 I will call it to order. Do we have any changes to the agenda? I believe not. And as is tradition, we usually approve the previous meeting's minutes, which I did review earlier today. I had no substantive changes, but you said David might have had a couple comments. Yeah, David provided one comment to item five, the public hearing, basically just some clarification in the language. It was nothing substantive, just more of a minor issue to just better represent what was said. Okay, should we wait and see what that is? I can, it basically, let's see, what it was, sorry, let me bring up the existing minutes so I can tell you that. I just heard him, I think. Oh, that was you? Oh, sorry. Let's see. There we are, minutes, sorry. So the minutes previously stated, where am I here? The minutes previously said, Mr. Corsell provided an overview of the applicant's position to staff comments regarding the standards for subdivision as outlined in section 6.2. David suggested having that read, Mr. Corsell provided clarification in regards to staff comments on the standards for subdivisions as outlined in section 6.2. Sounds reasonable. So otherwise, there were no specific comments offered. I'll entertain a motion to approve last meeting's minutes with the changes provided by Eric. I'll second that. That's a motion actually, right? You motion, oh yeah, okay. You motion, somebody else seconds. It looks like actually we lost David, so Caitlin, you're our third now. Was that a second, Caitlin? Yeah. Okay, thank you. Excellent, all in favor? That's all of us. Motion carries, so we approve the minutes. Okay, public comment, do we need to offer that? We do, yes. A couple people in the office. So we have the applicant here, so the public comment is a time for folks to provide comments on items not on the agenda. So if you're here for an item that's not on the agenda, you can make comments now. Otherwise, you will have an opportunity to provide any comments during the agenda item. And it looks like David is actually on his way here. So he will be showing up in person here before long. Perfect. I know we just started, but should we wait a couple minutes for him to show up or do you want to keep moving? I think we can, I'll leave that up to you. If you would prefer to wait, we can. I mean, he lives two minutes up the road, so he's, he just pulled that actually, I think. So if you want to wait, let me just double check that over. We're gonna pause for two minutes while he comes in. Thank you very much for your patience. We'll wait in two minutes. As he's walking in the door right now. Hey, welcome. Oh, apologies. Made it just in time. We are about to begin the sketch plan review for 262 North Street, the minor subdivision. We have someone on behalf of the applicant here to present their ideas. Yeah, so I'll do a quick overview here. Tonight we have Gail Henderson King from Leighton Burke who is representing the property owner and applicant. She'll provide a more detailed overview here about what's going on, but just to set the stage here, this is a sketch plan review tonight for a proposed two lot subdivision. All subdivisions in the city first come before the DRB as a sketch plan. This is not a formal hearing, but after this meeting we will provide comments back to the applicant in advance of their formal submission for a preliminary plan. One of the items we'll be discussing tonight is whether or not that submission comes forward as a preliminary final as a combined plan or comes back as a preliminary and then later as a final plan. The applicant also has included a request for a waiver which we can provide comment on as well and what information we might have regarding the waiver that's being proposed. So the comments that are sent from the Development Review Board are non-binding their advisory. And then like I said, a formal submission will come in as a preliminary plan. That will be a public hearing again with notification to the adjacent property owners this time by formal certified mail. This last mailing was just regular mail because again, it's not a formal hearing. So just to give you a little table setting about what is happening tonight. And with that, I will- Eric, would the waiver get voted on with the actual submission? Correct, that's correct. Yes, the waiver would go with the submission. The intent of the discussion for the sketch plan purposes is whether or not there would be support with the waiver as it's presented or any modifications that might be made so that we can provide feedback to the applicant on whether or not that may be supported going forward because it may impact the overall design of the design layout of the subdivision and they may need to make changes in that regard. Elsie reminded me that we should swear everyone in. Actually for this, we don't have to because it's not a hearing. So we don't need to swear folks in tonight. Again, we don't need to do the formality of those items. Okay. Not a public hearing. She looks trustworthy anyway. So with that, I will, unless there's, sorry, if there's any questions about what's happening tonight, what your role is. No, please introduce yourself and take it away. Sure. I'm Gail Henderson King with Whitenberg and I'm representing my clients Brookhouse Properties, the Antonoses regarding property at 242 North Street. We're proposing a two lot subdivision and just some quick background. This had been proposed as subdivision, two lot subdivision four or five years ago, oh, 2016 I believe. And it started the process and maybe some of you were on the board that don't remember it, but there was some conflicting boundary lines and barns that existed kind of on two properties. So that got cleaned up so that everything is now on just this proposed lot that actually the abutting property owner took down the other structure. So, or somebody