 The City of Montpelier Development Review Board. My name is Daniel Richardson. I am the Vice Chair acting as the Chair of this evening. The other board members from my right are Kevin O'Connell, Randall Staff, Kate McCarthy, Brian Kane, and we have to identify the five voting members that is easy this evening. I think it is all five plus. We'll be voting on the applications tonight. I will be accusing myself from number nine. That is pretty obvious given that you are the applicant. But that will still preserve the quorum that we have. Just for those inquiring, we are still working under, I think this may be the last meeting, depending on how fast the governor acts, under the current charter that requires five members of the DRV even though we have seven. It is a charter change that has gone through the legislature that will push our numbers back up to the full seven that we used to enjoy. But at the beginning of every meeting we try to identify which five we are going to be voting on a particular application. Next item of business is approval of the agenda. Do I have a motion to approve the agenda is printed or a suggestion for an addition or change? Mr. Chair, I move we approve the agenda as printed. A motion to approve by Kate. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Kevin. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor of the agenda as printed raise your hand. The only comments from the chair is just a warm welcome to our new zoning administrator Meredith who is your first meeting chairing the, I mean staffing the meeting. Thank you very much. Good. The May 7th minutes cannot be approved because we lack a quorum so we'll move straight into 170 Spring Hall of Lane, our first application for the evening which is a final plan review for a two lot subdivision. This plan did come before us before as a sketch plan review. Yes, I can. Plus the same as what we have here on the list. If you'll state your names for the record. Richard Rubin and Don Marsh. If you raise your right hand, I'll swear you in. Do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give for the matter under consideration shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth under a pain's penalties and perjury. Yes. Very much. So Don, do you want to walk us through any changes from last time? Yes, it's a, we want some of the, both lots are approximately two acres. The only real change is we've brought the building envelope back to avoid all the areas greater than 30% slope. Discussion with both the applicant and PPW decided to widen. We had originally a 20 foot wide finger that goes out to Spring Hall of Lane. We bumped that up to 25. We've had discussions with PPW and so we've added some notes that reflect their comments. We've reduced actually the driveway to a 12 foot driveway, which they thought was fine. We've noted the location of some water infrastructure that will have to be relocated part of the drive work. And we've noted that we'll put a surface water diversion swale on the up slope side of the road, the driveway. And then that flow will go around Spring Hall of Lane and then go generally northward to a cross culvert under Spring Hall. And PPW wants us to be able to clean out their ditch so that it flows properly unless they get to it first. That's where the flow wants to go, but the ditch is sort of filled in as they do over time. I believe we've added the neighbor's house that wasn't on the sketch plan that was requested before. And we talked to, I think, one of the things before, I think now with the 12 foot driveway with 25 foot wide right of way, snow would just go off, shed off to either side. And actually, it's not a right way. It's actually the lot. One question I had, and this is going back and refreshing my memories. Is this the only lot on that circle or the street that's likely to have this long, narrow tongue of land? Or are there other similarly situated lots of this nature? There are a number of lots in the grand field. If you don't do here, these lots, for instance, there are five or six lots that were part of that, I think, in 1939 and then again, 1973 subdivision, five, rather. And various owners here on Spring Hollow have purchased those. So there are similar situations. And it goes almost up to Sean Sholdice's property at 178 Grandview Terrace. She's the last one on the left as you come down that part of Grandview Terrace. So those lots start behind the houses along Spring Hollow Lane. Those old lots that were acquired and generally are part of existing lots along Spring Hollow Lane. Is there a possibility down the road there'd be other subdivisions? I think it's possible, yes. One of the things we have to review later on is the character that we're looking. I'm just curious if this is, I mean I think this is consistent to residential development within a residential neighborhood. But just wondering if it would, is this sort of an anomaly? Or is this the first in a series of these type of developments or backfield developments? Which answer helps our case? Mr. Chair, we didn't have that from the applicant. Other lots are smaller than this lot. The one immediately next to the kitchens is very steep. It's not likely to be like this one is because this one opens up. And I think maybe there's two lots up above, not five or six, I'm familiar with the survey, could happen. Because once you get up a little higher, the access is then from the back side from Westview rather than from Spring Hollow. My understanding was that Westview hasn't been put into development. That's correct. The right-of-way appears on the old flat but it was never built. But unless somebody actually put that in, they would still have to have creation of additional flag loss like this to be able to get to a current road of some sort. Only for two of them because once you go further up towards Grandview, then you actually come to Grandview so then you can access off to Grandview. So where does this, I'm just a little confused as to exactly where the location is. I know where Grandview Terrace is and that's kind of horseshoe configuration to Town Hill Road. So where does Spring Hollow lane get to the bottom of Grandview? Well the very bottom, let's say we're starting up the hill on the eastern edge of Grandview. Right. You come down and just as you start to turn along that bottom loop, Spring Hollow drops off to the left. So it goes straight down from the bottom of Grandview. Okay, I'm with you. Yep. I've got it located at my right now. Three or four houses on the left there? Yes. So before we get to the cul-de-sac. Right. Then there's a little cul-de-sac at the bottom of Spring Hollow with three houses on it. So there would be no flag lots, so to speak, off of that little circle at the bottom. Because Grandview is all pretty much developed, right? Yeah. Yeah. Still trying to piece it together in my mind, but I think I'm getting there. Yeah. Mr. Chair, responding to your earlier comment about sort of the unique situation with the lots behind the lots that had been acquired over the years. I had the same question the last time we looked at this. And I think where we landed as a group is that it's an interesting question. It could happen. But we are without means to evaluate those impacts, given that they have not been proposed. But it does raise that question of how do we measure and understand incremental changes to the character of the neighborhood and what is the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back of character. So excellent. Good question. I have the same one. I don't have an answer though. Yeah. I think it's just helpful to understand and looking at the last map in our packet. It looks like there's possibly good down the line. At the same time, at least my initial, and I don't want to speak for the rest of you, this is a large residential tract of land of one oddity about it. But it also doesn't look like there are, I mean it looks like there's a possibility that going forward there could be more. It also doesn't look like that inconsistent. I mean this is a cul-de-sac. I would just say, I think it's really clear that the ordinance anticipated that and it does have the provision that doesn't seem to allow it without, I mean it needs your approval. But it doesn't sound like it's a conditional approval. I mean it seems, it reads fairly straightforward. And that actually brings us to the next. I think under general standard, and this is RES 24 frontage required 75 feet to 25 feet of frontage. Now you've bumped it up to 25 feet, it leads to the minimum, but we have to approve the reduction. Do you have any problem with that or want to explore any in regards to this? Is there a reason why you couldn't have a? I appreciate it. And I wasn't here for the sketch plan, so I appreciated that it went for Dwider. Is it setback to the house? Is it because it's