 But it would be better breaking up the roof line than mass of roof there. Would you go over it? Yeah, I think we'll actually do that. Yeah. I like the idea of the six of the ones, too, just because I think that we're more consistent with what we're seeing than what you're saying. Okay. My own impression of the six of the ones. Just in terms of pure aesthetics, it looks like it has always been there, particularly carriage houses were attached to older buildings by breezeways, open sheds, sort of in the nature of the old farmhouse where the barn was attached to the house with a shed or a garage or a woodshed or whatever. And again, it was a new addition between the two, but it looks like, I mean passing down the street and looking at it looks like it could have always been there. Right. Because it's not atypical. And again, I guess that's a mixed. Right. Yeah. And then again, we could give them the option of doing either which, whichever you think would look the best. Well, Jay and I batted around the six and the one over one and Jay went with the one over one because that was what was blowing. Yeah. So that's how we arrived at this. I think that the one over one's follow the Secretary of Interior's standards, which do say you shouldn't give a false sense of history with your new additions. They should be compatible, but you don't want them to look like they've always been there necessarily. You want them to work and be sympathetic with what's historic. Yeah. So. And actually if you use an insulated glass with an exterior screen on it, the darkness of the screen will help if you look at some of the other windows that have that. That will help that blend in so that it's not going to be as conspicuous as it would just glass sitting there reflecting the morning sun, which hits that, that building. Yeah. The morning and late morning. Right. The one over ones are probably a little cheaper too. Oh, right. What are the windows? Are they marvins or what do you use? I, I, that's been, it's been a while since we've, whatever we use on the, we'll ask what we use again. Yeah. We'll pick a good one. A wood window? I'm interested in the sort of rhythm between siding, window, siding, double window, siding, window, siding, that they're unequal and whether that is what the intention of their model is. It almost looks like a match. Oh, I see. He matched the, the bump out on the second story of the main building. You know, you have a single on the, on either side and then that double in the front. Well, also just the, there's, there's a lot more siding on the far left. Oh, okay. And it looks like the space is, the space between the two windows is unequal on the right and left also. Oh, okay. And whether there is some intentionality that I don't understand. Yeah, but it may be that, that we were hitting the, there's a, there's a wall here and we were going to move it here to make this a little more generous. This office looks too small. I'm guessing that wall is there. I'm thinking that's what you do. I like the balance of that. I think it works fine. Yeah. Yeah. This is the existing floor plan. I'm certain there's good reasons for it. And I think we want to move this wall or cross out the existing wall. This wall here is going to be the new wall. And I'm guessing Jay married up the, the split in the window. Yes. With that wall. Yeah. A copy of that just for the plan? Yeah. Awesome. Jay is sensitive to what it looks like. Right. Multiple things. This is all I have to know. Yeah. Take it a little away to make that feel. Yeah. Well, maybe we, the, the window on the, you know, it's funny that, that far right hand window, I should look at the building. If you slid that over, that would make it more equal because it's long. Yeah. I see what you're saying. Rather than move the middle one is a move this one that way. Right. Or if you move this one. That way. Yeah. That makes sense. I think the middle one was lined up on that wall, but I think the two outer ones, we can make those equidistant to. Yeah. If you'd like to. I feel like that would. Yeah. Give it a little. Everything else is pretty well proportionate. Step on the building. Right. We'll make the windows equidistant. Yeah. As much as possible. Yeah. Beautiful. Yeah. Thanks. Yes. A little more painting to do up there. A little more roofing and painting. I assume it'll. Look. Yeah. You've, you've already redone this roof since this photograph. Yes. Yeah. And so this door will have an old asphalt shield. To match. Yeah. Yeah. Just put it in as an option. If you make the position that you want the windows at a good distance, spacing or aesthetic balance, if it can be accomplished with a proposed interior for the web. Here. Comments, questions, suggestions. Turn it to determine what the other windows are. Just indicated that the windows will replace some of the hand door in the new section. You can go through the criteria unless anybody has anything else to add before that. Here's a set of criteria. You've been through this before. I'll just read quickly through that. Yeah. Evaluation criteria, number one. Preservation, a reconstruction of the appropriate historic style of the proposed projects in the historic district. Or involves an historic structure. This addition of the adornment is acceptable. Harmony of exterior design with other properties in the district. Acceptability of exterior design with other properties in the district. Acceptable. Compatibility of proposed exterior materials with other properties in the district. Acceptable. Compatibility of proposed landscaping, non-proposed in this application. Prevention of the use of incompatible designs, buildings, color schemes or exterior materials. Acceptable. Location and appearance of all utilities. No change in any lighting or other utilities. None the outside. Recognition of and respect for a view court in the district. No change in any lighting or other utilities. None the outside. Recognition of and respect for view quarters and significant visitors including gateway views of the city and state house. Acceptable. All in favor of the application as proposed. Raise your hand. Just sign that one right above my name. Okay. Left there. You have a pen? If it should be one under there. Okay. Thank you. So did we go to go one over one or six over one? It's your option. What's our option? I didn't write it down. I didn't write it. You have it listed as a one over one. One over one. Okay. Unless you want the option or doing a six over one. No, I think we're doing it with a one over one. Yeah. Okay. All right. Again, I think the screens on the outside are usually dark enough that they don't make it more subtle whichever way you go. Yeah. Great. All right. Thanks, everybody. Thank you. Thank you. I can see if I've heard from you. Okay. We'll talk amongst ourselves. Whoa. It's maybe going to come out right there. It's a little bright. I'm hoping that the color's a little darker and a little more subtle, maybe a little gray in it or something to tone it down. Yeah. It's pretty bold. We already have a green one on the state street that takes your breath away. Oh, no. Yeah. Yeah. It somehow didn't look. It was represented. It'll probably fade over a couple of years. 