 Good evening everyone welcome to the City of Montpelier Development Review Board for our meeting for April 1st 2019 my name is Daniel Richardson. I serve as chair of the DRB the other members for my right are Rob Goodwin Kevin O'Connell, Mayor of the Crandall staff, Kate McCarthy, Ryan Kane, Tom Kester all right First order of business is approval of the agenda They may have a motion for the agenda so moved Motion by Kevin to approve the agenda is printed second second by Tom Any discussion hearing none all those in favor of the agenda as printed, please raise your right hand we have an agenda and We can move forward. There are no comments from the chair this evening The sole minutes are the March 18th minutes myself Kevin Kate Tom Ryan Rob eligible to vote Presuming that you've all had a chance to take a look at the minutes Do I have an advocate? Do I have a motion for their approval or any amendments that way people wish to make? Mr. Chair, I move approval of the March 18th 2019 minutes as printed Motion by Kate. Do I second? Seconded. I'll go as Ryan who was a little bit ahead of the curve on that one second by Ryan any further discussion hearing none all those in favor of approval of the March 18th minutes, please raise your right hand Okay, thank you very much So this evening we have three applications one of them is a Sketch plan that comes Last and I'll explain the difference of that when we get to the 301 River Street the first two are subdivision Applications, and I will simply note That the second one I will be recusing myself, but I'm able to hear the first application So we'll call that for 213 Main Street Robert gallons Yeah So if you'll state your name for the record yeah Robert gallons, okay Please raise your right hand Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the evidence you're about to give for the matter under consideration? She'll be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth under pains and penalties of perjury. I do very good Is anyone else here to be heard on this? subdivision this particular one okay so If you want to just give us an overview of where things stand and With a particular focus on any changes that you've made since our initial sketch plan review all right So it's a it's a two lot subdivision at 213 Main Street. I think everything is the same as at sketch But I'll just quickly go over it to propose new lot one and that's the lot that my current house sits on Will become a ten thousand four hundred and thirty six Thousand square foot with ninety four point seven eight feet of frontage and the new proposed lot two Would be eight thousand three hundred ninety square feet with a frontage of sixty thousand or sixty point seven feet That's the frontage on that What I gave you tonight was it was just a requested sketch of One where the slope is on that property. So that's what the yellow is. There's the slope It's a level lot slopes down and then levels out again and then In the blue That would just be a like a hypothetical building footprint that would fit on that parcel Those were two things that work that came up at sketch and just be clear. You're not proposing a house at this time This is just simply yeah, this is subdivision. Yeah, just step one right step one to get through this and then Once get through this process and proceed to the next step whether Well after the step you have a separate lot Yes, but then you asked if I was proposing a building and not this tiny Just for clarification purposes really Meredith, did you have any points that you wish to raise? No, I think this this was the biggest this and the actual location for the driveway easement with the two big things It came up in sketch You know, they they don't have to show a building envelope and we don't want that on the final plat But I know that the board members were curious to make sure that there was room on this lot between the slopes and the setbacks for a building Right and this sort of square that you've drawn is that to any particular scale or is that just sort of a general just general? But I'll note that it's roughly equivalent in size to your house Yeah, that's why I tried it Capture. Yeah, okay Is there any further comment from public works? There was nothing new that they felt like they had to add And so let's address the driveway issue Can you refresh our memory as to how you're proposing your driveway access on this? Okay Two ways Extending the current and I talked to public works about this and their preference is to extend the current curve cut and not put in an additional curve cut so the combination of extending the current curve cut and then an easement Across the current driveway, so there'd be an easement industry. It's hard to see on this It is marked on here from the survey. So there'd be an easement across the current driveway and And the current driveway would be a little wider based on About an eight-foot increase in the curve cut So just extending it not putting in an additional one so extending it further up main street the hill Yes, and then would this be sort of like a shared driveway. Yes Well, there'd be access across the current driveway for the first lot to Okay But parking only on lot two there wouldn't be you wouldn't be allowing cars to park on lot one, right? So one of the issues that we have to address at least is That there's a provision in the new bylaws about driveways Under 310-3,010 that talks about spacing of driveways Does Section what section did you so so it's section three zero ten Which is page three dash twenty and three dash twenty one Talks about having a separation distance That's at least 45 feet. Yeah between driveways between driveways Now there is a Exception for non-conformities and yeah, I wait for a process. Yeah, and there's just the Because of the way they're expanding the current non-conformity by weight making the driveway wider Right. So I think you know, it's a question of how you want to deal with it, right? And I'm raising this both for you Bob as well as board I you know it says that previous sites that previously developed sites with non-conforming access shall come into conformance with the provision of the section when changes are proposed to site layout access to circulation and subsection a says The development review board may approve a waiver for this requirement where the applicant demonstrates the proposal cannot come into compliance due to physical characteristics characteristics of the lot or existing structures on the lot So part of the problem is is that your driveway is located really to one side your existing driveway and What public works has said is that it's preferable for you to crop to combine these driveways Rather than to create a whole separate new curb cut And some of that was to because as you go further up Main Street There's a little drop off there from the sidewalk down So To put in a curb cut it would be very steep It actually just so turning off of the of Main Street you'd immediately have to sink down Yes, or rise up as you were coming out. Yeah And so it was public works opinion that would be safer and for sight As well as for the actual process