 Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the City of Montpelier Development Review Board for tonight, June 17th. My name is Daniel Richardson. I serve as Chair of the Board. The other members from my right are starting with Michael. Michael. Rob Goodwin. Kevin O'Connell. Meredith Crandall. Staff Kate McCarthy. Ryan Cain. Okay, first order of business is approval of the agenda. Does anybody have any additions to the agenda? Hearing none, does anybody have a motion to approve the agenda as printed? So moved. Motion by Kevin. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Ryan. All those in favor, please raise your right hand. We have an agenda. Comments from the Chair, none for this evening. We actually, is there a reason why the minutes are put down at the bottom? No idea, but it's, I think it has to do with the new formatting on the civic set-up. Okay. Let's find. You can do it however, if you want to bump it around, you can, but. Why don't we, why don't we approve the minutes because I am a creature of habit. I would agree with that. I think it makes more sense to have it at the beginning. So the first, the first minutes and given that we have a quorum on all of them would be the May 6th minutes, those that were there in attendance were myself, Kevin, Kate, and Ryan. Any additions, changes to the May 6th minutes? Yes, Kate. Yes, I have two changes. On page two, the third paragraph from the bottom says, Eric Bigelstone, President of the Marine Hill Association, raised concerned about the project contaminating the associations. And I think we mean associations water supply. So the addition of water supply to that sentence? Got it. The second edit on page three under adjournment, I both made the motion to adjourn and seconded the motion, which is unprecedented. So I think there might be an error. I don't recall who motion to adjourn or second. I'll check it against the recording. Thank you. I bet it was Kevin. I bet it was two people who say it's BMK. Probably. We can give it to Tom as his last action on the board. Honorary. But I do remember that there was a motion and a second to adjourn, so. Yeah, I'll check that and then fix it. So subject to that post adoption edit and the correction, and I agree entirely that water supply is the missing phrase there. Any other changes to the May 6th minutes? Do I have a motion to adopt the May 6th minutes as amended by someone who was present at the meeting? So moved. Motion by Kevin. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Kate. All those in favor and eligible to vote, please raise your right hand. We have minutes for May 6th. June 3rd minutes. Be myself, Kevin, Ryan, and Rob and Michael are all eligible to vote for that. Do are there any additions or changes to the June 3rd minutes? Hearing none, I will take a motion to adopt the June 3rd minutes. I'll move adoption of the June 3rd minutes as drafted. Very good. Motion by Ryan. Second that. Second by Rob. All those in favor and eligible to vote for the June 3rd minutes, please raise your right hand. We have fully adopted minutes and clean that off of our agenda. That brings us, of course, to 301 River Street. Thank you, gentlemen, for waiting. So this is a continuation of the hearing from two weeks ago where we were addressing the final hearing, final plan review for two lot subdivision, but if you'll state your names for the record. Make sure you've got the microphone pointed at whoever's talking just because it's Brian Hammons, Jason Merrill, and Don Marsh. Okay, and Brian and Jason, you were under oath last time. You understand you remain under oath? Yes. Don, if you want to put your right hand up. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you're about to give for the matter under consideration shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth under the pains and penalties of perjury? Yes. Sharon, I don't think Jason was here at the last. I'm sorry. Were you not here? I was here at the original. For this sketch. I was thinking you were here for the two weeks ago. You were. Okay. Yeah. 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 the pains and penalties of perjury? Yes. Okay. Thank you for that catch. And Kate, I believe you had. Yes, I want to note that I was not here for the June 3rd meeting, but in preparation for this meeting, I've reviewed meeting minutes as well as the staff memo. On that day, I was also present at the sketch plan hearing, so I feel that I've come up speed and can participate in this hearing as an informed person. Any objection? No. All right. Hold on. And then I want to just pass these out and they have them as well. So just one other addition is that Department of Public Works has provided some further input. And so I want to pass that around that way. Is this another one? Yep. This is the key and the suggested condition because they have still have access issues with the access. So I have highlighted or surrounded in yellow the key recommendation from Department of Public Works about the access issues that were the key sticking point during the last hearing. And then if anybody wants after the applicants updated presentation, I can summarize in brief as needed for the public record. So if I'm understanding correctly, just reviewing this that Tom McCartle's recommendation is that there being approval of the or that has no objection to the proposed driveway spacing, but there should be a traffic assessment performed with the land use anticipates traffic generation of 50 or more trips to a lot number two during a peak hour. Right. If whatever proposal ends up coming down the line through a