 Good evening everyone. We're going to call this meeting of the city of Montpelier Development Review Board to order for Monday March 18th 2019 my name is Daniel Richardson. I serve as chair of the other members from my right arm Rob Goodwin Kevin O'Connell Deb Markowitz mayor of the Crandall staff Kate McCarthy Ryan Cain Tom Kester So first order of business is approval of the agenda Does anybody have any amendments the agenda or does someone wish to move for the agenda as printed so move Motion by Kevin. Do we have a second? Second second by Kate All those in favor of the agenda as printed, please raise your right hand Have an agenda No comments from the chair this evening Move straight to the approval of the minutes. We have two sets of minutes. The first one are from February 19th Myself Kevin Kate Ryan and Rob are all eligible to vote Does anyone wish to amend the minutes or to move their approval I'll move approval of the minutes as drafted for February 19th for February 19th Motion by Ryan second second second by Kevin all those eligible to vote which would be myself Kevin Kate Ryan and Rob In favor of the motion, please raise your right hand They are approved excellent Moving through very quickly the second set of minutes are from March 4th myself Deb Tom Ryan and Rob are all eligible to vote for the March 4th minutes from our last meeting Do I have a motion to approve or not? Move to approve as written. Okay motion by Deb. Do I have a second second second by Rob? All those in favor who are eligible to vote, please raise your right hand We have minutes from March 4th as well. Thank you all very much That brings us to our first item of business for the evening, which is 19 Pearl Street This is a final subdivision plan review Mr. Noir So if you'll Just state your name for the record and then I will put you in under oath My name is Samuel Noir. Okay, and you're here as the applicant. Is that correct? Okay, 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 a pains and penalties of perjury. I do very good do you Actually, let's have America Start us off. Yeah, just give us maybe a refresher. I I think we all remember discussing it but might be helpful to just refresh the application as well as any significant changes you as staff would like to draw your attention to So this is a fairly basic Two-lot subdivision info on Pearl Street. This is the final application and during sketch plan the major questions that we asked the applicant to come back about were underground utilities and landscaping for screening in between the new parcel and Both the parcel is being subdivided off from as well as the closest neighbor So that there's there's a couple of issues like that around that brought up in the staff report The other update that you should be aware of is that a survey was completed The original parcel is actually much larger than when we originally looked at it and Then the only really complication from that was that the front property boundary wasn't quite as close to the sidewalk as we originally thought So the front porch is actually in that front setback But I've flagged it in here, but it is my understanding of previously existing non-conformity So it should be fine It is flagged in there in red though. Just as a highlight because it's something different Well, and let me ask this question Meredith just so I understand if the If we grant the subdivision it doesn't alter the existing non conforming correct nor would it Open the door for what's labeled as lot one to have a similar non-conforming Exactly the subdivision isn't going to increase increase any non-conformity or like you said open Any door for lot one to do the same great Mr.. R. Was there anything you wish to I? Think I did my best to answer. I mean the major bono contention is obviously to power the utilities, right? because I looked into that quite extensively and it's It's a for many reasons first of all the That pole is 44 years old They don't dig anything. That's 30 years old or Folder, so that would be replaced that side of the street, which is what? North side so the entire neighborhood the poles are on the north side of the street because I know it was presented as an option to Possibly put a pole run it overhead over the street and then underground it from there Which I guess is technically possible but I'm not sure what that accomplishes as far as At that point 60 or 70 percent of the line is then already overhead it creates an anomaly where the That's the only pole on the south side of the street in the neighborhood I Had Green Mountain power come do you know shortly after the other meeting I had them come out and do a Site visit to kind of run through all the options one of them was directional boring Technology, which isn't an option in this case because the they indicated that it has to be Four feet underground and encased in four inches of concrete Which they can't accomplish if they there's no way to accomplish that without digging up the sidewalks of the street, right? Oh, does it and has public works laid in on that option at all because it seems to me we're going through Yes, yeah, putting it under the street just isn't feasible is it feasible and as Sam says if you You know then you're running the power for a few feet underground on the new parcel, right? I even asked them actually if they if there's some because I know in some older neighborhoods There's like attached to their houses and run. I asked if there's any way I could because I own the house now Yeah, anyway, I can and they don't do that anymore. I don't know when that went out of Fashion fashion or law or whatever, but she said that attaches it you permanently to the existing They just it's not something they do anymore. So what did Green Mountain power recommend is as far as Attaching power to the house just running it standard. Yeah across the street One there's that large tree In the corner there and the pole the way the pole is situated I don't know. I forget what the technical term is, but you have to run it along the line for you know 15 or 20 feet and then across but they have she said we're not even close to the span that you know, they can go 200 something feet, you know What we're like less than half of what to meet those requirements just to run it down the line and then across She said