 open the meeting. It's 631. Welcome everybody calling the meeting to order. Welcome to the March 18th, 2021 meeting of the Winooski DRB, just confirming with town meeting TV. We're recording looks like we are awesome. If I'm screwing anything up, just let me know. First I know the agenda. Sorry, Kevin Elsey, I believe just joined in. So I'm going to Oh, perfect. I'm going to bring her over quick. Right on time. I'll see how are you? Good. How are you? Good. You're right on time. We are just opening the meeting and we're at agenda item number two, which is changes to the agenda. Anybody got any changes to the agenda? Sounds like a no. So item number three is public comments. I should say welcome to the folks that are attending. We are the Winooski DRB. You can see all of our names. We've done this introduction thing a bunch of times. So I'm just going to say whether Winooski DRB, our names are in the corners of our little boxes here. And now is the time in our agenda that we take public comments. So this is a requirement under Vermont statute for all publicly convened meetings to accept public comment. The opportunity to comment on items on our substantive agenda will come later when we call those items, but this is more about general things you'd like us to know as the Winooski DRB. So if anyone has a public comment, please let us know by raising your hand or indicating that you'd like to speak in the chat. Otherwise, like every other meeting, we're going to assume there is no public comments and move on to agenda item number four, which is to approve the prior... Sorry, Kevin, we do have a public comment. We do have a public comment. Wow. First time. So Sam Russo, Sam, you can unmute yourself and speak. Thanks, Eric. I'm not sure if this is the right commission to ask about, but I live on Manso Street and I'm just wondering if the Development Review Board has any say in developing a sidewalk on Manso Street. Sorry to bring it up again, Eric. No problem. So that's not, I don't believe that is anything within our authority to do. We generally operate within the confines of the Planning and Zoning Laws that the Planning Commission sets forth. And there's a fairly limited number of things that can come before us. And our job is to say yes or no to the applications in front of us. I would refer you to Eric or other city staff in terms of the right folks to ask about that question. I don't know if it's planning or city works or what, but I would encourage you to connect with Eric offline about that. Any other thoughts on that? All right, we're right on there. I'll say it again. I said, I think you're right on with that comment. Yes. Yeah, sorry. Sorry we can't help. We're a body of limited jurisdiction. We're moving on to agenda item number four, which is to approve the previous meeting minutes. They're posted on the agenda center. Soon folks have reviewed them. Any discussion or a motion to approve them? A motion will approve the previous minutes. All right. I saw a hand raised at mad seconds. It's been made, motion has been made and seconded. All in favor? Raise your hand. Sounds like it carries unanimously. Okay. Prior meeting minutes are approved. And we are on to agenda item number five, which is the sketch plan review for 32 Malletts Bay Avenue minor subdivision. So typically what we do is we invite the applicants to present their application to us. After that, anyone who is in attendance who has comments or questions on this particular project can raise your hand indicating the chat, you know, whatever you want to do to let Eric know that you'd like to speak on this project. And then we'll hear what you have to say. And then we'll, this is just a sketch plan review. So there's nothing for us to decide today. But we try to give feedback to the applicant in consideration of the of the good ideas that that we hear from folks. Sorry, I'm just making sure I have everybody that's LC, do you want to talk about how you're not participating or do you want me to do that? No, that's fine. Yeah, I will not be participating in this due to my employer representing Champlain housing trust in this matter. So I don't know if you want to bump me down to the audience. But I will not be participating in this conversation. Which would you prefer? I don't mind being bumped to the audience if that's easier. I think that would be preferable for Yep, I will move you back to attendee here. I'll see. Thank you. And David, did you have something as well? I did just want to say I know as Andy Roe is here and I have worked with him in a professional capacity previously at a previous architecture firm. I don't believe we have any work with his firm right now. I'm not involved in any certainly. So I don't I don't feel that it's a conflict. But let me know if you do. All right, I think we're ready to hear the applicant's presentation. So I guess what I just before we start, I'd like to just do a quick table setting here. So this is an application for a sketch plan of a subdivision and actually both applications on our agenda tonight are for sketch plan review. So these are not formal public hearings that we've we've warned as such there. These these meetings tonight are for the DRB to review the proposals and provide provide comments to the applicants. Their comments are non binding, but they are intended to provide some guidance to the applicants as they as they submit their preliminary plan and then a final plan or a combined preliminary final plan. So one of the one of the questions you'll be asked is whether or not you want to see the next submission for the actual formal hearing come in as a combined preliminary final or just a preliminary and then a separate meeting for a final plan. But these are both on for sketch plan review. There was a memo included with the agenda that applies to both that just kind of outlines the the standards of what a sketch plan the sketch plan review process is and what that information entails. And then also there was specific information included pertaining to each application. So for this particular one, we're looking at just a two lot subdivision which qualifies as a minor subdivision in the city's regulations. So we have tonight Andy Rowe, Rob Lux, Chris Snyder and Heather Carrington with the city of Winooski to talk about this project. And with that, I will stop and I have my screen to share for any documents that you all want to have brought up. Great. Well, I guess I'll start I'm Chris Snyder with Snyder Homes and we are working on behalf of Champlain Housing Trust and designing and constructing a 20 townhome or condominium and townhome project on 32 Mallets Bay Avenue. In this property is currently owned by the city which is why Heather is here participating as well. And so we are within the form based code district. And as part of that district, we do need to subdivide off the lot for the for the future project. And just to give you a little overview, it's a 20, as I said, townhomes or condo flats that will be sold through Champlain Housing Trust affordable housing share program in Rob, if could speak to that more further if there's questions. But, you know, as Eric said, this is a, you know, subdivision application. We have reviewed the staff notes and have really only a couple of questions and couple of thoughts as we move along. You know, one of them is that we would like to request that the DRB allow us to go to a preliminary and a final after this hearing. And then the other request is that there is language that requires us to have a shared parking agreement in in preparation for that final application. We assume we understand that CHT and the city have already begun discussions on those. And because it's a city application or city participation, we assume that that could be worked out in presented or organized in time for the final approval or the DRB review of that. Time is it's an interesting project and the funds are available through program that Champlain Housing Trust has been working on. And it's a sort of times of the essence on this project. And so that's why those couple of requests are being made tonight. And maybe Eric, if you want to pull up the site plan, just to show kind of what we're the location that we're proposing to subdivide off the lot. So what we're proposing to do is to subdivide off lot number two. And on the northern side of lot two, there is currently a street access access, the street access would be shifted slightly north. And then there would also be a access on the southern portion of the property if needed and wanted by the city for the future development of City Hall Public Library in the southeastern corner of the lot. Essentially, this parcel is all parking lot. And we're proposing to maintain a good portion of the parking lot. But lot number two would be the area that we construct the 20 homes in. And the reason for the shared parking agreement is based upon the requirement that we have what we have 20 parking spaces within lot two. And then there would be 12 parking spaces outside in the shared parking agreement with the city. And that's really a pretty simple description of what we're proposing to do in terms of the subdivision. And I don't know Eric, I haven't presented to you folks before, but certainly available. Myselfs available to answer any questions. Andy Rowe, who is the civil engineer who has worked on this property as well. And so we can certainly answer any questions that you might have about the subdivision. So just to I guess, if I could just jump in quick, just a little table setting the question before the DRB is