unnecessary? It could physically be. I mean we have 65 feet remaining. And the side yard setback is one I think only 15. But there are big lots and it wouldn't seem to make sense to crowd it up to make it. I don't know that it accomplishes anything by making any more. I mean you could do 30 or 40 feet or 50 even, but I'm not sure it adds anything because people aren't going to use that as a frontage or a lawn or anything. I mean it makes sense that it's a drive out to a secluded lawn. I guess my understanding of this cul-de-sac is fairly woody down there, correct? Yes, the land both through which this tongue, if you will, goes through is all wooded and the parcel itself is all wooded. Exactly. It wouldn't make... I mean the whole attraction of this lawn, I mean one is it's large. It's nearly two and a half times the requirement. But it's a nice secluded lawn. It can with some opening up that you can get a view and some solar exposure. But it's clearly not intended to be sort of an on-street lawn. As you noted, you're building an envelope away from the slopes. Obviously the act of subdivision itself doesn't disturb soils or I think the map that you've driven, the revised map that you've submitted touches upon those areas and obviously that's a limitation in any development down the road. But given that it appears that you're building an envelope is more than sufficient. Looking at this, are there any other questions? Yes. This pertains to something on pages seven and eight of the staff report and it has to do with the distance between Nishiyachi's driveway and the proposed driveway. And I was wondering if you had that measurement between the two driveways. It's been estimated by staff at 50 feet which I think would exceed the 45 foot minimum requirement but do you have an actual number? The neighbor down below? I think... I know they said that it was 45 but I think it's... Frankly, it's... I want to say it's... if you bear with me... I think it's closer to 10 or 15 feet. Yeah, yeah. I think the driveways are going to be more 30 to 35 feet apart. 30 to 35 feet apart. I don't think we'll meet the 45. Just because this is the... we think this is part of it, it puts it next to the la line which makes sense from a... not going through the middle of the existing Amanda's house. The other is it follows an old wood road. So it's partially cleared. So the clearing is minimized by that. There's also a line of trees between the Nishiyachi house and the left of their driveway with a visual barrier. It's not like the driveway will be right in their front yard as a barrier, as a buffer of their trees. So there at the bottom of page 7, we couldn't estimate exactly what the distance was between the two, the current driveway and the proposed. So what we tried to estimate was the distance between the Nishiyachi driveway and the far side of the actual extension of the line. Also, my understanding is take a look at the plans and speak to the engineer. He didn't have any more concerns with that because there are, they dealt with, but we definitely weren't. So there's a proposal put in a... Yes. That's the plan. Okay. And has there been any testing for that? No. We've looked at the sales maps and the slopes and it looks like you can do a non-site system there, but we've not done the testing yet. So would you accept a condition as to any permit approval that you would have first obtained before any development? You'd have to obtain a permit for May and Ar for the site system? Absolutely. There's a little but there. Okay. This ordinance doesn't require, as part of a subdivision, that we get the wastewater permit and what the... So what our hope was that we could build a driveway this summer and then decide whether to how to market the lot and then get the wastewater permit. So I didn't want to have a condition on the permit that precluded us doing any work like the driveway. That wouldn't preclude you from doing work. That's fine. If that doesn't preclude that then... It's just my concern, you know, the act of subdivision is always trying to create city sewer or parking for you or the... The problem with that is as long as we can go ahead and build the driveway and then either sell a lot with an understanding that the buyer will get the permit or we'll get it. So something prior to a zoning permit would be fine because there are building permits so that... Right. We need that for that anyway. We need the WW permit for that. Right. And if the approval of the subdivision is not contingent upon the granting of a wastewater permit and the zoning permit is, what do we get in the subdivision by adding it on here? Why would we note it here if it's going to be covered elsewhere? Because usually we would... In the interest of creating a buildable lot we would make sure that the lot is buildable with something like a park test. But what is our goal in attaching it here? Well, I mean, to a certain extent, and this is flexible if the condition was... I mean, I think my concern, at least, it's one thing to build the driveway, but it's another to... If you do build the driveway, you do sell it, it doesn't have a wastewater permit. It's now in the hands of the third party. My concern is leaving a lot about... Mr. Jonathan. So I... Section 3506C, wastewater facilities, this is under the subdivision regulations. The applicant shall design the subdivision to provide potable water and wastewater facilities according to the following. And then number three, any subdivision not within the city's water or sewer service area shall demonstrate compliance with the state's wastewater system and photo water supply rules. That demonstration of compliance would be by obtaining a wastewater potable water supply permit from A&R. So I do think it is something that is a requirement for approval of the subdivision to demonstrate that you can have on-site wastewater disposal if you're not served by the city's municipal sewer system. And I share the same concerns you were just having. I think it would be unwise to approve it, say that you can go forward, have it be a legally separate lot, build the driveway, and then it turns out that everybody's wrong, and it's not possible to put an on-site wastewater system to then have this lot with the driveway there that's not actually developable and arguably should not have obtained a subdivision approval. We're not looking for... Okay, actually it probably makes sense before we spent the money on the driveway to make sure that the land would hurt or have a wastewater system. I don't have a problem with that. I think from a marketability standpoint people like the land have already got at least the wastewater. I was actually going to back off of that a little bit based on what Ryan read. The requirement is that the applicant demonstrate compliance with the state's wastewater system and food, water supply rules, which I believe that is different than obtaining a permit. That shows that you are able to eventually obtain a permit based on site conditions. So that's my interpretation. I'm open to discussing that, but I don't see that as saying you need to get a permit before you can have a subdivision. Are there other ways to demonstrate compliance? That might be a question for Don. We prefer it as a condition. The other way would be to do this soils testing to sufficient that I could write a letter saying that it would get a permit. We've done that on some projects. It's just a monetary chicken and the egg. It's cost enough to go through the production process that you'd like to if you get through that then it's worth spending the money to go ahead and do the site testing and design. So if for some reason, I mean for instance the flag lap issue, if that were to be a fundamental problem with the we hope it's not, but if that were a fundamental problem with the board then it would have been a waste to spend several thousand dollars to do the testing. We would prefer to have it a condition of approval that you obtain agency natural resources, what a waste, what a permit prior to any development that kind of development is termed as construction or acquisition or submittal for a zoning permit or building permit. And maybe that... Yeah, I guess I ought to do that and that's, I don't have a problem with that. Just my goal is to sort of get the driveway going, you know, before it's and I don't know how long it takes to get it to get the wastewater permit moving. I mean I have no problem with the condition about the wastewater permit that doesn't preclude you from starting the driveway before septic system. I think that's a fairly low bar. These days the rules are such that most sites, not all but most can support on site wastewater disposal. So I mean I don't think it's I don't think it's it's either an onerous burden or but perhaps unnecessary. My... The question I've been asking myself as I've been