they could hook it up in two days for less than a thousand dollars Or dig up the entire street or yeah, I actually had an excavator I mean I went I tried to do my best, you know to to present because it just Not only the they have to they can't use that pole. So you'd have to order a new pole Which is thirty five hundred dollars and three months wait time because of the age of the pole You'd have to dig up both sidewalks the street And between the pole and the excavator it's a almost thirty thousand dollars minimum barring any water or sewer or and then You know Green Mountain both of them actually indicated to me that the you know, obviously the streets never gonna be the same, right? I'm not sure when they were Just from their opinions were Thoroughly against it and just for We're sort of backing our way into I think what you're asking for is essentially a variance from that requirement Yeah, I wasn't sure of all the legal whatever. I don't know if you have some exemption some I know variances ultimately possible I don't know what's the I don't know what your options are as far as that is Well, it's really I don't think we have to do an official variance or waiver The language in the clause says that all utilities shall be located underground unless prevented by ledge or other physical conditions so I think it's the board Basically making having to make a determination that this is one of those other physical conditions. It's also a discussion point on whether or not The board wants the planning department to try and come up with some clarifications for these subdivision provisions that don't really make sense for one lot infill Divisions for future if this is one of those troublesome or we can set the precedent by Taking that right that language in and using it We do we begin to build up a Case History, yep, there's that it's also but also just when new Zoning administrators come in not that I'm anticipating that anytime in the future but having something that If you wanted to put in the regulations where there's a little I don't know if you see whether or not they keep coming back here Or not. Well, so just a question to think about We've seen some sketch plan review for these one lot infill subdivisions so far But haven't seen many of them through yet And so I would prefer to see more examples of who is looking for it How this applies before we make any requests to the planning commission Flagged in pencil, yeah I think it's worth flagging Whether we make a formal recommendation to the planning commission or not. I think you're right Kate that you know this is one out of You know one of the first Weathers is going to be a repeat issue It sounds like and I agree with Kevin as well that you know There's a way of fixing this get based on the language and I think this fits within the physical conditions I mean, I think this would even qualify for a larger variance You know just given the testimony we've received and that I would elicit some additional but I Can't imagine at the same time two things one that this is an isolated incident There are many streets in Montpelier existing where power lines are strung on one side of the street And if there's infill on another how that power would be run to those new lots In those infill projects, I suspect this may be this is a problem that is likely to repeat It doesn't seem to be that unique of a set of circumstances and the second thing is I'm not quite clear why the Sub why the bylaws Have that in in cases of infill I can see with new construction that is that generally tends to be the new standard is running power lines underground And so it might be helpful eventually I mean if we difference between maybe raising it formally or penciling it if if the Planning Commission did have new Construction in mind new subdivision sort of new development as opposed to infill and whether that should be distinguished down the line Okay, what if we do carry that forward I would want us to have a discussion about how we define infill I don't know I don't remember if it's in the definitions But we've been using it very loosely Including for big two acre lots up in the town Hill Road area as infill And I think we're talking about there's something very specific here, which is an existing neighbor So right that's my little note for the for the future when Thank you for bearing with us through that thought process I Just wanted to I think moving forward think the applicant for the due diligence Yes, provided. I think that that is Helpful for going forward when you cross it information that we may need to come to an appropriate decision. So thank you Yeah, thanks for taking the time to do that No, I think that that does helpful and just to be clear The power lines run along the north side of Pearl Street Do all the houses along the south side have their power lines running across Pearl Street above Okay, so I mean this is One amongst many houses that will have its power lines strung across Pearl Street in other words There's no poles on that side I mean you could underground if you were if it was on the other side actually thought about because there is The gentleman that has the house on the corner has quite a big lot that I can imagine You know there's only so many lots around and I could imagine from that same pole I'm talking about somebody someday might want to but It's right there and they can just underground from right there. This is big if you're on the other side There's really no way to do it without, you know destroying the the streets inside Is there anyone here to be heard on this application just checking all right Very good, so I think that that is certainly the major issue And it seems like we have some consensus here unless anyone had any other questions that they wish to ask about this So What I know one of the concerns that we had was about landscaping What is the proposal? Well at this time I don't there's not much I can say with much specificity because We have to I mean ultimately obviously it's to build I think we're gonna want some kind of Everything is going in steps, so it's like you know I will have the architect you have the builders you have these meetings You can only go forward so fast with so many things and actually just for the first time because now we're getting to the end of The drawings