about the subdivision itself, the land development portion will go through a zoning process. And because it's in the Gateway Zoning District, that is an administrative process. The DRB doesn't have a role in that in that review, unless there's a request for relief of any kind on that project. So as Chris mentioned with the parking, that's not a component of the subdivision that would come in under the land development piece. So really what you're looking at tonight is whether or not the subdivision meets the standards that have been outlined in the regulations for a little bit of background as well. Because this is in the Gateway Zoning District, there's there's basically no setbacks. There's there's really no lot size minimums. So a lot of the standard things that we would look at as far as building envelopes and things of that nature won't apply because of the zoning that the is that the property is currently in. Access will be maintained on the for the based off of the existing curb cuts that exist with some modifications, but generally the same locations, the the lot one is shown on the plan would remain as as in the ownership of the city and would remain as the O'Brien Community Center. There's no intention to make any changes to that property. So it's really just subdividing off this about half acre piece to be to be sold to CHT for the future development. And I guess I should also mention, I did set up a I don't know if we need to do it, but for both projects, I did send out a different link if we wanted to do any deliberations on either of these to to formalize questions, we can do that as well after the after the meeting. So just to clarify questions about parking and and overflow and, you know, cutting cutting a lot down, that would all be taken care of long after this process. Is that what that's correct? That'll that'll all happen with the with the zoning approval and the actual development process. That's correct. Okay, okay. Great example of our limited jurisdiction. So anyone on the DOB have questions about the subdivision application in front of us with those caveats that Eric just mentioned? I have a question about the access. I see on the plan what I think is the six foot wide pedestrian easement indicated, but the the other proposed access I don't see or easement I don't see indicated on there. Is it just an easement to the whole rest of the parking lot for access to this property? I see I see that line, but I don't see anything that arrow, but I don't see anything indicating what the easement actually is the boundaries of it. So I can answer that question. David Andy Rowe with Lamarrow and Dickinson. Hi, Andy. There's an access and pedestrian easement proposed to lot two at the north between the north limit of lot two in the north boundary line of the of the parent parcel. And that can be defined by the 38 foot width or excuse me 38 and a half foot width. There's also a note within the footprint of the existing community center building. And I'm sure the city and CHT may attorneys may have some improvement to this language. But what we've proposed there is while there would be a pedestrian in access easement through that 38 foot strip to the north of lot two, there would also be an easement in an undefined location at this point that would enable lot two to have access through the parking lot in order to access back of their property in and for their surface parking garage parking, which will be under the structure. Because the city might redevelop this parking lot in the future with City Hall, we were trying to be flexible in the language so that adequate access could be granted for the benefit of lot two at this time, but that the city wouldn't have to come back to CHT. Actually, the future owners of the of these units in the in the future should the city reconfigure this parking lot in order to modify that easement. So we were trying to keep it flexible to avoid potential reconfiguring that easement in the future and trying to give the city maximum flexibility in what they may choose to do with the remainder of this property down the road. They won't have to be more more precisely defined to get an easement. You know, we've seen easements defined, you know, very liberally, but again, the city and the CHT attorneys are working on developing the legal documents now. And it will really be up to them. You know, we've seen broadly worded easements and that's been acceptable in some cases. It'll really come down to what the city is comfortable with conveying for the purposes of access for lot two. I can speak to the city end of this. I'm Heather Carrington. I'm the community and economic development officer for the city. I'm the project manager on the city end for this. So we do have city councils permission to be working independently with CHT, our attorney and CHT's attorneys to come up with a variety of different agreements. The easement is one of those. So I think that there will be more to come on this, but there will be an agreement in place that's agreed upon on both sides for this. And you anticipate that being submitted simultaneously with what would be a combined preliminary and final sketch. I think that might be some direction that we're looking at. I don't know. Is that necessary with the plan or is that through the permitting process, the actual zoning permit? So there are legal documents that are required with the subdivision plan. So I think to the extent that we could get some sort of legal documentation with the submission of the preliminary or preliminary final, I think it would be appropriate going forward. So that could all be recorded at the same time. If it needs to be modified during the land development process, at least we have the framework there that we can then look to based on the final designs of the project and how it actually orients on the lot. Other questions from DRV members? I guess I have another question. Maybe this will be a zoning question in the end, but where is the property line? Is the sidewalk outside of the property? Like what was that line we're looking at there where it says edge of pavement? Is that on the parking lot or is that the sidewalk? So the edge of pavement is the edge of the pavement on the O'Brien Center, Community Center property. That's actually at a lower elevation than the sidewalk. The sidewalk along Malts Bay is within the street right of way. And there's actually retaining wall there that's right on the property line with about it varies and the retaining wall doesn't extend all the way along the frontage of the property. Obviously you've got the driveways at both ends, but towards the southern portion of the property as you approach the railroad right of way, the retaining wall doesn't extend all the way down to where the bus stop is. So there's a retaining wall there again. There's about a three and a half or four foot grade difference between the sidewalk. It's entirely within the Malts Bay Avenue right of way in the edge of pavement for the parking lot that's on the city property. And can you can you talk briefly about the I saw somewhere in the application that there's some reduction in an increase in impervious surface? Is that those islands in the parking lot that are disappearing with this? Yes, there is a very minor increase in impervious surface. It'll be under the 5,000 square foot threshold that would trigger the need for a state stormwater permit. Those two islands and with the building being placed right up on Malts Bay Avenue in order to meet the form-based code requirements, the strip, the grass strip between the edge of the pavement and the edge of the sidewalk within Malts Bay right of way will be eliminated as well. We are recreating some green space. There's a little bit of green space between the driveway and the sidewalk that will be relocated at the north end of the property. There's a couple of green spaces adjacent to the new surface parking that will be associated with this. And then there's also a private open area requirement that will be placed at the southerly end of the property. So another thing to keep in mind is the 5,000 square foot threshold for impervious surface isn't a net increase. It's simply a 5,000 square feet of expansion and we're well under that. But we are creating some new non-impervious surfaces in place of where there are existing impervious surfaces today. Are there questions from folks on the DRB? My only question is, Eric, what does the DRB, what will we be looking at in the once this plan is submitted? I'm just curious if having it be the planned and final proposal all in one, if that's a lot to look at, if maybe we'll need two separate meetings or not. Yeah, that's a good question. So generally speaking with a subdivision, what you're seeing here is pretty much what the next submission is going to look like as well. This is a fairly, because it's in the Gateway Zoning District, again, there's not a lot of the standards that we would normally see with a subdivision proposal included with this. Oftentimes with a subdivision or a larger subdivision, you'd have roads and you'd have building footprints identified and stormwater and things of that nature and buildable areas and all the setbacks. And because this is a single lot on an existing property where all the infrastructure already exists, the final plan probably won't look much different than what you're seeing now, unless there's specific details that you want to see added. There may be some additions to the notes or some changes to the notes, based on some of the legal requirements and the