 Um, so at 631, um, I'm John Alden, chair of the IRB and we'll bring the meeting, um, of July 20, 2023 to order. Uh, first on the, uh, should I do the, the opening script? Uh, yeah. Yeah. All right, uh, meeting of the, uh, S Extruction Development Review Board has come to order. This meeting is a hybrid meeting, which means that some or all of the public body is meeting remotely and some are meeting physically at 2 Lincoln Street, where the public may attend to observe, listen and participate in this meeting. One member of this public body or other staff is present at 2 Lincoln Street to ensure the public can participate if desired. Please note that while we will strive to provide means for those attending remotely to participate in the public comments period, there may be technical difficulties or reasons that otherwise prevents or interrupt the remote public participation. Therefore, it is important to note that the open meeting law only ensures the public's right to participate and comment at a public meeting by attending at the designated physical location as posted on the notice and agenda. If a member of the public or of the public body has technical difficulties accessing this meeting remotely, please alert us by using the chat feature on Zoom or by emailing C-Y-U-E-N at sxjunction.org. And in the event of a technical difficulty that cannot be resolved, we may continue the meeting, uh, if necessary, to August 17th at 630 at 2 Lincoln Street, Sx Junction. Please note that all votes taken during this meeting that are not unanimous will be done by roll call votes in accordance with the law. As required by the open meeting law, let's start by making, uh, by the meeting by taking a roll call attendance of all members participating in the meeting and have those members attending remotely identify themselves to ensure that they can be heard, they can hear and be heard throughout the meeting. So, the full planning commission is here in person. Okay, and only person online is Marcus Serta. It doesn't show up on the screen, but we'll go with that. All right, uh, let's see any changes to the agenda tonight, Chris? No. All right, um, next item is public to be heard. This is a section for anyone in the audience to speak on something that's not on the agenda. Is there anyone who wishes to speak at this time? No, we are all here for agenda items. Fine, perfect. Um, on, on we go, uh, minutes, um, of May 18th, uh, board members, there was a revised diversion sent around. I want to make sure everybody is looking at that version. Were there any comments or changes to the minutes? No. Can I have a motion to, uh, accept the minute, approve the minute? Motion to approve the minutes. Okay. Okay. Any further discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Um, all right. So now we have, uh, public hearings and I'm going to swear everybody in at once. Um, so anybody who is going to give testimony on one or more of the, um, hearing items in front of us tonight, please raise your right hand and. Uh, say I do when I finish, um, the testimony that I'm about to, um, give is the whole truth. Uh, and I agreed to that under the pains and penalties of perjury. Okay. Thank you. Uh, a little bit of a, um, let's see. All right. So the first item, uh, variance application for a one story edition, um, can, uh, that, that wishes to be constructed 1.5 to 8.5 feet from a sideline property at 50 West Street in the R2 district. Uh, are the applicants present? All right. Come on up to the first table in front of you there and yep, right there. Uh, speak into the microphone, identify yourselves for the record and off you go. He'll be most of it. Um, Scott Walensky. Uh, Vicki Walensky. And, um, we would like to add a bedroom to get our 2 daughters in separate bedrooms at an age where it's becoming a bit of an issue. There's 7 almost 7 years apart. So a bit of an issue and our most desirable location for adding a bedroom puts us inside the 8 foot side boundary parents. Um, all right, we, we all got a lot of that information in our packet. Chris, is there any additional information you'd like to supply here? This is a variance hearing. So, there's some criteria that the board will have to consider. You, you've got general board comments in the packet. So, Chris, did you want to chime in here at all? Um, I, I don't have anything specific to say other than what's already in the staff report. But if it helps, I can throw up an aerial of what we're looking at. We did get an email from our neighbor. I don't know if it made it to you guys. We saw that today. Yes, I think they saw that are fine with it in general. Um, yeah, it's pretty close. I mean, I know a lot of existing conditions around the village, the city have fairly close setbacks, especially when they're odd shapes and foreigners and so forth. And, and yet, you know, there's some, you're not really supposed to, you know, um, it's, it's tricky to allow something that's not already there. But, uh, I kind of changed my mind when I saw the lot. I said, how, how is this, you know, uh, we haven't, it's a huge lot, but, but it's so any weird. Yeah, there's, oh, I changed my mind pretty much after I saw the, you know, the full lot. There's, there's really nothing you can do. They built the house crooked as far as I can. My, it doesn't, it doesn't, it's the, it's the property line. The driveway is there, but it doesn't come anywhere near the driveway. But it's that driveway, right? Yeah, I was invited to do this for you, but I'm, it's my property. Oh, yeah, there's a, there's an image that shows the proposed, uh, you know, it's just a one bedroom addition. It looks, um, I did look at the house, uh, kind of graph, just graphically, you can see from the roof lines and so