listening to the discussion is why would we build into the approval process steps that are not specifically there for us to consider? If we... If we're building a subdivision at this point it's up to the owner and the applicant at some future time to cross that to cross that I do believe that is one of the standards we need to demonstrate compliance with. The one that Ryan read is 3,506. Correct. So I just wanted to go and say there isn't just... Plats have to be signed so you do have a window whereby you could go and say approve with a condition to the plat being reported you do have a window of opportunity to go and want to invest money unless we know it's going to get approved. Right. And that's actually the window I was thinking I think it's necessary only because you know we don't we do approve a subdivision and believe that it can't be or even though most lots can have some... I was going to say just in terms of the difference between the compliance and actually having you know it can be compliant with wastewater permit versus actually having it in terms of the specific design you know so if you said you could write a letter saying yes we can put a four bedroom house and specifically where based on where the house could go in building on below I see the conundrum like how specific do we want to get with saying what we have to do because the house is in the house way in the northeast corner but you know you've already applied for the wastewater permit and had it specifically designed where the septic system is somewhere else you know hypothetical so I guess I would almost be thinking about just like the proving and having the knowledge that yes wastewater can't be designed but not necessarily having it actually and again I think there's a question as to what sort of burden you know whether just I mean if Don if you've been a little more sure in an initial letter like you know this would definitely park then that would probably be enough to satisfy our standards but on anything like that it sounds like there's at least some chance that it wouldn't but so I think what's important is that if Don wrote this letter and signed it he'd have a professional license behind it it's more than just simply if I was to sign it and say I'm sure it will work, it has to work which might be more faith-based but I think I'm comfortable with that too okay I just want to understand exactly what the condition will be but it's fine I just like to know when we submit something it's clear that we've met what you want sure what I'm envisioning and from our discussion here and I'll make it clear is that that we would add a condition at our approval that prior to the finalizing of the plaque 180 days out from granting of the permit Don would have to submit a letter saying that they this lot would support a septic system of such a capacity either a one bedroom house or bedroom house some capacity based on his professional opinion review of the site review of the soils whatever he relies upon as a professional engineer to make that opinion I think that will be sufficient rather than requiring you to design an entire septic system not knowing what type of building you're going to or the successor is going the owner is going to build so that way at least we have an opinion that would be required after approval but before it became finalized and then I think you've already represented that you're planning on designing the driveway to meet the B-71 standard there was a question about the sufficient clearing of vegetation possibly either working with the tree warden in some of the staff comments I belatedly tried to reach him but he snuck off to North Carolina so I missed him we have no problem with talking to Jeff prior to starting work on the driveway one of the other reasons we moved with the 25 foot is that there's a mature maple tree that in this process we discovered was actually on the neighbor's land but the pin is about a foot from the tree so the further we push it away we'll protect that tree some John Snell gave us some suggestions and they were repeated in the staff comments about how we treat any roots no matter within 20 feet you're still going to hit roots how you treat those during construction and then in the driveway construction the way water flows across what we agreed to with DPW is to have essentially road ditch there's not much drainage above it there's only a little bit of land on Amanda's lot that will drain that way and it's through the woods and some lawn it's not going to be significant but that road ditch will lead down to Spring Hollow Lane and then around the cul-de-sac and then north to an existing city culvert the proposals to tile that in together is that going to be open culvert? it will be open swale until Amanda's driveway and then she has a culvert and then it's an open swale to a very short one to the city culvert so really it's creating that new open swale to connect to her driveway because it's existing but it's just filled in so it's to maintain that to clean that out so that goes back to what it was the original constructed so if one of the conditions is to it's not to me it's the existing sorry the existing but to just to clean the ditch out to clean it out as part of the installation process we'd like it not to be a long term it's a city ditch I thought you said maintain but I may have just heard we're talking about just the construction process to clean it out to re-establish it would be a good anybody have any other questions or what's the pleasure of the board I'll make a motion that we approve the number here application Z 2018-0039 two lot subdivision as presented for the condition that prior to signing the final plat the applicant shall submit to the planning zone department a letter or other document demonstrating the ability to comply with wastewater and potable water supply rules and as a further condition that the agreed upon suggestions by department for the works for the swale on the new driveway and the cleaning out of the existing drainage on the lot one be completed second by cabinet further discussion all those in favor please raise your right hand you have your two lot subdivision thank you next item up for business is 213 main streets Mr. Gallans state your name for the record Robert Gallans this is sketch plan review so we're not going to swear you in because we don't formally take testimony on the sketch plan but the purpose is really to give you an opportunity to present your proposal for us to ask questions take comment from the public that which to comment are missing or so why don't you give us an overview of what you're proposing okay so proposing a two lot subdivision the current lot at 213 main street is the current square footage is 17,400 square feet or approximately about a half acre proposing to divide it into two lots lot one which is where the current houses now would be 10,042 square feet and lot two the proposed lot, second lot would be 7,380 approximately square feet not proposing an additional curb cut proposal is to expand the current driveway curb cut and that's how the works prefers to do that instead of putting in the second one just to expand that so that's currently where we're at so how will the driveway come into the when you say expand do you mean expand across the front of the yes by approximately 12 feet the driveway there now would go uphill approximately 12 more feet expand the curb cut public works and I looked at it would have to do a little bit of redesign the sidewalk there and so ultimately in the end there would be a small right away because the beginning of that driveway would cross lot one before it enters into lot two a small section that's what I was curious about so the lot one that would be a little bit of an inference the current property now has 154 feet of frontage on main street proposed lot two would be would be 55 feet so proposed lot two would have 55 feet of frontage on main street it would certainly be helpful to have that proposed driveway just to illustrate how far in to understand the traffic flow I mean I think I understand having a shared driveway myself on main street what you're talking about but it would be helpful just to see it illustrated to draw it out so you can have it and to see how far how wide of a driveway we're visually talking about I think that's helpful also on your lot two I think I've got this right you mentioned there was 55 feet with the plan so 65 that's an old old I think the one that got submitted that was by hinge hinge architect yeah that's not we have the grenier one yeah okay I see yeah this one has 55 feet the one that was done by Don Marsh should be and I think that one said 55 so it is 55 yes that was what you were looking at actually happened before Meredith came on board so there was a little there so that's I think that's yeah it does show