easements, but generally speaking, what you're seeing is what would be fairly close to the final plan in this case. So just speaking for myself, it's the decision of the board, but generally the more complicated something is and the more things are likely to be in flux and change or sometimes the idea is really unformed in the very first stage. That's when we like to hold both hearings. I'd say most of the time we just hold a combined because things come in pretty well formed. There aren't that many moving parts and we feel like we only need one more. That might be just my slice of experience, but that's how it's gone since I've joined the board. I do say we have a hand up in our audience from our second applicant app actually. So I don't know what that's about, but I think we're about to switch from presentation of the applicant maybe to, oh, two hands up. So why don't we, I don't want to take away time from DRB members asking questions, but next up we would typically have all of the attendees, excuse me, the applicants virtually sit down and then call up folks who might have their hands up and want to offer comment. I guess I would like to ask just one question. I understand Eric in this scenario, it would be great to be able to have the any agreements, legal agreements between the land developer in the city. I guess my question is, does it, I'm concerned that those might take some time and because it's between the developer or the potential buyer in the city, is there any path where we would be able to submit what you're seeing today basically without having those agreements? Is there any language within any sort of approval process that can allow us to proceed knowing that those are required either under the zoning permit application or in Heather, I don't know if there's what your thoughts are on timing. We haven't talked about it, but just wanted to ask that question. And just to be clear, Chris, you're looking just for having, you're not looking to get the plat recorded prior to submitting legal documents, but just get the application in, provide those legal documents prior to recording the plat if that's what the board is comfortable with. That's correct. Thank you, Andy. I think Heather, were you going to say something there? No. Okay. I think for the purposes of this project, because lot two does not have access other than through lot one, I think at least having some form of a draft legal agreement in place that's been reviewed would be appropriate just to at least make sure that the discussions are happening so that we're not reviewing a proposal that potentially has no access to it. So I think that would be the, in my opinion, I think that would be the critical piece here is that there's at least a draft legal agreement that could be recorded at a future date. But I think, I don't think we need to see the final signed documents, but at least have something on its way forward. And I just want to add that we are already in progress in some of these draft agreements. So they are being thrown back and forth between our attorneys. So I don't see that as being any kind of a problem. And I don't see these as being particularly complex agreements either. So just speaking for myself, we do often kind of approve the idea of something and then leave the formalities of it to Eric's approval, submit documents sufficient to satisfy the condition that X, like people will be able to access this property, for example. So coming in with a draft or a concept is probably fine. Again, just speaking for myself, but that's a thing that we've done in the past. Anything else from DRB members? All right. Seeing none, I think what I think we should do now is have all of the folks presenting for the applicant go back to attendee status. And then anyone who wishes to offer comment, ask questions, talk about this application and we'll bring you up to presenter status. To presenter status and you can let us know what's on your mind. Can I ask a quick question to Eric between that? Go for it. Can you explain why the parking isn't part of this? It seems like if we approve this subdivision, at what point will the reduction in the parking for the city's facility be considered? Because this subdivision seems like it's taking away half of the parking in this lot. So what this is doing is basically just creating a new lot. It's not changing any of the use of the property right now. It's just creating the new boundaries of that property. So for all intents and purposes, with the creation of this lot, it doesn't change the parking that's there. It's the next step of the land development that will actually take that into account. So what you're looking at is whether or not the lot meets the standards of subdivision to actually be created. And then during the land development process is where we would evaluate the parking needs for the existing O'Brien Community Center, what the parking needs for this project would be, and then how those needs would be met. So parking isn't one of the questions asked with the subdivision process just because it's not, the subdivision doesn't presume any type of development. So there's no standard for parking to go along with subdivision. Okay, thanks for that clarification. All right, I think we're ready to do some musical Zoom chairs. I think that's everybody. So typically what we do here is just allow the folks that want to speak to speak without actually bringing them in. Okay, well, whatever you do to turn the microphones on or whatever, that works. Okay, so Sam, you are able to speak if you want to unmute yourself. Great, thank you. And just a shout out to you guys because I appreciate how much work goes into being on the developmental review board. And I appreciate just the access to the city as well through this type of venue. So just for background for the developers, I'm a citizen of Winooski, but I also work in the O'Brien Center. And so some of my other colleagues have some questions about this. I'm not necessarily representing any particular business that's in the O'Brien Community Center. One question seemed to be answered is that the sidewalk that's on Mallets Bay Avenue is going to be maintained and just a comment to make sure that the bus stop is not removed or if it is moved just very partly so because patients for more than both the dental clinic, the physical therapy clinic, the medical clinic rely on that bus stop for access. And if there's a building that's going to be where the bus stop is, if there could be more direct access instead of having to go around the building to get to the O'Brien Center, it would be very appreciated. Another question just around the impervious surface description, I'm looking at a different drawing that the tenants of the O'Brien Center got and it has a new parking lot on the north side. And I'm just wondering that that's still going to be less than 5,000 square feet. And also there is a greenhouse there and some community gardens. So those are going to be removed. And I'm just wondering if that kind of space is going to be relocated somewhere. This area of Winooski does not have a lot of open space. Behind the building there is a basketball court. There is a lawn area that's about a quarter acre maybe and then a community garden. And then on the north side of the building there is a greenhouse and a few other garden plots. So I'm just curious if that's taken away and replaced with a parking lot, is that space going to be relocated somewhere else in the city that's nearby? And it doesn't sound like there's any changes behind the building at least according to these plans. And one other comment just is around parking and it sounds like that's not really the pure view of the Development Overview Board but I hear descriptions of a shared parking. So I'm wondering where that is going to be or is it a shared parking agreement between lot one and lot two? Well, great. All great questions. I think it's fair to ask anyone from the folks who are presenting for the applicant if you've got answers to Sam's questions and maybe Sam, we can keep your microphone on. Eric, I'll let you, we've got some hands raising. I think anybody who can answer those questions would love to hear the answers. Yeah, I can provide some information as well but I'm going to, Rob, you can go ahead and speak. If you can unmute yourself. Hey, so my name is Robert Lutz. I work at the Champlain Housing Trust and yes, we had a meeting with some of the tenants at the O'Brien Center last week. So a couple of thoughts. One, there is absolutely no plans to move the bus station. We have no say in it but the bus station being located where it is is a big plus for our, we hope a lot of the people that move in will be using that bus station. So we'd hate to see it move also. What we presented that Sam mentioned is this is the actual site plan that we proposed, the subdivision. I had shared with the tenants a proposed, what a proposed site plan might look like if the city does develop the parcel to the, was that the Southeast into a new city hall. What the parcel might look like in years past. It's not a firm proposal by any means. And so Sam, some of those, the things that you had mentioned are not on the table at all. It was just a sketch of what might happen if the city wants to do further development of its parcel. As you said, no changes proposed for the back of the building. We don't own that. This application proposes no changes to the back of the O'Brien Center. And we are negotiating amongst, in addition to an easement, we are negotiating with the city on shared parking. But our