forth. There, there's some other places you might be able to do it, but they aren't really that desirable from the construction point of view, the roof lines and so forth. Um, not sure. Oh, we'll look kind of sideways there. Yeah, this is upside down. Yeah. All right. Uh, so maybe Chris, you could just point out the proposed addition for everybody so they can kind of. So, yeah, the pose addition is as it's oriented right now on the upper right, you can see the gets within 1.5 foot of the side boundary. Yeah, the front of the house has a water and sewer lines, which makes it difficult to change anything up there. So that's the proposal. This is fine. When you, so if we look at the area over here, so it's, it's going to be right here. So essentially the west, the western edge of this property. So Chris, I guess my question is like, what is there? Is what this is not a house there. They're just straight. It's a driveway for another oddly shaped lot. I'll go up here. I'd like to play my brother's house. We, yeah. Yeah. So, um, the way the lot is shaped, you would probably never have a building out, uh, out here because it's too skinny, skinny over there. It's likely going to always be a driveway to access the main property back here. Okay. How close is the drive? So it's 1.5 feet of the closest point. Is that where the driveway is? The driveway is another 10 to 15 feet over from the property line. Is there a fence there at the moment? I'm sorry. A fence. Is there a fence between the two properties at the moment? We, we have a tiny decorative fence, but there's, it's, there's no fence. It is kind of, it's wooded. There's like shrubbery and trees. It's almost like the trees are the fence kind of. Yeah. Well, in the wintertime when somebody plows through there, is it would the snow end up being piled up against the proposed? No, there's, there's plenty of room between the property line and the driveway. Um, I, given the circumstances, I really don't have a problem with it. Uh, you'd love to see, you know, in theory enough room for somebody to actually be able to walk and stay on your property and walk around the corner of the addition. You know, 1.5 feet is getting pretty close. Uh, it's only a 12 foot proposed addition width. So, you know, it can't really go a lot smaller there. Um, oh, look at that. So, that's it. Yeah. So the, the, that's the decorative fence you're talking about there. The, that's, that's a separate part of it. Um, in the backyard, there's, there's a little bit of fence. Yeah. It's a little hard to see from the street here, but, um, you might be able, you can't really see it. Yeah. There's those shrubs there and so forth. Well, you need to get rid of those shrubs on your property or your. The fence is on our property. It's like a, it's like a two foot little fence, little white fence. It goes about 20 feet, but there's no, there's no like fence dividing the, the two properties. It's, it looked like there was some, uh, green, uh, you know, some arbor, vitie or hemlock or something there. They were letting you do a number on the trees on that thing. Um, yeah, I, I don't, the neighbors, uh, written in to say that they were fine with it. The one was with the driveway in question. Um, I guess I don't have a problem with it as long as we can make sure that the criteria that we have to deal with are, uh, acceptable. I think we're okay with this. Uh, other members. I don't have any issue either. No issue. That's a weird issue. So I thought it was it. So this is an existing non-conforming lot by definition in, in the city. As we noted from our other, one of our other applications tonight is requesting, uh, a subdivision and the criteria for the lock sizes. It can't be more than twice as deep as it is wide. And this, this one's gotta be 5, 6, 7 times deeper than it is wide. So, uh, and then they built the house to face the street and not within the parallel lines of the, of the lot. So I, I think the damage was done a long time ago. Um, all right. So, um, how does this work? Chris, we have to go through each, each criteria individually and agree or accept it. Yeah. Um, I think that would be a good idea. So this would be under, uh, item C, but the standard to review on there. Yep. Okay. Uh, number one, there are unique physical circumstances or conditions, including irregularity, narrowness, or shallowness of the lot size and shape. I think we can all agree that it's exceptionally narrow and exceptionally deep. Um, number two, because the physical circumstances are conditioned because of these physical circumstances or condition, there's no possibility that the property can be developed in strict conformity of the provisions. Uh, they would have to demolish part of their house to actually do something different. So I'm going to say I agree with that. Um, unnecessary hardship has not been created by the app, the app pellet. Uh, they, I'm guessing you guys bought the property and you inherited this, uh, lovely situation, but it's correct. So, uh, you did not self, uh, create this. Um, and the variance of authorized will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district. And, uh, it's clear that it won't. I mean, we're not really telling you what the addition was supposed to look like, but, uh, that's really your governing criteria as long as it looks similar to the rest of the neighborhood, you're fine. Um, all right. All in any further discussion? I need a motion. I'm just going to give me a motion to approve. I will mention there's one person on, uh, there's an additional, uh, person online now, but, um, they, they've called it. Yeah. Do we know if they have any comments or questions on this, uh, application? Oh, you have to ask. So the caller who's called in from phone number ending