of turning so And and I should note that there's nothing in the bylaws that's prohibit a share of driveways Share driveways are actually preferred when you can sometimes I think Yes, especially for commercial but in this instance. Yeah, there's nothing to prevent a shared driveway at all It's just that the driveway separation standards that we've adopted don't Quite fit. Yes this standard This or this site, I mean, yeah, they don't quite fit this site where the existing driveway is already too close to a different one Yep so what's a Is the board inclined to Grant a waiver here. I mean because that's why I understand is part of your request is To grant a waiver of these driveway conditions Not your head. Yes Yeah, I mean, I don't I mean just looking at the maps it doesn't even It's there's 55 feet of frontage on the proposed lot to the driveway That's an issue is the one directly across the street from the existing driveway. I Don't think it's I mean just even from what we have It's likely not possible to put in a new driveway on proposed lot to that would comply and so therefore I don't I mean It's just one of those the DRB has to be the one to approve the way So I'm inclined to okay approve the use of the existing driveway to serve a lot too. Yeah, given that the alternative is not Possible or or preferable. I mean it sounds like a hardship in some respects. Sure in public works is reviewed this. Yeah, exactly So the next issue is the utilities particularly the electric and data lines the telecommunication The Utilities serving your house your current house are across Main Street. Yes, so they they go over What is your proposal for utilities? For the new property would it be have you looked into that question? I've not gotten that far. No, I assume it would be overhead Across it also. Yeah, and probably from it would have to be from the that same pole Because otherwise the spacing is it'd be too far up the street We've actually dealt with this recently so one of the things the new bylaws do require is the burial of Utility lines where possible But this looks like a very similar circumstance to what we dealt with two weeks ago with With overhead lines where to bury the lines would require going under Main Street to do so And it so you haven't you haven't approached Green Mountain Power as to whether They they would run a separate line off of the utility line or something off of your your house. I have not I talked No, only I talked to a public works on water and sewer That is on my side of Main Street, right That was not going to be an issue because that is On that side of me, but I've not talked to Green Mountain Power Well, I mean I think we can take note that this is I mean this is the exact same problem We had two weeks ago, which is you know the only way to run lines from the From from the power power lines underground would require going underneath Main Street, which The city has expressed in prior applications. They do not want to do It would be a disruption first of all and then it would effectively create a Not that it could necessarily be noticed amongst the potholes these days But it would certainly unlevel the the road there, which is a major artery in and out of the city What are the other board members the speed bumps could be part of the complete streets plan Yeah responsibility No, I find that there's many factual similarities between the the last time that this came up in this current application based upon the location of the poles and The significance of the road and in the blockage and sort of the intent of the regulations in this sort of situation I agree so next issue is And I understand part of this is because you're not at that stage yet of planning for a house, but you know that right now the The lot is open Without any particular trees or shrubs One of the things that we're asked to do and it says Applicantial design the subdivision to maximize the preservation of existing mature vegetation and provide additional landscaping Which may be installed when lots are subsequently developed as necessary to and then it gives a series of subcategories of maintaining Privacy between adjoining property owners and hands the appearance of street front entrance shade streets And sidewalks maintain or establish vegetated buffers along waterways or other natural areas and utilize green green storm water infrastructure Practices, so it looks like you're not proposing to remove any trees because there really aren't any to remove but Would you be in amenable to a Condition that would require you to adopt once either you or ever does develop this lot Some type of landscaping plan. I think one of the concerns I have is and you probably share this is Whoever occupies this house can be very close to you And you may want some separation and distance between the two houses or some something to break up So it's not just you staring out your garage at your neighbors eating dinner So I think the bylaws allow for a landscaping plan to be Adopted in a sort of larger context, which is a as a condition that when it's developed an appropriate landscaping plan will accompany set development Yes, just to fill that out a little further This happened recently again with a very similar lot and the condition sounded something like this It was that upon application for a zoning permit to construct the structure on the new lot Landscaping would be delineated as necessary to meet the requirements of 3506 point out the landscaping section of the zoning bylaw So it says your subdivision permit will remain valid so long as you follow through on that landscaping piece once a house is built So that's what Does that seem all right? Yeah, we actually started on that in the fall anticipating doing something else we Added and between That lot and the next lot up We added four new Lilac trees on the property line And we simply did it so that they can start getting some growth so that they can and then along the top of that yellow line Before it slopes down We added a couple more there and the plan is to continue to add some Good So you're right There's nothing to be removed and our plan is to add more because we definitely will eventually want some sort of buffer Between the two properties once we start developing or somebody develops that So there is a clear separation of Where I live right Maybe a question for Meredith and or the chair would it be reasonable to request just some dots on the on the site plan with submission of the final material So amend the site plan that currently has the slopes as something to put in the file Yeah, to show where the current lilacs are just in that. Yeah. Yeah, we can do that Overkill I don't as we even need it if we just add the condition that you put Then that also lets them figure out what actually survives the next winter or so, right? I'm sure it's going to be just yeah Okay, no need to update this I plan. Yeah, just for my perspective. Thank you. I'm all in favor of making the landscape Condition of the approval, but I would want to leave some flexibility based on the design of the ultimate structure that's built Yeah, yeah, absolutely. That's why