and you know the actual dimensions and this and that and I I staked it out With just some garden stakes, so I could just get an idea. Okay. This is what they're proposed. Here's the setbacks Here's the so I'm not sure how I Can specifically landscape it now anyway because we're talking about window placements whether it's you know Moving the entire thing forward or back five feet even You know not that you could do much at this point in the year anyway, but even if you could You may just change your mind six months from now, and it's actually getting Finished anyway, I'm not sure how much I can speak to the specifics You know the issues that Obviously that big tree up there is not getting touched all all throughout the back of the property. There's one tree in the middle Like directly in the middle of the new lot that we'll have to get removed because it would be Other than that the entire Backside of our property now and the neighboring properties it's obviously not on the survey, but the The Regina that's right here the back of her property and then backing up to movies property is all Trees and bushes and I mean when it's grown in the summer You can't even see the houses up on the top of the hill or the only one really is going to be the two existing Directly on the other side right going to be mainly affected and we'll have to see At that point What but I guess that mostly depends on the placement of the house and windows and That It does talk about Yeah, I'm just of course it doesn't I'm looking for the actual site No, just within the development standards of the subdivision standards and three five Yeah, so one of what we're required to look at and Is for for landscaping and I think it's three five Six is it is it F? Yeah, it talks about landscaping and says the application shall design the subdivision to maximize the preservation of existing mature vegetation And provide additional landscaping which may be installed when the lots are subsequently developed as necessary to one Maintain and provide privacy for both the joining property owners and between lots within the subdivision To to enhance the appearance of street frontage and shade trees and sidewalks Three to maintain and or or establish vegetated buffers along waterways and other natural areas and for to utilize green Green storm water infrastructure practices So I would Suggest that three is not an issue here because you're not along a waterway but one two and four are and so I Understand, you know, what you've what you've essentially created is another sort of Deeper than wide lot that's consistent with the other lots but You know as you've already said you're looking at where There would have to be some buffer between the new house and your Because those are going to be fairly close together as well as between the new house and the the house right next to it Because that's also going to need a little bit of a buffer And you're saying that the the trees that has exist the big tree in front And the trees in the back aren't going to change There might be one tree in the middle of the lot that's going to have to come out because that's where the house is So I don't You know, I think what we're looking at is Whether this design and I'll ask the other board members if they What what their feelings are is whether we need to have a greater? Design for the landscaping. I mean it's obvious You know based on the testimony where some of this landscaping is going to have to go When the house is built and developed is that enough for us at this stage? And then when the house is built and part of it is of course, you're not going to be able to control Are you selling this lot? Or are you building on it the one we're going to build on yeah, you know, we're going to live there Okay, and sell the existing. Oh, okay Go ahead Leaving aside the current plans for the lot what we could do to ensure that the Subdivided land is developed properly is I think we've received evidence that the max that preservation of existing mature vegetation is being maximized With the two trees that you're able to keep There could be put on the subdivision permit a condition that says, you know Additional landscaping will be provided as necessary to do items one three and four Um pending the design of the Final I guess that's just what I'm confused is when that Is it at this stage or is it at the it'd be the next day? The bylaws required anyway, you know to come back to landscaping so I think right I think what Kate is suggesting is is a way to accommodate your reasonable need to put it off And it also ensures that the subdivision itself is Has all the pieces and parts it needs if for some reason you choose not to develop the lot and sell it to someone else Okay, does that make sense? Yeah, so the specific I got the map will be with the house permit. Okay. Yeah You know, I totally understand and I mean I have to you know, borrow some Whatever we end up not living there if it goes forward like we plan obviously I have to live there with these people too Right, you know, it's in my just it from a selfish perspective. It's in my best interest to To have it but I again, I'm not sure how much of that I can address it Yeah, no, and I don't think it's I don't think it's reasonable to to require you to have a fully Fledged landscaping plan at this stage because you don't have your house plans yet and it's not required by a subdivision And I think 90 of what you need to do you've done which is to show You know, you've created a design that seems to be consistent with the existing landscaping and It's really just this next 10% which is to sort of commit to What logically should follow which is that there will have to be additional landscaping? consistent with both our landscaping standards and as we've identified where you're going to need those buffers between the houses Yeah Maybe I could clarify that when I'm suggesting putting a condition on the subdivision permit I don't mean that that condition would need to be fulfilled before you get the permit It would mean that the condition would need to be fulfilled in order to Maintain adherence to the permit once you build right if I was unclear about that It makes sense too because I'm actually just thinking forward now You know at best case scenario if we can get this through this year