in 9133, um, please speak up if you have any, anything to say about this variance. The question. You're none. I see there's a number of five on here. Alice thought there were only four criteria, but apparently they're fine. Um, the variance if authorized will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least deviation possible from the bylaw and plan. Um, so the only thing you could do to prove that would be to click the corner, you know, like put a 45 degrees in the corner, but you know, nobody builds like that. So I'll apply what I buy is square. Right. That's kind of my theory as well. So that would be the only, only thing that would reduce your infraction would be to consider something like that as drawn as proposed. Uh, I think you're, you're still doing the least possible. I mean, both the wide bedroom is starting to get tight already. So, um, I don't have a problem with that. Uh, so did I get a motion? I move that we approve the variance. Any second. Any service. So who's seconded? Robert. Sorry. Quiet. Gonna come in later. So getcha. Um, all in favor of the motion as, uh, approve the motion. Hi. Hi. All right. Can you pose? Motion carries. In. Thank you very much. Thank you. Good luck with that. Thank you. Appreciate it. The big question is who gets to pick the color, right? They each get the pick now. Um, okay, uh, next item on the agenda is conceptual site plan to construct a three story mixed use building with commercial on 1st floor and 34 residential units with parking at eight railroad street in a VC district by Franklin South LLC. I see our applicant and their agent are at the, uh, are here. So I'll invite you up to the table. You're not coming up. All right. You can stay there. Dan. How are you? I am. Thank you. Um, there are a couple. We've got a staff report. We've got drawings. Um, we've got a revised staff report. There are a couple of, uh, things to clarify. One is the number of stories that was and I think I see what happened. So there's a four story front section and reached their whole rest of the thing appears to be three stories. Is that. Here's, is that accurate? That is accurate. Uh, Chris, do you see that in your, I don't think that's where your notes are written, but it's presented as a four story building, but it's only the front piece that's four stories. Right. This is two stories over a story of garage. Right. Yeah. That was a change with the, uh, the, uh, submittal too. Yeah. All right. So, um, why don't you, there were a lot of questions asked that this is still conceptual. Right. So there were a lot of questions asked last time. Many of them had to do with the site itself and the technical issues related to how it deals with the, the not really a street street that's next to a Gaines court and the surrounding, uh, district uses. So I'd like to clarify that if you guys have any new information on that, I think Chris did a little work on that too. Uh, and then, um, we can get into the other aspects of the, uh, design, architecture, fit, character, all that kind of thing. Okay. Right. Um, so just one moment as I pull up everything we have to show in Sweden. These are the new drawings. Maybe we'll start with a site plan so we can talk about the, the lot particulars first. And I since our last meeting also the land development code has been updated and reissued as in, uh, how we have a new effective date, June 14th, um, adopting the latest version of the land development code. And there were several minor changes that I think actually clarify some things for, for this application. So I probably it's a good thing that we're looking at the new version. Yeah. So here's the site plan. So from an aerial view, the, the footprints. I'm not up yet. Can't see that screen anymore. So I don't know what that one says. This one doesn't say cycling. I see. So yeah, the footprints, as I understand, remains the same as what was previously proposed, but, uh, let's talk a little bit about the, the 15 foot buffer issue. That is, that is what we were talking about last time that we were a little unclear about. Um, I've spoken with the city attorney about this to see where the 15 foot buffer would begin. If it applies, um, and based on the property lines and how gains court is actually just pieces of gains courts are a part of, uh, the, the individual parcels, uh, south of south of gains court. So, uh, this lot over here continues up through gains court and touches, uh, eight railroad, just like the, uh, Kelly Berry, uh, lot right beside there. It goes right up to, uh, to eight railroad and touches it right there. So that means 15 foot buffer, if it were to apply would have to begin at the, uh, edge of the, the eight railroad. So, uh, gains court, I guess my question still is gains court functions like a street, but it's not legally a street. So therefore it's somebody else's property. It's private. It's private property. There's no right of way. There's no agreement. There's no easement. There's no, well, there's, there's, uh, there's an agreement among the, uh, owners of, uh, the, the lots that use gains court for access, um, but it's not a separate parcel. It's not, it's not a separate lot. That's, uh, you know, so, and that I see in your updated memo that those, um, parcels along gains court are actually in a different district. That's right. So that's the rub really because if it's all village, village center, do we still call it the zoning district is still called the village center zone. Okay. So, um, so the village center zoning district doesn't include the buildings that are adjacent to this parcel. They're in a different district. Yeah. This is so we can't use the logic that's within the VC district itself. We have to look at what happens when there's another