 We call this meeting to order of the City of Montpelier Development Review Board for Monday, November 4th, 2019. My name is Daniel Richardson. I serve as chair of the board. The other members for my right are Rob Goodwin, Kevin O'Connell, Meredith Crandall, staff, Kate McCarthy, Y Rock. Okay. The first order of business is approval of the agenda. There is one item of business, 81 North Street. The final plan review for a two-lot subdivision. Any additions to the agenda? If not, I will take a motion to approve the agenda as printed. So moved. Motion by Kevin. Do I have a second? I'll second that. Second by Claire. All those in favor of the agenda as printed, please raise your right hand. We have our agenda. There are no comments from the chair this evening. I will cover the fact that our next meeting is canceled under other business, though I just did. Review and approval of the meeting minutes from October 21st, 2019. Myself, Kevin, Kate, Rob, and Michael were present, so we have just enough to form a quorum. Do I have either a motion or any quorum? Let me start out. Any corrections to the minutes as printed? Hearing none, do I have a motion to approve the minutes? So moved. Motion by Rob. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Kate. All those in favor and eligible to vote on the minutes from October 21st, 2019, please raise your right hand. And the minutes are approved. Good. That brings us to our first item of business, which is 81 North Street. The applicant, please step forward. And what I'll have you do is I'll have you introduce yourself, and then I'm going to put you under oath for your testimony purposes. Is there anyone else here who is here to testify on this application? So please state your name for the record. My name is Eric Stauffer. I'm the owner of 81 North Street, along with Sean Folks. My name is Eric Stauffer. I'm the owner of 81 North Street, along with Sean Folks. Thanks. It helps for a television audience, as well as these cameras are voice-driven. So they actually move around when people speak in their pickup by microphone. So if you raise your right hand, do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give for the matter under consideration should be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth under a pain and penalties of perjury? I do. Thank you very much. So why don't you just give us a brief overview of any changes that you've proposed? We've reviewed, as an initial sketch plan, this application. But if you've made any changes, either minor or significant, why don't you? There haven't been any major changes. It's been surveyed, reviewed comments from the sketch plan review, and then upon receiving notes back from the final application, and specifically the DPW notes that came back, I have a proposal here for the access. So just so I understand what you're proposing here is shared access. It's a single curb cut, but no easements involved between the two parcels. So there'd be one curb cut, basically from the property line on the lot one, there'd be 12 feet of access, and then from the property line, 12 feet of access on the lot two. Okay. And that looks like that would involve narrowing the existing curb cut. Correct. Curb cut for lot one is about 19, 20 feet wide, depending on exactly how you want to measure. And a lot of that is really the sweep on the right-hand side of how people have driven over it for the last number of years. So in the red line indicates there are seven feet that will kind of be infilled to close that up to the recommended 12 feet. And there is curbing that's there. It's asphalt curbing. I think on the backside there's an image that shows my tape measure next to the curbing. It's only a couple inches high right there. So I spoke with Kurt about what it would entail for me to do that curbing. He gave me a drawing of what it should look like, and it seems pretty straightforward to fill in that curbing and then infill behind it. There's grass there to narrow up that opening. So you'd build up at the asphalt curb along that seven foot? Correct. Okay. Yeah, we'd build up curb and then infill behind it to grass that in. Okay, so just so I understand the otherwise, apart from closing off and narrowing the curb cut, the driveway on lot one would stay the same, but then the driveway for lot two would take that same, the new 12 foot curb cut and would go in whatever direction it would. Yeah, there's really only one direction it could go, but yes, it would basically parallel. It could almost immediately start to peel off, but it would start at the same point. So I just realized that staff down in the office did not pull up the actual potential site plan in here for you that was in a larger print, so I'm going to go downstairs and grab that. Okay. Because I didn't realize that. So, okay. And I presume the updated site plan will specify it was not drawn right on there as well as set max and everything else. You can imagine our confusion on having that. But just so I'm on, this is somewhat of a different beast than what we've dealt with before in the sense that they're both, they're both driveway, I mean, there's, they're separate driveways. They're just a budding against each other as opposed to a shared driveway, but in between, is there likely to be any room for either like a hedge or some other type of visual blocker? That is shown in the site plan, which you're going to see momentarily, and what, when I had spoken with DPW, what they had thought would be smart was that that didn't start right out of the road, but started back X number of feet so that the person on the uphill side, lot two, could see up and down the road and vice versa, so the person on lot one could see up the hill and vice versa down the hill, so yes, not immediately at the curb, no, starting right 12, 18 feet back. Well, that would be my concern as