 Okay, we're gonna call this meeting to order. Good evening. Welcome to the City of Montpelier Development Review Board for Monday, April 15th. My name is Daniel Richardson. I serve as the chair of the board. The other members from my right are... Ron Goodwood. Kevin O'Connell. Meredith Crandall. Staff. Kate McCarthy. Ryan Cain. Tom Kester. Will Shea Baum. All right. The first order of business is approval of the agenda. I'll note we only have one item of business for this evening, but are there any additions to the agenda or changes that board members wish to make? Well, the staff would like to actually make a change, if you don't mind, Chair. So we have representatives from Caledonia Spirits here this evening for other business that would like to discuss with the board some potential sign options that go beyond what the zoning administrator can approve per figure 3-16 in the Riverfront District, as well as a judgment call on whether a particular proposal qualifies as public art. These are both things where my first look is that the answers would be neither would be allowed, but they wanted to come and talk to you to see if there's a possibility that you might potentially think otherwise. Okay. And this would fit in as other business? Other business. And so we're not looking to make this is no decisions, just discussion. Okay. So with that addition for Caledonia Spirits, simply seeking feedback added under under business will make that subsection a and then make the announcement of the next meeting subsection B of item number six. Any other changes to have a motion to accept the agenda as amended? So moved. Motion by Kevin. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Tom. All those in favor of approving the amended agenda, please raise your right hand. It is approved as amended. The agenda is approved as amended. No comments from the chair this evening. The approval of the minutes. Oh, other than to congratulate Kate on her award as planner of the year. I think that's a noteworthy accomplishment and that it should go on the record. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. So moving on to the approval of the minutes first. This is from April 1st myself, Kevin, Kate, Tom, Ryan, and Rob. We're all present. Do I have a motion to approve the or amend the minutes? Could we amend the minutes? Okay. And what would you like to amend? Do I need a second to discuss it or do I just throw out the amendment without a motion? I think we're sort of at the pre-motion phase. I would draw my motion. On page two, the fifth paragraph from the bottom, which begins one of the questions, says the current driveways about three inches shy of the 36 inches required for two parking spots. That should probably be 36 feet. Oh, yeah. Yeah. I would pay. Okay. Thank you for taking the paper. You're welcome. I did actually have a question from a member of the public who was a little confused about in the second paragraph on that 29 college street application where it talks about my speaking about the AI PUD and that the only thing that needs to be considered are the 2018 regulations. There were some questions about whether or not the master plan would ever be something that comes up again. And I'm not sure if that's something I know we discussed it saying, yes, if they go forward, they're going to need a master plan with a future campus PUD. I hadn't put it in the minutes because it doesn't necessarily apply to this application, but somebody raised that question in reviewing the minutes. So I don't know if you wanted me to add it back in or it's my recollection that we included that neither the AI P that because the AI PUD did not apply and the master plan was expired, there was not a requirement for that a master plan be in place in order for us to review 29 college street. Right. Is that the board's recollection? Yes, right. The question was whether a future master plan would be needed. And it will make conclusions about that. So I'm not sure it needs to be reflected in the minutes. Perfect. I agree. Thank you. I just wanted to bring it up since some people were questioning me about that. Thank you. Any other amendments to minutes? Hearing none, I now is time. I think time is right for a motion with the amended minutes. So moved. Motion by Tom to accept the amended minutes. And do I have a second? Second by Rob. All those in favor of who are eligible to vote for accepting the amended minutes of April 1st, 2019, please raise your right hand. And they are adopted. Thank you all very much for that. Administrative approval and work that brings us to the primary application that is tonight as 106 East State Street. The owner applicants are Gary and Allison. Shy, if you'll please come to the table. We're not going to swear you in because this is sketch plan. So I'll just go over briefly what the purpose of sketch plan is. So purpose of sketch plan right now is for us to review the application as it's been submitted at this point and give feedback. The purpose is not for testimony or to create a binding decision at this level. We used to end under the old zoning bylaws actually make a decision at this point of whether to have a two part subdivision process afterwards. A new zoning and subdivision regulations do not call for such a decision. So this is strictly a feedback opportunity at this point. However, you know, it is an opportunity for you to get a temperature of what the board is thinking and what we're looking for and what issues we see or spot in this application. Understanding that this is not binding on either. OK, so that said, Mr. Shy or Ms. Shy, if you'd like to introduce the subdivision project. OK, well, it's a kind of a different kind of a project because everything is existing. It's been there for I think since 2009, so it's almost 10 years that I went through the development review process for 106 to become four units and become four units. So everything's been approved and site plan of parking and it's been occupied and running. So it's kind of an unusual situation. The barn is there and I just converted it. So in my request for subdivision, I'm really looking for one line, one line that's been drawn that leaves the four permanent parking spaces on one on lot two and leaves four permanent parking spaces on lot one. You can introduce that as evidence, if you want to point out evidence, but introduce it to the application. OK, so here this is a preliminary survey report. The original survey of Richard Bell still around and I call him so he just got his maps out. He's going to officially see. Good, thanks, Gary. I'm going to ask him if he could just draw this up for this meeting. I don't know that it's going to change. He's going to then go out and actually measure everything. I did notice the lot size. It says point one eight and point one four. But I have the original map. This is point five four total acreage. So there's a little, just a number of something going on there. So I don't know if that's, I just want to point that out. But that isn't 100% accurate. But this is a preliminary. So I have pictures of the structure before I bought it, the barn we're talking about. I mean I'll just hold it up. It was always, it's garage bay and driveway. That's what I bought. And they had put asphalt down. Kevin, you were here for what I did on this. So they had put asphalt down, which raised the level. So the ground was above the sill. So