plan is, is that the entire parking lot would be open. We would have designated, but we would have a certain number of ability for our owners to park in the lot, but it wouldn't be designated spaces. And so I hope those, but I think I tried to jot down all of your questions. I think that was it, but please let me know if I missed anything. Yeah, I think that's mostly it. And I guess I can ask Eric, through email a little bit more about the shared parking and how that's arranged. And I'm also curious, is there any plans in the future? There's more of a question to the city to build any type of building to the south end of this new building? No, okay. And Heather, Heather wanted to answer that. So, okay. Hi, Sam, I'm Heather Carrington. I'm the community and economic development officer. And as I said before, I'm kind of representing the city throughout this process with CHT. So you were asking about the south end of the property. So the southeast end, is that where we're from? Yeah, so I guess it would be southeast. Yeah, what we had been discussing, and this was a conversation that was primarily happening back in 2016, I believe, was we had talked about the possibility of relocating city hall to that corner of the parcel and really putting the library front and center, facing onto mallets may have. That conversation has really, because we have so many big capital projects going on at the city right now, that has really taken a back burner seat. So we have never really moved that forward. And I don't know that at this point in time, I would think that would be at least five years out if we do in fact decide to move forward with that. So in the immediate term, no, we have no intention of doing that. And in the longer term, if we went forward with that, I think we absolutely would want to keep the bus stop in place, certainly. I think it's a pretty important bus stop in our system. And then that is when we would, it would be as part of that project that we would realign the parking along the entire property. Great, and I just have one other comment and thank you for that, Heather. You're welcome. I believe that there was an old dry cleaner in the O'Brien Community Center at one point in time. And I'm just curious if there's going to be any basement development in lot two. And if so, would that require any soil testing? We've had soil testing. The soils come back clean. And the only thing in the first level, the parking lot level, is going to be foundations and parking underneath. So no basements down there. But as I said, the soils are clean. Great, thank you all very much for taking the time to answer my questions. And I'm very excited that CHT is going to be developing a project in Winooski. Yeah, sorry. Any questions from the board following up on Sam's questions and comments? Seeing none. Anyone else in our audience, feel free to raise your hand, use the chat function. Let us know if you'd like to... Zach, great. Zach Z. Eric, do you want to do the magical thing that you do? Yep, Zach, you're clear to talk. You just go and mute yourself and speak. Yep, so you just got to hit your old timing microphone button to unmute yourself and then we'll be able to hear you, hopefully, in theory. How's that? Yep, there you go. It wasn't clear to me the answer to Sam's question about the community gardens. And what's happening with those as a result of this project? So... We're going to have to promote some more people. Well, I was just going to say, there's no plan to do anything with the greenhouse. That was, I think, more of a sketch-type plan for a larger overall development of the entire parcel, but there's no plans to do anything with the greenhouses in this proposal or in any future proposals at this time. The garden plots themselves will still remain? Yes, that's correct. That's correct. Sorry, I'm visually impaired, so I can't really see the map. So thank you for clarifying that. Awesome. Any other questions about that? I think I understand that anything having to do with the portions that are the existing community center and the areas immediately around that, this proposal would not affect those, but there is a longer-term possibility, kind of germ of an idea that the city may, keep in mind, this is the city's property, except for the part that's going to go to CHD. The city may reimagine that lot in some way to incorporate a new city hall, but it sounds like that's... If that were to happen, it would be a while from now and presumably carry with it a bunch of additional discussion at that time. I would say that's accurate. I have a question, ripping off of something that Sam said, which was access to the bus stop. I've seen the four plans that were proposed, and I noticed that there were stairs on either side of the building from the parking lot up to the street. Are those intended to be private stairs just for the use of the tenants? Yeah, this is Chris Snyder, and so there's actually three different product types planned for the project. There are four condominium flats that will be accessible by ramp from different avenue, from the southern end of the building, along Malis Bay Avenue, and those will be on the first floor, and then there are townhomes above those, and those do have stairs up to those units. And then the row homes along Malis Bay Avenue, due to the form-based code, the building actually has to be raised up, and so there are private steps or private entry points into each unit along the Malis Bay side. So there's no stairs from the parking lot side up from the lowest level up on the outside of the building? No, there will be stairs. So there's stairs and ramp. So from the parking lot, you can get up to the flats or the townhouses from the parking lot. And we've been going through some iterations, but it looks like it's going to be on both ends. There'll be stairs up, and then on one end, there'll be a ramp to allow for accessibility. So are you anticipating the public will attempt to go from the community center straight to the sidewalk through those steps? Is that a problem? Believe it's going to be a problem because there's going to be curb sidewalk in some privacy, you know, short, like we've talked about some landscaping in areas, but it would be kind of, you have to be around that way, I think to get up to the sidewalk on Malis Bay Avenue when you have a straight shot of road and access not going through the parking garage. All right, thank you. Great, thanks for that comment in the chat, Sam. Any other questions for the applicants from the board or anyone in the audience that hasn't spoken yet and wants to raise your hand? Seeing, oh, we've got a hand, right? So you should be able to unmute yourself and let us know what's on your mind. Hi, my name is Trin, and I'm one of the staff at the O'Brien Center, and I would like to ask about the parking that my employers would like me to ask. So there's 20 units of the condom media that is going to be in that building potentially. Did I hear that correctly? I think yes. That's correct. That's the proposal that has been at least discussed at this point. No formal submissions have been made yet, though. Okay, so on the parking side, it's 20 units and shared parking with five businesses in the O'Brien Center with the staff and the customer that is going to be accessing that parking lot. Can you answer some more questions? How are you going to accommodate all that staff parking and customer parking done in business hours? So it looks like we've got multiple folks who want to answer that question. I will say that technically, we're just approving the lots subdividing right now, and the parking question is going to be answered later. But I get the sense that the folks here know the answer to the question, and I think it makes sense to talk about it. So I would say just go for it. So this is Chris Snyder. So the 20 homes that we will be constructing, there will be 20 parking spaces in lot two. So each home will have one parking space or garage. And then the only piece that is in terms of shared parking will be 12 parking spaces that the city and CHT will be creating an agreement for. So we will be handling the majority of the parking within lot two for the particular owners of the homes. I don't know if I can answer the question about us. Sounds like Heather's got an answer as well. Yeah, Trin. This is Heather Carrington. You and I have been emailing back and forth about. Yes, my head there. Yes, that's correct. That's me. Hello. Yeah. So the 12 parking spaces, as we talked about at the meeting that we had with tenants, that shared use agreement can be accommodated a bunch of different ways. So there are options for that doesn't necessarily have to be on this site. There are a variety of different ways that those can be met. So I believe it's up to 10 of those spaces could be met within 1,400 linear feet of this site. So we still haven't had that complete conversation with CHT and we are working together on that. But when it comes down to it, we are absolutely committed to making sure that there's enough space for the O'Brien Community Center tenants because they're our tenants. And if we don't have enough space for the O'Brien Community Center uses, then we don't have leasable space. So as I said in my email today, I will send you the numbers that we had gone over previous to COVID so that you can see what the contracts require on that site. But do know that there are multiple options for the way that we can go about doing this and keep in mind that City Hall itself in its current location is within that linear footage and there are