district involved. That's right. And that is actually something that, uh, that I had missed it when, when I was, uh, when I mentioned this, uh, this upcoming potential change to the LDC. Yeah. I thought it would, it would, uh, change how this, this would work, but, uh, there was a specific wording in there that said, uh, let me just, uh, hold that out. It only applies any multifamily developments in the village center district that is adjacent to a single family use that is also in the village center district shall not be required to provide a 15 foot buffer zone. So in this case, the properties south of a railroad are in a different zoning district. So in the rules in that other zoning district, are they similar? Do they all that they require a buffer or they would require a buffer if, uh, you are transitioned between multifamily and single family. There is a waiver, uh, that's, uh, that's a possibility that's 0.5. All right. It feels like we've got, got some work to do to still figure out that edge, but, um, how about the rest of the board? You guys understand that? So are you saying that like if it was, um, so those are single family district that was facing if that new project was going to be single family home, then there would have to be the buffer. But since it's not, then there's no buffer. No, that's heavy office. So the new, okay. Um, if you're building a multifamily building on a railroad, yeah, you have to provide a 15 foot buffer, um, against single family single family homes, but if they happen to already be multifamily, then that 15 foot buffer is done. And are they all multifamily? They are not. So this, the one at the corner, I believe is multifamily by seven. Who's next to us? Yeah. So it has both that has single family and multifamily. So then how do you multifamily? R3 is what I'm looking at on the math. Well, the zoning district is called multifamily. Okay. But what is what we're talking about is the current land use and the land use, you can have a single family home in a multifamily. So Mary Jo Wengel and also Kelly Berry. Hi. I see. And my understanding is that say your property is a single family home. Is that correct? It is. Yeah. So the plot is still twisting as far as I can tell. Um, somebody mentioned edging earlier. Was that the edging against court? Like here. There's that other edging that you were talking about. Oh, yeah, we're talking about the need. We're talking about that side of the 15 foot buffer on that side. That seems pretty small. It's it's huge in the in the village center, but it's not small elsewhere. So as it's written though, we're saying that if there is the multifamily health, there should be the 15 foot buffer. If there's single family housing, that is correct. Unless unless you say it meets the requirements for the waiver. That's that's in point five of it. Yeah. But hey, sorry. Yeah. Sorry. Quick question. Also, I also want games for there. There were telecom poles running down games court. Is that factored into the buffer that's currently in the design or is there plan? So those I if I understand correctly, those those the utilities are co-located on poles that are owned by Green Mountain Green Mountain Power and I believe the applicants has worked with them to to figure out an alternative way to routes things about is that right? That is correct. Do we get more info on that? The alternative way. Did you have a specific plan with them? Is it going underground? The current lines are going to be buried. Okay. Um, so if my understanding is that if games court was so game court is quite narrow and I think right now I don't know who was talking about the last review we're meeting, but like utility vehicles, fire trucks like are unable to make their way down that that road. Um, cool. So we can bury the power lines. That means we can widen games courts and as extraction can take over ownership of that. I do not believe the city has a plan to take over ownership of games courts at the moment, but you could without the polls you would you would be able to fit a slightly wider vehicle there indeed. All right, I wanted to kind of redirect us back to the applicants presentation because I think we we're not actually in the public comment period yet. We're still wait. Yeah, no worries. Let's let's give them a chance to explain what they're doing here. Sorry, Dan. No, that's fine. So it's correct that we have kept the same footprint. Implementing the 15 foot buffer will make this project very difficult to execute. So I was hoping that we could find a way to not have that requirement. Yeah, I don't. Is your I would mention because the property of the front over here is multi-family 15 foot buffer would not have to apply to the front portion of the building and given the shape. I mean, it would be it would be a non-standard shape, but but the front would not have to change to be in compliance with the that requirements. If you could. Yeah, it's changed the back, but of course strange. Well, the tricky part of this is the parking because you can't change the laws of physics and modify a nice double mile parking bay that's still 60 64 B wide. It's just the way it works. So something's got to give over there. There is no parking requirement, but there's a realistic parking need. So that that is part of the I think we got two things that are going on here. One is given the rules. What does that really mean to the project? As you know, with setbacks and buffers and and you know, things that sort of begin to eat away at the edge of the project, which in other in another way of, you know, dealing with it in the bill, the village center alone, you don't have those. It's not they're not requirements. So it's just this oddity of the residential adjacent district