that's the intent of the condition Discussed necessary to meet the requirements of the bylaws of flexibility for the site context Absolutely, and I you know, I think there's there's competing factors, which one of which is renewable energy and solar, you know You can't start imposing Landscaping plans before they've situated if somebody wants to put up solar panels because those can interfere so So I think the greatest amount of flexibility yet at the same time recognizing that You know part of the responsibility of developing this particular site is then creating these buffers so that It blends in as infill Over time so that it stops looking, you know, like a brand new house where one wasn't and looks more like something that fits into this surrounding area initially on proposed lot to Once you drop down onto the lower section that they're down there There's an ass and it would be on proposed lot to there's an established vegetable garden raspberry Patch and there's eight established blueberry plants Down in that area. So once you drop down, it's another nice area down below right towards Harrison Avenue Yeah, right now. I mean, I think that factors into how you build or you know, your successor builds This or her landscaping plan because if that already exists and that's Maintained Then that that goes towards that kind of vegetative buffer And comes with its own Obligations obviously if you have vegetable garden, you need as much to full sun as you possibly can in that particular area otherwise you have Tomatoes don't start coming out until September So I Understand that and I think that's where that's really where we're looking to give you flexibility I any other conditions or issues that any other board members wish to discuss? I I think you know part of this is I'm also taking the staff report which we've all reviewed which you know notes that this really is a subdivision that fits within the various characteristics of the District standards So in lieu of that, I will take a motion from I'll make a motion to approve the application For a two-lap subdivision as presented in the application and supporting materials Subject to the following conditions within 180 days of the decision Applicant shall record a final flat survey plot in the land records for the procedures detailed in section 4405 of the zoning regulations and Then within 60 days of the decision The applicant shall submit to the zoning administrator And record in the land records a final signed version of an agreement Memorializing the access easement over proposed lot one to propose lot two On the drive. Yes, exactly. Yeah We have to actually have that agreement because it's a condition of the approval that that exists And we don't want to create a lot and then have it not have legal access So for the subdivision to be valid you have to do that within 60 days And then finally a condition that upon application for a zoning permit to construct a structure on lot two The landscaping will be delineated as necessary to meet the requirements of the zoning by-law as described by the chair earlier And I also make Express that the approval includes a waiver of any 45 feet requirement for the driveway And utilities and a waiver of any requirement that utilities be underground Very good Motion by Ryan second second by Tom any further discussion Hearing none all those in favor of the motion as stated, please raise your right hand Congratulations Joe subdivision approval. That is pending these others. That's the new surveys filed with the city Correct. That's the final survey plat. Yeah. Yeah Yeah, okay, then you can come down and see me tomorrow. We'll talk about tomorrow. Yeah, that's it's eventually signed by by me and record it in the Landry a mile or a mile. It's knows a mile are yep. Yeah. I got it. Okay. Thank you. Thank you All right, our next order of business is 29 College Street as I indicated earlier, I will be recusing myself for this portion and turn it over to vice chair Hello, welcome. All right, this is final subdivision plan review for 29 College Street The applicant is the Vermont College of Fine Arts and I think I need to put you under oath Is that correct because the previous is not okay? And is there anyone else here that may wish to speak on the matter great? So if you think you might speak I will put you under oath as well. So please raise your right hand All right Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give on the matter before us is the truth The whole truth and nothing but the truth Thank you. Thank you. All right, so we'll have have you Introduce yourself. I just want to recap that at the previous meeting. My understanding is that there were outstanding questions about a few things Bringing the driveway and the curb cut into compliance Some landscaping details some shared parking details and then in addition based on the discussion There was an outstanding question about the role of the master plan Which was a part of the previous zoning district, which was known as a AI academic institution PUD land unit development. That was part of the 2011 zoning It is no longer part of the 2018 zoning and it's also my understanding that we sought counsel from from city attorney and I would like to Ask Meredith to summarize for us what we have learned about that question since the last meeting So Really the basics are that because the AI PUD expired and then the 2011 Regulations were done away with and we adopted new 2018 regulations that The only thing that applies to this subdivision application is the 2018 regulations. There are no PUDs Currently in effect for the college So we can't can't really reference those that just no longer applies And that the basic rule that an application before the board must be governed by the zoning by-laws in effect When the application was filed is what governs at this point In the past when we had AI PUD applications They came along with a master plan because that was a requirement of the AI PUD Even if there had been a master plan in effect Would it have been valid under the 2018 regulations given that it would not have been required under the 2018 regulations I think if I think that that's a whole that's a whole nother thing, okay and I didn't require the city attorney to dig down into that because it but but I think that yes If the AI PUD had still been in effect if it was still within its active period and hadn't expired That's a whole different ballgame, and I think that then we would be dealing with those old regulations But we're not okay, so we don't have a master plan because it was part of something that has expired great Okay, so we're just dealing with a lot that is being requested to be subdivided Okay, so they don't get you know They don't get any bonuses that they would have gotten under PUD. We're just looking at the subdivision regulations. Okay Meredith are there any other outstanding issues that you can think of other than the ones I listed? I think for outstanding issues. It was just the ones you listed. There may be a question or two about how the Shared walkway is referenced on the the survey, but I think that's you know, that's just