a bunch of spaces that we're not using overnight there. So we have options and we certainly will keep you in the loop and we will continue to have discussions with the O'Brien Community Center. And we'll do that moving forward as we go into construction as well. So I'll be working on setting that up so I'm sure that you will continue to be in the loop. Thank you, Heather. I'll wait for that. Thanks a lot. Okay. Thanks, Trin. Great. Any additional questions from you, Trin, or anything from the board following up on those questions? I'm good for now. If I have further questions, I will ask Heather to follow up on that. Yeah. Thank you. Perfect. Well, thank you so much. Anyone else from the board or anyone in the audience who hasn't yet spoken, who wants to make comment or ask questions? All right. Now I'm seeing no hands. Anything else from the board? A lot of shaking heads. So I believe from here, Eric, do we do this in writing? What do we do? So yeah, what we would do is prepare comments advisory comments to the applicant in writing. I believe the regulations require that within 15 days of this meeting, they receive those comments. So we can talk about those now, or as I mentioned earlier, we have a deliberative session that we can do to discuss the comments after the meeting on both projects so that we can talk about everything together if we want, or we can discuss those now. However, however you all see fit. So our general policy has been discussed, to discuss applications in deliberative session. And so it would make sense to me after we hear all the applications tonight to jump in the deliberative session, zoom real quick and commit to writing our thoughts and get those out quickly to both applicants to basically as guidance and advice for what the next steps should be. Everybody good with that? Excellent. So folks who are here to listen to agenda item number five, feel free to stick around. That was an excellent display of engagement from all stakeholders. It was really awesome. So thanks everybody. We are moving on to agenda item number six, which is a sketch plan review for 206 West Canal Street plan unit development. And Eric, if you want to bring up the applicant or applicants for this project. Yep, I will. And bring Elsie back. Matt and Elsie. Yes, thank you. Bring Matt, Parisi over. So just a little background on this as well. This is a sketch plan also for the for review tonight. This is for a plan unit development to be located at 206 West Canal Street. You may recall this is a project that you all reviewed last June for the construction of a detached cottage on the property. So that was approved by you. And now the applicant is coming forward to propose a plan unit development for the property. No new structures are being proposed. There is the proposed, sorry, there is the potential for the inclusion of a third bedroom in the detached cottage, which would not be otherwise permitted unless it was a plan unit development because of the standards of the attached cottages that would not be permitted. It would not increase the footprint of the building, which I believe is almost finished for construction. But so the building footprint wouldn't change, but an additional bedroom would be added. That would be the only difference here from what you saw in June. As I understand it, the primary purpose really here is for more of an ownership structure than anything else, just to kind of identify the footprint lots for the two structures, and then the remaining areas would be in common ownership. Because it's a plan unit development, there are some standards outlined in the regulations related to the overall setbacks and the boundaries. So there is a request to provide some relief through the waiver process for that. Being in the residential C zoning district, it does require that the rear setback be applied to the entire perimeter. In this case, the rear setback is 15 feet. The two existing structures would not meet that just based on their locations. So there's the request for a waiver to allow relief from the existing duplex that's on the property. And then I believe as I'm reading the regulations, we would need to grant a variance because the greatest amount of relief you all can give is up to 50% of the required minimum, which would be seven and a half feet. And in this case, the detached cottage is located within, I believe it's five feet from that property boundary. So we would need to consider a variance for that part of it. Again, this is just coming forward to you tonight as a sketch plan. Matt Preci is the applicant. He is here tonight to speak to you all as well. And Matt, I've got the documents that you provided and that are in the agenda as well to share on my screen. So happy to share whatever you would like. Yeah, good evening. Thanks for taking the time. So this is, in my mind, it's a relatively simple obviously. There's some moving variables in it, but the building was built as a detached cottage. It's almost done in fact for about seven days till the final CO meeting for that, which is exciting. But the issue that arose is as we're building it, I realized the garage portion of it is almost a thousand square feet, which is from a construction standpoint is incredibly unusable. I mean, it's usable, but it's not finished square footage. You can't have a bedroom there. It's not an office, the list goes on and on. In any case, also due to increasing construction costs, I decided to pursue the PUD route so that we could end up selling this as its own unit condo house, however you want to describe it. And by doing that, we would add about 400 square feet in the garage. We wouldn't lose the garage or the parking, but we would just take about 400 square feet of the garage, leave about 600 square feet, give or take, and add a third bedroom and a bathroom. And that's basically the only internal change of the unit building. Parking is still six spots, as it was for the detached cottage. Building one, which is like the older duplex, would be one unit. And then building two would be the new detached cottage or condo, and that would be the second unit. And there's already multiple shared legal agreements or we have a declaration of the PUD. We've already drafted all of those documents. We have the bylaws and regulations of the PUD. I have an estimated budget that would potentially have to be adjusted after my tenants live there for a little bit. So I think we're fully ready while it's considered a major subdivision under the regulations. It's relatively straightforward from a change of use aspect. I think that kind of summarizes it. Any questions? Sorry, just as well with the previous application, one of the considerations is whether the next submission come forward as a preliminary or a combined preliminary final for your consideration. Yes, and obviously I would prefer it to be a combined preliminary final considering, like I said, we have, I think all the required documents necessary for it and slash or it's really just, in my opinion, just a minor change, a way that we can actually make this a sellable unit or house for someone else. There's not many, in the RC zoning districts and a lot of these districts in Manuski, there's not an easy way to subdivide these small parcels and actually make them sellable, which is obviously less costly than a whole home in these areas too. So anyways, that's kind of my piece. So this is, I'm just asking questions out of ignorance mostly here. My only experience with PUDs has been for much bigger projects, more complicated lots. I think we had one a couple of meetings ago over on the other side of town for those kind of little town homes. Those are PUD, right Eric? Yeah, so that's the experience that I recall for those. So help me understand exactly how it works. You've got one lot, two buildings and different, two people can own those two different buildings under the guise of a PUD, kind of like a weird condo. Yeah, exactly. I think actually Eric, do you have that plat markup showing the two building footprints and kind of that idea? Maybe you can share that with everyone. They can see that. Awesome, yeah. So maybe you can actually even zoom in a little bit. Obviously to scale, this is a really narrow, really long lot as we all know it goes all the way to the river. But yeah, so you can see now as we zoom in kind of to the actual portion of the property where the buildings are, you would have building one which is the existing duplex and then building two which is the brand new building which is almost complete. So that would be how it is. I think the way to think of it is the reason why I had to go through a PUD and Eric can speak to this probably slightly better than me as well is in order to increase the square footage, the finished square footage of the second building, of the cottage, I needed to go through a PUD in order to do that, in order to use that space. So I think that would answer that. So yeah, it's essentially a condo or a detached condo or single family home that duplex in a single family home that have their building footprints and then they have a shared land agreement essentially like a condo association or homeowners association. Just out of curiosity, do you have tenants lined up for the building that is about to be complete? I do and actually I believe we'll probably go under contract assuming they actually, I told them kind of my plan when I first started going through this, three, four months ago and they, I think they were actually kind of excited to at the prospect of actually buying it. So I think we might actually