20 years. It's too bad because there's a depth in certain colors that you try to achieve that makes a building look really rich and really, really nice. And that one didn't quite make it. No. No. Not sure. It's unfortunate. Yeah. I don't know, some people, see that some people don't. Some of the better designers. I think people don't really good with colors. People don't realize what it's going to look like until they get it out. I think it's pretty hard to go through paint, swatch, or Egypt. Yeah. You have to do a big sample. Well, they painted samples on the side of the building and why they had people thinking that was the one. I would have kept going myself. I wonder if she has an actual color swatch. The true color. That one's really not an accurate federal blue. Right. Did they give you an actual color? Name? Other than that. No. That and saying it's federal blue. You want an actual color? It's good that they're here. We'd like an actual color chip. Yeah. Okay. Perfect. Because that's a bit bright. I'm not sure if that's what they were truly attempting. And again, that's a sample color on an entirely different building. Yeah. You want to know. What's the siting on the building now? Is that a wood siting? I don't think so. What's that aluminum to me? I don't know. Or is that aluminum? I think it's aluminum. I'm looking at the corners. Right. And there's not a corner board on there. Yeah. But I also don't read the little aluminum caps in there either. There's no like, you know, like that. Or trim around the windows. I was also looking at the corners here. Yeah. If it's wood, sometimes they will do a miter cut. But more often than not, they do a corner board. So what kind of siting? What color? Can you put them in a color trim? An actual color chip. Some of the corners daily. Just before you go over it. In state. In state, yeah. That's the gas station. Right on the river side. Okay. Yeah, it's kind of an odd view. Does anybody have a chance to look at the minutes? I'd be worried before. I did. And they worked good too. Anybody have anything else to add or change? Okay. I think it looks good. No apology necessary. Do I hear a motion to approve the minutes? I move. Okay. All in favor or approve the minutes? Raise your hand. And it's served to you by four votes. Any other business? Other than the fact the next meeting's Monday April Fool's Day. I have a question. Because I have obviously have too much time in my hands. And I was reading all of that. Has the one more time sign not been removed from that bill? It's an abandoned sign. Probably because I have a backlog of sign enforcement that I haven't gotten to. You still have Lewinstein's address. Is there anybody? Is there anybody out what? Yes, that's Lewinstein. Not yet. I mean, he wants to say Lewinstein wants to sell the building, but it needs a lot of work. It's uninsulated and much of it. There's single pane windows there. So I'm not sure if the heating system is ever replaced. The heating system belongs in the Smithsonian. And he wanted, Lewinstein knew he wanted 1.3 as is. Well, I just caught my eye. So anyway, but you're right. Yeah, no, it needs to come down. There's other signs that have popped up around the city that have a couple of minutes that I need to have them busy. Do I hear a motion to adjourn? I move to adjourn. All in favor of adjournment. Raise your hand. Meeting is adjourned. That was quick. Look at us gone. I do. Oh, here it is. We're sticking to the inside of the envelope. So where in West Virginia did you go? I was all over the southern part of the state. I was working for a coalition of nonprofits and folks on coal pollution, coal mining issues. Big deal, though. So yeah, it was interesting. Yeah, I bet it was. Yeah. I didn't start this group too long. This was like the 70s. And it was still pleading territory back in those days. I had a good job, too. But my helpers started getting asthma. So I moved away. Yeah. Sorry. No, no, no, no. I left right after I really made water contamination. 100,000 people were out of water for two and a half weeks. We had a cold again. We had eight or five months before. Yeah. That was fast. That was fast, but what is the sense for that? That was, I don't know. That's why that flint happened. It came to fruition right after. But yeah, I forgot about the clean arms. It's super clean parties. And then a party, and I hope it came down to that. Like a lot of people had like immediate reactions to it. Thus far there's been no real long term. You never know. I don't think that's going to happen. Well, you're right. I think you might have been hit. Yeah, I think you might have been hit. What? That's true. I'll get to it. But it's tough there, you know. So I'm caring about something. So much exposure from some of the different things. Yeah, I know. I have to know which one. Yeah. There's chocolate right there. Is Tom not coming? Where does chocolate come from? I don't like the taxes here. They were out there and I just left them out. They were out there and I just left them out. They were out there and I just left them out. Exactly. Can I get a chocolate? No. There were only three. No, no, no. For Tom. Give it to Tom. For Tom. To defend himself. Yeah. Tom, we got our packets at the same time. You guys get those snazzy vests. Aren't they? What, after you left? I knew that much. Let's pick up the game. Do you have a rainbow Roy? Definitely. I have to pick up. I don't have to pick up. I have to. You made one of these guys. You want one of these. You're just right here. You're just right here. It's down to, I think it's set for 62. It was like 67. Oh, boy, let's not leave it down there. 62 is not quite just me. I just wasn't going to adjust it. They don't have any people layers on there. It was a great discovery when I realized that you could adjust it. She's two months old. Ten weeks. Okay. Yeah. Hey, Tyler. We were just waiting for you. Reverse. Okay. Reverse. What's that? We need to get going. Are we ready? Great. Good evening, everyone. We're going to call this meeting of the City of Montpelier Development Review Board to order for Monday, March 18, 2019. My name is Daniel Richardson. I serve as chair of the other members from my right arm. Rob Goodwin. Kevin O'Connell. Deb Markowitz. Meredith Crandall. Staff Kate McCarthy. Ryan Kane. Tom Kester. So first order of business is approval of the agenda. Does anybody have any amendments to the agenda or does someone wish to move for the agenda as printed? So moved. Motion by Kevin. Do we have a second? Second. Second by Kate. All those in favor of the agenda as printed, please raise your right hand. We have an agenda. No comments from the chair this evening. Move straight to the approval of the minutes. We have two sets of minutes. The first one are from February 19. My self, Kevin, Kate, Ryan, and Rob are all eligible to vote. Does anyone wish to amend the minutes or to move their approval? I'll move approval of the minutes as drafted. For February 19th. For February 19th. Motion by Ryan. Second. Second. Second by Kevin. All those eligible to vote, which would be myself, Kevin, Kate, Ryan, and Rob, in favor of the motion, please raise your right hand. They are approved. Excellent. Moving through very quickly. The second set of minutes are from March 4th. Myself, Deb, Tom, Ryan, and Rob are all eligible to vote for the March 4th minutes from our last meeting. Do I have a motion to approve or not? I'll move to approve as written. Okay. Motion by Deb. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Rob. All those in favor who are eligible to vote, please raise your right hand. We have minutes from March 4th as well. Thank you all very much. That brings us to our first item of business for the evening, which is 19 Pearl Street. This is a final subdivision plan review. Mr. Noora. Thank you. So if you'll just state your name for the record and then I will put you in under oath. My name is Samuel Noora. And you're here as the applicant. Is that correct, please? Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the evidence 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, some penalties, or perjury? I do. Very good. Do you... Actually, let's have Meredith, do you want to start us off? Yeah. Just give us maybe a refresher. I think we all remember discussing it, but it might be helpful to just refresh the application as well as any significant changes you as staff would like to draw your attention to. So this is a fairly basic two lot subdivision info on Pearl Street. This is the final application. And during sketch plan, the major questions that we asked the applicant to come back about were underground utilities and landscaping for screening in between the new parcel and both the parcel is being subdivided off from as well as the closest neighbor. So that, there's a couple of issues like that, around that brought up in the staff report. The other update that you should be aware of is that a survey was completed. The original parcel is actually much larger than when we originally looked at it. And then the only really complication from that was that the front property boundary wasn't quite as close to the sidewalk as we originally thought. So the front porch is actually in that front setback, but I've flagged it in here, but it is my understanding of previously existing nonconformity. So it should be fine. It is flagged in there in red though, just as a highlight because it's something different. Well, and let me ask this question, Meredith. Just so I understand, if we grant the subdivision, it doesn't alter the existing nonconformity. Correct. Nor would it open the door for what's labeled as lot one to have a similar nonconforming. Exactly. They have to follow the front setback. Exactly. The subdivision isn't going to increase any nonconformity or like you said, open any door for lot one to do the same. Great. Mr. Narar, was there anything you wish to add? I think I did my best to answer. I mean, the major boner convention is obviously the power, the utilities. Right. Because I looked into that quite extensively, and it's a, for many reasons. First of all, that pole is 44 years old. They don't dig anything that's 30 years old or older. So that would be replaced that side of the street, which is what the south side, north side. So the entire neighborhood, the poles are on the north side of the street because I know it was presented as an option to possibly put a pole, run it overhead over the street, and then underground it from there. Which I guess is technically possible, which I'm not sure what that accomplishes as far as. At that point, 60 or 70% of the line is then already overhead. It creates an anomaly where the, that's the only pole on the south side of the street in the neighborhood. I had Green Mountain Power come do, you know, shortly after the other meeting, I had them come out and do a site visit to kind of run through all the options. One of them was directional boring technology, which isn't an option in this case because they indicated that it has to be four feet underground and encased in four inches of concrete, which they can't accomplish if they, there's no way to accomplish that without digging up the sidewalks in the street. Right. Well, does it, and has public works weighed in on that option at all because it seems to me we're going through the sewer system as well. Yeah. Putting it under the street just isn't feasible. Isn't feasible. And as Sam says, if you, you know, then you're running the power for a few feet underground on the new parcel. Right. I even asked them actually if they, if there's some, because I know in some older neighborhoods there's like attached to other houses and run, I asked if there's any way I could, because I own the house now. Is there any way I can, and they don't do that anymore. I don't know when that went out of fashion, or law or whatever, but she said that attaches it permanently to the existing, it just, it's not something they do anymore. So what did Green Mountain Power recommend as far as attaching power to the house, just running it from across the street? There's one, there's that large tree in the corner there and the pole, the way the pole is situated. I don't know, I forget what the technical term is, but you have to run it along the line for, you know, 15 or 20 feet and then across, but they have, she said, we're not even close to the span. You know, they can go 200 something feet, you know, we're like less than half of what, to meet those requirements, just to run it down the line and then across. She said they could hook it up in two days for less than $1000. Or dig up the entire street. Or, yeah, I actually had an excavator, I mean, I went, I tried to do my best, you know, to present, because it just, not only the, they have to, they can't use that pole, so you'd have to order a new pole, which is $3,500 in a three month wait time because of the age of the pole. You'd have to dig up both sidewalks of the street and between the pole and the excavator, it's at almost $30,000 minimum, barring any water or sewer or, and then, you know, Green Mountain, both of them actually indicated to me that the, you know, obviously the streets are going to be the same. Right. I'm not sure when they were, you know, when that street was redone or whatever, but just from their opinions were thoroughly against it. Okay. And just for, we're sort of backing our way into, I think what you're asking for is essentially a variance from that requirement. Yeah, I wasn't sure of all the legal, whatever. I don't know if you have some exemption, some, I know a variance is ultimately possible. I don't know what's the, I don't know what your options are as far as that is concerned. Well, it's really, I don't think we have to do an official variance or waiver. Okay. The language in the clause says that all utilities shall be located underground unless prevented by ledge or other physical conditions. Okay. So I, I think it's the board basically having to make a determination that this is one of those other physical conditions. It's also a discussion point on whether or not the board wants the planning department to try and come up with some clarifications for these subdivision provisions that don't really make sense for one lot infill subdivisions for future. If this is one of those troublesome ones, it just doesn't make sense. I'm sorry to interrupt you. Or we can set the precedent by taking that, right, that language and using it. We begin to build up a case history. Yep, there's that. It's also, but also just when new zoning administrators come in, not that I'm anticipating that anytime in the future, but having something that if you wanted to put in the regulations where there's a little, I don't know if, you know, whether or not they keep coming back here or not. Well, so. It's just a question to think about. Go ahead. I mean, we've seen some sketch plan review for these one lot infill subdivisions so far, but haven't seen many of them through yet. And so I would prefer to see more examples of who is looking for how this applies before we make any requests to the planning commission. Yep, no, no. And this was just a thought. It sounds like it could be like flagged in pencil. Yeah. I think it's worth, I think it's worth flagging whether we make a formal recommendation to the planning commission or not. I think you're right, Kate, that, you know, this is one out of, you know, one of the first, whether this is going to be a repeat issue. It sounds like, and I agree with Kevin as well, that, you know, there's a way of fixing this based on the language. And I think this fits within the physical conditions. I mean, I think this would even qualify for a larger variance, you know, just given the testimony we've received and that I would elicit some additional, but I can't imagine at the same time two things. One, that this