zoning permit generates traffic of 50 or more trips during the peak hours, he wants a full traffic assessment. That you know, because the spacing does not comply with the requirements. If you hit that trigger point for use of the new parcel, then you're going to run. You could run into issues. Okay. All right. Well, that's a little bit of a car before the force. Sorry, but I wanted to clarify that. Don, did you want to make a presentation on answering some of the questions? I can respond to Tom's memo. We don't disagree other than normally would be 70 or 75 peak hour trips that would trigger a traffic study. I've never seen a 50 number. So it seems a little low. But we do agree that depending on what the proposed uses are on lot two, that a traffic study may be warranted at that at that point. And I realized Meredith noted that traffic studies typically are in the subdivision stage, as opposed to the site plan stage. I think we would ask that in this case, you condition that this traffic study would be warranted on the site plan. If if it we think of a triggers, if it's like if the proposed uses are likely to generate more than 75 peak hour trips. And that way we know what what really happens there because it could end up being a very light user. It could be a very intense use. And then traffic study would be warranted for sure. Right. As I understand from last meeting, the proposal here is just in a potential. Absolutely. This is just to sort of show that there can be some uses there. But in some respects, we might have been better off just not showing anything. But on the other hand, we did want to show that they're the board that we think that there's a reasonable potential that the site can be developed. There is some ledge there. It'll take some blasting. But we were comfortable that it can be developed. The intensity of the development is subject to future, future, you know, consideration. Right. And then having having the traffic study pushed off to the actual development, then would keep the traffic study only triggered if if in fact it started to look like this as opposed to if it gets sold and put a single family house or something later, or very minimal commercial use. Meredith, the time given indication as to why he picked the 50 peak hour trigger. So I think that part of it was also if you read through here, that the potential uncertainty for whether or not the use on lot one could grow at some point. And that if the new lot two use were to reach the 50 to make sure that there's a reevaluation of the then current lot one and lot two uses. I believe he throws that in here that should the land use on lot one be revised to a higher impact development, the combined effect should be included in the assessment of the traffic for lot two. Right. Although I mean, I understand that. But I guess I'm just wondering if so we're going to have three dash nine zero and I'll feel unified. 50 or more new trips during the AM or PM peak hours in class two and three roads. I'm sorry, what's actually three five zero four. That's on page three dash nine traffic impact study. Yeah, so that's on class two and three roads. This is a class one. Yeah, maybe maybe that's why he went to sounds like it could be a lower use. Yeah, under the to similar to the conditional use standards, which I just had, which is 75 or more on class one or 50 more on class two or three. And I imagine that the thinking was that I think that if it's if you're on a class one road and you actually meet the just the spacing standards, then it's 75. But here, since you don't meet the spacing standards, you know, the likely potential impacts are more similar to lesser highway. Yeah. Unfortunately, Tom couldn't be here this evening. So right, I don't I don't have that reasoning for him. Well, I just I wondered, you know, it's fine for us to get into but I I wondered if he had articulated some some particular reason. Now to me, we may choose to adopt for those reasons that you guys have both articulated, which is that this is because of the proximity it may require that. Although, you know, Meredith, you're indicating that, you know, part of this might be when development happens on lot two, a an assessment as to whether the impacts have increased on lot one or whether they're consistent with that. And I don't want to make this overly complicated. But I wonder if that isn't the better trigger for any type of traffic change in the traffic study numbers, which is as it stands today, I understand Tom's comfortable with the way the traffic is likely to work, except that if the traffic increases on lot one, or the use is such that it's a higher higher intensity use. I read the memo differently. I mean, to say that, that it says the Public Works Director is comfortable with it, I think is is not quite what is stated. It says, in his opinion, the probability of turning movement conflict is relatively low because of the lot one traffic volume lot one being the existing lot. Nonetheless, the driving driveway spacing is not in accordance with the guidelines and appropriate conditions should be applied if approved. And so I guess I would not go so far as to read that as the as comfort with the proposal. And there are the summary doesn't include it, but there are two long paragraphs here about the importance of driveway spacing, traffic conflicts, turn movements, time for motorists to make a decision, misinterpretation of blinkers when driveways are very close together. Yeah, I think he's coming together. I think he's comfortable with the approval provided that there is a traffic assessment and should at the time of