the building was rotting. This corner had dropped like 18 inches and the building was on its way out and the foundation was crumbling underneath. And so I got permits to remove the asphalt. I have the development review board document here. When I asked, can I remove the asphalt and put crushed stone in there? And they designed review allowed me to change the roof to put a roof on because I couldn't replace the historic slate. So I did that. That was the first step to try to save the building. So historically it's always been driveway. It's always been stone. And it's always had ingress and e-grass from horses to tractors to cars to... So that's what it historically always was. So I removed the asphalt and then we jacked the building up when we saved the building. And I put the stone on there. So Meredith just brought up a couple of issues that she felt there's a couple items open. One item open is there's a question about the fourth unit about some fee and she said she and I could work on that administratively. I mean I have paperwork and a certificate of occupancy for four units and I have the final documents and then there's something missing. So she and I have to work on that. But the other issue was that there's part of the original site plan. I have a site plan that I originally had submitted and was approved showing the front of the barn to the driveway and I had two parking garages. This is the barn here and I was gonna maintain two of the garages so that we were gonna keep it driveway. Then design review came up with an idea at the very last minute to make one of the driveways, one of the parking garages. The best of you will have the door in there. And when I decided to do that it was suggested that well if you're gonna do that why don't you put curb and lawn in there. And after looking at it, it was after a two year process and I just could not take any more time so I said okay and then I looked into it and the building is so far below grade. It's about six to eight inches below the grade of the road that slants into the building and that's why I brought it. So I have since the building now, the slope from the road, it angles down and I'm able to create a small decline from the barn from the street so it meets about three feet away from the barn so water shifts away so it doesn't run into the foundation and start pulling the sand away from the foundation again. So Tom McCarroll sent me a letter and I answered him and said I can't put the curb on there. It's, I can't just put the curb there because I can't feel behind it because it will raise it up and it's gonna bring the level back into the cylinder building, it's below grade, I can't do that. I got a letter from him saying I have to do that and I wrote to the city with all of the reasons why I couldn't and I never heard back. And then I asked well what do I do? And then I have the letters here where I wrote and said okay there's problems, I can't do it. And so I never heard back and it just got unsolved. So what I'm asking tonight is not to do anything to the barn to change it, to leave it the way it always was and to not have to do that condition. If I do put the curb there, I will not feel it, I can't feel it, not gonna shed water back into the structure, it just can't be done. So I could put the curb there but the problem is is people can walk and trip over it. A really good example is right next door, his home, there is curb and lawn and I just left his home today, it's rotted, not rotted, it's rotted, it's rotted because the lawn is up to this cylinder's building and he has to try to deal with that. So what I'm asking is to just amend the final site plan, back to the site plan that showed this being driveway, back to the design review also wanted me to maintain that as driveway because it's historic. They had me put the original barn doors back on, I took the garages off and I rebuilt, I went to the historic preservation and we looked at the pictures of the original barn doors and we recreated them. Now a couple of those are fake but with the driveway there it looks like there's movement going in and out, if you block that off then it looks like they're fake and design review was wanted it to be specialized, that's what the original decision was, we put that in. So I'm just asking that the final site plan go back to the November 2010 site plan which shows it being driveway and just leave it as driveway and not try to put curves, I hope I can deal with that. So just process-wise, for doing the subdivision, the key thing is the parking and access and it's not 100% clear to me that making this decision is about the site plan amendment would be part of that but on the other hand to get this cleared up and figure out what might be acceptable since it would be, it's changing a specific condition on a prior permit so that's not something I can do as a zoning administrator to get a feel for that so that we can try and get everything wrapped up together in a reasonable amount of time would be good to just sort of fill the board out as to what might be possibilities for them before we also then go back to Department of Public Works to try and brainstorm a little bit about whether some of the previous issues with here was to try and make sure it's not parking because the public right of way technically goes all the way up to the carriage barn. And so if there's a way that the board might be comfortable doing something to prevent parking there which I know is a big concern of the Department of Public Works while still helping the applicant maintain the building. So history question in keeping with the process description did the condition that has been described come out of the design review committee's review or out of the development? Where did it come from? The condition for the curbing? For the curbing, for the yard. That came from the development review board after the design review committee was done. So was it based on the recommendation of the design review committee? That's my recollection. It started that way. Hold on a second, Mr. Shai. I direct the board's attention to the February 20th, the, sorry, the April, it's actually issued and dated April 5th, 2011 but it's the decision that's in your packet in the back from the original development review board back in 2011 and it says under findings and conclusions six, seven, and eight talks about these particular areas. So it may have been born out of the design review committee's examination and don't forget this is back when the design review committee's findings and decisions always came to us. But this is a design review and a site plan and a variance, which was being requested at that time. And there are three findings and conclusions about what the application will include. So these aren't conditions, these were representations of what were accepted and were part of the decision. And if you can see the attached maps, I was on the DRV at the time as well and we had a great deal of discussion in my recollection because of the right of way issue and it was the board's feeling at that time as Meredith has just decoded a concern about the right of way. The fact is that the right of way goes up to the front of the building having cars park in it creates a great deal of problem. And frankly, it's maybe the only place on the street where that occurs directly in front of a building. With the old ones, would they