go under contract with them but even if we don't, I did tell them their lease would be good for one year like we signed. I wouldn't do anything for a year and should they decide not to buy it after that year is up, we would then obviously now renew their lease and assuming approved, we would then put it on the market. Just a quick question. Do you intend after potentially selling building two, will you remain the owner of building one? Are you looking to sell that one off as well? No, I'm looking to continue ownership on building one. Okay and do you have an HOA tender if we set up? Yeah, that's what I was. Yeah, I probably, part of my opening speech there but yeah, we have an HOA, a homeowner's association already in place. I think it's called Canal Street, Common Interest Community. We also have the declarations of the PUD. There's more documents as well that might, we drafted the lawyer drafted already. Okay, thanks. Yep. So I'm trying to wrap my head around this and I may have a different interpretation than you. This isn't sort of like the inverse of the other project where they're asking to divide a lot so they can develop it. You already developed this lot and now you're asking to divide it. Yeah, so I guess it is kind of like the inverse in a way of that. You know, these projects evolve, this building which Eric will get to see and you're all welcome to stop by and see in the week when it's finished there. It's a home, it's a single family home really. It's more than a cottage in terms of the internal square footage, not the finished square footage but the internal square footage. And it's hard to imagine it when you're kind of drafting it and I've built two of these before but not nearly this big or the same kind of size as it. And I said, well, this actually looks like a better property to sell. Just to be honest, than a rental property. So that was kind of the evolution of the thought process there. I'm just not sure that the purposes of the PUD allow for financial improvement as a reason to subdivide the lot. It's seeming like you had a reasonable way to develop this lot which you did under the regular regulations and then asking us for a waiver. You're basically asking us to make a non-conforming PUD and then give a waiver to it so it can be expanded a little bit. Well, I mean, to be quite frank, we would still, yeah, I mean, there's part of that financial gain or not. It would actually increase home ownership units. Part of the declarations of the PUD would actually be able to make building one units down the road, sellable units as well. There's obviously not enough housing. The last presentation spoke to that as does as you guys can all see, the all the building going on in Chittenden County. Again, to take this one step further, it's adding a sellable unit. If I were to go sell this property as one large parcel, most first-time homebuyers aren't going to be able to buy this. Okay, it's just going to be too much money. It's going to be probably at least in this market over half a million dollars. So that's just not very attainable, whereas building number two is much more attainable. It's in the $300,000 price range if it's able to be sold. Yes, I'm asking you to make a waiver and do some changes, but I'm not changing the character of the neighborhood or the number of units or involved that would otherwise be allowed in this zoning district. I think we can all speak to the point. I try to pride myself as a local landlord in Manuski in Burlington area to have really good tenants and keep my properties clean and there never be issues, but the fact of the matter is home owners tend to take better care of their properties and neighborhood than landlords. There's no doubt about that. Right? When you're there every single day, you're more likely to pick up trash on the street or whatever. This goes on and on. So, yeah, I'm not doubting that this benefits me to some aspects, but I'm also not doubting that this benefits the city and the public as well. I know based on the building and where it is and the kind of comps it has that I underpriced it when I leased it because I was obviously trying to attain more financing for it. When it goes up for lease, again, this will be a luxury rental. This will no longer be a, if I don't get approved by the city, this will become a luxury rental. So, it will provide housing for some people, but it will not be affordable or even close to affordable. So, I mean, that's kind of just the nature of where the building is and the view and location and so on and so forth. Hope I answered your question there. You did. And I'm not, didn't mean to suggest that I was opposed to you using your property as you see fit and making a profit on it. I'm just asking if it's within our regulations to use that as a reason to do this subdivision. I have a question for Eric or you, I guess. What's the intent of the increased setback that the PUD requires? You know, why does the PUD require a greater setback than the normal zoning district? Well, I think, I don't know, Eric, you could speak to this probably better than I could correct or I mean, I can give an idea of it, but I don't. So, the way I understand it is the reason for the increase in the setback is because by the way that the plan unit development works is that you can take the total allowable density that you could otherwise put on the property and cluster it in one location. So in order to provide the most buffering for the project, it takes the greatest setback, which in our residential districts is our rear setback and applies that to the entire perimeter. So that there's, so for example, if we think about the PUD that we just discussed at LaFountain Street, that's more of kind of more of a traditional plan unit development where the rear setback there was applied to the perimeter because they were doing some additional clustering of some of those units on the property. So that's typically why we have the increased setback requirement for the perimeter. Is it Caitlin's got our hand up? Yeah, Eric, I just had a question. So say that this proposal came up as it came up as proposal for construction with the design as a single family home, so not a rental unit with a garage and an apartment. Would that change? Would that have changed its ability to have gone through this process the first time? And what would have changed about the requirements of the structure as built? So if I understand your question, so if we thinking about it back before the detached cottage came in and it was a second unit was being proposed as a PUD, in that case, the setbacks would have needed to have been met, the 15 foot perimeter setback would have needed to have been met at the time of design and construction. For that, for what's showing as building two here, building one as an existing building would be able to continue as it is as a pre-existing non-conforming structure. So it's, I'm not sure, is that what you're? Yeah, and just that the building would be able, I mean, that's something that is allowable, a PUD is allowable on that site. That's correct, yes. Yes, yes. I did do some quick checking. It seems like, I mean, the PUD does allow waivers, right? I mean, it doesn't seem like you could get a 15 foot setback on either side of this lot with this size of building on it. For more about my quick check there, is it the lots only 53 feet wide? Your building's 30 feet wide? Yes. That's correct. It's 53 and yeah, you're right. Absolutely. It would never, it would be, no, it would not make it. It's 28 feet, 28 and a half feet wide. Which is what I was going to say, it couldn't have been a smaller building and still meet those setbacks. Yeah, it could have been a smaller building when I built it. The problem was, is the issue we ran into quite like the last application is I wanted to provide enough parking given the new building. So I, there was only two parking spaces available there when I, before I started construction on the back building and I enlarged the drive and made that four gravel parking spots and then the garage, the reason why we built the garage is as big as it was in order to get two parking spaces obviously in the garage. So, and the parking spaces had to be a minimum of nine feet wide, but realistically coming into a garage, you know, 11 feet, 10 feet is at a minimum in order to fit two cars in there comfortably, as well as have stairs up to the second floor. So that's basically why it was such a wide building for that lot. So the way I'm picturing this in my mind is that the PUD accomplishes two purposes for you. One, it allows you to take the detached cottage that's currently under construction and add some additional interior space, a third bedroom, something like that. Whatever the details turn out to be, that you wouldn't otherwise be allowed to do under your current zoning. So that's goal number one. Yep. Goal number two, actually doesn't increase or decrease. If you think about it in terms of like burden on the land, burden on the neighborhood number of people coming and going, the goal number two is just to create an ownership structure that allows these two buildings, despite being on the same lot, to be under different ownership in this weird mini condominium situation. And I wonder your thoughts, I imagine I see some other attendees here and what we often hear from proposals like this is, you know, this is just too much for this lot, look at it, it's really small. And that speaks to goal number one, but not necessarily goal number two, because goal number two just changes ownership structures. I