the traffic assessment, you know, traffic assessment at the next stage of zoning permitting. And at that point, should lot one have changed increased its, you know, higher impact of development at that point that you have to then incorporate traffic assessment of that lot as well as lot two when you do the assessment is my reading of it. Sort of part of the same system, part of that system. Yeah. OK. Don, anything any further? Just my just that we prefer the 75 trigger as close to 50. OK. But that's we don't otherwise disagree with it. Board have any other questions on this? You know, the memorandum that's been prepared seems to answer the questions that we had left over by and large. As far as this driveway, I think the testimony from last time around was that there really isn't another good driveway access point that would allow the distance between the two driveways to increase because of the topography and that that you're understanding as well. Yes, there's a significant amount of ledge to the north of the proposed driveway between the two. And I think there was some discussion about combining the two. And frankly, I would rather have the second one that throughout River Street, Berlin Street, there's lots of driveways that are closer than 200 feet and closer than 100 feet that work fine. But also the sight distance diminishes as you go to the north. Not so much horizontally, but there's a little knoll just well before you you get to the the rotary. So moving any further north either driveway would would diminish the sight sight distance from that direction. And I so I wouldn't want to not I'd like not to combine the two a lot one for sure. And I think in the topography such that as we go south toward more of the very Montpelier road, the topography gets too difficult to build up to build the access. So it makes sense to keep it where we are. Okay. Is it safe to assume that the pre existing driveways down this is maybe a question for the board, but that the pre existing driveways down 302 that may be closer together than the requirement would be grandfathered or maybe approved under previous. Yeah. So typically we can't take what exists as evidence of an exception to the rule being acceptable. We like to know I appreciate and understand your question. Your request. But I I also take Don's point is just simply being that this is not an area where there has been where there are issues with the traffic that they're existing these with narrow driveways and it has not caused a failure to that that particular stretch of road. It doesn't necessarily excuse the condition. I think I have a different experience of that road and of what happens. You know that I understand that the engineering can allow for the grade between the road and the driveway to meet this the standard we're asking for. But as far as you know, there's what can be engineered on the site and then the impact of the access point on the roadway function overall. And I think the more more access points, the more left hand turns, more turning movements. Those just keep happening down that road. It really degrades the road's function, I think over time. And it leaves me concerned about safety and roadway function. Just to put in something here and the reason why the traffic impact study really needs to be done at the next phase when we know what's going in here is that depending on what happens on lot two, you're looking at potentially brand new trips and new traffic coming to the road versus something like when the Seattle auto parts store moved, you're just moving a little bit where they're going potentially versus bringing completely new people to that road at new times of day. So just a reason to have that traffic impact study later when we know what's happening. Okay. Any other questions from the board? So the question is, do we want to deliberate or do we want to simply take a vote about the condition? Well, and you need to make the determination about the way that driveway accesses and also make sure you're clear about compatibility with the character of the neighborhood just to be clear that those two things need to be dealt with from the staff report. We had talked about the character of the neighborhood. There was no vote on those things. Right. That's all I'm saying is that make sure that those things are clearly decided on the record. And maybe just for the record, just to be clear, we've added the B-71 driveway detail that Tom referenced so that that's on the record and agreed to construct the driveway quarterly. And that's a change from the original site plan. And Tom was quite happy with that. We want Tom to be happy. And the only thing I would say to Kate, to what you brought up, and I don't disagree with it, but it's sort of always a balance of developing commercial land. And whenever you do that, I mean, that's presumably good for the city. But it all, it does create more driveways and more driveways do create issues. So yeah, that's the balance. It is that balance. Sort of the not no, never, but yes, if conversation about and what should that yes, if look like and the policy priority of shared driveways that's in the zoning made an impact on my thinking, though I have also heard your testimony that the shared driveway is not what you want. Well, I think it's not just what they want. I think it's, I mean, the testimony last time was that it's not practical. There's like a ledge and a very steep thing between the access for a lot one and the proposed access for a lot two. I totally agree with you. And I think if there was even any reasonable feasibility to a shared access that we'd