something we'll get to when we get there great Okay, so what we'll do is we'll give we'll give you a chance to introduce yourself and walk through those outstanding issues and At that point we'll be able to hear from anyone who wishes to speak after we've heard it presented from the applicant We'll have some discussion back and forth with the board and then move to deliberation So that's the order of operations here this evening So I remember last time you had a hard time hearing would you like to sit at the table so you can hear? Thank you. Thank you. What a good idea. And I suppose anyone else who has anything that they need, please give me a sign and When you do come to give testimony, I just ask that folks go up to that microphones for posterity All right, so this question. So I'm Katie Gustafson. I work at Vermont College of Fine Arts I'm the vice president for campus planning and submitted this application after the last meeting One of the questions was about the length of the driveway making sure that that in fact met the current regulations and it Nearly does it's about three inches shy But what I have suggested and the surveyor agreed was reasonable is the carport You know it's open-ended so you can sort of extend it just slightly beyond that covering to get the 36 feet required for a two car driveway so Hoping that that works in terms of the board question with that Then the next question was a I don't know if you want to ask anything about that. Yeah, that's a good idea Does anyone have questions about the proposed arrangement for the driveway and parking on site and is it the case that only one? Parking spot is required right only one parking space is required But at the last hearing there's discussion that typically we often see two cars for single-family homes And so there was just a request that we make sure that we could fit to okay, but yeah only one is required Thank you Did you want to respond to that? I just remembered that the other question just was about the curb cut and I haven't gotten final the Department of Public Works wasn't able to come out and and look at it before this hearing But they are aware that it does actually exist already We're not adding a new curb cut and they said when the time came they would come and make sure that it meets current regulations that it would need to and that also Re-establishing the driveway would also meet the current regulations They didn't expect to that that it would be any kind of issue whatsoever, but that there might be a little bit of work It's it's I actually can't remember at the moment if the driveway is grass or if it's still Some kind of rock surface. It's just starting to appear. So that'll be something that I'll be working with them If this is approved Rob did you have a question? I Was just looking for I'm sure it's in our regulations somewhere about the measurement of the driveway from the sidewalk versus the right right way The starting of the driveway is a 36 feet from the side block It's not necessarily spelled out that was but this is something that How department public works wanted that extended driveway from you know It's to fit that in there especially because we only actually only need room for one parking space But yeah, it's Standard is from the back of the driveway sorry back of the sidewalk and Here because they've done the survey Was it actually was it I thought I think it actually said in here it was 36 inches from the Property line. They have back of sidewalk hold on one second because there's two different references. I think Note seven three There is from back of sidewalk. Yep But that's okay. They're not going to be in the sidewalk. They're not going to be in the street So the plows aren't gonna be hitting them. All right, and it's part of that. It was noted by The Department of Public Works that the existing stormwater catch basin Was not shown on the site plan and with that added in the most recent version. It's not in the most recent If it proved it'll be on the final great. Thank you. All right so Could you tell us a little bit about The landscaping sure so One of the things we were hoping to do was to actually extend the privacy fence which is around the backside of the building It's sort of a horizontal Run it rather than vertical to keep with the The same look that is already there and that that would essentially run Between the two buildings where the two buildings are closed together so that it would give us the five foot setback from the property line to the buildings Following the line of the fence that comes through that around that back corner And then because of the sort of funny little job We have to take with the property line that likely at that point we would What we're proposing is then we would change to some combination of shrubs or Small trees to demarcate the property line the rest of the way around the corner We we were think the college was thinking we would do something on the shorter But we're open to any anything I think the thought there was that with the carport Just did people needed to be putting ladders up to maintain work on the roof. We just were thinking that larger of a higher visual Barrier might make it more difficult for the property owner to deal with something like that But if the board felt it was important that There be higher Shrubs work certainly Is is it the case that the location where the shrubs are proposed is Not between two buildings and the reason I'm asking that is to understand whether it's necessary for those Those five shrub clusters to serve a privacy function. I mean I I think that The fence certainly is there in its location so that there is privacy between the two buildings And and really beyond the patio The college doesn't really use that front part so that privacy becomes less of an issue the closer you get to the road I Don't know that exactly Really, yeah, yeah, just Interested if others have questions about the suitability of that landscaping at that location No, I mean I think they look fine to me I'm comfortable just having the the kind of condition be Fairly general as proposed here five clusters indigenous trees and or shrubs of appropriate size I think to serve the function that we're recognizing is not necessarily Really privacy but more demarcating the kind of line between the two properties and so, you know I think given the applicant some discretion in how best to meet that is is fine with me, so Any other questions about the landscaping There there is a note here and this is Mostly a point of interest is the Daphne shrub a in native species I think Maybe not or at least if it's not it's not one we will use based on what? So you've seen the flagging of that particular shrub in the staff report. All right. Thank you. We'll keep those Berries that are poisonous to mammals away from mammals. Thank you all right, so another another question that I believe the board had was Regarding the shared parking plan and if you could describe just for the record What why that is needed? What the what the Yeah, what's the building at number 31 will be used for and how the parking will will serve that building so that