took down the other structure. So anyway, it's now clean, simple in terms of the existing property. And as I mentioned, we're proposing a two lot subdivision. There's an existing multifamily residence that's on the property that's grandfathered in under the zoning due to its being there for a number of years. So we're proposing a second lot. Both lots will meet the proposed minimum district, minimum zoning district requirements. This is in the RA zoning district. So it meets those requirements for each lot. We've shown the proposed of building envelope. And again, a substantial residence can be constructed there at this time or not proposing any residence on the property. We're just proposing with subdivision. So at that point when a residence is proposed then everything regarding stormwater and connections to the water wastewater system and the driveway access would all be taken care of at that time since we don't have anything to show we're not proposing anything. We're just proposing the subdivision. We are requesting because this is just a pretty straightforward two lot subdivision we would like to request coming in for a preliminary final combined hearing rather than a preliminary and a final hearing separate. We feel that that would be acceptable. And then under modifications and waivers there's the existing parking lot which originally was on both the abutting property and this property is now it goes to the property line. It has an existing fence that surrounds the property. We'd like a waiver to be able to leave that parking lot there as well as there's an existing porch that's on the south side of the property that actually is in the setback the proposed setback that we would like a waiver that that entrance is not used for the tenants in the building at this time. Eric, would you mind sharing your screen? Not at all. Yeah, I was just about to do that. So first I am going to share just to do a little kind of orientation. First, I want to share. So this is the property in question here. This is 262 North Street adjacent to Landry Park, Myers Memorial Pool, the Tiger Industrial Park up here as well. So it's not super far up North Street, but it's far enough it's into where it transitions to the residential A zoning district. And here is the existing conditions with the proposed lot boundary. And here is the proposed subdivision with building envelope shown. So the area in question for the waiver is, is this porch, oh geez, this porch here on the existing property in this 15 foot setback. The other area for the parking is along this northern boundary. I don't know if that actually requires a waiver because it's still, it's, I believe it's five feet from the property boundary, is that correct Gail? Roughly, yes. Yeah. So our regulations allow for driveways to be in the setback up to five feet to the property boundary. And we do allow parking in the driveways. So I don't think this actually needs a waiver because it's within five feet and it's consistent with how we treat other, other residences. It is that we allow for driveways and we allow for parking. And we have in the past, I believe allowed for parking in areas like this. In addition, I believe the size of the waiver that's being requested for this would not, it would actually have to go through a variance process and wouldn't, most likely wouldn't meet the five standards for a variance because the most relief you're allowed to grant to a setback is 50%. But I don't think this needs a waiver. That's something I am still looking into. But again, based on past precedent, I don't believe we need a waiver for that, for this setback. But the porch here, because it's a structure, would need a waiver. It's a five foot waiver. So it would still have a 10 foot setback on that property, which would be something that you all could grant. So. Can you talk about the reason the lines are laid out this way? Is the two new lots just barely meet the area requirements? What's the reason not to move that line down five feet to the south and then not need a waiver for the porch? It just starts to make that front part of the lot narrow. And that's kind of the largest of the proposed lot. That's kind of the largest part of the lot. And that most likely would be where the residents would potentially go. So that's just, we'd like to be able to leave it like that. And again, because it's not being used by the tenants for access, we thought that it wasn't a, you know, it's not, we thought it would be a reasonable request. So yeah, David, to your question, the minimum lot size for this zoning district is 10,000 square feet. The existing property is almost an acre. It's just over 38,000 square feet. So this would result in the current lot A or the remainder of the lot A would be about 19,500 square feet and lot B, the new lot would be just over 18 and a half thousand square feet. That's what I remembered from the submission is that they weren't, they were substantially over the minimum that was required. So it's more an issue of the desirability of the lot for sale is what it sounds like and for development. Would you say that moving that down would be a deal killer for this division? Like if we asked you to do that, does that make it a no go? I don't think it's a deal killer. I just think it just gets, again, just gets a tight on the post lot. And unfortunately we can't pick up and move the existing residents. If we could, that would make it a lot easier. But we can look at that and see if we can make that adjustment. Because it might not really even, go ahead, it might not. Well, I guess it's gonna limit the building on below for a little bit. Because the driveway could probably stay, what did we just say, Eric? It's five feet. Yeah, five feet from a adjacent property boundary unless it's a multi, unless it's serving multiple dwellings and