being on the line. And it's really frustrating. I've had this that for me before and it's it's really hard to find a reasonable any common sense in how the rules get applied. It's just usually not common sense. But we're I we're still open to hear what the ideas are. I just think it's a tough one. I'm I was actually very encouraged that the rest of the language in in the development code has sort of made the other issues go away. I mean, it's all about use and it's all about, you know, their their things written in there and say if it's all in the village center, then, you know, you're kind of okay. So half of the code is telling you it's fine and then this other little district wrinkle is kind of throwing a wrench into the half of the price. Well, we can't, you know, legally rule. So what we can do is sort of work within the situation on the ground. So through design elements, we've tried to mitigate it. Ultimately, it'll be up to the city attorney or the board to either grant a waiver or make a rule. And what we've done is attempted to address some of the comments of the last meeting and operate within a framework of executing a traditional 60 foot wide double loaded multifamily building. Yeah. I gotta say the, you know, just my looking at the way the district boundaries are used to those parcels are surrounded by Billy sent and the only parcel that's not is the back half against court. And it's a it's a hole in the middle of a donut. I'm not sure what happened there. Maybe somebody else knows, but it's a really bizarre way to set up a map. I guess maybe I would suggest that somebody take a look at the map and figure out just that version of it. Very jagged. Anyway, I could see that, you know, being a question. But I don't have any answers for you at the moment. I think we want to establish our concerns. We want to establish they're still in conceptual. I want to establish our concerns. I want to establish possible paths out of those concerns, which could be designed could be waiver. If we're, if we have the authority to waive it, we should know that you should know that are there any other concerns other than the notes that are in the last review about providing easements for dumpsters and emergency vehicles and so on that the board or staff would like to talk about relative site plan because it seems like all of those need to happen. Yeah, I don't have anything additional for that. So there's an ongoing question on what now looks like the buffer required at the back half of the part of the property. The back three quarters back three quarters. I don't know. What is that? Yeah. So this is the yeah. So that's the parcel in question. It's the two to the south that are. Really the three or four to the south that seem to all right. Do we want to stay on site plan items or people are ready to move on? It's the only one I really see as an issue. I think you guys are going to be fine with the rest of them like the easements and the service vehicles and so on. I'm sure you'll come up with a way to make that work. All right, let's let's talk about the updated. Maybe you can bring these up now Chris. The updated elevations and the character and so forth. And I'm going to let other people talk before I do this time. You guys notice how the story situation works. You know, you've got kind of a call of peace facing the city center, which is appropriate in the back where you've got shorter buildings to deal with. So anybody have Is the front still all commercial except for the cut through. So various factors throughout refining the design have have squeezed that small ground floor portion. Yeah. No more commercial. None at all. It's just the lobby and services for the building for the tenants. So that small ground floor spot is just residential. Remind me what the services are. There was maybe weight rooms or a workout or a laundry or something. Correct. So could be commercial. It just doesn't happen. It would be, you know, maybe a three or 400 square foot commercial space. So maybe a lemonade stand, but nothing that useful. There's an entry straight off of railroad street and there's an entry from the covered parking it. So, but the that front part will be a lobby for the residents. That's correct. The mailbox is laundry. There's a sitting area elevator machine room. Farewell. It's small. And you have an elevator at the rear also for the handicap parking one elevator just one at the front. Yeah. Gotta go up to the fourth story. So you have to write the located in the front where the yeah. Two stair course. One thing I should mention based on comments from the previous hearing. We squeezed forward the back of the building. To open up some of those residential views. So we took that square footage from the back of the building. That was for. That's where that came from. But the building does not extend as far back to the east. Well, yeah. No. Is the. Fight plan still back here or are you saying that got a little short? So the in terms of the parking lot, it's still the same extent, but the building overhead basically stops at that back stairwell that back rectangle that you see. And you're going to want to just change the note on the front section. If that's not commercial space anymore. Yeah, this is a more. Liner accurate site plan a bit more detail of where we're at. Oh, did you send that one to us because I okay. Well, I I sent it to another party that it was not submitted to you. I see. Yeah, I was I was running under the impression that the that this was still accurate. But it is such as it is in. It is. But you're saying it's your. Oh, I can't. Yeah. Yeah. More than welcome to take it and pass it around. Or yeah, that would be all right. Architecture fit character. I like the change to the