You know it's not going to get built and finished until the end of the year And you're not going to be able to landscape anything in december anyway So I guess a lot of that will have to come the following the spring Yeah, I mean that's the part of the part of the zoning permit would be to have a landscaping plan in there But you wouldn't have to Implement that landscaping plan until the expiration of the zoning permits. You basically have two years Actually, just as a quick question. Maybe you know, what is it like? Let's say In this case If I wanted to put a tree the opposite of what this one is now on the The big one that's marked on the On the corner the end of the new lot. Yeah If you put one on the other side What just so I know in my head, I guess I would need to look up your landscaping regulations, but Because I these like something like that I would need to think about now with the driveway and uh, you know So, but I could definitely put a tree there come come see me at the after march 27th, and we'll see what the city council past for revamped landscaping regulations So give me a little time It is great. You don't want to be under the Yeah It's like first yeah first square foot. You'd have to have like probably 30 shrubs and and five trees or something Yeah, so I have 100 trees in the property as it is wait and get in touch with me and once the once the new landscaping Rags are adopted. We'll we'll reevaluate Sounds good. Thank you So that provides flexibility on the Yep, I think that makes sense. Yeah. Oh, all right. Um So And we've talked about the front porch that our understanding is it's the pre-existing Nonconforming we're not changing that or altering it and Nothing in the pre-existing nonconforming porch is going to affect a lot. What would now be lot two Will affect how lot one is developed? Uh, were there any other issues that people wish to discuss on this particular subdivision? Otherwise, I have one question. Oh, yes. Um So this little narrow tiny area on the side of the We give an explanation what what's there Oh, okay. That belongs to the family behind there. Okay They just don't know that Um, so this drawing where the back the back of that So There's that little chunk right that's missing That's marked so between the back property line and let's say that tree about Halfway through there is where the slope starts That slope goes up about equally as far on the other side. So it's maybe That slope is I don't know maybe 20 feet. Let's say and it slopes up 10 or 15 feet The surveyor so apparently where my garage is now was a barn It was all one property and she thinks there was some drive up From because that's a higher And when they broke it off there was something at the time That made this little piece of property Go with the way it was divided which she can't tell now obviously It was either an error or there was something at the time That it was necessary for them to keep that little piece So I went and talked to them, but I I talked to their kids actually they weren't home at the time, but I'm waiting because I want them to you know The surveyor that was the first thing she said see if you can get this cleaned up. So when you record it, it's Because they don't even know they own it. It's It's separated by 20 some odd feet of full-grown trees You know, but it's officially Belongs to them. Yeah, I just didn't know if there's any structure or anything there that no It was a really weird. She was she knocked on the door was like, hey, you gotta look at this For some reason you don't own this little it's like, you know three by 10 feet stretch behind the tree and then it's all hill up to there and then they have fence on the back of their property. So They don't even know they own it an anomaly Yeah, and she wasn't 100% why sure why because it goes back. I mean that plan goes back to 1901 That she was referencing so it was a little unclear what that was there for Well, this is in the meadow. So this That is a Yeah, I mean, it's but it's also relatively I mean compared to some neighborhoods. It was relatively recently developed For my motility of standards. I would say I'd say it was more uniformly planned. Yes Well, the reason she said because when she took the dimension the dimensions of the old barn were listed and they go Like up to their property And it's a slope. So it was obvious that Only maybe that third floor met that part of their property and then the first and second floor were on Our lot at the time. I don't know. I don't know why but She has to point it out because that's her stop Okay But I'm trying to get that cleared up before it gets Recorded, but I don't think there's any Yeah, not not any zoning issue Unless they come for an application To use it I should have them start at the moment Be a nice new neighbor. Yeah, go talk to Steve Flanley after this, you know, no, I'm sure Any other questions If not anyone have a motion that they wish to make Mr. Chair, I'll move final subdivision plan approval for its 19 pearl street with the condition that Within 180 days of the decision the applicant should record the final survey plat in the Montpelier land records office for the procedures details in section 4405 of the zoning regulations And as previously discussed by the board a condition that Upon application for a zoning permit to construct a structure on this property Additional landscaping will be delineated as necessary to meet the requirements of section 3506 f of the zoning bylaw Okay, motion by kate. Do I have a second? I'll second that second by rob any further discussion Let me just I don't think it needs to be part of the motion But it's our understanding that part of this permit is going to be granting the whether or not variants or waiver or finding that The power lines can be strung across overhead Pearl street to get power to this lot one. Yes, that's the understanding. Okay All those in favor, please raise your right hand You have your subdivision thank you permit it will issue there'll be a written decision that will be issued in a few Days or maybe a week I don't want to overpromise Okay, uh, so the next item of business, uh, is a couple of things one is that 213 main street which was scheduled for a final Plan review of a two lot subdivision that's been tabled by the applicant. Yes until do they