well, I think, because one of the reasons why we have the shared driveway is that it cuts down, you know, even if, and as the DPW comments indicated, even having them five feet apart is less, less desirable because to merge that together so that only, you know, cars coming out of both lots at the same time are going in won't be competing with each other on the street or creating that traffic issue. It's a single sort of point of entry exit. So this document was submitted previously with the application. It should have been in your packets. What I'm going to suggest, and you can vary it, is to pass it around here and then have IRAC be able to have it to point to things and you can call to have it pulled up if you need it. So I'm going to start with Rob and then pass it down. I've never heard the term driveway curtain and your, this handout indicates that in addition to the physical changes below, a shared maintenance of driveway curtain clause will be added to the deeds. Can you tell me what a driveway curtain is? Well, those aren't my words either. It's not something I throw around regularly. But I driveway curtain, I would imagine, would be where those two driveways meet. And that, yeah, exactly. So the idea being that it's understood that both parties that these things, although they're on separate properties and individual and there's no easements on anybody's behalf, that there would be a meet, everybody who was responsible for where those two driveways met the road so that maybe one wasn't paved and the other was left possible eight feet deep in exaggeration. So I think that's what, what the words are. I would leave up to the, my lawyer in the actual writing of the deeds, but I think that driveway curtain is that shared space of the road. Okay. Good. Probably snow removal there too, so that you don't end up with it. Yeah, someone's not plowing on it. Yeah. Great. Okay. Thanks. Wait and see, Rob, you had a, two, did you have a question on about the one of the drawings? Go ahead. Yeah, I think it's just a smaller vision to the plot before you go to the mylar on that. Okay. The missing a dimension on the proposed lot line. Thank you, Rob, because I missed that when I reviewed it when it came in. Yeah. And then I guess one other thing, and I'm a little unsure about this, I don't even know if we're required to show setback lines on the plot, but it does appear that the setback on the existing house lot per a corner lot should be a side yard at five feet. Yeah. Yep. Nope, that's right. The I know I can talk to Richard Bell to make sure he understands it as well if you want, Eric, because yes, this right now he said it as the it looks like the rear instead of the side. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah, I was actually gonna make that same same point. I saw that same thing. You understand what we're talking about, which on lot one. Right now, there's a dotted line at the rear of the building really closest to lot to closest to lot two. And that's your setback there. But it seems to be drawn as if it was a rear yard setback but because that lot is on a corner, you don't really have a rear yard. And the way our zoning laws are, they treat the front on North Street as frontage, they treat the front on Ewing Street as frontage. And then this the the backside away from Ewing Street is side and the backside away from North Street is also side. So you have two sides and two fronts. So so I think you have which is I think a nurse to your benefit, which is this this is not rear. So it's not subject to the same rear setbacks that say lot two is going to face on the side opposite of Ewing Street. That is a true rear. And there's not the not that you would necessarily be building anything within that building envelope. But it does it should it should reflect that reality. Right, it should look more like the the one that's along. Excellent. And we're saying it's missing the prevention on the on the line the actual lock. And so just looking at this, I'm sorry, that's as long as I know I just it looks as if on your map, there is those little green balls are would be the hedgerow or between the two properties where the driveways have split as sort of a privacy, presumably so that the people on your lot one aren't staring immediately into the dining room with people in law to vice versa. Yeah. We'll come back to the landscaping. Are there any other questions and I realize Claire hasn't had a chance to look at the the drawing as well. But are there any other questions about the driveway? That's pretty straightforward. And I think, you know, my my read on this is that it does answer a lot of the TPW issues, the fact that it's cut down from the 19 feet to the 12 feet and 12 feet would satisfy the frontage questions that they had as a curb cut questions that they had. The there's no or is there any proposal as to what you're planning on building on lot two? There's not. Okay. It's frankly, I'm not sure whether I'm gonna hang on to it or I'm going to sell that. Okay, that's open, but you'd be looking to keep all options open with at this point. Yeah. And I will note that according to the staff notes that you know, there is a possibility that could be up to three dwelling units developed there. And that's an option you would like to have available. Is that correct? Yeah, from my perspective, absolutely. And that at least the staff, the staff's take on this is that that three units wouldn't three additional units would not cause undue adverse effect on traffic in the area. I would agree with that. I mean, it's obviously if you did create a three unit, there would have to be the requisite number of off street parking, particularly in a residential neighborhood like this Ewing Street, I don't know how wide it is formally if it's three rods or less. But there was seasonal off street parking being an issue