is an isolated incident. There are many streets in Montpelier existing where power lines are strung on one side of the street and if there's infill on another, how that power would be run to those new lots in those infill projects. I suspect this may be, this is a problem that is likely to repeat. It doesn't seem to be that unique of a set of circumstances. And the second thing is I'm not quite clear why the, why the bylaws have that in, in cases of infill. I can see with new construction that is, that generally tends to be the new standard as running power lines underground. And so it might be helpful eventually. I mean, if the difference between maybe raising it formally or penciling it, if the Planning Commission did have new construction in mind, new subdivision, sort of new development, as opposed to infill and whether that should be distinguished down the line. Okay. What if we do carry that forward? I would want us to have a discussion about how we define infill. I don't remember if it's in the definitions, but we've been using it very loosely, including for big two acre lots up in the Town Hill Road area as infill. And I think we're talking about there's something very specific here, which is an existing neighborhood. So that's my little note for the, for the future when, thank you for bearing with us through that thought process. I just wanted to, I think moving forward, thank the applicant for the due diligence and the information provided. I think that that is helpful for going forward across that information that we may need to come to an appropriate decision. So thank you. Yeah, thanks for taking the time to do that. No, I think that that does helpful. And just to be clear, the power lines run along the north side of Pearl Street. Do all the houses along the south side have their power lines running across Pearl Street above? Yes. Okay. So I mean, this is one amongst many houses that will have its power lines run across Pearl Street, in other words. Many. All of them. There's no poles on that side. I mean, you could underground, if it was on the other side, actually thought of it because there is, the gentleman that has the house on the corner has quite a big lot that I can imagine. You know, there's only so many lots around. And I can imagine from that same pole I'm talking about, somebody someday might want to, but it's right there. And they can just underground from right there. This is, if you're on the other side, there's really no way to do it without, you know, destroying the streets in the sidewalk. Okay. Is there anyone here to be heard on this application? Just checking. All right. Very good. So I think that, that is certainly the major issue. And it seems like we have some consensus here, unless anyone had any other questions that they wish to ask about this. So, what, I know one of the concerns that we had was about landscaping. What is the proposal? Well, at this time, I don't, there's not much I can say with much specificity because you have to, I mean, ultimately, obviously it's to build. I think we're going to want some kind of, everything is going in steps. So it's like, you know, we have the architect, you have the builders, you have these meetings, you can only go forward so fast with so many things. And actually just for the first time, because now we're getting to the end of the drawings and, you know, the actual dimensions and this and that. And I, I staked it out with just some garden stakes. So I could just get an idea. Okay, this is what they're proposed. Here's the setbacks. Here's the, so I'm not sure how I can specifically landscape it now anyway, because we're talking about window placements, whether it's, you know, moving the entire thing forward or back five feet even with, you know, not that you could do much at this point in the year anyway, but even if you could, you may just change your mind six months from now when it's actually getting finished anyway. I'm not sure how much I can speak to the specifics. Sure. The only issues that, obviously that big tree up there is not getting touched all throughout the back of the property. There's one tree in the middle, like directly in the middle of the new lot that will have to get removed because it would be in the living room. Other than that, the entire backside of our property now and the neighboring properties, it's obviously not on the survey, but the Regina that's right here, the back of her property and then backing up to the newbies property is all trees and bushes. I mean, when it's grown in in the summer, you can't even see the houses up on the top of the hill or the only one really is going to be the two existing directly on the other side. Right. They're going to be mainly affected and we'll have to see at that point what, but I guess that mostly depends on the placement of the house and windows and so on, doors and... I'm looking for... I'm not sure I can address that with that much specificity at the moment. It does talk about, let me just go to ours. So page 11 of your staff report outlines. Yeah, I'm just, of course it doesn't, I'm looking for the actual site. I get to say that? No, just within the development standards of the subdivision standards, I think it's... Yeah. So one of what we're required to look at and is for landscaping and I think it's 3,5 or 6, is it? F. Is it F? Yep. Page 3-92. There we go. That's one. Yeah, it talks about landscaping and says the application shall design the subdivision to maximize the preservation of existing mature vegetation and provide additional landscaping which may be installed when the lots are subsequently developed as necessary to, one, maintain and provide privacy for both adjoining property owners and between lots within the subdivision. Two, to enhance the appearance of street frontage and shade trees and sidewalks. Three, to maintain or establish vegetated buffers along waterways and other natural areas. And four, to utilize green stormwater infrastructure practices. So I would suggest that three is not an issue here because you're not along a waterway. But one, two and four are. And so I understand, what you've essentially created is another sort of deeper than wide lot that's consistent with the other lots. But, you know, as you've already said, you're looking at where there would have to be some buffer between the new house and your existing house because those are going to be fairly close together as well as between the new house and the house right next to it because that's also going to need a little bit of a buffer. And you're saying that the trees that has exist, the big tree in front and the trees in the back aren't going to change. There might be one tree in the middle of the lot that's going to have to come out because that's where the house is going to go. So I don't, you know, I think what we're looking at is whether this design and I'll ask the other board members if they, what their feelings are is whether we need to have a greater design for the landscaping. I mean, it's obvious, you know, based on the testimony where some of this landscaping is going to have to go when the house is built and developed. Is that enough for us at this stage and then when the house is built? I mean, part of it is of course you're not going to be able to control. Are you selling this lot or are you building on it? The one we're going to build on? We're going to live there and sell the existing house. Okay, go ahead. Leaving aside the current plans for the lot, what we could do to ensure that the subdivided land is developed properly is I think we've received evidence that preservation of existing mature vegetation is being maximized with the two trees that you're