wish to have it tabled? Yes, okay, so we need a motion conflict. Okay, so they wish to have it tabled until april 1st 2019 Yes, so I will Unless anybody has any questions entertain a motion Motion by kevin. Do I have a second? Second by tom to table the applicant has a final sub plan 213 main street to april 1st Any further discussion all those in favor please raise your right hand It's been tabled All right, and the next item of business is zero main street after it directly after 1701 main street This is an informal review of four new dwelling units and You must be jeff stetter. Yes. Okay so Given that this is an informal Review We're not going to put you under oath. So I presume you're just looking for our initial feedback response. Absolutely. Yep. So Yes, I'll open up the floor to you and okay, give you give us a brief description and then we'll let we'll just all chime in as we have questions Okay, great. Great Yeah, so A little background. I am a licensed architect. I've been practicing for 25 years. I was with gossas bachman for 23 of those and Moved on from there, but it's this is something I've always wanted to do always wanted to do my own thing Okay, I designed a lot of that stuff for other people. So I've been watching for pieces of property and this one became available and I do have a Purchased sale agreement on it with Sort of 90 days betting period where I can make sure I can do it because it's it's not an easy piece of property to develop So the I can just I'll just kind of go through These four pages I've got here Obviously that's the piece of property there. It's You know slopes it's a steeper slope site And If you go to the the photos When you're at the street level you can't quite tell but there is actually a level area somewhat at the top that if you look at photos see that you can kind of see that I'm looking to do four units at one I would live in one and three very small One bedroom homes Would be the other the other three units Like a total square footage we're talking with like 3000 square feet. So it's not a big You know for four for four homes. It's it's pretty small compact development being one one building Highly I'm looking to be highly energy efficient Net zero ready. Probably won't be able to do solar panels right off But hopefully down the road and set it up so that I can add them to the roof Trying to do is minimal site disturbance is possible I kind of like the the natural aspect of it the woods So besides the clearing that would be required for the home the drive and septic system because septic system and Water system would be on site in this site Talked with tom mccartland. He said there's I guess the connections are down past the entrance to murray Um Murray hill. Yeah, Murray hill development there. So it's sort of out of out of reach to get to that So Let's see. So then if you go to page three, this is this was based on a Math that Audra gave me that the red indicates Slopes over 30 percent and over which We didn't get color black and white Yeah, someone got color. Yeah, okay. Do you mean the copies? I made copies. Oh, I was cheap. Sorry Yeah, I'm not sure what the black and white you can share down there. Yeah Oh, well it makes a big difference. Yeah So, yeah, so the red is the is 30% Yeah, the red and then the the sort of bluish gray That's that's that's the area of the red on the piece of property. So that's that's my area calculation So if you look at the if you look at the the gray areas on the piece of property That's the areas that are over 30% given this particular large scope topography plan. It's it's not a You know A high resolution plan. It's given it 10,000 feet or something. I don't know So the the yellow areas the yellow areas are Areas that are less than 500 square feet which you can deduct from the the calculations This is all coming down to a density calculation. I assume you guys probably Yeah, thinking that so so once you do this this calculation Total area and so forth. I really only as it currently stands and currently only have enough density for three units I need I have 28,000 the the Area that is less than 30 slope is 28,000 square feet I need 9,000 square feet per unit. So I can get three units There I really want to get four and I need to understand the new zoning changes I know there's some happening immediately, but there's some also that are happening. Well, there's no guarantee Right, right. Oh, yeah, there's no guarantee that the buildable area Calculation is going to change. What's the time frame? I mean just roughly I know um planning commission is working June. I'll expect october That sounds about right. Yeah, is that it really that's the planning commission is still working through those. Um, and Changes to the buildable area would be part of that whole package So it has to finish getting through planning commission and then go before city council so You know the hope is in front of city council june So marita that's become separated from so the um the landscaping pieces moving along going to city council at the end of This month and the buildable area pieces are separate Right. So lands right so landscaping and slopes are whatever for city council for It could be voted on and decided as of the 27th next week Buildable area calculation, which has to do with slopes has been separated from the larger slopes provision changes Because the planning commission could not we could reach consensus. Okay, so those are two things that would Yeah, sorry. Yeah, yeah, you know, they could reach consensus. Sorry. They couldn't reach unanimity. Yes. Sorry wrong word just maybe This may be something that's that's worthwhile We can give you our feedback, but we're constrained by the existing rules I understand there's some of this that you're talking about I think is good to vote before the planning commission because as you heard from the previous discussion You know, they've made a lot of changes and a lot of times they have a certain set of facts in their mind driving their policies and Making them aware of other circumstances or other situations may allow them to start to um I believe Enlarge their Their scope of thinking about these these these type of parcels letting you you know letting them know this This type of parcel exists Your needs are x And you know, it makes sense to allow