where the current driveway is cause this shows 25 of the current house I'm looking at residential 3000 setbacks for the front 10 foot but just on the old hind they're hinge draft it looks like it's illustrating a 25 just before the current zoning we weren't prior to the current zoning we were not residential 3000 we started it in the old zoning and prior to Meredith right that would be another point that would be helpful with all this with both the setbacks and I noticed that in the map that Don has provided there's the steep slopes so obviously those are right here but that's going to limit your building envelope yes you're obviously not going to be able to build on that steep slope but then also it looks like it falls the back portion of a lot too you couldn't put a building we have no intentions of doing that but actually there would be maybe like a shed or something well actually I do have a right away that comes in off from Harrison Avenue which would be to the left of 22 Harrison Avenue I do have a right away there that's still in remains current in the town records that was from a number of years ago there was the current house had a garage underneath it that you accessed from a driveway that came in off from Harrison Avenue but to answer I have no intentions of doing anything down there anything that would be done would be up on the level the level lot on that main street it would just be helpful to see the building envelope with the setbacks and the slopes not that you have to design or put a house there but just to show us where okay because there currently is no plan for most subdivisions aren't like the last one right where it would fit on there got it part of that is so that we know that there are spaces on here that would meet the setbacks and still allow and then this would be served by city water and sewer yes it would your current houses as well the shed that's depicted propose lot 2 it's going to be removed I was hoping to have it removed by now but yeah that's going to be removed and when you say removed are you demolishing it no removed there's a another storage shed behind the house on oppose lot 1 I don't think the only other issue was just to make sure that the dressing I don't at this point it's a fairly treeless area yeah there's actually no trees on the proposed lot 2 just lilac bushes that would remain there's no trees on the proposed lot 2 install solar it's an ideal spot just to orient the building toward the south it would also be allowed and that's one of the things we look to here in the new standards it's an ideal solar location my current house has solar on it and would a construction of the house affect your solar panels no is anybody here to be heard on this application a lot of the city services are somewhat self-evident that's what they prefer is to do it that way and not a second curve yeah I think that's more straightforward and here's to the zoning ordinance better yeah I'm not seeing any red flags come up as far as any issues that would be non-starters or it's just it would be a good idea to do that non-starters or it's just it will be nice the driveway and the building a little flushed out to understand how that works we'll have a plan with that on it any other questions alright well thank you we'll see you back here soon it's two weeks though it is you'll need to do a new application I'll talk to you tomorrow okay I'll see you tomorrow application is I've asked that it be pulled that would be the Murray Hill application and is the same revoked or have they they've withdrawn it they've provided an official letter to withdraw it and they'll work with the planning department to do a new application to fully withdraw it they didn't just table it they fully withdrew it all of the butters before they even told us so we couldn't convince them to do it that doesn't require any questions nope just simply if anybody was here so the next item is 184 Elm Street yes I'm going to step down a step hello so if you state your name I'm Will Sheaubow Zachary Hunter okay go raise your right hand the evidence you're about to give for the matter under consideration should be the truth alright Mr. Sheaubow that's through what you're proposing well the proposal for 184 Elm Street is to convert the most part unused carriage barn attached to the main four-unit property into more living space by adding two more units and corresponding parking and in the process having to remove a portion of the carriage barn which is at one point probably an addition it's kind of a crumbling falling down shed and this is not is this the same property we reviewed a couple years ago or is this there was a sketch plan last fall and we went through I wasn't part of it at that point because I was I was remembering that this looked awful familiar more of a feasibility at that point in my understanding testing the waters previously it was under the old zoning rules if you had more than four units you fell under plain unit development and you therefore had to go through the three-step process so they had gone through the first step of the three-step process and then the zoning changed now you're back with the same project same project with new rules that was part of the delay talking to Sarah back in November you might want to just wait so we might have to go through two reviews on two different zoning ordinances presumably get in under the old one so could you share maybe Mike so the application is stated to be site plan conditional and demolition of the utility structure do we have to do preliminary preliminary approval or do we jump right into it within the order we jump right into it there isn't a preliminary under the new rules it's a one-step process unless it's a subdivision subdivisions are the only two-step this project is not a subdivision no longer a subdivision correct well let's take us step-by-step and I just like a refresher just because I am going to mix this up in my head what we did last year so what's there now there is four units mental two units in the main house and it's kind of an L two apartments and then there's this carriage barn which is uninhabited some structural foundation issues and there's a shed portion coming off the back of that which is the proposed section we're going to remove and that's kind of the location of the new parking and then there's another detached carriage barn behind that which is not part of this application that is also storage so essentially you have the main house you have two apartments behind it which is attached to the main house which is attached to the main house and then attached to that four units is the carriage barn well there's it's not really a connector shed if you look on page A03 you'll see sort of the north facade and then there's the main gable and then there's the long photograph and then you can see the carriage barn attached to that so the shed that we're proposing to remove is on the tail end of that on the back side so to the far western end it's the fourth segment of the rather long classic caterpillar yeah exactly so it's just the shed section that's called a carriage barn presumably I think the site plan shows it as well as you said the caterpillar that keeps going and then beyond the shed there's a space and then there's another barn that's an application just another day another home improvement and then I know and then going to A5 then is what you're proposing so this or is it yeah so sort of in the space of where that connector shed not the connector shed but what we're proposing to remove is going to be some parking and the exterior staircase access for the two new apartments and that will be the primary point of access for the two apartments will be these staircases that are in the back and will these two parking spaces be for the new apartments and is this just the drawing or is this is it going to have this sort of that's just a conceptual staircase right now it's probably it's going to be you know code compliant foundation concrete beers I presume that yeah last railings yeah they're essentially it's me to be proposed one of the issues last time around was parking arrangement with 182 it's hi um remember there was a reconfiguration of that parking is that still being proposed or do the two new parking spaces take care of that or how how does parking look today and how is it going to look I believe you've been in correspondence I'm sure you have the most yeah so um you have the copy of the original agreement that's recorded in the records which has it's basically all parallel parking right your property on 182 and then there used to be a parking spot on 184 um but that is being removed to allow the access to the rear spots so um I think the agreement that Mr. Gayet 100 are working out is to re-write the agreement correct me if I'm wrong yeah so that basically they can have because currently