other building is faculty housing and Houses I believe individuals and there is parking that runs Just to the I think it's the north of 31 College Street, which runs behind Gary library noble hall Fish of hatch there's Plenty of parking there was there was no parking associated with that particular building at any point anyway So they would just continue to park in the other designated And our visiting faculty in Crowley on a intermittent basis or all the time it how often is it not all the time I would say we have residencies Well that gives us a sense of the intensity of use and was that also the case for Number 29 was number 29 also for visiting faculty used in a similar way. Yes, that's from other board members At this point If there's comments from Thank you though for reminding me if you wouldn't mind waiting just a moment. Thank you. We'll make sure to get to you so one item that I don't believe was raised last time but that It was a question of mine is on the site plan There's under the subdivision note subdivision note number two is about the existing walk between the two buildings And then also in the project description. It says VCFA or its successors So shall maintain the walk in perpetuity and I Was wondering why that was necessary and I thought to make the suggestion that perhaps it needn't be on the site plan Since that would be an agreement between the two the owners of the two parcels in the future Doesn't need to be it doesn't affect the function of the lots as far as our criteria are concerned Give maintain preserve flexibility in the future if there are no other questions from the board I'll invite some public comment and I'll invite you to go first sir Please just introduce yourself and We don't need your address just your name Just across the street When you talk about the fence between The currently building has a refrigeration Which is really very loud probably makes sense to anybody thought that house that we want to hear it We hear it on the other side So Joe and I talk about it. We hear it all It might be useful for you to make that It's as part of your landscaping a little more substantial so they don't hear it We don't have any objection for it being Question is the refrigeration for air conditioning or is it to run a kitchen or It's a HVAC so it's both heat and cool. I mean the older units are much louder than the newer ones But there are ways to To reduce that sound off-site considerably by by the use the judicious use of both vegetation and physical barriers such as a fence I'm looking at our our do we have a performance standards That's is this consideration among our criteria for this I want to I want to hang this on something and understand how it fits into what we can do and not do But they put you on the spot. I think that's me. I That when you're thinking performance standards, that's usually conditional use, right? I think you have the landscaping and screening section Hold on See if we can't hang it on anything Yeah, maybe maybe character of the neighborhood sort of it's already there. Yeah, we're not reviewing the Construction that's true, but I mean yeah, I I think we can accept that as some constructive feedback That that perhaps could be mitigated with the fence, but we'll keep that in mind. Did you want to say anything else? At all. All right, but anyone else like to be heard on this matter Let's deliberate Any further discussion by board members outstanding questions? Based on what you've heard Could I make one comment? Yes, please so in the staff report under the proposed motions? I had put a condition a draft condition in here about getting the written confirmation from the Department of Public Works about how they were going to be dealing with the Driveway and the curb cut and if it needed a permit or not. I had that as a condition that they had to resolve before filing the final plat It might make more sense to deal with that as something that has to be resolved Well, no because we're not talking about future development It's just something we need to think about how you want to condition that Because we are dealing with snow and ice You know, I don't know how quickly they're going to try and file the final plat and if there's time to get You know get those permits or that decision from DPW considering certain conditions And I think it's clear that we need to that the Access needs to be constructed consistent with DPW standards and that having this new access be Re-established that the length we is a condition of the improve of the approval right if for some reason you're unable to get DPW to Are unable to meet their standards then you will be unable to comply with that condition and therefore you will not have a subdivision I think I don't know that we need anything further than to say that the access will comply with DPW standards my thoughts and the other part that the applicant has obtained or will obtain the necessary permits prior to Be getting work, which is assurance that come that the design will comply with Which what we just discussed or the condition that's written in the staff report So the the condition in the staff report says that you will get the permits or have something from the department of public to say we'll get Has obtained or will obtain the necessary permits prior to be getting work something from department of public works It said you will get them or don't need them Before this final survey plat is recorded. So you think you can get that from Kurt? So I'm sorry. Maybe I'm a little confused if the Applicant goes to get the permit from the department of public works That indicates It's permittable or if they obtain the permit it indicates that it's permittable In that case is it also necessary to get a note from public works saying that they're in the process of applying for permit No, so because that's a that's how I'm reading it written confirmation from the monthly department of public works That approved wait that's why I said applicant has obtained or will obtain Because sometimes the paperwork's filed, but they have to actually look at the site without the snow Just why I'm saying the solution of the paperwork alone is not sufficient They also need a note No, if they get if they get the permit and give me the permit that's fine same thing. They're the same thing Okay, they sounded like two different things I think the concern is that if you If it's not clear yet Because they haven't gone out there to look whether or not this is even likely to be possible to meet standards Then you don't want a final plat filed in the land records that ultimately isn't valid because after that But it seems like it's likely that dpw that you can either get or be in the process of obtaining those permits and that you recognize that It behooves you to find out sooner rather than later if that's going to be an issue because That's that is a condition of the approval that that means standards. There's so many reasons. We're all ready for the snow It was it was more sort of the timing listed on here. That was the issue. Thank you. It sounds like we've got clarity on that now Is there any further discussion by board