For this kind of development for all the reasons you're starting to articulate to us because they're the ones who can actually start to change Some of the policies and rules That we then have to enforce You'd recommend going before the planning commission them. Is that okay? I think it's I think it's good to make them aware They need to see case examples of how this is really impacting Okay. Yeah, I mean they have the unenviable position of trying to think of this in the abstract and the more concrete You can make it for them. I think the better So, um, is this in the marina neighborhood Of backside. Yeah, is that the tech? Is that technically the part of the zoning? It falls in is that neighborhood? It's residential nine thousand. Yeah, and then within that we've got a whole bunch of neighborhoods I honestly I didn't write that down. I don't know If it's the same it's the same Yeah, but I did take a peek at it and I'm pretty sure it's considered so within the zoning We've got the zoning districts and then we have neighborhoods within it each one has a slightly different character So particularly for a conditional use which this would be I think part of our task is to evaluate the proposal with respect to Any impacts it does or doesn't have on the on the character. Is this kind of the Small paragraph description. Yep. That's the one kind of the general feeling of that area. Yeah Yeah, so, um Maybe someone else can corroborate, but I think this parcel does fall technically within Murray hill 11-5. So I guess what we'd look at is this this is the description of the neighborhood This is one of the city's more recent residential developments with single family homes in townhouses accessed by several cul-de-sac streets And a substantial amount of open space Proposed land development may feature infill residential development where infrastructure is available And to the extent feasible given the availability and ownership of land in this neighborhood So when I read that I noted that infrastructure is not available on the site And it I would not I don't know that this would be considered infill In the way that is envisioned by the description What was the last sentence? the last sentence Let me see hand ownership Stem feasible given the availability Stem feasible given the availability and ownership of land in this neighborhood Which suggests to me that this was written with the Murray hill subdivision In mind and not as much with the adjacent parts that are not part of it in mind right and so this is another thing to Mention to the planning commission because they're the ones who envision where the various districts are great You know how long this has been like a separate piece of separate parcel uh, actually This survey was done 1970 I'm assuming Pre-dates the Murray hill subdivision at least yeah, yeah, the owners are Calvin Murray and Elsie Murray Hmm And so I'm trying to picture where it is It's it's if you're going up mainstream you pass the Murray Hill's on the left entrance there And there's the big field there right and then there's a line right when it comes you see it Actually, there's a line of trees, right? Yep at the property And it's right there on the other side of it And then if if any is when you're driving up there on the left, there's like these old foundations and stuff on the hill I don't know if anybody remembers those things they're up on the left I think it's like remnants of a little garage maybe or something. Um, that's not on this property actually But that's kind of the end of it. So it's it's 1.17 acres and it's all wooded right now Yeah, yeah for the most part it's all I'm wondering if it was Pasture at one point or something because all the trees are like the same. Yeah, and they're not like You know some some piece of property you see them where like the trees are falling down and stuff and so the soil you're rooting But they're all like straight So another layer you could look at is um, whether there are any natural resources that appear on this parcel That are part of the natural resources maps for the of the city. No, I don't think there is There are no resources Okay Oh, so you've played with that. Yep. Yep. That's a good research resource. Yeah So, yeah, I mean so so you get to the end of it the lashing is sort of the basic site plan Um, you know again the intent would be to keep as much of the woods as possible I'm thinking I am I'm working with don marsh Civil engineer on Site planning and we'll be getting a more accurate survey but in reality though. This actually seems somewhat close so and So the drive it's a it's a steeper drive getting up to trying to get to that point About 10 feet below that level area of that photo be And that would be sort of the first floor it'd be sort of a walkout kind of relationship with parking underneath at that that first level and the Foundation of the building would serve as a retaining to hold that slope up Because part of that was such a steeper slope part of just getting the cars turned around and be able to go back out Is a major site restriction? So but but you know Amazingly it did did grayed out relatively well without a lot of Crazy, you know steep slope steeper slopes Or a major retaining so That was good Yeah, what else can I tell you? So this is one building that would then have these units within it, right? Right, right The footprint would be well the footprint would be bigger because it's so if you can imagine So there's parking and kind of see the back ends of the cars parked underneath there. This is a three-dimensional model I just didn't print out anything to show the massing but Yeah, you would be parking underneath it and then there'd be a floor all above it so Almost like the um The apartments behind the the capital their pavilion building actually Similar as far as sectional relationship, right? You park in and floor above it, right? Yeah, yeah, but it would just be Is that one or two floors? I think it's parking in the two floors. Yep. Yeah, this would be parking in the one floor. There'd be there'd be one apartment Next to the parking and then there'd be three So that would that would Reach out in the back at gray It's a little hard to evaluate this so I'm going to just characterize this as an observation rather than a A concern or anything like that. But