park? Right, directly in front of the park. Well. But at least in this immediate area, I mean, you're just looking at the map. The house next door. And the state street just down the street that people have a parking lot exactly the same. And the same way from that location, you can see three other. Nevertheless, this was a concern of the boards at the time and I think it's still a concern given what. Well, with Todd McArdle and his April 1st memo, basically saying it hasn't changed and that the issue is the right of way the same as it's always been. So. Well, I sent a letter to the city dated after that and I explained all of the addresses where it's occurring throughout the city and that this is always been. But no, excuse me. And I sent a letter to the mayor, to the city and to Tom and no one ever answered me. And then I asked, what do we do? What do we do? And I have letters written and I was ignored. And so I just waited for someone to tell me what to do. And so I didn't ignore anything. I answered with a letter making a statement. And when I pointed next door and the guy next door and then I pointed on it on state street where they have parking right along where there's no sidewalk. It's on Hubbard Street where I live right across street, all the cars. Justin Tracotti, his house on Wilder Street, city council member, the parking is right in front of the house and all the cars are lined up. And so I asked, what do we do about that? And they just, the city ignored my letter and never responded. So I tried to answer. There's a long history here. It goes over a period of at least 10, maybe 15, maybe 20 years. But nonetheless, there's a record of the city trying to work with you, coming up with a reasonable solution. And then we're left here holding the remnants of your non-compliance. I saved a historic building that was struggling. Well, that's great. That's great, but that's not the issue. I invested in the community and made more housing. I did 99%. And I would like to bring up, because I feel like, you know, no, I'm going to speak freely and not worry about making friends. I'm going to speak the truth. There are so many site plans where people, when they actually come down to doing it, weren't able to fulfill them. And I know them throughout the city, the mobile station. I could point them out everywhere, the Chittenden Bank building. And I remember being on a commission coming from the city and saying, we were at those public hearings and we got concessions and we got a site plan and now they're not following it. And it was in good faith. It was a minor change. It wasn't significant. And so there's site plans throughout the city that are not 100% fulfilled. And so I brought that up to the city and I asked them about my problems and about the drainage and that it's going to rock the building again. And that's why it rotted. And so I've acted in very good faith. I've invested in this community. I've added importance and saved that building. The Union Institute, it was parking garages. They took the historic doors off and put regular car garages there. And the whole building was like leaning and they put asphalt there that was crumbling. It was ugly. Car parked there constantly for decades and decades. And then I have permitted parking spaces out of the right of way on my site plan. But people have a voice and people, someone visits. I've had people and I've told them, you can't park, you're gonna get towed. And I said, it would be nice if maybe the city would take it, though. Like they take it, but no one enforces anything. And I, and then I don't even know whose car it is. I've tried. I've had people parking. I'm trying to find out who's it is. People from the street parked there. The neighbor will park there. It's all, it always was parking and people are into that habit. I think that if the city wished to enforce this as a problem, it would be good if they would go to the city council and ask the police department to go around in cars that are less than one foot from the street to just let people know. Oh, like this is a warning. And then you can take it so that I don't have to be the parking for you. But I think that to put all the responsibility on me, on the historic driveway that's always been the driveway and to start policing it. I've never seen a problem. It wasn't a problem for the hundred years that the college owned it. It hasn't ever been a problem. The plowing, I haven't ever witnessed a problem. And so I'll put the curve, if you want, I'll put the curve and I'll put a little bank of dirt there, because I'm not gonna fill it to the house that I'm not going to do that. But I could throw some grass. But it doesn't seem, it seems like what I'm asking is not to change the historic building and leave it the way it's always been. But you've changed the historic building. It's no longer a garage. It's apartment buildings. The whole purpose of having entry and exit when it's a garage makes sense, but it doesn't when it's an apartment building. And back in 2011, when we had this discussion, the idea was to create a yard for this and no longer have these parking directly in front of the building. And as before, you represented that you could do this and that this could become a lawn and curving could be put in. So I'm only one board member, but I'll give you a very strong indication of where I'm coming from is that, I don't see it as, and there's a landscaping component to subdivision as well. I don't see this as its use as being a driveway anymore. You've changed it to apartments. This front of the building has to reflect that because of the right-of-way issues, I think that creates an ongoing problem with this lot. And given that your proposed drawing has actual parking places, creating a lot will be important where that parking is used as opposed to the front yard being turned into parking. And that's, I think that's consistent with both the way we've done the subdivision bylaws and the way in which this particular lot has been viewed. So the idea of keeping this as a driveway doesn't make sense anymore. And so there are, part of our review here is simply to look at what these lots are gonna look like after if we grant a subdivision application. And I think this is one of those key areas where this is, you know, it doesn't prevent us from looking at this as a subdivision application. If you wanna come back to us and you wanna make this argument, which you started to make of saying, I wanna keep this as a driveway, I'm not receptive to that argument. Again, I'm only one board member. I think we're getting a little bit of a head of ourselves. I mean, the application here is for a subdivision. I think what Meredith was saying is it may make sense to address these. And I heard a request for an amendment to the site plan. But if you wanna amend the site plan, we need a site plan amendment application. And then we can consider it. I mean, but as of right now, the previous site plan has requirements that were unappealed, includes a curb and some grass. If you wanna change that, you need to go through the legal process to change that. And this subdivision application is not that process. One possibility though, if we are thinking landscaping with regard to subdivision, and part of that is also in front, not just privacy. If there was a discussion of maybe having some landscaping in this front, what's driveway and what you submitted