members? Any last comments from the applicant? Okay, in that case, I will entertain a motion go for it Motion to approve the application z 2019 017 for two lot subdivision as presented Apps can shall follow erosion control practices as outlined in section 3008 as discussed a With regarding the public works approval If a driveway needs to be constructed it should be constructed to department public works standards Um Within 180 days of the decision they should file a final surplus plat in the montpellant records as detailed in section 4405 I one one one addition that Landscaping plan will have a combination of up to five clusters of indigenous trees and their shrubs appropriate sides will be planted To clearly demarcate the property line Uh, and also that the representation by the applicant of the new privacy fence construction is being proposed as well to demarcate The two properties Thank you, tom. So, um, I'm gonna say that we had a motion from rob. Did we have a second? Seconded we had a second from ryan, and then can I consider yours a friendly amendment tom? Very good. Do you accept the friendly amendment? Do you accept the friendly? And if I may offer another tiny friendly amendment, it's to please indicate on the final site plan the location of the storm drain Is that acceptable? Yes. All right great We have a motion and second two friendly amendments any further discussion Sorry, what about the perpetual maintenance of the walkway removed from the final survey should that be one of the Conditions or we just know that it's gonna do that conditions that okay. Is that what you're thinking of the standard condition for Plant shall be maintained in no no Because right now the survey plat shows the perpetual maintenance of the walkway Okay, so should that be that would be the last little tweak to please remove that from the site plan to preserve your options into the future Okay, we have a motion and a second any further discussion Okay, hearing none all those in favor. Please raise your right hands Any opposed? No, the motion passes unanimously. Thank you very much and thank you all for participating Thank you All right, this brings us to The next item of business which is a sketch sub subdivision review for junction associates You'll come forward so Just to give you an overview we go ahead and have a seat. You don't have to stand Um And is anyone here to be heard on this subdivision this preliminary review, okay? Just so I know and Let me go over the sort of process. This is an informal hearing process at this point. No one goes under oath We're not taking evidence. This is really just an opportunity for the applicant to describe what they plan to do For the board to give some feedback as well as review some of the technical concerns that tpw is starting to raise Things that we would like to see for the final subdivision review So it's it's an informal process. None of this is testimony. A lot of this is just to give you an opportunity to go over it and troubleshoot and spot things so that it goes much smoother as you saw the first two applications do tonight Yes, and the public will have an opportunity for feedback, which is why I asked for an opportunity because oftentimes if somebody has an issue um addressing it at this stage can come to a better resolution than Coming forward at the night of the application okay, so If you'll introduce yourselves any mean of Jason meryl i'm elliott curtain, okay, and we're here for a two-lot subdivision We're looking to create two lots From a 5.6 parcel lot the first lot lot one will be 2.01 acres and the second lot will be 3.66 acres Plans at this point are to subdivide the property in order to sell off the Lot number one for the building and then no future plans for development of lot two at this time okay, um, so I'll dive right into one of the issues that I saw right away that certainly one of the things that dpw is Okay, maryl is going to give you a copy of the staff report because a lot of So one of my questions is how How do you plan to have access to the lot number two? Well at this time, we don't plan on having access to it until the future development is right But we have been working with uh, civil engineer for access We have a sketch in place To gain access similar to where uh, tom mccartle Had suggested the the best location for it So so right around almost almost at the boundary line between the two it is south of the property line Approximately a hundred feet just shy of the culver Which crosses the road, okay And then would this uh, would this access go up Into the property itself or would this sort of it would go up into the property? Yes, okay um Because one of the issues I was noticing was that you know, it looks like there's a nice big flat spot at the top Of this three acre parcel, but Memory serves me correct. It's fairly steep closer to the road. Yeah The access except excuse me the access itself Was a previous driveway there for a house that was there years ago It was the old entrance to the old dewy park so there is Old road there now excuse me the New access would be a shallower grade Road built into the property at the proper grades for state spec Okay, and because I mean would it would it intersect with the old road at any point or would it The old driveway the old driveway. Sorry. It would be right in the place of the old driveway Okay, and that's where the old driveway came out. Is that that point correct? It's right there. Yes When you say old, can you give us a sense of that meant if that meant 1940 or 1995? Just so we can't 1995 um I'm guessing it was pre 1960. Okay. The reason I'm asking is to try and understand how that driveway functioned um In relation to the road given that the use and intensity of Cars on that road has changed a lot in those years. So yeah, all right. What was the old dewy park that you referenced? Uh, the dewy park was a location that the trolley used to stop at and drop folks off to go picnic at Yeah, it's it's on maps from the late 1800s around 1900 Um Presumably having something to do with Montpelier's favorites on that moral, do we? I assume that I didn't know the history. The remaining history may be on the menu at a nearby restaurant. Yeah Okay, um, so I think that's going to obviously be one of the the concerns is you know because of the technical challenges of this parcel To and I understand you're not going to be building a road or you're not proposing a road but One of the requirements that will be necessary is just to show us that a road can be built and the property can be developed and You know one of the just as a way of example one of the first applicants tonight You know when he came forward we wanted him to to look at because he had specific grade challenges of this property of How it was going to be developed even though he's not actually developing it and where Where a likely building would be You know, this is in a Commercial district and presumably, you know, somebody's not Situating a country estate there but likely to If it's consistent with the other recent development in that area is likely to be a commercial one So, you know keeping in mind The