wonder your thoughts on if you could live with just goal number two and leave the building as you're currently constructed. No, it wouldn't be feasible from a sale perspective, unfortunately, because it's just not big enough. The market, what's driving markets in single family homes right now is three bedrooms, two baths. Couples, families can't buy a house like this or won't buy a house. I mean, if you're planning to have a family, you and your partner, you're most likely going to want a three bed, two bath. That's just kind of the way that the market drives that because, you know, you might have two children or whatever. So it's basically in order to make this feasible for me, I have to be able to have that third bedroom in the interior portion of the, you know, the garage, which is again, is basically dead spaces, unusable space at this point. I mean, you could have a workshop, I guess, in there. Other questions from members? Go on mute here. I have a question for Eric and maybe Matt as well. I'm not sure if I can find the right document, but it was about the requirements for the variants. And there was one section that said that the hardship was not created by the applicant. And I didn't understand, Eric, your response on that one. I don't know if I can find it, but I guess my question is, was the hardship created by the applicant by making a house of this size that can't be accommodated in a PUD? I mean, there could have been a smaller house that would have fit within those setbacks. I'll see if I can find the... Yeah, so when the cottage was proposed as a detached cottage, it's an accessory structure. So an accessory structure, the minimum setbacks are only five feet from the side setbacks. So as an accessory structure, it was something that was consistent with the regulations. So as it was proposed and developed, it is consistent as a detached cottage and an accessory structure. That's the tricky part of this is that it's basically an existing building. So it is within the regulations as it's constructed now as a detached cottage. It's when it changes to the PUD that this now becomes a situation where there's a variance needed for it. So I don't remember exactly what I included in that document because I don't have it in front of me, but I'll find it. But so is there precedent for creating a PUD where there's no development planned? I mean, just to change the legal structure of the land? I mean, this is only the second plan unit development that I've dealt with since I've been in the city. And the other one you reviewed at your last meeting, basically. So I wouldn't say it's common, but it's not, I don't think it's out of line with the standards. Okay, here it is. So it says the unnecessary hardship has not been created by the applicant or appellant and your responses. The location of the cottage was identified during the review in June 2020. It is unknown if site constraints dictated the proximity to the eastern property boundary or if that location was chosen by the applicant. Yeah, I can speak to this if you don't mind me speaking up, Eric. It wasn't chosen by me necessarily. We had constraints with regards to parking. There was a clear, there was a clear motivation to create more parking spots you know, technically, I only needed five, I made six. In addition, we had to, there was a big discussion about where the snow was going to go. So that's why there's a large portion there on the southwest side there. So that's where all the snow goes. So the parking spaces aren't used up. So again, before my original intent was never to, was actually to center the building, but in order to accommodate parking, pulling into where the driveway is, because you couldn't pull into the driveway. Eric, do we have those documents showing the driveway parking spaces as opposed to this plat markup? That might be helpful if we have it. Yeah, there we go. Perfect. So this was the plan from the detached cottage back in June of 2020. And there was no way to accommodate these cars backing out from their parking spaces without moving the building as basically as close as possible to the southeast or the eastern border of the property. So that's why it was done the way it was done. I would have chosen like on other properties, I'd have to have it centered if possible, because it's more kind of, it's more pleasing and then there's more, you know, walkway on one side to, you know, down into the lawn. But anyways, that was, that was why it was, that was why it was decided on being put there. And why did you decide to have two parking spaces in the garage instead of one when you only needed five total on the lot? Because the DRB made it clear at that time that it was nice to have more parking than less parking, especially since this was a two bedroom, not a one bedroom. So I do want to keep in mind that the purpose of today's hearing is just to hear the plan, give some preliminary feedback and decide whether we're having two subsequent hearings or one subsequent hearing. And I am mindful of the fact that we have some other folks, including I think a direct adjoiner. And so I would suggest, because we don't have to decide anything tonight, that we hear part of my calculus at least for how many times we want this application back is going to be what the neighbors think. And so I would suggest we move on to hear from those folks and kind of take the temperature of the neighborhood. What do you guys think? That sounds good. Great. So I see we have a hand raised from Zach already. So I would suggest we do some, some musical chairs. But Matt, if there are questions to be prepared to jump back on Mike and answer them. Very good. All right. So I'm sending Matt back over. And all right, Zach, you should be able to unmute yourself and speak. Yes. So back in June, most of my concerns regard the setbacks, because back in June, it was never made clear to me that the building was going to be within five feet. Like Matt said, his initial plan was to have it in the middle. And that's what he told me. I appreciated Matt coming to me and being like, hey, I'm going to be developing the lot next door and everything. But the way it ended up being developed wasn't how it was described to me. And I didn't make the development review more meetings in the past. So now I have concerns about a waiver on the setback just for having more people living in the building adjacent to me. The building itself looms over my backyard and I have lost any privacy I had by it being within five feet of my backyard. And it also blocks my sunset view I used to have in my backyard. So the property didn't turn out at all like I had envisioned from my initial talks with Matt. And that's a lot my fault for not getting involved before. It seems to me it sets a bad precedent for having the ability to build detached cottage and then basically build it so it's got extra room for another bedroom and later convert it from something that's supposed to be limited to a thousand square feet to then later just add more square footage. It seems like it's basically a workaround on the initial development constraints of the lot for a detached cottage. And it sets a precedent to say hey anyone who wants to do this can do this. You get the permit to build a thousand square feet you know you build it for two thousand square feet with some unfinished space and then you add more space after. So it just seems like a kind of a just setting a bad precedent for that to be the way development goes in general. So that's sort of my comments on that. My questions are how this affects me as an adjacent property owner in regards to the number of people living in those units and potential opening doors for further development in the future because I understand right now that places in our zoning that's limited to three units but if it becomes a PUD it could eventually hold six units and so I have concerns about this basically turning into a big giant condo complex next door. So I also wonder if there are any plans for that or whether or not there are plans if that is something that would later fit into zoning regulations should this be approved as a PUD? So those are my questions and comments. Great and I think it's fair to ask Matt to respond to those. I mean the first one it sounds pretty straightforward you know more bedrooms potentially means more folks moving in it may not but it may. I would be more curious to hear especially the response to the second half which is you know I'm hearing some concern about like giving us a cookie phenomenon right like we still okay add an extra bedroom like what's the next request after that? Yeah is it good time for me to step in? Yeah so I guess oh there's a lot of stuff to unfold here. I think the the DRB could make it a stipulation since this would be a conditional use for there to be no further buildings built. Frankly I have no desire to build future buildings there. I built everything where it was because after the new cottage or condo whatever you want to call it the new building the slope drops off significantly um to the point of you know you would you would be you know your cost to build would be significantly higher uh to build on that slope slash uh I don't know how much lower you could go I don't have the FEMA flood maps in front of me but I think at some point even maybe even one more unit down if you were to build a building the same size you would run into it being in a flood zone and since I've dealt with FEMA before on another project I know how difficult it is for new construction in a flood zone. So long story short no don't