versus what's yard from the approved, that one's approved in the prior permit. You know, if we wanted to add landscaping up there, would that almost be a combined subdivision and site plan amendment request, or would they be two separate still? I think Ryan's actually correct in noting that, you know, as an unappealed final subdivision, we can't backdoor in changes to the existing permit. But it would still need to come here because it was a, well, it wasn't a condition. It was a finding, right? It becomes a condition. All the factual findings of that nature become conditions of the permit. What the applicant proposed. Yeah, so it would need to come here. Yeah, I mean, I think for purposes of this subdivision, what we have, I think, you know, that's interesting because what's on the ground certainly doesn't comply with what is legal, what's permative, what the existing site plan says, which is a curb and grass. So it's, I mean, if it were in fact grass, if it did in fact comply, I think we could require landscaping or suggest landscaping be placed in that grassy area as the chair was suggesting we might do. But at the end of the day, I think it's up to the applicant to determine you either need to figure out a way to come into compliance with the prior approval or you need to seek an amendment of that. And I think it makes sense within this process because you're here, you're getting this subdivision that we could certainly, we do it all the time where we hear multiple applications together. We could have the final subdivision application and the site plan amendment, just all at one hearing where we can kind of look at all this together. And that could be a way to just kind of get through the process a little bit more quickly just to suggestions totally up to you how you want to do that. And it's, you know, but I'm a little cautious of us starting to talk about, you know, what we'd comfortable with as far as site plan amendments and not when it's, when we haven't had a proposal, you know, and it's up to you, if it's something, you know, more than what's currently there, but less than what was previously required, then that's what we'll consider, you know, if that's what you propose. If it's nope, I want to keep it exactly as it is on the ground right now, then that's what we'll consider. But I don't really think it's wise to get into it until we have an application for something. I'll stop talking now. That's fine. Say something about that. Sure. You made a very good point, and to be honest, I wish you had made that point to me. I would have, you're right, I did change the building. Not a garage anymore, it's not a storage building, it's for people living there, coming and going. And you made a very, very good point. So, I mean, I'm willing to meet the criteria of the original plan. Like, you know, I may not be able to go, oh, I can't go above the single structure, but it can be a yard, and I could get some kind of something growing there, and we could landscape my day. So, I'm just wondering if I'd meet the criteria, are there any other issues? Because I think hearing Dan, and Kevin made some points that maybe that's my past. I'm glad we're having this, because it's a good discussion. Yeah, not a formal one, because you're getting ideas to come back to you with, though. Gary, have you seen the April 1st memo email from Tom McCartle, where he suggested? I've seen that, yeah. Yes, I have it right here. I'd be glad to talk more about that. I want to reflect back something based on what Dan said, and I also heard your concern about an interest in the historic nature of the building, and say, you know, maybe the driveway is historic in some way, but I would just point out that on the 2011 site plan, which has the yard and crushed stone proposal, that came out of the design review committee's conversation with you, and so I think perhaps that gives some assurance that they're very historic-minded, too. So if it's okay with them, it's probably okay to really demarcate that shift from being a garage to apartments, like Dan was saying, so I think it makes sense from a historic preservation perspective, if it's okay with the DRC, I think you can feel good about it. I think also, I did a lot of different things with the building and steps. First, I had to save the structure, so I proposed removing the asphalt and putting crushed ledge, and they said, fine, no one said make it a yard, like keep it, should we make it a driveway? So everyone was happy that it was a driveway, and then when I started saving the building and then it looked like we could save it, and it, so it evolved, so it went through a lot of process. So in the end, as apartments, Dan, I think your point was very strong, and you're right, the DRC did end up saying they're okay with it being like that, you know, historically it's been a driveway, so. Yeah, and that shift also came when you went from two to three apartments, so there was actually an intensification of the use that might have led them to say, oh, we've got to be a little more careful about how this driveway is demarcated because with more use in the building, there might be the temptation, the park, et cetera, so yeah, it has definitely evolved, yeah, yeah. So Kevin, I didn't want to take you off the train and thought, but I wanted to not lose that. Really, my point was that I just wanted to make sure you had that. Of course, DPW's interest is in making sure that the engineering factors work well, and retaining the services of a competent engineer might really serve you well in this. I'm sure you're good. So, you know, I guess two further things. Touching on Ryan's point, I think you have to make some decisions with Meredith about how you want to proceed because there's the issue of the front yard and the compliance issue with that. There's also the units for zoning purposes. I know you've received building permits for all four units as far as certificates of occupancy. Yeah, all this, everything, yeah. I wasn't aware of something that might have been there. That's why I think it's Meredith and you can work out how you want to proceed with those seem like to, so if you don't, if you're gonna come into compliance with the 2011 permit as opposed to seeking to change the 2011 permit, then that's much easier. Then I think we can probably take that and she may have some additional information she wants from you as far as the amendment because by adding the additional units you are amending the 2011 because I was looking at that. That's only two units which were granted at that time. I know it's been bumped up to three by administrative amend. Yep, it was an administrative amendment to bump the units up to three and we don't have to worry about site plan changes with those so much because since all of that happened we had the 2018 regs which reduced the parking requirements. And so I think just coming into compliance on paper on the fourth unit and then that way it's we're counting the right number of parking spaces that you need. And then so there's those issues that I think you can work with Meredith about and then when you come back obviously we wanna see if you are keeping the landscaping in front one of the or as 2011 talked about with the permit with the yard and the curb. We wanna see a landscaping plan as part of your subdivision proposal just to see how that's gonna comply. And one of the issues that we as