and a factor. I think it would be important that there be off street parking for all three units. Wouldn't think to do otherwise if I had it that direction. Yeah. So we just have to and I think we've actually done that. So under 3505 a which talks about the design design configuration of parcel boundaries partial arrangement, particularly subsection a one I one B, which talks about the neighborhood is primarily a single family residential neighborhood with homes fit into the terrain. Most with a compact development footprint proposed land development may feature a modest increase in residential density accomplished primarily through conversion of existing buildings to multifamily occupancy and with a limited amount of infill on suitable sites. So I think we have to make a determination as to whether allowing this or you know, whether we need to put an affirmative condition on how many units can be built there knowing that the zoning bylaws allow up to three. But if we felt that there was a compelling reason to limit that to less than three, I don't see there to be a compelling reason why it limited. I don't either I think that the parking limitations for one will dictate the appropriate use of the site. I also think it's conceivable that you could put a house the same size as the existing house 81 right next to it and that very easily be a three unit dwelling which is I think what 81 used to be right with the three units. I don't know if it was ever officially three units. In formal three. Yeah. So I see this is this is a suitable approach to infill even if it is up to three units. And I'm not proposing up to as a limit that this board would place. Right. I would agree. I mean, I'd see no no need to limit what the zoning allows. Obviously, once a plan was developed, then it would be reviewed and scrutinized at that time for its design characteristics. But three three units that that's in keeping with where we want to go. Okay. So the next issue is is about the utilities. And could you explain you've had some conversations with GMP as to what they can offer. Yes, for utilities at the site. So what they suggest I spoke with Lauren Kelly, who's the representative for GMP for development for this area. And her suggestion was, there's a power pole that's at the corner of that lot and the one that's just uphealing street from from it from current 81 north. And there's a guy pole that is along that boundary. It's about halfway back to progress line which shows up on the survey. Which you suggested was replacing at GMP's cost the pole at the street running power overhead to the pole that is along halfway back that plot line. And then either going underground or overhead from that point. Her, her logic was basically there's already a pole there. There's already a guy wire there. Neither of those go away, no matter what. So you might as well run the power overhead along that existing our corridor. And then the difference between them dropping down and going underground the house close likely based on the shape and size of the lot is going to be very close to that phone call. And so they're not really creating any visual or other impact by just doing a aerial drop to the house from that point wouldn't be we practically unseen. So that was her feedback. Was there any did she discuss any of the price price differentials? She was running through numbers pretty quickly. And it was pretty quick phone conversation. But yeah, she thought that the price differential between the two would be over $2,000. I think that's indicated in the thing. And that was the between the cost of GMP's work as well as an electrician and somebody to run the power underneath underneath and back now back up. Yeah, you got it. Not necessarily from that short pole. And I think most of that cost was coming from the road to the current guy pole. There was a difference going from that whole pathway back the lot line overhead versus going down and underground, which is a lot longer to travel. And so there was a cost difference there. But that cost difference to be clear is the $2,000. That makes sense. Did I say that clear? Not necessarily. Okay, so I ended from what I got, I understood that the $2,000 difference was running overhead from the guy to the house versus running under. Yeah, so but you're saying it's $2,000 to run? I believe and I can be wrong, I should talk with Lauren again to clarify about it. But my I think that difference was from the road, not from the guy pole. So presumably the difference between above ground from the guy pole and below ground from the guy pole would be less than 700 bucks, 800 bucks something along those lines. Yeah. But once again, that house is probably gonna be within just a handful of feet from the guy from the guy pole. So the main the main difference between running the power underground or aerial from the guy pole itself isn't really an economic it's more of a practical I mean, dollars are dollars. So 700 bucks or 800 bucks, whatever that difference is sure. But yes, that that's not from the guy pole wasn't a huge consideration. I mean, that's if we were to put that condition on that's not the financial breaker that's a $2,000 would represent potential of greater hardship. No, no, I don't think economically no from a practical perspective, right, just a lot simpler and more straightforward to do it with. No, I understand I just want to make sure that we as a board understand the two drivers for those because I think there's two decisions there. One is, you know, do we require the utilities to run from the pole at the street? Or do we and if not, then do we require the utilities from the guy wire to run underground and then back up or just simply an aerial drop over? Can I just step in briefly just reminder? In case you didn't read this really carefully that the standard that we're weighing this by