one question I have is how how do we Evaluate the construction of multifamily housing in an outlying area like this when many of our town plan priorities have to do with This is a compact site design, but it's not within a compact settlement pattern. It's kind of on its own its own lot It looks quite lovely. Um, so so reconciling those things and um when we come to review it Does it meet the criteria that we have to to look at so I I can't give you a Flash review of that right now. I'm sorry to say but um, that's a that's a big question. I would have Yes, I mean as we're Yes, you are Flushing out more of the plan a plan for the building It may be worth coming down and going through this The section 3304 the character of the neighborhood because part of that is also Architectural compatibility, which might be part of what it's not at all what I'm not what you're talking about. No, okay It's the location of the use Okay, you're should multifamily be located in these types of locations And and I should be very clear that that's not a concern about um That that's a concern about efficient use of land not about proximity of multifamily housing to single family housing I'm fine mixing that out. Yeah, but I also believe that that's That that's that's part of the discussion that's going on with the with the zoning regulation, but we're also wanting to encourage cottage clusters Which this would be ideal for You know in all locations Not all locations and so I'm questioning what the what locations are suitable for cottage clusters and whether open areas There's there's a place for That's part of my question is whether on undeveloped land is where we Just how far out we want them Which is why there's such a lively debate So it's happening right now. So your timing is is is perhaps challenging. I don't know. Yeah. Yeah I mean, but it isn't a residential 9000 neighborhood, you know So it doesn't it makes sense to me to say we have a 1.1 acre parcel But we this is not an area appropriate for clustering. So essentially you can't have multifamily and then It would incentivize either Subdivision to create smaller lots out there if you have a 9000 square foot Lot size or 9000 square foot per unit. It seems like if you're going to have a square footage per unit Set out in the zoning regulations That and and that's why I was curious where this I mean this More than an acre lot has been there for 40 years Presumably that's an indication that at least I mean Depending on how much certainly if you take the whole acre into consideration that that's an indication that this is an appropriate place for Four units of housing development. Maybe you take to track all the Unbuildable space and you get down to three but Still seems to me like under the regulations. There's an indication that Three units is appropriate in this location provided again that's you actually go through the conditional use Standards to show that the the particular proposal will not have an adverse impact on the surrounding area, but I think from the start to say Maybe we don't want three units of clustered residential development in a 9000 per unit Area more than an acre That was a long way to say pretty short thing I want to hear myself talk sometimes Yes, it's your turn. Not anymore Okay, one board member's thoughts For what they're worth Any comment is helpful with this chair Well, and I guess I'll just Tack on to that because it is an ongoing discussion that I think It's unresolved what exactly our powers are in character of the neighborhood And that ultimately, you know, we're zoning forward and we have to adhere to certain standards But if there aren't standards That puts us in a difficult position Where we're asked to substitute sort of Um Judgment about what should or shouldn't be built, you know, sort of to Implement what our version of the of the plan might be A larger sort of city plan of development. I mean at the end of the day We're tasked with really applying specific standards In in the bylaws. And so I think, you know, that's just something we haven't Had to Fully flesh out. So that's one of the unknowns It certainly, you know does auger for, you know, some type of conversation with the planning commission to see, um You know where some of their changes are going because I think this is a different project if The steep slope density calculations change I mean even beyond Simply what you're proposing here Um, if you were able to count more of that 1.7 1.17 acres You might have different Thoughts about how to how to use this property. Yes Yeah, because it's it's uh, yeah, it's three three. I'm actually financially. I'm not sure I'm gonna be able to make that work It's it's uh Once I get the four I can make it financially Well, and you know, I mean I think part of it too and this is this is more on the economic side is you know, what is the demand for a one bedroom unit this At this point from the downtown Is there a demand for that? And I mean that's not anything we decide. I think that's an issue from the standpoint of marketability. Yeah I mean a lot of folks who are in one bedrooms are gonna want to be closer to downtown I mean there is like trails through murray hill and you can get down to the Oh, yeah, sure. There is right You have to be pretty hard. Yeah, you've got to be hardy. That's for sure Not that kind of walkable. Yeah You can have a car and you need to be hikeable hikeable to town. Yeah I will say if the regulations Require us to exclude all that area and it stays as it is and it says three units Then it's we have almost no power to say right you can say like I really I can't do without four and we get to say Well, okay, you can't do it without you know, right, right. Yeah, no, I understand that I mean I say that just in honesty and yeah, no, no, yeah, absolutely And so that's where I think the planning commission is yeah, and you're lucky that it's a time when yeah They're actually looking at that because otherwise, um, you know, there's Much more difficult to change the regulations to accommodate something. Yeah. No, it is on candy timing Yeah, so it's good. Well Maybe you said you wanted to get into this so You're you're diving into the deep end. Um So I don't know is there anything else that we could help you with? Um I just uh one question. Uh, so when it comes to the uh