able to keep. There could be put on the subdivision permit a condition that says, you know, additional landscaping will be provided as necessary to do items one, three, and four pending the design of the final building. Yeah, I guess that's just what I'm confused is when that... Is it at this stage or is it at the building stage? It would be at the next stage. The by-law's required anyway to come back to landscaping, so I think what Kate is suggesting is a way to accommodate your reasonable need to put it off. And it also ensures that the subdivision itself has all the pieces and parts it needs if for some reason you choose not to develop the lot and sell it to someone else. Okay. Does that make sense? Yeah. So the specific dots in the map will be with the house permit. Okay. I totally understand and I mean I have to borrow some whatever where we end up not living there. If it goes forward like we plan, obviously I have to live there with these people too. Right. It's just from a selfish perspective. It's in my best interest to have it. But again, I'm not sure how much of that I can address at this moment. I don't think it's reasonable to require you to have a fully fledged landscaping plan at this stage because you don't have your house plans yet and it's not required by a subdivision. I think 90% of what you need to do you've done which is to show you know you've created a design that seems to be consistent with the existing landscaping and it's really just this next 10% which is to sort of commit to what logically should follow which is that there will have to be additional landscaping consistent with both our landscaping standards and as we've identified where you're going to need those buffers between the houses. Maybe I could clarify that when I'm suggesting putting a condition on the subdivision permit I don't mean that that condition would need to be fulfilled before you get the permit. It would mean that the condition would need to be fulfilled in order to maintain adherence to the permit once you build. If I was unclear about that. It makes sense because I'm actually just thinking forward now. At best case scenario if we can get this through this year it's not going to get built and finished until the end of the year. And you're not going to be able to landscape anything in December anyway. So I guess a lot of that will have to come the following spring. That's the part of the part of the zoning permit would be to have a landscaping plan in there but you wouldn't have to implement that landscaping plan until the expiration of the zoning permit. You basically have two years. Actually I have a quick question maybe you know what is it like let's say in this case if I wanted to put a tree the opposite of what this one is now on the big one that's marked on the corner at the end of the new lot next to a Regina's property if you put one on the other side just so I know in my head I guess I would need to look up your recommendations but there's like something like that I would need to think about now with the driveway but I could definitely put a tree there. Come see me after March 27 and we'll see what the city council passed for revamped landscaping mechanisms. So give me a little time. It is great. You don't want to be under the landscape. You have to have like probably 30 shrubs and five trees or something. Yes. Wait and get in touch with me and once the new landscaping regs are adopted we'll re-evaluate. So that provides flexibility on the landscape. Yeah. All right. So we talked about the front porch that our understanding is it's a pre-existing non-conforming. We're not changing that or altering it and nothing in a pre-existing non-conforming porch is going to affect a lot and what would now be lot two will affect how lot one is developed. Were there any other issues that people wish to discuss on this particular subdivision? Otherwise I have one question. So this little narrow tiny area on the south side we give an explanation what's there. That belongs to the family behind there. They just don't know that. So this drawing where the back of that so there's that little chunk, right? It's marked. So between the back property line and let's say that tree about halfway through there is where the slope starts. That slope goes up about equally as far on the other side. So it's maybe that slope is I don't know maybe 20 feet let's say and it slopes up 10 or 15 feet. The surveyor, so apparently where my garage is now was a barn was all one property and she thinks there was some drive up because that's a hire. And when they broke it off there was something at the time that made this little piece of property go with the way it was divided which she can't tell now obviously. It was either an error or there was something at the time that it was necessary for them to keep that little piece. So I went and talked to them but I talked to their kids actually at home at the time but I'm waiting because I wanted to the surveyor, that was the first thing she said see if you can get this cleaned up so when you record it it's because they don't even know they own it it's separated by 20 some odd feet of full grown trees but it's officially belongs to them. I just didn't know if there was any structure or anything there. No, it was a really weird she knocked on the door for some reason you don't own this little it's like 3 by 10 feet stretch behind the tree and then it's all hill up to there and then they have fence on the back of the property so they don't even know they own it An anomaly and she wasn't 100% sure why because it goes back I mean that plan goes back to 1901 that she was referencing so it was a little unclear what that was there for. Well this is in the meadow that is a yeah I mean it's but it's also relatively compared to some neighborhoods it was relatively recently developed for my material standards I'd say it was more uniformly planned well the reason she said because when she took the dimensions of the old barn were listed and they go like up to their property and it's a slope so it was obvious that maybe that third floor met that part of their property and then the first and second floor were on our lot of time I don't know why but she has to point it out because that's her job but I'm trying to get that cleared up before it gets recorded but I don't think there's any issues not any zoning issue unless they come for an application but I should have them start mowing it Go talk to Steve Twombly after this Any other questions? If not anyone have a motion that they wish to make? Mr. Chair I'll move final subdivision plan approval for it's 19 Pearl Street with the condition that within 180 days of the decision the applicant should record the final survey plat in the Montpelier land records office for the procedure details in section 4405 of the zoning regulations and as previously discussed by the board a condition that upon application for a zoning permit to construct a structure on this property additional landscaping will be delineated as necessary to meet the requirements of section 3506 F of the zoning bylaw Okay motion by Kate Do I have a second? Second by Rob Any further discussion? Let me just I don't think it needs to be part of the motion but it's our understanding that part of this permit is going to be granting the approval for finding that the power lines can be strung across overhead Pearl Street to get power to this plot one Yes that's the understanding Okay all those in favor please raise your right hand you have your subdivision permit it will issue there will be a written decision that will be issued in a few days or maybe a week it will be a little bit I've got to catch up on a couple of other