has changed since the sketch plan that it's not just a physical condition issue, but that you can also opt to not have utilities located underground where the subdivision is in a section of street with existing above ground utilities and burial would not be practical. So it's a new standard language that's new language that took effect October 16th. So that's new language. And I just wanted to make sure that we kept that in mind. I think that's a very good reminder. And I think that's where I was going with this as well, because I think they're two different decisions. And given the practical language in the newly revised statute that certainly indicates that we should be looking at practical considerations, not just simply running underground because we have to or want to. But what's most practical? Any other questions on the utilities or? All right. One of the last issue was approximately two more. So let's go back to the landscaping. Just so I understand the nature of the lot as it sits today. There's there doesn't appear at least in the photographs to be a lot of trees or shrubs on the lot looks like lawn open. You're proposing to add shrubs what any particular size, style? I hadn't gone that deep, mostly because that lot hasn't really, whether it's going to be somebody single family home or somebody develops it me or someone else's three unit place. And I think there's enough gray area there as to what's going to happen with it. I wasn't going to propose a specific shrub or size or spacing. I think that would maybe more come with application for the whatever gets built there down the road, the specifics thereof. I can see having some flexibility at the same time. I mean, I think it's really important, you know, given the proximity of these houses that there be some type of vegetative shrub there. And I mean, I think you see that as well with your plans to put it in there. And while I don't necessarily want to lock your hands on that, because obviously changes where you're putting the shrub, I mean, where you're putting the building. You know, would, would you be amenable to some requirement when lot two is developed that it includes some type of screening hedge between lots between the buildings on lots one and two. Yeah, I mean, I think that's what's in this in the plan. I don't know if the screening hedge means a specific thing or not. Yeah. But well, I'm thinking, you know, it's it's I mean, at least part of this is to clarify that when you, you know, so you have those little green balls and I understand they're just representative. But I mean, that there's a big difference between, say, a bunch of spirea that, you know, it's never going to go above three feet, and something that's going to provide a little bit taller screening, like, you know, like a cedar hedge or something like that, not saying that we want to commit you to you must plant a cedar hedge or you must plant, you know, something. But I do think that it if I'm understanding correctly, you're looking to plant some sort of privacy screening hedge between or plantings that would create that buffer. I think that's nicer than a fence. But either thing is I think I'd honestly like to leave it flexible because a fence may ultimately be preferred by both property owners and may factor in more smoothly to any overall landscaping plan. So I wouldn't want to tie the hands of anyone into the future. We do have a staff suggestion, similar to what we've done with other subdivision approvals, where we say that requiring we would require a landscaping plan be included in the subsequent zoning permit application that meets the requirements of section 3506.f. And landscaping, I believe can include sensory or shrubbery. So I'd like to leave ourselves those options. Did you did you say sensory I'd like to neologism. recommendation. I mean, the advantage of offensory is that it can simply be one dimension. If it's if it's five feet high, it stays five feet high. And it's it's with this. It's also determined, you know, determined by the type of fence that's split up, whereas a hedge has to be maintained. It can be two feet today, and it can be 20 feet tomorrow. And have the opposite effect that what you're trying to accomplish, or have the bottom completely eaten out depending on what shows up. That's correct. That too. No, that's a fair those are all fair points. I mean, I think my point is just really that this is clearly a site where and what I want to make sure is identified that there there needs to be some type of buffer. You know, in impart, I think it's with keeping with the character of the neighborhood, but it's also keeping with the idea that, you know, these these houses would be relatively close to each other, and creating some visual breakup between house driveway driveway house. So I'm I'm certainly open to, you know, having that in using language as we've used before, requiring a landscape plan when the actual building is going to go up to give you the flexibility of sensory shrubbery or otherwise. Good. I appreciate that flexibility. I live up the street in the general neighborhood on a 10th of an acre lot next to a 10th of an acre lot next to about a third of an acre lot. And I've only lived there five years, but I've kind of seen the neighbors evolve their yards in ways that are comfortable with corner plantings and this and that. So I think that I think that the privacy will ultimately be achieved within and that the 3506.f requirement is ends up being a nudge in that direction. So the last issue I think we need to discuss is whether or not the proposal is compatible with the character of the neighborhood. I guess I'll just throw it out there. I'm not hearing anything from anyone so far that would indicate the opposite. This is a higher density neighborhood and this would be in keeping with it. Looking at some of the lots that