plan on building any more buildings there I don't think it it would be feasible from a cost standpoint for one and two it's you know I don't I have no desire to do that there. As far as answering the first question yeah it is unfortunate that it did butt up within that five foot setback. Zach knows that wasn't my intention. After we started building he saw the foundation go in. I did put a fence in for him uh that ran you know the the length he put in part of it by himself and then I put in the other half for free. I paid for that fence. You paid for the materials but I helped with a little bit of labor but I wouldn't call it paid for it. Okay well I did uh I also paid your guy for the labor and paid you for a lot of the assistance you gave me so I put in the entire fence I spent about five to six thousand dollars on a fence which really doesn't gain me any privacy because the house is so large that it looms over my whole backyard anyway. I guess I guess there's no point in in debating sepanthics I'm I'm just saying I did try to work with you to uh increase your well saying that you got a fence is a blatant lie because I paid for the fence man. I didn't say I got a fence I said I I helped with the fence I helped labor wise with which I paid for and I have receipts to prove it. Okay I'm not going to get into the debate about that there's no there's no point anyways um I'm sorry that it it does uh block your view that was not my intention uh whether or not this building can be turned into a PUD with three bedrooms two baths and be sold uh the building exists it will exist as a condo uh so we can't change any of that Zach I think you would agree that having a home owner uh living there would be um in some ways nicer than they don't they don't like to discriminate against people just because they don't have enough to own a home actually. Okay well I'm not discriminating I was just I was just speaking to that but uh you know if the DRB limits me to two beds one bath I'll just keep it as a rental and it'll be a luxury rental and I'll do just fine with it so it's it's more so trying to kill two birds with one stone with this project uh either way it's kind of irrelevant so it provides another housing and it also I'm able to sell it so anyways. Okay so I think I heard answers to the the questions that were posed by uh Zach I do want to open it up to board members for follow-up questions if they had any to to that discussion just by Zach uh which which house is yours we are the east of the west neighbor David hang on a sec I I just turned off his sorry all right Zach you should be good to talk I think it's east I'm looking at um google maps right now yeah Zach Zach is to the east of the property and is that the house that we're looking at there it's fairly far from the property line yeah compared to to this plot it's larger for some reason it's not letting me unmute oh we can hear you now Zach go for it you can okay uh yeah I am the I'm 196 west canal I'm the eastern property the one that's closest to the cottage and I I don't know if it's depicted maybe this but it sounds like your your home is up on the street and then your backyard is basically um what would what this cottage would be looking on to is what you described to us yeah okay I actually have a little cottage in my backyard as well that's uh right there next to yep the fence um so this thing sort of looms over it is that a rental or is that a shed what is that it is a glorified shed the people who own this place before me had a they ran electricity to it so it has electricity and they had a they have a propane connection to have a propane tank and a little fake stove there which I no longer have um so right now it's basically used as a shed any other questions from board members I just wanted to clarify there was a mention of that you have no intention of um building extra units on your um Eric would that would that even be possible with the footprint of this lot so technically speaking because of the the size of the lot it as a planned unit development uh what the way it works is you take the total area of the lot and determine how many lots you could create based on the the minimum lot size and based on the size of this property he could get um two it would meet I believe at least two lots the minimum square footage for a lot in the in the um RC the residential sea zoning district is 7500 square feet so he could create two new lots and in the residential sea zoning district you're allowed a density of up to three units per lot so technically speaking he could put uh Matt could develop three more units on the property with that said the maximum density per building is only two units so we don't allow multi-unit buildings in the residential zoning districts so he could do it as but he would have to do it as another two unit and a single unit or convert the existing cottage to a two unit and then add another two unit but again I think that would require potentially going down the hillside he'd have to meet parking standards for all of it so there's there's other logistics involved but technically speaking based on the regulations yes three more units could be could be established at this location okay thank you any other questions from the board we do I think some other attendees who may want to speak so my suggestion would be that if any of the folks in attendance um want to ask questions or comment on this application just go ahead and raise your hand or let us know in the chat you're just observing from left over from the last one or you want to comment but certainly want to give you the opportunity to do so if you so desire not seeing anything Eric do you have any indication from pre-meeting communications that either these folks want to participate negative all right so let us know if if we're wrong speak now or for over hold your piece but my proposal from here would be to move to agenda item seven which is city updates after we complete our agenda which should be pretty short from here hop into deliberative session maybe after a five minute break and decide what actions we want to take on the two applications we heard tonight cool we've got a plan uh Eric city updates yeah so the only thing I want to update folks on is as you've probably heard Jesse Baker the current city manager is is going to be leaving the city unfortunately um so she will be she will be remaining to reside in the city but will be has accepted a job with the to become the the city manager in the city of south burlington so um I know you all have probably already heard that but just wanted to remind you all that so kind of sad news for us but good news for them and she will be she will be missed you can see there's going to be a committee to find her replacement and it has room for one resident slot so if anybody's interested in getting another rock star to fill those big shoes email me a lot about it exactly right right so yeah so we're working on the the process of hiring and establishing that committee as well so um but that's the only update that I have under city updates great business oh our past our past cases any updates the smelly hemp or the other ones that have been appealed so that uh yeah so the the appeal of the violation at 133 on street is still working its way through the courts they're working on resolutions internally but nothing nothing new to report on that on that case at this time and george street george street same still working its way through the courts nothing nothing new to report average resolution of a case in the court last time I checked was like a year so um takes a minute okay I think uh I would entertain I think no other business yeah I did have a couple things or yeah just one other thing for other business our next meeting is scheduled for April 15th we do have two application we have one application confirmed a possible second one that I'm expecting to have come in uh tomorrow so uh one the one will be for a detached cottage proposal and the other one is going to be for a uh a re an amendment I'll say to the plan unit development at 64 la fountain street so they're looking to they're looking to amend the building configuration of it so basically as it was presented previously there were uh there were homes and then a uh common garage between the two homes what they're proposing to do is split the garages and attach them to the homes individually so each home would have its own garage attached to it except for the building on la fountain street so because of the nature of the change I felt it was enough to bring back before you all so uh we will we will bring that back basically as an amendment to the previously approved plan so it won't be we won't go through sketch plan and preliminary final and all those things because you've already approved it and everything else is staying the same it's just the kind of how they're laying out the actual structures uh we're going to bring it forward uh for potential basically as a final plan um but it's enough of a change that I wanted you all to see it and and weigh in on it so uh that application that application came in today so that will be on the agenda um presuming we have a quorum for that meeting so um that will be our April 15th meeting all right so uh I would entertain a motion to adjourn and then take a couple minutes then see everybody in deliberative session via the separate link that was set up cool anybody so moved matt I'll move and second by katelyn all in favor concept I'll post all abstaining motion carries we are adjourned thanks everybody see in deliberative session