want to see that pursued more, I would anyway, as one board member want to see that pursued a little bit more in depth. But you know, I think just looking at the topography in the discussion we had last time about this ledge kind of right there between the two accesses, you know, it seems like this is a pretty clear situation where there's really no other good access for anything on this site. So I would note that another part of our charges, as I understand it, is to create lots that are suitable for development. And if lots are not suitable for development, we would not approve their creation. And there may be some lots that are indeed in a commercial area and could bring revenue to the city and could provide opportunity for business development that may yet not be the right place to do it. And that's kind of a more unpleasant part of the subdivision evaluation is what is right to create space for these things. Mr. Chair, I would be one member who would be in favor of closing the hearing and going into deliberative session. I think with this, there's enough fine points involved with this application that I want to make sure we have all the T's cross and I start it. You want to do it right. That's I'll accept that as a motion from Kevin to close the hearing and to move into deliberate session with this application to have a second you all sit with the other item that Meredith bought up the I wish it is compatible with the character of the neighborhood. I'm satisfied with that. There was something we raised last time about the the serve the actual survey not having some of the I think in your in your memo Don you said a site plan is not a bearing a distance of property because not boundary survey boundary survey parade by Richard Bell as all the required data, but I don't think it does. Yeah, so our our comment wasn't directed at your site point at all. It was just a comment on Richard Bell survey. Well, then I'm friendly amendment. I think it was a oversight on his part, but I misunderstood that but that's something that could be as long as it's fixed on the final plat, right? They're the distances, but not the bearing. I mean, the survey should have bearings and distances as long as that's fixed on the final flat, right, Rob? Yeah, I just want to make sure we fly that for you. It's not it's not resolved. Oh, it's fun. Yeah, but I just want to because it's yeah. You remember, I think you obviously didn't notice Don that his didn't have a you were obviously concerned just with yours, but they want to flag it that doesn't have it in the final one. We need those. It'll just need to be on the final plat that that would come to my office assuming that this is all approved. Yep. I guess one other question. So for as far as the site plan goes, it's really just the exact location of the driveway that we're all the grading subdivisions that is nothing to do here. Mm hmm. So should the driveway be shown on the plat because that's the subdivision and we're approving access in a specific spot? No, I don't think it does because while we're approving the subdivision technically we're not approving the building of this driveway. I mean, it's what it's showing is that it's a fully compliant driveway. But I mean, all of this driveway access up here is just hypothetical. So I don't think it has to at the end of the day. Obviously, if something changes along the way, they would be free to amend their driveway. If, you know, there's some engineering breakthrough that would allow a different location for a driveway. Or if the next parcel over got developed and put in a road, they could get off of that. So the subdivision, the process with the whole driveway here is just just proof for the permit decision, the DRB's decision that the law is developed, that there is a driveway that would be excess acceptable under the regulations that it is the likely one, which is why we're taking this amount of time to to show and to require that if there if it is developed and it is built, it's going to have to do these things, traffic studies. So, okay, so there's a motion. Do I have a second second motion to close the evidence and move into deliberative session? Any further discussion? I'll simply add, I feel like we had enough character, the neighborhood testimony last time that we took a little time done after after the issue about the access came up to sort of plumb the depths of neighborhood characterization. And thank you. So I think we're good unless you had anything else that you wish to submit to that. Okay, well, any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion, please raise your right hand. All right, we'll take this into deliberate session and you will have a decision worth with from it. So just so you know, there's, we'll wait till after tonight at the end of tonight's meeting to move into that deliberative session. And then normally a written decision comes out of that process after a week or so. And that's when you'd receive our decision. So just a little note that we may have to have a little discussion about our process and whether there may be allowed to be an oral presentation of maybe some of the decision to them just because of my schedule. Okay. We'll discuss that. I just wanted to make sure that they were I'll keep you guys updated on schedule discussions. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks. Okay, the next application is 81 North Street. I work. Is it Eric? I work stopper. Great. So this is sketch plan. And I presume you're here for this sketch plan as well. People back. So the way in which this works very different than in the last application, no one gets put under oath. This is really just a preliminary hearing. No decisions are going to be made tonight. No votes will be taken. It's just simply an opportunity for us to review your proposed application, give you feedback on what we see are some of the issues or things that we don't see that we may need to see in a final subdivision. If any of the interested parties that are here or that parties that wish to become interested parties have an opportunity to ask some questions and feedback, knowing that this is only a preliminary sketch review that is really just about sort of fleshing fleshing out some of the issues. So with that, Mr. Saper, please let us give us an overview of what you're proposing. So I purchased 81 North. Just make sure you've got the microphone close. Sorry. I purchased 81 North Street. I think it was towards the beginning of this year. They've been renovating the house that's there. It sits on a almost four tenths of an acre, part of which is flat. And part of my decision making in buying and renovating the house was to subdivide off a lot to sell that sappine house. OK. And so if I'm looking at your. Plan. That looks like a modified tax map. You're proposing to keep lot one as where the house is. Correct. And then up Ewing Street. Approximately 60 feet, create the second lot. And with the second lot, the sloped area behind would be mostly on that second lot. The slope mostly on that second lot. Correct. And is that that's greater than 30 percent? I actually don't know the answer to that. I think that it is at the very bottom. The toe of the slope may not be. But as you rise up that that does become. A significant hillside. And do you have any plan? What I mean, what is your plan for this second lot? Is it just to sell it as raw land for somebody to develop or are you looking to develop yourself? My plan I think is to sell it. I'm going to try and sell them both together. I would like somebody to want them both to take it and keep it like it is. But if not, we'll be to sell it off as a separate lot. I don't have plans to develop myself at this point. One of the things that I'm going through and you'll see in the staff report. So there's a couple of issues. One is, you know, you'll see in the staff report in the question about the 30 percent slope. So the way the Montpelier bylaws work is there's a anything with that's being built on 30 percent slope greater needs engineering. And that's just an engineer to testify that this is a stable slope. There's a series of criteria within the zoning bylaws that address that. But if you're not building within that 30 percent slope, it obviously isn't triggered. And so we'll need clarification as to one way or the other. If it is 30 percent, you'll need essentially an engineer to be able to opine that it's possible to build. Sure. Understood. I think there is room to build a place that's not on the sloped area. But if somebody, whoever purchased it and would like to move that house back onto it, then that would be at that point. And, you know, there's some other sort of technical features, one of which is you're going to have to show the setbacks for the for the lot and the impervious cover and buildable area in the final application. Just clarify. You have to show on your map how the setbacks for for the entire lot. And just you understand that there's a certain area between your boundary and where you can actually build. There is a sort of a no man zone. Understood. I think the dashed area on this small plan here. It's got a page number that shows maybe the setbacks aren't called out. But those are approximate setbacks. Well, I think you're going to want to setbacks for a lot one and a lot two. And what's interesting is that I don't think that's the right rear setback for that. I mean, this is your approximate buildable area. But I mean, your actual setback, technical setback, is the boundary line way back up. And that's that's, you know, in some ways, it's a little bit misleading by having that there. It's just something I think it's correct, worth correcting so that you can be clear. And then, you know, as you saw from the last time, one of the other issues is a drive way. Yeah. That you're going to have to show where and to show that it's far enough from other other driveways that it's not going to create some of the issues that we we saw below. And this is probably a class two. City is a city street as opposed to a highway. So, you know, there's certain there's different requirements for that. As far as the distance between the two. Any other questions from the board so far? I'm just sort of marching through. But feel free to interject. A shared driveway is also a possibility. Yep. Yep. It's desired. Yeah. And that that would be helpful to know because I think the driveway for lot one is behind the house is that the drive is off Ewing Street. Correct. Yeah. It's currently up right. I mean, Kate Kate's point is a really good one in that there are allowances for shared driveways and there may be some logic to that. But we'd want the subdivision application to show that. Understood. I think the key is to be able to show one at least one possible driveway that complies with the regulations if at all possible. Yep. Sure. You know, that's what we're looking for in you. And I can, once you have a survey done so that we can see where your slopes are exactly where your boundaries are, we'll be able to meet and discuss that. OK. Yep. And yeah. The driveway and the access and the parking are going to be critical. Understanding that you what you've done, I think is the very first step, which