it stands that 184 has three parking spots on your property you have to then we actually allow 184 they're already parked in a property actually they all have to go open their property this is our property but I think the the change is adding one spot I think that I'm looking at this pose site plan so it looks as if what are the parking requirements the parking requirements are one per dwelling unit so they would need to have six for 184 your proposal is five right with a new agreement it would be for um six four spots on 182 for the 184 um plus the two new ones okay so so right now you have I think the mix you have five spaces five parking spaces I think the mix up is that in the um I sort of came to this project after the sketch plan from previously and it had already been drawn and I wasn't aware of the agreement which has three parking spots for 184 plus two parking spots for 182 on 182's property um but with the proposed site plan it would be four parking spots on 182 for 184 and then two for 182 and then the two new ones are putting on 184 for total six okay so the three parallel spots and then one of the angled spots yes and then two new spots between the old shadows the agreement that's written up is for 184 and then two parallel spots for 182 so basically the proposed site plan complies to the zoning but the current agreement that's recorded in the land records does not so they just have to work out an amended agreement and then record an amended agreement and then everything will be matching and just so you know this is an issue and Ms. Hunter since you're here as well so that you know if we were to grant that approval that's just zoning approval it still has to be worked out privately between the parties which is if you have private legal rights it doesn't matter what the zoning permit says doesn't change the legal rights and responsibilities between the parties and it sounds like you're working towards some type of workable agreement along those lines but it doesn't change that it would just simply say that if you do come up with six you can build what you want but of course if you can't come up with six you can't build what you want so it certainly puts certain of my pressure between the parties to work out the parking arrangement but it sounds like you're working but I just wanted to make clear because sometimes people can get confused between the interplay between the zoning whether we issue a permit or not won't change that so unless anybody has any other sort of free closing questions before the demolition in which case I wonder if we can make a bridge to that decision but if it was sketch we may have just said we don't see a problem with it I guess the cleanest way is to just do it okay so I think for the record if you can give me a little bit of information about the shed does it have a foundation not that I'm aware of I think some of the pictures as you can see on the page show that it's essentially dirt underneath there and sagging and is this the structure is listed on the natural registers contributing but is this shed original to the barn itself I'm unaware of that if it's original or not I think the contributing element is because it's in the historic district my guess is that the shed was it could have been original it's hard to say whether you know just in your investigation is this something where the barn itself has four walls and the shed sits it's definitely extraneous it was built after the fact whether that was 50 years ago or 80 years ago it would be anyways it was built a while ago there's clavards on the inside of the shed so that I guess a good testament that it was added on afterwards what purpose of this shed was my guess is some sort of livestock there's definitely some like little patches from the main carriage barn into like this kind of like a loft area in the shed my guess is like a storage and is this something where the foundation is worn out or where there just never was about it wasn't built with the same permanence as the main carriage structure is it something where of this shed of main building itself I wouldn't necessarily say it's contributing a whole lot to the deterioration of the carriage barn I think one of the elements of the project is substantial foundation repair which with the shed being gone the opportunity to really repair the carriage barn foundation in a proper manner but we'd be removing a good portion of the carriage barn or the shed to repair if you were to say put a foundation under the shed right I mean that would be what kind of expense would that be for the foundation under the shed where it was it would be substantial in the couple upwards above $20,000 and it would make the repair of the carriage barn foundation more expensive more difficult it would limit access for doing a good job on the carriage barn which is a more desirable structure to retain and it makes the in terms of the site plan with the exterior stair access in the parking makes that more critical as well I'm thinking strictly from the demolition and part of the findings that we have to make is just to demolition replacement of a structure there are listed as structures to the Vermont historic sites and structure survey and the national registered historic resources is prohibited unless the development review board approves the demolition site restoration plan and the board finds that demolition is part of a site development plan and design plan applicable that would provide clear and substantial benefit to the community I think that's the sort of course we're trying to argue here is that by removing this shed we are therefore creating more housing that is essentially a clear and substantial benefit to the community we just have to be careful because of course if you have an old house it's very easy to raise it and put up a set unit building that's true and that would be a community development but that's not what this is I would interpret it more along the lines of what we're going with some of this testimony which is that what you're saying is the essential part of this this is a plan to rehab this barn which has a need for a new foundation and repairs right now is empty and unoccupied and really doesn't serve whatever use it once served whether that be farming or to store horses or carriages in town it's not serving any function whatsoever you're proposing to bring it back into use by creating residential structures out there right? Yeah and that this shed portion of the shed one doesn't really provide any benefit because it's not as if you could make it into a bedroom because it doesn't have a foundation to put a foundation on is an elaborate expense which creates all kinds of other cascading costs and it's not the main structure. Yeah I think it obviously removing of it is not going to detract from the street face of the building and its historic character Any other questions about demolition? No, we don't. Satisfied? I think it's pretty straightforward it's hard packed I think it's crumbling pavement crumbling pavement with kind of surface there's there's been discussion of paving repaving the existing and paving some of the new I think there's definitely some budgetary concerns whether it's going to be a permeable or impermeable surface I think Mr. Gaia's long term plan would be to have it be paved but I know that obviously the zoning regulations like permeable surfaces in terms of absorbing rain water and whatnot you know from a storm water management and erosion control that's a semi impermeable surface it's a fairly minimal expansion I mean you're talking about ultimately the driveway as it is except for this addition where you're sort of I mean you can sort of see it in these perspective photos the site plan doesn't have a topography it's for the most part flat but there's a slight drop you know you're going to kind of go down to some new parking spaces so the two new areas that are created will be sort of in their own they're below the main elevation of the main parking driveway area so it's not like it's going to run off into the street or anything and I think based on some of the landscaping plans that we're thinking about you know some sort of like you know rain garden or something in a way to deal with you know that little bit of runoff from the new site on summer street is the street that runs parallel behind route 2 there's kind of an impression behind that house and that's where the parking comes down it's probably 5 or 6 feet lower than the main street level parking and then it drops probably even a little bit further as you come to the shared property lines with the properties on summer street can I notice that the design calls for this turn around area like a little turn around and then back into the turn around and then go out forwards and are there any on 182 which this essentially will be parking