I was indicating before that we look at is landscaping as part of the subdivision application permit. Some of it at least I don't think is gonna necessarily be relevant here which is we usually encourage the applicants to put in landscaping that helps reinforce the subdivision between the properties giving privacy to both. But in this case since there's a shared driveway that may not be as practical. But I think we will wanna see the sort of plans that either what you have existing now and what you're proposing to add or change the, as I understand the proposed parking from this map is going to be the actual spots are gonna be on the new the new lot that you're creating with the with the barn. Is that right? Yeah, the site of the parking space that we're indicating on the site plan there. Yeah, I mean that exists. So those are what, so the line he drew was where the existing, because they obviously they have to be unstructured so they weren't crossing each other anyway. And it's interesting that line as far as front engine all the other requirements work very well. So they happen to be in the right space. And so obviously one of the things you're gonna have to work out just with whoever you sell one, I don't know which lot, if you're gonna keep both or if you're gonna sell one or both, but you'll, and we don't need to necessarily see it, but there at least one thing that sticks out to me is, there's gonna have to be some sort of easement with the shared driveway. I spoke to Richard Bell and I said, he understands the regs and like he might be with Tom, Tom McCartle and go over the right of way requirements so that people can move in, if they have a moving van, people backing up there. He was proposing almost that the parking area defined would all be right of way and that the property line would still be there, but that so that people can be free to back in and go into their space, that that would be a common, but the parking lot would have the right of ways in it. And that was his first suggestion, but he is writing all of this up and I think Tom, would you get a Tom and Meredith to look at it and make sure that it's all the required space of backing out and going into those kinds of things? Right, I think those are the big preliminary issues. I mean, other than it meets the minimum, as you point out, it's existing houses, you're not proposing any new nor given the slopes, is this difficult to put anything behind these houses? This goes pretty, my memory serves me, it goes pretty down pretty steep. Beautiful back there already. Right. Any other questions for any board members? I have a further parking question. So I don't know if you have a copy of our staff report on page seven. There's an image that looks like it's the parking area between the barn and the house. The parking area straddles the property line we were just talking about. So it's on page seven. And so I was looking at that and trying to count six or seven spaces to kind of match up what's on the site plan with what's in this picture. And it looked like one and a half of the spaces are not really functional, kind of overgrown. So update our status of that maybe. There are three there. Someone, people don't always have cars and someone wanted a, I have a garden and they wanted a plant there and they ended up making it a garden, their garden space, using it. And it seemed like people just didn't need to park there and I tried, well, it looks nice not having that many cars. And so you can park there, but it's garden. So you could, to the left, you could pull there. Have we talked about next to the barn? We're talking in front of, on the side of the barn or on that one or last of you? I'm looking at perpendicular to that. Let's see, it would be on lot one, right on the line. I see a fence that if you follow the line of the fence out there's kind of a cluster of plants in the middle of the asphalt. Yeah. So that would make it hard to park there. Well, there are, these three, these three people are using there. There's one, two, three places on the side of the structure. Oh, I see on the side of the structure. The side plant also indicates that there are three more spaces up here. Yeah, that's correct. Is there room for them? Yeah, there are people parking there now. They're parked there now. Okay, I'm just going by the picture and it looks really small, looked overgrown. Yeah. It's not overgrown? No, it's... There is a line over there that I'm trying to find. They pull all the way forward and there's room for everyone to get in and out next to the barn. Yes, okay. Wasn't sure what I was seeing and there was a staff note about whether the parking lot in practice was the same as the parking lot on the, I'm all for gardens, but I just want to make sure that you got what you got when you used this one. The only one that's a little different is the far left one on lot one. There's people pushed in and wanted to do garden and they were more in parking, but it is part. So I guess in the final site plan we would need just assurance about that and also whatever the parking dimensions are supposed to be. Is it eight by eight and a half by 18? Nine by 18? Eight and a half by 18. Eight and a half feet by 18 feet. And we just like to see that kind of measured out on that site plan. And that would be my suggestion. Well, not even just for the site plan, but for the survey to make sure that's all surveyed out. Yes, surveyed out. Make sure you've got all the feet you need. Good. Any other questions or issues that other board members want to? Any other questions from the applicant? Okay. Well, I mean, I think you have a read on where we're at and how the various ways you can proceed. So we'll look for the final application at some point. Well, thank you. All right. No, thanks. No, it was a very good, I understand that you made a very good point. Touch base with me and we'll set up a meeting to strategize. Yeah, we'll take the next steps. Yes. Thank you everybody for your time. Thank you. That is true. You're right. Thank you. If you look at, if you look at external costs here, I could see that then you could make up a basic argument. Yeah. And they look great. Please come forward. If you just introduce yourselves for the record. So I'm Ryan Christensen. Caledonia Spirits, this is my colleague Hannah Bromberg. We'll be here for advice. So hopefully you guys know we are moving in on Berry Street. We're about a couple months away. Oh, thanks. We're getting rid of society. I'm excited about signage. When we chose this neighborhood, we were incredibly excited about sort of the industrial nature of the granite shed. So we designed this building to kind of fit into that industrial granite shed. Now, we were hoping that we could design a facility that was beautiful, but also put a light on the beauty of the neighborhood. But at the same time, we still wanted to look and see the light of the facility. When you look across the river, it clearly looks like a facility with the grain silos. And we know you're going to see the stilts. I mean, stilts. But it's probably the top of the pot stilts. And it's beautiful. Well, she's already beautiful, and she's going to be beautiful and not failure now. The challenge that we're having is on the other side, on the north side, facing Berry Street. When we designed this facility, we didn't realize how visible it was. So if you look from the left, that's the