then it can actually be, it can cross the property boundary. No, I was gonna see Kay Lynn, any questions from online? Where's the fence that you talked about? There's an existing fence along the northern property line of the existing residents. I believe it's right on the property line or pretty close, both on the north side and on the west side. There's also a fence on the back of the property. Not sure if it shows up on this. Yeah, it is listed on this, a wooden fence. I think it's on the existing conditions, yes. Yep, here, mentions a wooden fence. Remind me what the, where the dispute was in the past or the thing that was in question. The property to that, the property along the northern property line, there were actually two lots there. So the lot that was on the north, west side had a part of the existing garage and that garage had been there for years, I guess. So there was some land on the west side of the lot that was the boundary line adjustment adjusted there in exchange for dealing with the barn and getting the garage gap taking that down. Yeah. Any other questions from the board? So when you said that the original building was grandfathered in, it doesn't seem like there's any violations. You just mean that it was existing. It's just existing and in the zoning district, you're only allowed to residential units on a lot and this is a, I believe there's five units in this building, so that's pre-existing. Five apartments in there. Yes, that's correct. So if we make a new lot with that on it, does that require some sort of variance or waiver? It does not because it's a pre-existing non-conforming use. So the use can remain as long as the lot itself is, in this case, the lot is what would need to meet the minimum standards and come into conformance with our current regulations. Now, if they were proposing changes to the building as well, then we would need to look at whether or not it would meet any thresholds to come into conformance. We do allow for pre-existing non-conformities to exist and to make changes and alterations within some certain parameters so that they can continue. To our request waivers. They can, they can do that as well. Even if it's non-conforming. I believe so, yes, because again, because they're not proposing any changes to the structure itself, just creating a new lot in order to make the structure conforming to the minimum dimensional standards. So hypothetically, I don't know if this is something of interest, but to tear down that porch that is over the encroachment, which would put this into compliance with that then put that structure. I don't believe so because the degree of non-conformity is not being, you know, is not increasing. Okay. Do you know? Oops, sorry. Do you know where are the entrances to the five apartments? Is it all on the driveway side? Or is that porch actually an entrance to one of the? I don't believe that porch is used as an entrance. The entrance on the west side of the house is used. The porch area on the north side, as well as there's an entrance that got put on the northeast side. I believe that that was the entrances. I don't know the configuration inside of how they work, but those are the entrances that are used. There's various doors, yeah. Yes. Okay. It's possible that may also be required as a means of egress because it is a five unit building. So there may need to be something there anyway, even if they were to remove the porch, they might still need to have some stairs or something. Yeah. I have no further questions. Thank you. Thank you. I really appreciate you holding the meeting tonight. I realize that we're the only ones here. Thank you. That's all right. In terms of the requests for the waivers and the request for this going to preliminary final as one hearing, is that something that you will decide tonight or is that something that we hear from who's got comments? Yes. So there it is. We'll know how to proceed. We'll deliberate on and then Eric will write up a decision. Okay. Yeah, I believe that the requirement is that within 15 days of the sketch plan meeting, a letter needs to be sent to the applicant. Super. And not being familiar with your process. Do you deliberate tonight or do you deliberate at another meeting? We'll probably deliberate tonight. Generally, well, if it's not too complicated and we're not too tired. Okay. Super, thank you. I see we also have a member of the public. Do you wish to speak? I'm sorry, I couldn't hear a lot. I'm one of the waivers. You're just hearing all the plans. Okay. Do you have any comments or concerns you wanna share with us? This is Ms. Carol Chapman. She's the neighbor to the direct west. This is her property here behind the proposal. Okay. Excellent. Well, thank you very much for both of you coming. Now, our next order of business will be the election of officers. So if we want, we can postpone this item to the next meeting until we have more members here. I would like to. That's, I think that would be appropriate. You wanna be king for life? No, I do not. Because technically right now, the three of you are the only ones that could be, well, I guess you could nominate somebody who's not here but Caitlin is not eligible to be an officer since she's an alternate. But I would recommend that since there's only three of you here tonight that we postpone the election of officers to a future meeting. I think that's an excellent idea. I think that's a good idea. Any city updates? I don't have anything specific unless there's anything you all want to learn about or know about or have questions about. No, I don't think so. Okay. Okay. Do we need a motion to close the meeting? Um, we should. I think we should have a motion to close. We'll entertain a motion to close the meeting. So, a motion. A second. All in favor? Aye. The meeting is adjourned. Great, thank you all.