facing 182 are there windows on that side is there well I think we propose landscaping to be installed around parking we're going to talk about cedar trees there's already kind of a big hedge basically on the property line there's a large yeah yeah I'm hoping we can keep those that's the plan yeah yeah and I hope like we'd like development of 184 to plant more so that you know that parking area is yeah the headlights will be facing north so there'll be no direct headlights in theory 182 so it sounds like with the existing plantings some of that is already mitigated but you're proposing additional cedar hedges yeah I think you know there's some four new cedar trees I think the four new ones would just be the requirements for the zoning regulations so you have it's definitely a tight area well I mean that's another issue is that you know this is we're adding another car to already and this was a concern that we raised last fall about the very tight driveway configuration I think we had taken testimony but would just be helpful at this point in time about the existing you already have almost looks like seven cars with 182 in that area going in and out would you characterize the way the traffic flows currently in the driveway it seems to be you have more of a yeah exactly that's the thing is you know there's the design of it versus the day to day I've made a variety of sight visits and seen midday and seen two cars in the parking lot some of them are already diagonally parked as you know the proposed and sometimes it's parallel parking and I think it sometimes you probably get parking from 186 like Dr. Nellie's building I think 174 I think occasionally people from the dentist office try to park up in there at times but I think the signage is pretty clear as not to it's um you know and this is another issue about the paving versus parking which is you're getting people to change their parking to adopt those backs and what you're saying is that they're already starting I was I mean actually I think I did the google street view recently and it showed cars diagonally parked in there towards the back end of the the proposed diagonal parking area Mr. Gad you lived on the site or is this just a rental property me yeah exactly 100 not a great guy yet okay so the owner but the owner lives there right he does not part time I think one consideration from the old zoning to the new zoning was that the old zoning used to have rules that said that you could not block in previous that does not exist any more under the new zoning that was one of the conditions that was left that pretty much said landlords and property managers can it's not a city concern if people are blocking themselves in that's a landlord tenant management issue if you can stack three cars in and tenants can manage who parks first who parks second who parks third so they can get out in the morning that's up to them to figure out how they can do that I'm not understanding this to be that sort of stacked in yeah and that's one of the big differences previously you couldn't block in previous cars so it was very important in an application in November to demonstrate that each car had free access back to no car could get blocked in each car would have to have free access back to the street that requirement does not exist anymore so it's important for circulation but isn't a requirement for parking any longer you know I think in one element of this in the reality of the design that we've shown that there is adequate parking for each unit but Elm Street is full of meterless street side parking I know we've considered potentially if we had to go for a waiver for one parking spot or something that one of the guidelines I think in the regulations for that is that access to alternative places exactly on street parking nearby and there's plenty of that so if my guess is that potentially the people who live in the two front units might just park on the street in front of the departments and walk in the front door versus if this gets too crazy but I think we've shown that it can work in theory I think the two new spots or the two new units have dedicated spots directly next to those so it doesn't really seem to me to affect whatever is kind of existing I mean as you say you've demonstrated that you can add another space to meet the requirements of the regulations but practically the way I see this, the two new spaces the two new apartments that are going to go into the renovated carriage barn have their own new dedicated spaces right next to it so I don't have any plans for you The turnaround is listed on the proposed site plan A04 as being 9 feet wide Is that wide enough for a car to back around I don't know what the average width of a car is Well I think the placeholder for car parking I think is 9 by 20 Parking for being still We can make that I guess bigger if need be I think it's not shown in detail but in terms of the radius you know for like the D71 standards I think there's a foot to grab on the 182 side of that I know there's a building there so there's a limit Kate's point is well taken especially about maybe not necessarily the width the radius I mean that's a sharp corner to turn around That's also your snow snow storage area It's kind of a mix That's why it's located behind the foot to push through Well it's proposing snow storage in that Yeah the setback I mean I guess Is that for the whole parking I don't think that would not be for the whole parking zone I mean I think currently it gets kind of packed up right in front of the you know if you look at the existing site plan where that one parking spot basically gets packed right there in front of the carriage barn Oh so right in front of your door the majority of the main parking area and or it's snowblow to retain access Yeah So I imagine that the snow would probably go Yeah so it seems like the new parking area could be split between you know behind the turnaround and then two cars are parked that could be the snowblow snowblower territory The snow storage area in front of the car so it doesn't look like particularly a great deal of snow storage space I don't see how you're going to be able to change that radius on the turn and it's the width of a snow plow I think like on a pickup truck I think it's smaller It's like well six to eight is what I would guess The main snow storage area to ensure that that nine foot turnaround specifically a turnaround with this additional area Yeah to push that snow back there and it's going to have to go pretty far back in any given year Yeah which may actually help in front of 182 to have less snow How many units are there right now again? There's currently four Next question sort of moving through is about bike racks bike facilities sidewalks that are existing from No, I mean we could be creative and add bike locking to the exterior stairs on the sun floor Yeah, some hooks and then there's also the whole other barn as well which people are sort of using as storage kind of currently in addition to that I think the reason why we have to review this is the idea that it's to encourage biking facilities so every project has to have a bike with six units located just close to town Well it's secure bike parking and that could be behind a locked door in the existing the stairway I think currently one of the tenants is a bike mechanic The carriage bar number proposing to renovate a little area with like six bikes standing away I think so I guess we'll have to build him his own bike rack So then moving on to the next issue about the site landscaping if you could just block us through what you're proposing for the landscaping Well basically the majority of the landscaping I think we're going to try to concentrate around the sort of the new parking area I think that the trees we're removing two trees so I think to hit the zoning regulations for I think ten for every thirty feet or something but we'll be adding hopefully some more cedar trees as screening around the parking area and then juniper bushes and lilacs we don't have a landscape plan this is the minor site plan but I know that Mr. Guyette is under who wants who wants to do landscaping and you know to sort of see where we get to at the end it's an important part for him we don't have it we haven't drawn where the juniper shrubs or the lilacs will go but there's already some existing lilacs kind of at the corner of the driveway along the property line there it's existing a little too mature I think maple's in the front yard I understand it's a minor site plan but at the same time you're yeah I mean I guess I mean I'm looking at so there are two trees along the shed that have to be removed yeah basically for the parking area I suspect given how close they are to the shed they weren't necessarily planted they're basically dead yeah the tree's that close to a building so they're all like