second photo here. This is down on Granite Shed Lane. It was really happy with how this came out. It truly looks like just another granite shed along the way, if you think it fits in quite well. But if you look from the north, there's just this pretty gray wall. And that doesn't really screen the stilts. We really want to let people know that it is a facility. So we've looked at sort of some signage plans. We looked through the communities that understand distillation facts and scholars in Kentucky. And we've got some examples here that just kind of show sort of the language and how they communicate with the distillation. And we think that we have an opportunity to do something very similar. Of course, that doesn't necessarily need the zoning regulation of the distillation. So I'll cruise through these. We can stop at any sort of photo, but these are really just sort of inspiration as we travel around the world and see the distillers we love, what we want to bring into the distillation. So, and then additionally, there are some examples and even in my earlier of big sort of signs that kind of represent the use of the building like the restaurant sign over Neki in the garage on the garage building by Julio's. So what we're proposing is that on the very street side, we can add, and this is just Photoshop on, of course, but just some lettering that says, something that really speaks to the agricultural use of the building, and lets people know that this granite shed is not like all the other granite sheds, it's something we're interested in going on. We feel like it would be a missed opportunity to not be a great wall, and quite frankly, we didn't think it would be visible from very street and now there's, break up, break up in the inactive community. It also let the tourists that are looking for gallery and spirits know that hey, they found it. Are you looking just to paint on distillery on the side of the building? I think so. What are the long material suggestions, paint or metal or dimensional on the building? And quite honestly, my personal preference would be that it would look a little more distressed and old, like it might not really, it's not supposed to be the most visible thing, it's just supposed to be sweet to sort of be used in such a way. Would this be illuminated at night or is it just, just have it, during the day if you drive by and see it at night, maybe you could see it from the road, which I'm looking to put like outdoor lighting or anything like that. Definitely not, no there, I mean honestly I would look at, here we go. Three zero, let's take it a little faster. The state's billboard law only applied from a state from federal highlight. From not a state's billboard law, it is tied to somebody else's land. Offsite, advertising. So the maximum sign area and height requirements are in figure three dash 16, which is on page three dash 35 and the zoning regulations in part three. I can't remember the exact numbers we came up with for the total square footage when we calculated all of the facade widths, but the distillery sign on its own, because you have to measure with a rectangle drawn around the sign elements, I think was much in excess of what the total signage allowance was for the whole building. What is the current maximum? I can explain how we came to our map on the last page of the presentation here. We measured the limits for each of all of the west-facing facades, the public-facing facades, and times that from 23 square feet, we calculated 165.9 max square feet of wall-mounted signage. The proposed signage that we have here already, the hexagons and keys and the gables, and then the barnhill above the door, add up to about 90 square feet currently. And yes, you're right, that the proposed story sign on its current size, which is all, but we're not so that answers half my question. The other half was, what is allowable right now? So that was the first number she gave. Right now on this building, 165.9 square feet is what is allowed on the entire building, all sides of the building. So a facade is defined, and this isn't gonna be 100% accurate, as the front of the building and the way it's written right now, so you can also include sides of the building that face a public area. And it's kind of loose, so I've been defining that with some flexibility, and the way this building is built and presented, really, you've got the front, which is towards the parking where their main entrance is, which is one of the shorter sides, and both of the long sides really face public areas. One is on the river, and one is on, it's not directly on, but you can see the whole length of it from Berry Street. And if I can just point out that most of the Kentucky and Scotland photos, those are brand names, we're not asked by to be able to put Caledonia spirits. We're, you know, it's more the use of, like, the restaurant signs, more of the lab sign, it's really just an indication of what's happening on the inside. We're really not trying to say, you know, we don't want to say Caledonia spirits in the biggest possible container. I think the content of the sign would be irrelevant to our determination. Yeah, we're not supposed to actually regulate content, which is a little weird considering we have a public art exception to signs, but which has to do with sort of the content. And just so we understand, what is the, where is the public arts? The public, so public art, it's a definition. So public art is defined on page five dash 15. So it's section five, one, zero, one, point, p, sub eight. What page, what page is it? So five dash 15. So that's how you, where public art is defined in the definition of sign. The definition of sign specifically excludes public art. And that's on the next page, five dash 16. And public art specifically does not identify or draw attention to a business profession or industry to the type of product sold, manufactured, or assembled, or to the type of services or entertainment offered or available on the premises. So I don't think the distillery can be thrown in as public art, you get the exception. I know that there was a discussion at one point about maybe doing art on the side of the building and not just the distillery sign, is that correct still, but that might still be a possibility? Would that even become a tricky line to walk if it has to be art that is art, but does not identify or draw attention to the business profession or industry or content sold? And I know that there was just some of the fun out of it for you. We wondered, for instance, if we wanted to mirror all these and things, how does that, yeah, it was leaning towards, yes, unfortunately, as a zoning administrator, it would, you know, it runs into problems. Where do you draw that line? Yeah, and that's, I don't know. That's one reason I brought the discussion here. Well, the easy line is... I think the visitor has a landscape view as to that. Yeah, I mean, right now, I mean, the word distillery is very clearly, I hear, yeah, I mean, I don't know. I will say that whenever there's any sort of ambiguity in the regulations to be resolved in favor of the free use of land. Yeah, and that goes towards being able to do the actual art mural. Yeah, so like bees, I would be comfortable with bees. I would not be comfortable with like bottles of gin, you know? So that's, I mean, but it is subjective and it's like, I think we'd have to like have a