are nearby, we're not creating two small lots where everyone else has larger states or big swaths of land. It's close to downtown. It seems to be the proposal is from residential development, which would be keeping with character in the neighborhood or at least there's no there's no, sorry, let me take that back. There's no proposal for what use it will be other than that it be consistent with use of the neighborhood and creating this this lot in and of itself. The creation of it is not different than any other lot in this neighborhood. Is that a fair summary of other people's thoughts? Yes, good. So just swooping back to the issue of the utilities. Does anybody have a concern with allowing him allowing the applicant to have a utility that would run from the guy wire? Either aerial or underground, whatever they saw fit and was most practical? Yes. No, no, no, yeah, no, it's consistent with green. I knew what Kevin was speaking to everybody. All right, any other questions or concerns from the board? I'll take a motion if anybody would like to make one on this application. And just to be clear, neither of you are wishing to add any further to the good. Anything further? No, thank you. Mr. Chair, I move approval of final subdivision subdivision review at 81 North Street with as presented the application dated October 7 2019 subject to the following conditions of approval. As we've just discussed any application for a zoning permit for further development of lot two shall include a landscaping and screening proposal meeting the requirements of section 3506.f. And then our standard condition with requiring the recording of the final survey plat in the land records office revised per Rob's comments, revised dimensions on the lot division line and the setback for business is discussed. Sorry, friendly amendment. Correct. And appreciate it. Or maybe reminder, I don't think I can officially make an amendment. Okay, so I will I will add with that reminder, the adjustment to the plat as suggested by Rob, which involves the turning the rear setback of lot one into a turning the side setback of lot one into a rear. Turning the rear stuff making it five feet and labeling the length of the boundary line between the lots one and lots two that are created by this subdivision motion by Kate. Do I have a second? You do. Second by Kevin. Any further discussion? I'll simply add just to further clarification. We're understanding that this would allow the utilities to run either above or underground as the applicant has requested. Yes. Thank you. I had a question about what other utilities would have to be depicted on the the plat? The utilities don't have to be on the plat. They were just on the potential same. Gotcha. All right. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor of the motion, please raise your right hand. You have your subdivision review subject to our final written decision that will be issued soon. And then of course, there's a 30 day window of which someone can take an appeal. However, judging by the fact that no one is here contesting it, you can take that under advisement and play your risk pool as you submit. Good. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. I will send an email tomorrow to you and Richard Bell summarizing what needs to change on the final plat so that that can get you know, get moving. We don't have any contentious here going on in this decision. Good. Thank you guys. Thank you. Thanks. Great. Other business. I will simply note that as I did before the November 18th DRB meeting is canceled because of lack of applications. So we all get an early Thanksgiving vacation. The next meeting regularly scheduled is December 2nd, 2019. Do we have any applications for that? Not currently. We'll see what comes in by Friday. Okay. So we may see each other before the holiday season. If not, well, no, yeah, there's two December meetings. Okay, okay. Back on one. I know that the meeting schedule. Is this available online? You know what? I don't even know if that's on the website. I bet it is. If not, I will make sure it is. It has been in the past. I haven't looked recently. I don't know if I got this up there yet, but I'll check. Sometimes they have a more advanced calendar system now. So it may be buried within this. However, you know, I mean, I just know for everyone that we have the our upcoming 2020 DRB schedule which shows the various days that will be meeting on Mondays or the days because of holidays that will have to meet on Tuesdays, which are only three next year. Yeah. And I think this is also particularly useful because it sort of shows the application deadline and the date that the meeting needs to be warned publicly in relation to the design review committee and our meetings. So that could be interesting to anyone who's just trying to follow the process of having this whole PDF up there somewhere would be grand. Yeah, I think in past, Audra hasn't necessarily wanted all of that up there. But yes, we can put it up there. I mean, we always have it in the office of anybody else as well. But yeah, we are trying to we are trying to make we're in a process of making edits to all the committee websites and the planning department website to make things more applicant friendly and more informational and a little more track of some plans for some frequently asked questions, pages and things along those lines and more, you know, potentially even some videos when it comes to design review, things like that. Great. Great. And I think we'll add this to the next for the applicants and for anyone else who agrees. Yeah. Thank you. Anything else? Any further business? All right, I will take a motion to adjourn. So moved. Motion by Rob. Second. Second by Kevin. All those in favor of journey, please raise your right hand. And we adjourn. Thank you all very much for participating.