ones but yes I have it I'll memorialize all of this I don't get the permit Thank you very much I don't want to overpronounce No thank you Kate's got this one and then I've got Okay so the next item of business is a couple of things one is that 213 Main Street is our final plan review of a two lot subdivision that's been tabled by the applicant Do they wish to have it tabled? Yes Okay So they wish to have it tabled until April 1st 2019 Yes So unless anybody has any questions entertain a motion Motion by Kevin Do I have a second? Second by Tom to table the final sub-plan 213 Main Street to April 1st Any further discussion? All those in favor please raise your right hand It's been tabled Alright and the next item of business is zero Main Street directly after 1701 Main Street and this is an informal review of four new dwelling units and you must be just setter Okay Given that this is an informal review we're not going to put you under oath so I presume you're just looking for our initial feedback response Absolutely So I'll open up the floor to you Give us a brief description and then we'll just all chime in as we have questions Great So a little background I've been practicing for 25 years I was with Costas Bakken for 23 of those and moved on from there but this is something I've always wanted to do I always wanted to do my own thing I designed a lot of that stuff for other people So I've been watching for pieces of property and this one became available and I do have a purchase and sale agreement on it with sort of 90 days where I can make sure I can do it because it's not an easy piece of property to develop So I'll just kind of go through these four pages that I've got here Obviously that's the piece of property there It's slope steeper slope site and if you go to the photos when you're at the street level you can't quite tell but there is actually a level area somewhat at the top if you look at photos you can kind of see that somewhat level area there So I'm looking to do four units I would live in one and three very small one bedroom homes would be the other three units like a total square footage we're talking with like 3,000 square feet so it's not a big it's pretty small compact development one building highly looking to be highly energy efficient net zero ready probably won't be able to do solar panels right off but hopefully down the road and set it up so I can add them to the roof trying to do as minimal site disturbance as possible I kind of like the natural aspect of it, the woods so besides the clearing that would be required for the home, the drive and septic system septic system and water system would be on site in this site talked to Tom McCarty when he said there's I guess the connections are down past the entrance to Murray Murray Hill yeah Murray Hill development there so out of reach to get to that so let's see so then if you go to page three page three this is based on a map that Audra gave me that the red indicates slopes over 30% which we didn't get color yeah okay I made copies I was cheap sorry yeah let's share with the black and white you can share down there oh it makes a big difference so the red is 30% and then the sort of blueish gray that's the area of the red on the piece of property so that's my area calculation so if you look at the the gray areas on the piece of property that's the areas that are over 30% given this particular large scope topography plan it's not a you know high resolution plan 10,000 feet or something so the yellow areas are areas that are less than 500 square feet which you can deduct from the calculations this is all coming down to a density calculation thinking that so once you do this calculation total area and so forth I really only as it currently stands it currently only have enough density for 3 units I need I have 28,000 the area that is less than 30% slow is 28,000 square feet I need 9,000 square feet per unit so I can get 3 units I really want to get 4 and I need to understand the new zoning changes I know there's some happening immediately but there's some also that are happening well there's no guarantee there's no guarantee that the buildable area calculation is going to change what's the time frame on that? I mean just roughly planning commission is working June I'll expect October that sounds about right the planning commission is still working through those and changes to the buildable area would be part of that whole package so it has to finish getting through planning commission and then go before city council so the hope is in front of city council June? that's become separated so the landscaping pieces moving along going to city council at the end of this month and the buildable area pieces are separate so landscaping and slopes are whatever for city council for it could be voted on and decided as of the 27th next week buildable area calculation which has to do with slopes has been separated from the larger slopes provision changes because the planning commission could not reach consensus so those are two things that would yeah sorry they could reach consensus they could reach unanimity wrong word very important word this may be something that's worthwhile we can give you our feedback but we're constrained by the existing rules some of this that you're talking about I think is good to put before the planning commission because as you heard from the previous discussion you know they've made a lot of changes and a lot of times they have a certain set of facts in their mind driving their policies and making them aware of other circumstances or other situations allow them to start to I believe enlarge their scope of thinking about these these type of parcels letting them know this type of parcel exists your needs are X and you know it makes sense to allow for this kind of development for all the reasons you're starting to articulate to us because they're the ones who can actually start to change some of the policies and some of the rules that we then have to enforce you'd recommend going before the planning commission then I think it's good to make them aware they need to see case examples of how this is really impacting they have the unenviable position of trying to think of this in the abstract and the more concrete you can make it for them I think the better is this in the Marine Hill neighborhood backside yeah is that technically the part of the zoning it falls in, is that neighborhood it's residential 9,000 and then within that we've got a whole bunch of neighborhoods I don't know if it's the same it's the same I did take a peek at it and I'm pretty sure it's considered so within the zoning we've got the zoning districts and then we have neighborhoods within it each one has a slightly different character so particularly for a conditional use which this would be I think part of our task is to evaluate the proposal with respect to any impacts it does or doesn't have on the character is this kind of the small paragraph description kind of the general feeling of that area yeah so maybe someone else can corroborate but I think this parcel does fall technically within Marine Hill 11-5 so I guess what we look at is the description of the neighborhood this is one of the city's more recent residential developments with single family homes and townhouses accessed by several cul-de-sac streets and a substantial amount of open space proposed land development may feature infill residential development where infrastructure is available and to the extent feasible given the availability and ownership of land in this neighborhood so when I read that I noted that infrastructure is not available on the site and I would not I don't know that this would be considered