proposal and kind of review it, but... Or an appealed permit. You'd have to review it. Yeah. If I understand this exemption to the exemption. Exemption to the exemption. Which under eight C is it's really trying to avoid the advertising billboard quality. So as Ryan suggested in one hypothetical, if you had the different bottles of gin that you sell or spirits, you know, shown there on your mural that might run afoul of this because it's contrary to this limitation and it's essentially advertising unless, as opposed to, you know, a mural of bees and honey and hives and even some of the, I would say even some of the sort of, you know, you think of these art murals that would depict the distillation process or something like that like a Thomas Cole type thing. I mean, that's different than advertising drawing attention to the product. Because in some ways, you know, the definition is talks about business, profession or industry to the type of product that's sold, manufactured or assembled. I mean, I really see that as something where you can't advertise. So you couldn't, it's a limitation on advertising, not an limitation on the art itself. So like the mural up at, I understand. That's just my, that's just my offering is otherwise it's somewhat meaningless as a, as an exemption, you know, because you would not want to put a mural celebrating dairy cows or milk production on your building that doesn't do that or, you know, doesn't necessarily tie into the theme. But that said, I mean, I think that's, Ryan's absolutely correct that you can't, we couldn't go too far down that road without something specific. That's just my, and obviously we're gonna have different interpretations as to the degree of that on the board and what each board member is comfortable with. But I guess I would offer that my sense in first, in first cut at reading this is very much, it's a restriction on sort of backdoor advertising and calling it a mural as opposed to something that is more artful, that public art. Can I play with this idea a little bit with that hypothetical example that is not direction? If you were to do some pollinators and some flowers and accessories like their habitat, the rest of their habitat, with that, I'm just thinking out loud, would that identify or draw attention to a business profession or industry? No, it would draw attention to a building. Would it draw attention to the type of product sold, manufactured, assembled? No, not the products. Or to the type of services or entertainment offered or available on the premises? It wouldn't tell you whether there's a restaurant inside or a manufacturing facility or something else. So I sort of, there's sort of a generic nature to a landscape that I wonder if it could maybe meet this definition of public art. Yeah, no, I think so. I was just playing with that idea. I think if someone just looked at it in isolation with no context as far as what it was, if they would say, looks like that's like gender-stilery advertisement or not. And if they say, ooh, it looks like some pretty bees and flowers, then I think it's art. Regardless of whether or not it's kind of tied in. You got like green mountain coffee roasters. If they have camel's hump in the green mountains, which are like prominently featured on all of their labels, like as a mural, you wouldn't say, oh, a mural of the green mountains is now, not public art. Yeah, yeah, well, I'm thinking, I mean, I have a very specific idea in mind only. Cause we're grasping as far as, but in Los Angeles, every movie and television studio on the outside of their building, plasters, their shows, posters of their shows all along the outside of the building. So it's like, I have an Avengers movie that's coming out, the big Avengers poster on the outside and it's to promote their product. And that's what I interpret this subsection C to really stop is that kind of sort of outward advertising where it's not really art any longer. It's really pictures that advertising pictures at that point. And I think that's, there's obviously, I think Kate's description is quite accurate as to what is likely to be permissible and or at least on first blush. And what I'm suggesting is that I think the lines, it's not like she's not taking us straight up to the line. And I think there's a little bit of a gray area in there. And if you're thinking about principles that guide you as you're plotting this, at least from the art, we're talking about the public art, which isn't actually the picture you brought before us, but nevertheless is captured our imagination. But the idea is that it forms an actual artistic mural or drawing or illustration as opposed to advertising. And I think there's some very clear lines that could be drawn in some grayer lines that you could press against this because we really haven't had to deal with this exemption before. But I think it's also only fair to you to also talk about the word distillery on here. And if I understand correctly, would you be looking for like an exemption to the sign limit to put the distillery on the work? Okay. I am not sure you do. There's no waiver provision in the signs provision. And this is why, pardon? Do we know why not? We never have. We've never really had a waiver provision for these signs. Yeah, the sign allowance, I think has pretty much always been the sign allowance. Were there any waivers? Correct. I don't know that there were any waiver provisions at all in the last round of zoning regulations. No, but even in the new regulations, they added in waivers, but then it also says, you know, we're authorized. Right, we're authorized as in the different provisions within the 2018 rakes. Different provisions have waiver subsections to them, but the sign doesn't. And I'm wondering why. And in fact under 3012C number 14, you know, has a sort of catch all that is prohibited. Any sign that's not otherwise allowed under these regulations is effectively prohibited. There's also the, there's zoning regulation corrections or tweets if you want to call them that, that have been going on right now. Correct. Correct. That's another place you could take the argument that they could give us that authority. They may or may not agree with you, but that would be perhaps worth it with a try. Yeah, there's. I wonder if one reason that the sign section is written pretty tightly is there's been so much federal case law around signage, First Amendment, and that if adding a waiver provision even for cool ideas, just adding that discretion could put the city at risk of complying with some of those things perhaps. I'm speculating. I don't know the motivation of the Planning Commission or the consultant when they did that, but. I know that there has been a push by the Planning Director to work on the sign section on section 3012 and the Planning Commission didn't want to dig into it this go around because the whole thing is probably gonna need to be reworked. Right. So if you wanted to try and argue in the near term to make changes to this section, it would have to be in front of city council in the next couple of months. I mean, the other problem, and I'll just throw this up conceptually, it's not your problem. It's just one of the issues here is that, you know, traditionally when we've had sign issues, and we used to as a board approve all the signs, now most of them are done administratively, but there was always issues not with a well