is to show the sort of buildable lot area, although it would certainly be helpful to understand the dimensions of that. I think there's a rough measurement. But to understand how how much of a building lot. And then, you know, what you're essentially building towards is something that would look like a plan, a potential plan so that we can, because our real main charge is to make sure that if we grant this permit to create a second lot, that it doesn't create an inconsistent lot or a lot that was would not be developable of the essential setbacks, parking access and other amenities that are just expected. And I think I would note something that I think is new in this version of the zoning page seven of the staff report that says the board may wave some off street parking requirements, if among other options, there's an existing transit stop within a quarter mile of the proposed development. I don't know if the stop down at the lane shops is within a quarter mile. There is a transit stop. So depending on how you're designed and your preference for what you what you wish to provide, yeah, there are options. Moving along, I mean that there's the public utilities, which is becoming an issue that we've had to deal with because the zoning bylaws require underground utilities where possible. And so it would be important to understand where the utilities for this particular lot would come from. You know, the reality is that most of the infill doesn't have existing sort of underground utilities readily available. And the question becomes is it possible, you know, if the poles are across the street, we've heard testimony on other applications that it's cost prohibitive in a very substantial way. But if there's power lines there and it's possible to run said utilities from that same side of the street underground, the bylaws do require that. Yeah, well, I mean, there's a utility pole pictured on the corner of the proposed lot to. I don't know if that's just for for communication lines or if that's the power line. Or is that across the street? Well, there's one on the far end. If you look at page 10, you can see the one in the background. That looks like that's right on the corner potentially a lot to. But yeah, I don't know how we've had the situation before where the pole is too old. They won't run underground. So it's an evaluation of the utility company to be prepared to, you know, if it's possible to run the utilities underground from the pole to the next willing, we're going to require that. So if it's not, then just be ready to explain why. And we can take it up then. The next staff comment that's. You know, talks talks about the idea of land on the landscaping plan. In the past, what we've required applicants in this type of infill is just to explain what the current landscaping is, what the proposed landscaping would look like, which is is going to have to be clear cut or is this going to be going to be able to preserve most of the forestation that exists on the lot or with every requirement. I mean, it's a unique situation that you're proposing to either do one of two things to sell lots, one and two as a package or sell to keep one. As I understood, it was a possibility to sell them both together or sell them independently. Right. I'm not going to hang on the first but in either case, I think what we want and this is the point at which, you know, once they're once they're separated, it would be difficult for a lot one to require a lot to to plant, put in a landscaping to prevent to to to screen and the purpose of landscaping really, and especially in smaller lots like this is to screen to make sure that, you know, the guy standing in his kitchen isn't looking at the, you know, bedroom across the way and and to provide some some bit of break between these buildings. And so we'd want to see at least some sense of this is forested here or, you know, when it's developed, I would want a landscape here of shrubs and trees or or some type of buffer of that nature. And that's what we'd want to see. And in this plan, it doesn't have to be listed down to the plant, you know, five maples and six lilac kind of thing. But I it has to have an overall landscaping plan so that we have a sense about how how much and how invasive is development likely to be. And as far as cutting things away and then what it would look like after and what would be proposed. Obviously, the the final draft is going to have to have all the survey marks and such. I don't know if you've retained a surveyor to do this or will retain it. And they can make sure that all the monumentation and permanent rights of way and distances are marked out. And then was there any, you know, the part of this is a question about the character of the neighborhood. Are you proposing this to be developed as a single family house? I would think so just based on the size of the lot and its location and what else is going on. The single family right next door, obviously, just uphill is a I don't know if it's apartments or condos, but a three or four unit place there. But I would think a single family home just based on the size and scale of what's going on there is what I would ski. What I would recommend is just looking at the character of the neighborhood description. This is in this is in the bylaws. But this this is the what's called the Franklin Street Northeast neighborhood. And in the beginning of the bylaws, each each little neighborhood has a narrative description. So when you come back having a brief, even if it's it's just written into your application as a supplemental piece of explaining why that fits into the