infill in the way that is envisioned by the description what was the last sentence the last sentence other than hand ownership oh yeah the extent feasible given the availability and ownership of land in this neighborhood which suggests to me that this was written with the Murray Hill subdivision in mind and not as much with the adjacent parcels that are not part of it in mind and so this is another thing to mention to the planning commission because they're the ones who envision where the various districts are great you know how long this has been like a separate piece of separate parcel actually to see if this sharing was done in 1970 so I'm assuming some predates the Murray Hill subdivision at least the owners are Calvin Murray and Elsie Murray which is interesting and so I'm trying to picture where it is it's actually if you're going up Main Street and you pass the entrance there and there's the big field there and then there's a line when it comes you can see it actually there's a line of trees and it's on the other side of it and then if when you're driving up there on the left there's like these old foundations and stuff on the hill I don't know if anybody remembers those things they're up on the left I think it's like remnants of a little garage maybe or something that's not on this property but that's kind of the end of it so it's 1.17 acres and it's all wooded right now yeah for the most part I'm wondering if it was pasture at one point or something because all the trees are like this and they're not like some piece of property you see where the trees are falling down and stuff and it's in the soil but they're all straight it's like 30, 40 year old growth another layer you could look at is whether there are any natural resources that appear on this parcel that are part of the natural resources map of the city no? there are no resources there's not a lot of maps oh so you've played with that that's a good research resource yeah geographical we're not Center for Geographic oh my gosh it's a lot of fun so you get to the end of it the basic site plan you know again the intent would be to keep as much the woods as possible I'm working with Don Marsh civil engineer on site planning and we'll be getting a more accurate survey but in reality though this actually seems somewhat close so the drive it's a steeper drive getting up to trying to get to that point about 10 feet below that level area that photo B or C area and that would be sort of the first floor it'd be sort of a walk out kind of relationship with parking underneath at that first level and the foundation of the building would serve as a retaining to hold that slope up because part of that was such a steeper slope part of just getting the cars turned around and be able to go back out is a major site restriction so but you know basically it did grade out relatively well without a lot of crazy steep slopes what else can I tell you so this is one building that would then have these units within it the footprint would be bigger because it's so if you can imagine so there's parking you can kind of see the back ends of the cars parked underneath there's a three dimensional model I just didn't print out anything show the mass yeah you would be parking underneath it and there'd be a floor all above it so almost like the apartments behind the capital the pavilion building actually similar as far as sectional relationship right you park in and floor above it but it would just be is that one or two floors parking in the two floors this would be parking in the one floor there'd be one apartment next to the parking and then there'd be three up on the other floor so that would reach out in the back at grade it's a little hard to evaluate this so I'm going to just characterize this as an observation rather than a concern or anything like that but one question I have is how do we evaluate the construction of multifamily housing in an outlying area like this when many of our town land priorities have to do with this is a compact site design but it's not within a compact settlement pattern it's kind of on its own it looks quite lovely so reconciling those things when we come to review it does it meet the criteria that we have to to look at so I can't give you a flash review of that right now I'm sorry to say but that's a big question I would have does that make sense yes I mean as we're yes you are plushing out more of the plan for the building and maybe we're coming down and going through this section 3304 the character of the neighborhood because part of that is also architectural compatibility which might be part of what it's not at all what I'm talking about it's the location of the use should multifamily be located in all locations and I should be very clear that that's not a concern about that's a concern about efficient use of land not about proximity of multifamily housing to single family housing I'm fine mixing that out but they also believe that that's part of the discussion that's going on with the zoning regulation but we're also wanting to encourage cottage clusters which this would be ideal for in all locations not all locations so I'm questioning what locations are suitable for cottage clusters in open areas there's a place for that's part of my question is whether on undeveloped land is where we just how far out we want them which is why there's such a lively debate so it's happening right now so your timing is is perhaps challenging I don't know yeah but it isn't a residential 9000 neighborhood you know so it doesn't it makes sense to me to say we have a 1.1 acre parcel but this is not an area appropriate for clustering so essentially you can't have multifamily and then it would incentivize either subdivision to create smaller lots out there if you have a 9000 square foot lot size or 9000 square foot per unit it seems like if you're going to have a square footage per unit set out in the zoning regulations that and and that's why I was curious where this I mean this more than an acre lot has been there for 40 years presumably that's an indication that at least I mean depending on how much certainly if you take the whole acre into consideration that that's an indication that this is an appropriate place for four units of housing development maybe you take to track all the unbuildable space and you get down to three but still seems to me like under the regulations there's an indication that three units is appropriate in this location provided again that you actually go through the conditional use you're at standards to show that the particular proposal will not have an adverse impact on the surrounding area but I think from the start to say maybe we don't want three units of cluster residential development in a 9000 per unit area I want to hear myself talk sometimes I'm quiet not anymore well and I guess I'll just tack on to that because it is an ongoing discussion that I think it's unresolved what exactly our powers are in character of the neighborhood and that ultimately you know we're zoning board and we have to adhere to certain standards but if there aren't standards that puts us in a difficult position where we're asked to substitute sort of judgment about what should or shouldn't be built you know sort of to implement what our version of the of the plan might be the larger sort of city plan of development I mean at the end of the day we're tasked with really applying specific standards in the bylaws and so I think you know that's just something we haven't had to fully flesh out so that's one of the unknowns it certainly you know does auger for you know some type of conversation with the planning commission to see you know where some of their changes