thought out design like what you're proposing, but something that was less well thought out or self illuminated or, I mean, there's a good example in that the Domino's sign on Berlin Street is accidentally oversized. It was an administrative snafu, but every time I pass it, it looks so big. It compared to the other signs and it is not your imagination. It's administrative snafu that created it, but, you know, it doesn't fit in with the rest of the signs and the rest of the quality and what I think we've always struggled with is how do we let in a very good design that in some ways makes sense and is consistent with the history as you've put together? I mean, this is, sorry, this is kind of like Jin Lane redo, but where you have a history of doing things this way in the industry and now you're budding against a sort of tradition in my pillar of not letting these kind of signage exist. And the question is, I don't think, my honest take is that we don't have the tools as much as we'd like to help you with the distillery sign at this point in time. That doesn't mean that it can't happen. And I think as Meredith is pointing out, sign issue needs to be worked out and it's not unreasonable for you to say, this is something very good that we wanna do and it's reasonable and we should be allowed to do it. That's why we have a planning commission that changes the bylaws and the rules. It's just that when I look at it, we don't exactly have that. And so, you know, the building's not going anywhere, either, and if you don't have the distillery sign on it in the first year, maybe the second year, exactly, you've invested now a fair amount into the footprint, but I, you know, and I think that's where you're likely to have more luck. Now, if you wanna talk about in public art, like a mural kind of design, you don't wanna wait or don't wanna risk that sort of political change. I mean, I think you've gotten us excited about the idea of public art and we have many opinions and, you know, something like that could easily be, you know, move forward. And I do see an avenue there within the public art exemption. And if Meredith felt like, well, I wanna bring this before the board for approval that it qualifies as public art, I think we're receptive as a board to that idea. And it seemed to have plenty of our own, which you're very, you're welcome to ignore completely. You've got a great palette there. Yeah, you know, I mean, whether it be bees or, you know, whatever else we wanna do, that's up to you. But I think we're receptive to it. I think what I'm trying to do is just make sure that you know we're not just occupying a safer area that I think there's a gray, you know, up to for this subsection C of the definition where, you know, something short of advertising and how far short of advertising, I think that's where you'd have to get into the nuts and bolts and specifics. But we're certainly willing to talk and have a discussion. That's great. And in regards to the distillery sign, where would our first step be, planning commission? I think so. I think if, I think planning commission would be one place to go. I think you also, you know, if you're trying to do this more promptly, you would need to get before city council as well. And you can, I don't remember the dates right off the top of my head, but shoot me an email. And I'll let you know when that's gonna go, when the current changes are gonna go before city council. So planning commission didn't give any substantive suggestions to changes to the sign provision to the city council for this next round of changes that's going forward. You know, there's a possibility because there's gonna be some minor changes to it. So it's still open. City council can make further changes if they want. I think we wanna talk to both. Yeah, I mean, but I mean, the one thing is you'd have to have specific language that you'd be proposing at that time to allow. That's true. So planning commission, it's gonna be very quick. What I guess I would probably talk about is you're a prominent project within the city. And there are, the planning commission is the one that holds the power to make these kind of changes. And I think if you let them know about this problem, I mean, often the planning commission is motivated by their, in the unenviable position of sitting there trying to sort of think things out in the abstract. And if you can give them a very concrete example and really a presentation along the lines of what you're showing us here, I think that makes for a very powerful and persuasive point. Obviously, if you had specific sort of regulatory language, and that may be helpful if you talk to Mike and to Meredith to say, here's the issue. Do you have any examples or do you have any ideas as to what this would look like as far as something that would allow us to do this and then go before the planning commission? I think that then makes a very powerful conversation, but that's my sense here and strictly as just more of a citizen than actually as a DRB member. I think that they're the ones that can make the changes. Now, if the city council reviews this as well, I mean, they're the ones who get to make the final decision as to what's in and what's out. And I think that's what Meredith is suggesting is that if there's specific language, that city council is the one who ultimately reviews, makes the final call. But it may start with a conversation with Meredith and Mike only because I think the planning commission as a playing department is often motivated by the ongoing needs as opposed to sort of abstract ideas. And so if you bring this specific need to them, that may help motivate everyone to make these changes so that you can move forward. So sorry to have to make you take two steps back before you can go forward, but at least as far as the distillery idea, I see that as your clearest path, not coming before us yet. Good. Good luck with that. Yeah, so hopefully we'll see you again. In June at the cocktail lounge on June 1. Yeah. They had to fill us. Yeah, they had to fill us. Cool, thank you all. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. Okay, any other business words we should discuss? Hearing none, I would just simply note that our next regularly scheduled meeting is for Monday, May 6th, 2019 at 7 p.m. That'll be our first May meeting, Meredith. What's the schedule shaping up to be? Three applications, two of which are steep slopes. Under the new steep slopes. Under the new steep slopes provision with under the interim. Whatever you have to know. Well? North Street is one of them. I won't be here on this side, I'll be sitting over there for a second. Okay, so we've got North Street and then Upper Main. That actually reminds me of one other piece of business, Will, this is your last meeting. Yeah. Thank you very much for serving on the board and your service to making us a better board. I'll be someday I'll be back, you know. It sounds like you're... It's been a couple years now. Yeah. It's been fun. Yeah. We always need good anchors, you know. But as I said, you know, I'll be here at the next meeting and probably more and more after that and so. Good. Great. Well, good luck on all those endeavors. Anything else? Hearing none, I'll take a motion to adjourn. So moved. Motion by Kevin, second? Second. Second by Kate. All those in favor, please raise your right hand. We are adjourned. Thank you all very much.