here the tree but the discussion earlier about having cedars along because my big concern doesn't look like you're not touching the trees in front of Elm Street nor are you touching the shrubbery along the side of the driveway courtyard you're expanding into the yard you're building this driveway you're knocking down the shed taking down those two trees so really that's the main area you're going to put some type of landscaping shrubbery in front of the entrance and exit for aesthetic reasons you're going to line the driveway with shrubs would you accept a condition that the plants that you pick from the non-invasive list and that you maintain any plantings and then I think the really important planting is obviously across from the driveway to 182 and put in cedars or similar type of evergreens that are going to augment the u-block that exists or to the extent that some of those branches have to be cut back and there's dead areas that you create that visual screen to maintain so that when cars come in because I'm thinking in winter if a car comes in backs into the spot their lights are going to go right on 182 you want some sort of evergreen yeah probably be right on the property line right I mean Miss Hunter I'm really thinking about like right here in this in this portion of the house here I'll it's I'm looking at the A2 oh A2 existing existing but I'm actually probably going to A4 A4 that would have the proposed it does seem a little the distance off the corner of where the two new units will be I would be hesitant to make a condition that doesn't work for the physical I'm just sort of talking through I understand that but it sounds like you would like some planning here it's our goal most part of the design is to have privacy screen plantings well yeah I mean that's my big concern is if you look at A4 where the two cars are facing in if they back in or even if they're rear lights that's a pretty close proximity to 182 and if there are windows along this section here yeah because you can't control when cars come in if somebody comes back from a very long road trip at three in the morning and flashes the lights as they back in even if it's just for a short period of time I mean there should be some mitigation screening for that yeah I think and I don't I agree with Kevin that you can't if the plantings won't work that the existing use have we determined that the existing you said it was you you tree that's only going to the end of the okay so we've determined that that's insufficient given the new configuration yeah and that that additional screening would be desirable I think that's part of our plan it's just hard to depict on you know small paper and have you know here's the species sort of get busy in there so that area is maybe it's a it would be good to see and understand that on a larger obviously want to condition to with any of these plantings I think it's definitely an important element of the design the outdoor lighting how many units just planning for two to illuminate the stairs and the doors shielded downlights downcast and that's the backlighting on the back there yeah above the doors to be next to each door so they would illuminate the entrance as well as the stairs the 11.5 watts that's specified for those lights what's that equivalent to the question I would guess 75 yeah like a 9 is 40 generally it's not 300 yeah it's not a spotlight a mercury halide yeah and when you put it in a lamp that directs it down we'll get used to these new measurements yeah the lumens are the magic numbers 1200 lumens there was a staff comment about the fact that there's a requirement that they be energy stars but it's an LED light and it's in the zoning and when I do the revision to the zoning I'm going to contact and find out we just have a requirement for LED rather than going having a require for energy star rating because I think energy star is an independent it would be interesting to know whether LED is always automatically energy star or whether energy star has some other value yeah if it doesn't add any value really what we care about is the energy there may be some value I'm speculating here but there may be some value in color correction energy star rather than the unrated because I've seen the two of them side by side energy star is a little more expensive maybe I don't know I think it really applies a lot of times if you're going for a rating for a whole project an energy star is the standard but I do know with LED lights color correction is important because you can have some pretty glaring looking LED lighting we'll have to do some additional homework on that but right now the requirements say it's supposed to be energy star rated lamps only provide that star rated and we can find a very similar lamp that is rated if this one is not I will say whack lighting is a pretty large residential producer of lighting it's not some knock off we found on hand quality light so I wouldn't be surprised that it was rated shot that part of the light cut sheet and that's something you think you can just supple that I don't feel like we need to review another hearing for that yeah okay I think those were the main issues on the site plan did anyone else have any other questions or concerns I had one other on page 11 that I think is should be somewhere that's at the bottom and it's about the fact that under the rules aisles shall be 20 feet wide and the proposal here is to be 12 feet and so I kind of wrote out some things the WU director was comfortable stating the use is existing and the addition of two vehicles will not pose significant risk of obstructed access obstructed vehicles can turn into the turnaround to allow for other vehicles to park and then give them clear path to egress staff finds that given the physical characteristics of the lot being long and narrow and existing development the house is closed together using a shared driveway the only possible way to widen the driveway would be to remove landscaping and fencing in the front yard of the house weighing the inconvenience of backing into the turnaround to let someone access the parking compared to loss of landscaping to widen the driveway staff would keep the non-conforming driveway narrow as the better option in this case but that's certainly your call to make I think the testimony earlier was that the configuration while crowded does seem to work we're losing a space and we're gaining a suspect anyone coming to visit when he lives there quickly learns the way of the world I saw your husband point out forward the other day so he figured out quite well yeah for sure I would definitely defer to DPW okay so let's go through conditional use I think it's the last straight forward so 3302 talks about capacity of community facilities and utilities says the applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed development shall not cause a disproportionate on reasonable burden on the city's ability to provide community facilities and utilities including one local schools police and fire ambulance street infrastructure and maintenance parks and recreation facilities water supply sewage disposal storm water systems and infrastructure because pre-self-evident that none of this is going to be impacted by two residential units in an already residential area but the impacts are really internal to the community facilities so the next one is traffic applicant shall demonstrate proposed development will not have an undue adverse effect upon the traffic in the area including volume type of timing the traffic generated by the proposed development shall not have a reasonably and disproportionately reduced level of service that reasonable measures have been taken to mitigate or minimize the amount of vehicle traffic generated for proposed development talking about a net one car otherwise major state route 12 likely this one or traffic closed this is fairly close to the new intersection to the stop signs it probably makes coming in and out of your driveway a little bit easier these days character of the neighborhood, neighborhood standards applicant shall demonstrate the proposed development shall not have an undue adverse effect upon the character of the neighborhood and this neighborhood is a mixed-use residential district including the Meadow which has historic homes close to sidewalk tree-lined streets large homes have been converted to multi-family buildings neighborhood continues to have historic appeal the part of what your testimony was that this preserved some of the historic appeal by keeping the carriage barn functional and improving it regulations are intended to protect the residential-scale character of the neighborhood created by primarily residential-use historic building stock front yards, porches, walkable tree-lined streets so I think that if anything the proposal to have some sort of bike facility built