are going because I think this is a different project if the steep slope density calculations change I mean even beyond simply what you're proposing here if you were able to count more of that 1.17 acres you might have different thoughts about how to use this property yes yeah because it's yeah it's three I'm actually financially I'm not sure I'm going to be able to make it work it's like once I get the four I can make it financially well and you know I mean I think part of it too and this is more on the economic side is you know what is the demand for a one bedroom unit this point from the downtown is there a demand for that and I mean that's not anything we decide I think that's an issue from the standpoint of marketability yeah I mean a lot of folks who are in one bedrooms are going to want to be closer to downtown I mean there is like trails through Murray Hill and you can get down to the oh yeah sure there is right yeah yeah it's not walkable not that kind of walkable if you need to have a car you need to do hikeable to town hikeable to town we will say if the regulations require us to exclude all that area and it stays as it is and it says three units then it's we have almost no power to say you can say like I really I can't do without four and we can say well you can't do it without I understand that I mean I say that just in honesty and putting it all yeah absolutely and so that's where I think the planning commission and you're lucky that it's a time when they're actually looking at that because otherwise you know there's much more difficult to change the regulations to accommodate something yeah so it's good well maybe you said you want to get into this so it's good you're diving into the deep end so I don't know is there anything else that we could help you with I just had a question so when it comes to the restriction how the slopes restrict the density if one were to go the say infill housing and apply for the bonus of affordability for you know it's 34.01 you know if the unit's affordable you can get it to 50% reduction that's so much open space per unit I'm just uh you're talking about in the PUD section but that's not a PUD yeah no it's not what's being proposed I'm just sort of pointing to it it almost seems like it's along the lines of what we're talking about with infill housing well I think it is a little bit only I mean obviously because I think you start off with the lower density you know you subtract out the 30% and then you get some of these bonuses if you meet the PUD development standards but I think you have to start at least because that's a the calculation about density is really a primary calculation in beginning but with the PUD you can potentially I mean if I subtract that I only do three units if I can get a 50% increase for affordability I'm not sure what those recommendations are yeah it's under 34 it's chapter 340 and it's you know it talks about infill housing development and it applies well that's we made different opinions this is what it says applicability infill housing developments are permitted in the riverfront mixed-use residential residential 1,500 residential 3,000 residential 6,000 and residential 9,000 districts on parcels not more than two acres in size I mean that's what the standards are if interpreted with respect to the purpose the first item on the purpose is to encourage an increase in the amount of housing generally and affordable housing in particular located in downtown and surrounding neighborhoods so that gives a little bit of a locational structure it's not devoid from residential neighborhood but is it a neighborhood that's surrounding downtown I think could be debated I don't think it was the purposes don't set the standards but they got the interpretation they may but the standards are infill housing developments are permitted and then it lists the districts that's permitted in so I mean the purpose maybe why they allow it in these districts but that's not I don't think that necessarily tells us that we can make choices within those as we as a board because otherwise I think we get into that debate you started to have with Ryan which is sorry initial skirmish of whether or not you know this is one of the surrounding neighborhoods I mean rural even there are some rural that's where I come in monthly there's a growth district in that itself all it's surrounding towns can be rural but that's what it's turning into I guess I brought the PD we can like what Kay said about the character of the neighborhood description but with the PD we have a list of things where it's like applicant is giving something in return for getting something it seems like that's a maybe a more palatable approach and this does seem like the fact that you're keeping it very small on scope modest units in a single building and keeping what's currently undeveloped most of it still in development it has a lot of similarities with what you think about as a PUD something to look into have Don look at this if you're working with him part of this is that's something that's existing now sounds like you're not on an immediate timeline you may want to find out and sound out the planning commission to see are there changes coming down the pike I think I may have to go to track I've got like 70 days left so I guess what we're leaving you with is it's advisable to take a close look at the bylaws so you can understand how we'd be constrained as we were looking at this project and I think keeping in mind what Kate said is that it looks like you're in a district that really hasn't contemplated the development of this particular lot just by how they've described how they permit additional infill development and given that I think it's a legitimate question for the planning commission the way I would suggest that you phase it is by taking some time with the bylaws so that when you go to the planning commission you can kind of have a list of questions for them and it is in the Murray Hill neighborhood yeah so we've gotten to the point where the Murray Hill neighbors chime in as to their feelings yeah there's one house you can kind of know you can't see it it'll be pretty screened so even though they're a butter they may not have the motivation to do so because it'll be down the hill and in the woods yeah I really think it's in general I think other than the curb cut in the winter I don't think you'd ever know this so that would be the question there too is if it's near that curve how close it is you know how safe the curb cut will be ultimately the curb cut is pretty straight through there yeah and the drives there's good separation well good luck thanks for being open to reflections and observations and thanks for being interested in providing housing fun process I enjoy it see if I know can you pay a parking ticket somewhere now at the police station you just go to the police station they're open they're always open actually I think there's a sign that says yeah I think you have to pay a visit there's a drop box out there can you do it in the drop box? I've got a couple do you want to pay a couple more I can grab them in my car I've got a few tickets you can drop off there was a certain Vermont Supreme Court justice who used to plaster his walls with Montpelier parking tickets until he was up for retention and then suddenly they all got paid thank you alright that's the only other business apart from announcing that our next regularly scheduled meeting is today April 1st 2019 7pm same forum same members hopefully I'll make a move to adjourn motion by Kevin to adjourn do I have a second? second by Ryan all those in favor please raise your right hand we are adjourned thank you very much okie dokie