restriction how the slopes restrict the density um If one were to go the say infill housing and apply for the bonus of affordability um or You know, that's 30 401 Uh, you know, if the unit's affordable you can get it to 50 percent Reduction, uh, if it's so much open space per unit I'm just uh, oh You're talking about in the PUD section. Yeah But that's not a PUD You know, I just know it's not what's being proposed. I'm just sort of Pointed to it. It almost seems like it's along the lines of what's What we're talking about with infill housing Well, I think it is a little bit only. I mean obviously it's it's um I think you start off with the lower density You know, you you subtract out the 30 percent And then you get some of these bonuses if you meet the PUD development standards But I think you have to start at least because that's a the the calculation about density is is really a primary calculation and in in the beginning But with the PUD You can potentially I mean if I subtract that I like I only do three units if I can get a 50 percent increase For affordability or I'm not sure what those recommendations are but Yeah, it's under 34 it's chapter 340 and it's You know it talks about infill housing development and It applies That's that's I mean you look at the This is what it says Inflickability infill housing developments are permitted in the riverfront mixed used residential residential 1500 residential 3000 residential 6000 The residential 9000 districts on parcels not more than two acres in size I mean that's that's what the standards are And if interpreted with respect to the purpose the first item on the purpose is to encourage an increase in the amount of housing generally And affordable housing in particular located in downtown and surrounding neighborhoods, so Now this does a little bit of a locational and this isn't it's not devoid from residential neighborhood I mean, but is it a neighborhood that's surrounding downtown? I think could be debated I don't I don't I think it was downtown. I mean the purposes don't set the standards, right? But they got the interpretation of the standards They may but the standards are infill housing developments are permitted and then it lists the districts that's permitted in um, so I mean the purpose may be why They allow it in these districts and But that's not You know, I don't think that necessarily tells us that we can Make choices within those as we as a board because otherwise I think we get into that debate you started to have with ryan, which is What is it? Sorry Initial skirmish Of whether or not, uh, you know, this is this is one of the surrounding neighborhoods Um, I mean Rural isn't Even I would there are some rural actually In a bus Sure, right off the Northfield That's what's turning into I guess stories and I brought the PD. I think no, I appreciate we can now I like what case said about the you know the character of the neighborhood description if you'll um, but With the puny we have a list of things where it's like applicant is giving something in return for you know, getting something I don't know. It just seems like that's a Maybe a more palpable approach, uh, if it's where to go forward. Yeah. Yeah, and this does seem like a You know the fact that you're keeping it very small on scope having four, you know Modest units in a single building and keeping what's currently undeveloped most of it still in developments It has a lot of similarities with it. What you think about as a a PUD So something to look into small scale Right, I mean have have dawn Look at this if you're working with him. I mean part of this is that's something that's existing now If you heard sounds like you're not on like an immediate timeline You know you may want to find out and sound out the the planning commission to see are there changes coming down the pike Yeah, you may have to just yeah, I've got like 70 days left So it's so I guess that what we're leaving you with is is It's advisable to take a close look at The bylaws so you can understand how we'd be constrained as we were looking at this project And I think keeping in mind what Kate said is that it looks like you're in a district that really hasn't contemplated the development of this particular lot just by How they've described, you know, how they permit additional infill development and And given that I think it's it's a legitimate question for the planning commission right so The way I would suggest that you phase it is by taking Some time with the bylaws so that when you go to the planning commission you can kind of have a list of Of questions for them And it is it is in the uh Murray hill neighborhood Um And we haven't gotten to the point where the Murray hill neighbors chime in as to their feeling. Yeah, there's There's one house You can cut No, you can't see it. It's up the hill. It's nice. It's pretty it'll be pretty screened no matter what So so even though they're a butter that they may not feel They may not have the motivation to do so because it'll be down the hill and in the woods Yeah, so yeah I really think it's In general, I think Other than the curb cut most of the year even during the winter I don't think you would ever know this so that would be the question there too is if it's near that curve How close it is, you know, how the how safe the curb cut will be ultimately But that'll be the curb cut is it's pretty straight through there. Yeah, okay, so it's okay. It's before the Drives there's good separation Good Yeah Well, good luck And observations and thanks for being interested in providing housing. Yeah Please station you just go to the police station. They're open They're always open Yeah There's a drop box you can I've got a couple. Do you want to pay a couple more? I can grab on my car There was a certain Vermont Supreme Court justice who used to plaster his Walls with part Montpelier parking tickets until he was up for retention and then suddenly They all got paid Thank you, thank you all right Are that's the only other business apart from Announcing that our next regularly scheduled meeting is Monday April 1st 2019 7 p.m. Same Form same members. Hopefully I'll make a move to adjourn motion by Kevin to adjourn. Do I have a second second by ryan? All those in favor, please raise your right hand. We are adjourned. Thank you very much