=20 collect supplies in a compact vehicle rather than in a full-size pickup = truck or=20 van.

     [7]  Appellee-Applicants did not = request such=20 a waiver before the DRB and did not provide evidence of any study or = count of=20 the actual parking demand for the existing Burgess Electric use.  The parking required for the = proposed=20 27-unit apartment building, absent a waiver, would total 46 spaces.  (8 for the first 4 apartments = plus 34.5=20 for the remaining 23 apartments, plus an additional 10% of those (an = additional=20 3.45 spaces) for visitor parking, for a total of 45.95, rounded to = 46).  The DRB treated the required = parking for=20 the whole project as 60 spaces, treating the parking required for the = existing=20 building as 14 spaces rather than the 25 as calculated=20 here.