limitations that that might put it would be helpful just understand to make sure that that could be used consistent with its Purpose So it's you know, it may involve some engineering expense just to just to have an engineer's report or at least an opinion That this can be done So what we've done at this point is working with our engineer we have complete In place for future development with The actual lay of the land and the storm water Discharge all designed along with that road. That's great. Obviously nothing planned at this point, but Have that in the works. Okay. Do we have that yet or is that some no, okay? Okay? Obviously, it's something we're going to want to see Sure, and I spoke with mr. McCartle today and great told him that I would meet with him to go over that plan and He said he'd be more than glad to and Get his feedback. Okay Any other questions about like the dry flame or I think that the access in egress is obviously very key to Any plan you come up with I mean being in that section of roadway, which is quite hazardous without anything additional being placed in there That is going to be something that that just that quote the chair's comments It's going to be very important As far as developing a sustainable plan To the final approval process We've also got some specific numbers to attach to that that you've probably already given some thought to Which is that there needs to be 120 feet between driveways so staff estimate is that the Approximate area that we've been talking about it's about a hundred feet So that would not be enough and I don't I don't know that an exception is granted For things like that, especially when there's the safety issues Well, I think there's an exception if there's no other place on the parcel if there's no other good place since this is you know what I mean Unless you're saying that we just don't approve the subdivision Well, if it can't be accessed safely, it may not be a suitable Lot to create. I mean one of our charges is to create lots that can be safely developed So it's all kind of in the hopper something maybe to consider here We're creating lot one and then there's remaining lands Do we have a requirement to ensure that you have two lots subdivision along around creating there's only the remaining lands aren't tiny tiny but We're creating lot one is develop a lot. I guess the question there they are trying to to create lot two as a develop a lot also Right. They both need to be developable in some fashion You need to have access to both unless one is going to be conserved land You want to develop both lots Yeah Well, even if they don't want to but they want to sell it they're going to get more money for a developable lot than One that's more of a museum piece um Okay One other issue and i'm sure you are aware of this We've had a recent change through our interim zoning bylaws about the 30 slopes that's obviously All over this parcel Come april 17th those interim Bylaws come into place merit is going to have another point to add on to that. However so I The april 17th effective date that I put in here That was Written to the staff report before I had Confirmation from mike miller or planning director that those actually took effect immediately. Okay, so any application? They did take effect immediately in any applications that we receive From here on we'll have okay the new interim rules applying. So you don't even have that delay so But obviously now Again, you know one of the reasons They allow for 30 slope's is to have an engineer say This is suitable for development And so I think you're hearing a common frame You know the access and the traffic The safety for getting off of what's an extremely busy road And that doesn't have particularly good sort of long. It's not a long straight away So making sure that it's safe access and Ingress and egress are going to be important making sure that we can see that this is in fact a developable lot And the fact that there was at one point a house up there is certainly helpful And we're not looking for a full blown engineering plan of a of a project But just simply to be able to satisfy Your requirement that you've established that through a professional engineer that this is in fact a developable lot um I think will be sufficient although You will be the first to go through this process So meredith should be able to help you on that um And so it sounds like you've already got an engineer working on your drain engine storm water flows There's issues with wastewater and and uh potable water so Is the is the building on lot one currently hooked up to city water and sewer? Okay, so it's just a matter of extending along there, which it's available to do But for lot number two. Yes a new service for both water and sewer wouldn't be connected to a lot Right, but it would be off of the city's lines. Yes, okay um Yeah, I think Most of that is echoed. Yeah Those issues are pretty much echoed throughout in most of the things that I flagged I'm just double checking because to make sure that we've gotten a lot of these Does anybody else have any other questions? I think go ahead Kate a couple in there All related to access so um Is is it the is this a class one highway? Or state highway rather? It's not a state highway. No, it's federal. It's a federal highway, right, but for purposes of but for Sorry, I'm Getting thrown off by the Maybe I'll just ask my question. Yeah, ask your question. It is. Um Do they need to get an access management permit from the state and 11 11 Or is that authority delegated to a city of Montpelier? Right, they don't it's deli it's classed on the the highway maps is a class one city highway Because the city there are no state Controlled highways within the bounds of the city of montpelier. Okay. All right that okay So any access management any access permits would be issued by the city I think there's a section of 89 Okay, well, that's not the same thing. That's not the same. That's an interstate. I know interstate. I know it's limited access Okay, yeah, but that's not 11 11 for our purposes. We don't have anything on 11 11 Yeah, don't mess with me. I am I'm asking is that um That we have a provision that says if the lot shall be accessed from a state highway The applicant needs to provide a letter from v-trans, but what I'm hearing is that instead of v-trans issuing those permits the city does Right, that's what I wanted to confirm um, my other question is um, you know, we talked in a previous application about Cross access which is access From one lot to another not directly from the highway so that they can share a driveway especially for commercial uses so looking at the site plan I see Lot one has its driveways and including one that appears to go behind the building is Could you explore the feasibility of that being an access up here and I'm putting it out there in a Structural way it may not functionally work like if this is a really high demand business Then maybe lot one doesn't want cars coming in going but functionally around the back. No On the front side From the southern side of the building straight south That is a possibility Um That would make it so that there's only one one curb cut for the two lots, which seems like it would solve a lot of problems There would be an easement for lot one gain access through lot two's curb cut So it would go that way it would be that The access would be granted to lot it wouldn't be that lot one where the existing building is is granting the access to lot two It would be the other way around correct How would how would that work if lot two doesn't own lot one? I get a little confused about who's the grantee and the grantor In order they're all owned by the same person right now right now. Oh, okay We're both so I've sold off lot one already in order for us to get the permit if we have to Combine drive unless you pay for it Let's talk to you later There's always devotion That's what i'm told all right. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So it's nice to know that that is a possibility that could utilize an existing curb cut save you some engineering potentially and Answer a lot of these questions. So maybe just something to explore with dpw if that's something that makes sense We'll talk about cool Yeah, we're not I mean this is just a discussion We're tough to you how to design your project if you want to put the put the access where you want but I'd rather Do it with my hands than have to cover the meetings multiple times to get it taken care of so much to travel I can come up with a good plan Is there a technical review or is it just more of an informal meeting with tom the cartel that they're planning um It depends on the the application I think what they're talking about right now is they're one-on-one with tom. Okay, and then Often because oftentimes applicants will do that. They'll have their individual meetings with tom And then come to me and if I have further questions, I can go back to tom You know, this isn't something where? I think other committees Or other other departments need to be brought in too much on this one two additional notes One is you said you already have your sort of wastewater and Well, you have your storm water plan and your storm water plan in place. We do have a wastewater permit for the subdivision Completed, I just received it. We have to file that with the city Is there likely to have to be any blasting On the site for for the installation of any of these lines or storm water lines Either for the new lines or for any of the storm water plans For the new construction of lot number two there would be significant blasting done on the property in order to make it a buildable lot Okay, I mean, I think though one thing that Obviously because the city Does regulate such activities. It's worth exploring with tom cartel when you have those conversations with him Just if there's any requirements That you need to be aware of in advance. I mean, obviously There'll have to be a blasting plan put into place once There's a plan to develop this in place, but Um, nevertheless, I think it's worth worth having a conversation In the past when I've met with mr. McCarran, we have discussed this good The city has the criteria to follow for for the blast Right, and that's that I mean, that's that's fairly straightforward. It's a regulatory sure You know the safety issue The only other thing is that, you know, of course, we will require certain narratives. So You know addressing the capacity of community facilities and utilities that this is going to have an impact on You know, we've talked about the Character of the neighborhood the Landscaping, you know, we this is a forested parcel of land I presume you're going to have to cut some trees to develop this especially if you're doing blasting um, but As you can see from before we're not looking to necessarily impose A specific type of landscaping plan, but just a willingness to accept some something that would Allow that would be consistent with this area and a commercial development as well as an existing commercial development By its side, um Any other questions for anyone No, and uh, sorry mr. Singer is it? If you want to come to my yeah, if you have any questions or comments Not really much, but my name is josh singer. I'm the current tenant of building a lot one And a potential buyer of that a lot. So I came just to kind of hear more about the plans and understand sort of What's going on? I just had like a couple questions in my one was what the size of the Lot one would be. I think I heard 2.01 And then of course the other question was about access I just kind of want I didn't that didn't go clear. So I wanted to hear more just like the boy here You know, I guess if there was that Choice of course, I would prefer it if I was the potential owner on a separate access I understand exploiting the idea So we might have a play here So I just came to kind of hear more sure All right Thank you very much Let me ask this question on lot one, you know, you've got this commercial development Building right there at the street. I think you You know did a great job of rehabbing it. I remember when this project came up before us a long time ago Um, or not that long ago, but it seems Is there any potential for the other rest of lot one or is this something where Um You know once this subdivision occurs, that's really it it becomes these two parcels Lot one could potentially have additions put on to it But you're limited with parking The majority of that lot is a very steep slope behind it. So You'd be limited on how much square footage you could add to the Okay, but I mean building itself can obviously be built out a little bit more and Yeah, but we're not talking like putting something up in the back corner or subdividing that into it another parcel as well No, these things can often end in a whimper more than a bang Any other questions from any other board members? Good. Well, obviously meredith will help you through and mr. Singer I certainly if you have any questions that are unanswered or Or considering meredith can you know, this is all public documents. So you're welcome to come and take a look and review and Certainly if you're going to be negotiating with these gentlemen that you'll want to equip yourself with as much information as possible So I'm not seeing any red flags from any of the other board members as to this development I think once you work out some of the technical access issues um That's going to be, you know, your big your big sort of hurdle and then otherwise, it's Size is consistent. There's obviously going to be room to develop within The parcel number two. There's already development on parcel number one I think it's fairly straightforward. So good luck. Great. Thanks. Thanks. All right uh, next order of business is Other business which includes a notice of our next regularly scheduled meeting which will be monday april 15th 2019 at 7 p.m. Same That channel same bat station here at Montpelier city hall any other business that anybody wishes to address Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion to adjourn. I will accept set motion to adjourn Second second. Okay much my captain second by tom all those in favor of adjourning, please raise your right hand And we are adjourned