character of the neighborhood. I mean, it sounds like it's consistent with the and I think we're all familiar with this this neighborhood of it's a fairly residential. Are you in the Franklin? Yeah, so I mean it showing that that would be consistent and describing that. I don't think that would be a hard hurdle. None of these seem like hard hurdles. They're just little details that we need to see. And I think that's largely in the staff report today. We have any other questions that went beyond. Okay. So I don't know any of the open it up to any of the interested parties or people that might be interested parties that and you're feel free if you're just here to monitor and we're not necessarily inviting feedback or ask, but it is your opportunity if you have some concern. If you do have anything to say, just come up to the microphone so we can hear you. I was just going to say, I'm just here to monitor. I'm in the adjoining. I own the apartment building. It is. So I just was curious as to what your plans were. And it sounds as if you don't really have plans other than to subdivide it and offer it up to somebody who may. So that's why I'm here. Good. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. So. Okay. And you know, I think this is an important process. And part of the reason why we have this preliminary is oftentimes, you know, so neighbors can understand or interested parties can understand what's going on. And if they do have questions or if there's something site specific or concern that they can articulate it to you. And oftentimes that gives you an opportunity before the final to work out any alerts. Good. Anything else? I mean, I think that is something worth, you know, landscaping not just between the existing building and the new law, but creating a new law with a new building there, you know, landscaping everywhere around. So including between the proposed lot to and the adjoining apartment building. So we always encourage neighbors to like talk about it beforehand. And, you know, usually there's not contentious, but that is a possible another possible area where some landscaping might be required or a plan would be helpful. I think I think that's a valid point, especially if there's a building that's located. I don't know where the buildings, how close they are to the boundaries or not. If there's one that's very close and probably want to include some type of screening. Good. Anything else? Blue paint, the blue paint looks good. Okay. Yeah, the house is great. Yeah. That's right. You're both. Twice a day. And admiring that house for a long time. You should see the inside. Would love to. Well, it's after your application is complete. Yes. Exactly. Okay. Well, then, if you have any questions, Meredith is available, can help walk you through some of these concerns. You have the staff report that will help guide you. I mean, nothing that we've talked about really is outside of what the staff report and the concerns that they raised. This is a pretty straightforward. And like any subdivision, it's really a question of whether you meet the various technical requirements and can show, you know, setbacks and driveway distances. Good. Any questions for us? No. Good. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. Any other business? I will note that our next regularly scheduled meeting is July 8th, 2019, 7pm here. And that is a Monday, like, following the 4th of July weekend. And just a little FYI, as of right now, assuming nobody drops out, we have five applications for the next, sorry, five applications for the 8th. It's going to be a full schedule. So get here early and eat dinner before. Yeah. And if possible, pick up your packets or at least review them online over the weekend. What we'll have to think about and we'll just take a look at what kind of applications are these? The first, I think it's the very first one on the agenda is going to be the 106 East State Street subdivision final. So Gary Shah, there's one other sketch plan. There's a fairly should be fairly straightforward home business conditional use and then a couple of waivers. One of them can't remember what the second one is. One is pretty simple. It's about a front, like stoop, covered stoop. Well, just, I think we'll have to keep an eye, you know, just see how the flow of the evening goes and knowing that we may have to continue some. Yep. And so as long as the applicants sort of towards the tail end know that's a possibility. No, that's it's going to be I it wasn't. I was out last Friday and came back in and Monday went up. Two more came in. Yeah. No, that's perfectly fine. I mean, we can it's it's it is one where I'm going to have to contact people to let them know that it's a heavy load and have the applications for the open seats gone out or is that so it's been posted but as far as I know, we have no applications for the open DRB. Just one position. I mean, now to to devs and Tom. So certainly, if anybody is knows of someone who might enjoy spending their Monday nights with us. Now's the time to let them know. Where else would you rather be? Exactly. I know it less than every other right. Unfortunately, it's not every Monday. It's every other Monday. Well, not even necessarily. That's true. I don't know about you, but every other Monday, I'm here again. Well, don't let that throw you off for July. Okay. So let's let's move into deliberative session. I'll take a motion to do so. So moved. Motion by Kate to have a second second second by Kevin. All those in favor of moving into deliberate session to consider 301 River Street Razor Razor. We are in deliberate session.