into this safe bike storage is that great and architectural compatibility restoring existing carriage barn demolition of the shed is if anything going to improve that structure yards, lock coverage and landscaping the new development shall maintain a sense of open space and the decision to keep the driveway so any other questions about conditionally if not in the meantime we had a good and I think important discussion about that area where the two new parking spaces are going in about screening for the neighbor's home about the 9 foot area that will be partially used for storage but also very important for turning around do we feel we've collected enough detail on that or are we satisfied with assurances that it could be more than 9 feet that landscaping will be worked out that the turning radius will be good well I think I wonder where we landed, that's where there were the most questions about the long term function of this site and compatibility between properties for me and I I wonder what we need to do there so at least on the screening I'm comfortable with representations of the planting and screening because there's a neighbor this kind of reminds me of the Sherwood Drive application where the initial proposal was for a live vegetative screening while permitting that they sought out fencing yeah I think from my understanding when they came back to south the initial last fall the sketch plan review was that the guy as well as the hunters worked out there were some other parking arrangement alternatives that sort of took away all the courtyard space and made it the main parking area more connected you all sort of agreed that this was it made sense to know yeah exactly so I think you know obviously the pattern of neighborly communication this is set it's important to maintain I think it would be a good idea maybe we could do for sure yeah I was speaking with Alex actually at one point about and they actually used to live building so is it the board's responsibility to provide any sort of protection for the neighbor when it comes to screening or is it sufficient to again I'm thinking of sort of long term circumstances and it is an honest question about what is what is typical in a situation like this it's pretty close quarters you want to do it right I mean I was giving my opinion I was bringing up the Sherwood Drive the family center example where we approved at one point what they had proposed of a live vegetative screening that proved ineffective proved ineffective and then they moved to a fencing solution it came back and you know I think what we can do and maybe this is the best way to protect is that and this is why I raised this particular is that the proposed vegetative screening shall provide and let's make this a condition shall provide an effective visual with new parking area of 182 and it does give the neighbor some you know if they can work it out informally great but then if the neighbor is unsatisfied I wonder if that isn't delving a little too far into the weeds from the standpoint of what are the real responsibilities are well I think it falls under conditional use only because yes I get that but but trying to project what the future is going to hold is I understand we all play that game well sure and it's easy to imagine these two people getting along as opposed to the successors who are going to spies each other blow it yes and that's the thing about a permit is it does try to anticipate the future based on what we're allowing today I guess I'm inclined to think of a condition that would you know what you just said satisfies my concern and I think codifies what I'm hearing anyway and part of it may be impractical the family center issue is trying to predict that they proposed one solution that didn't work okay so what's the pleasure of the board I think we've gone through the conditional use so there's essentially three approvals that we have to give the minor site plan review the conditional use and the demolition of the contributing structure I know there are certain conditions that we have talked about through here some of which are also staff if you look on page 20 and 21 there's about six staff recommendations some are most are just standard the erosion control the applicant shall follow the erosion control practices outlined in section 3008 the second is the applicant shall manage all storm water on site and not direct flow downward down the driveway toward the street or adversely impact neighboring properties three the applicant shall record a revised right of way and driveway use agreement within 30 days of the DRB decision and prior to the issuance of a zoning permit the revised agreement will reflect in number four of the agreement that the area will be used for the parking of six automobiles and that the 184-86 shall have access to one diagonal and three parallel parking spaces near Elm Street which is I think what you're proposing the applicant for the applicant shall not obstruct the use of land that's designated as turnaround and snow storage which we talked about before five that landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy condition debt or dying plan shall be replaced by one growing season with bearable plant in terms of type form size of maturity etc of at least minimum size requirements specified in figure 320 six any future enlargement alteration or change of use will require permit in the City of Montpelier and then we had talked about possibly two more one was to have incorporate a secure bike storage area and the other is the visual screen in front of the proposed parking area did we want to add a number for number seven provides secure bike storage for a minimum of so many bikes or is it just as long as there's bike storage for at least at least one bike provides secure bike storage period any of those conditions cause you heartburn problem, upset stomach what's the pleasure of the board we can vote on these all at once I think that I don't know just the five it makes sense to approve separately I think you're right cause conditional use we're going to want to add conditions where do we end up with the screen I think we had proposed to have the visual screening screening plantings new driveway new parking area to if feasible if feasible well I think we were going a little beyond that too just requiring some type of screening cause Will was okay some type of screening so you should start with the plan that doesn't work you I propose acceptance of say plan approval with the conditions screening between 182 and 184 as detailed by the board so motion by Kevin seconded by Ryan any further discussion all those in favor please raise your hand alright so does someone want to take up let's go with the demolition sure I'll move that we approve the demolition of the contributing historic structure as presented in the application motion by Ryan any further discussion all those in favor please raise your right hand and that's approved so that brings us down to conditional use I'll move that we approve the conditional use application as presented with the conditions that were already set out going to restate them or one through one the additional conditions one through seven I would discuss prior I think it is because you're going to write this anyway you already read them so I would second motion by Ryan seconded by Kevin any further discussion all those in favor please raise your right hand we do have approval we'll write these up these conditions in case you didn't take notes issue a decision with those conditions incorporated into it and but that's all we need for tonight anything else we can do for you I guess one question is the approval for the driveway use agreement 30 days prior to the issuance of the zoning permit so once that agreement is submitted recorded then we'll get the zoning permit yes so it's just it's the one thing we can hold over to get it to make sure that you then all the other conditions are once we have our zoning permit exactly and that stops that yeah stops from someone from going forward without the proper agreement good alright thank you all very much alright the only other business is our next regularly scheduled meeting is for June 4th on 2018 at 7pm otherwise I will take any other new business do you remember do we have a DRB meeting on the 4th because this all happened because I think a sketch plan he won't be in he'll be in the next meeting after that because it takes 15 days to warn that meeting so it's 14 days away I was pretty sure unless there was a continuous Audra told me unless we continued an application there will not be a DRB meeting so which is to the 18 the 18 okay well nevertheless if something should emerge unlikely as it is I'll take a motion for adjournment so moved motion by Kevin second second by Kate all those in favor please raise your right hand we are adjourned