facade. Anyone else? I'll dive in. It is light years ahead of last time. It looks great. Propriate presentation to the street in the city. A lot more articulation on the back end. Really nicely done. Thank you. Yeah, the only question I have really is the whole, you know, the whole site plan buffering, you know, I think the neighbors now have a much more interesting view in front of them if if you're allowed to build it there. And the building on the street looks like it belongs in the city now. So, you know, I think it's a nice job taking a lot of things that are available and as visual clues and turning them into the new facade for this is great. Are you just doing plantings just where are you nothing in front of the wood? On this on that south side. Yeah. Thinking about those windows are going to be looking for like, I mean, I do have like our providing but are they are you just are you just doing them there or Yeah, the idea is to provide the screening and instead of doing 180 feet of one thing, varying it a bit. There's a bit of push and pull on that side reflecting that in the screening. So, yes, it is meant to be portions of fencing and portions of landscape. There was one I did have one comment on it's more of a site plan common but you don't really notice it till you see it. It's the extension of it looks like a curb or a low wall or something. The one that separates kind of the two enclosed arches from the drive-through arch. I swear somebody is just going to drive over the end of that thing like half the time people will take the bottom of their car out on that because it where I see those that that happens they get you know knocked over they get pushed over they get driven over people swear at them you know they you know nick their car on so I would I like that there's some walls out there to sound but I you may want to take a look at that one in practice it may not actually be helpful. You know to kind of funnel people into the the drive area may actually make people mad. So the idea there which is shown in a bit more detail here is maybe it wasn't successful but the idea was to provide some protection for pedestrians from both the drive and from gains for and these low concrete walls concrete dividers maybe it's better done with bollards or something but walkway with some hardscape right out to the middle to the residential entrance also paving to the left and to the right seating area part of it and a landscaped area with some planting there and these these low concrete walls to provide that potential and maybe it has to be something beefier. I guess maybe you might consider which one of those arches the pedestrians enter in that maybe separating the actual pedestrian flow from the driving flow a little more is helpful. I just flop them you know but the the gesture is great it's very I don't want to say urban because everybody hates it when when you they think of s6 junction as an urban area but but it's essentially this is an urban area it's as urban as Vermont gets and so the treatment is notably intended to be different. So I think the the gesture is great you just may want to figure out you know how it actually works and and whether there's a enough to keep the cars like you get a 6 inches of snow are you even going to see that thing you know before you maybe some planters or something on top just you know I think functionally it might be mistaken for you might miss it in the snowstorm or something and hit it by mistake. But but the idea of separating and protecting the pedestrians is a great idea you know it's just it's a tight little spot. No I really I think that elevation is pretty neat it disguises the number of levels pretty well the spandrel action is going to be great there's a little sign up there appropriate scales heavy cornices you know all the things that make up buildings in the village city that you know we've come to know and love for years and years. So I think it you know to me represents a strong addition to the character of the surrounding area tends to match materials of the adjacent you know insurance company so and you know frankly I'd love to see the rest of railroad Avenue get updated railroad Street. You know that that Street as it becomes more well known as a travel course with the re reworking of the circulation underway right now it's going to beg for improvement so this would be the first building on the on the new block that really you know have a presence there so nice. Anybody else can see having a cup of coffee and one of the chairs in front there right just bring your own because you can't buy it there. Walk across the street. Who coughed is that is that room for the public at the I yeah well let me let me grab the people in the room here and then we'll we'll get to you guys and anybody that hasn't spoken that wants to speak you're up first anyone in the audience. Mary Joe. You should yeah I would recommend coming up to the Mike so that's it either there or the Mike. I really like the changes a lot I think it somehow it's elegance or something that it didn't have before it was very boxy and just plain. It really is nice I like the curvature at the top of the entry ways I did have a couple of questions as well as you did 1600 commercial square feet of commercial space is still referenced in the waiver information that was online. I like how the area I can now see what you've got going on here for Gaines Court. I like the variation in the appearance. I did have a question about the landscaping the alternating landscaping and given that you know when you first put something in it's not that developed as a protective shield there and I was just wondering if there's actual access from Gaines Court through those spaces there where the landscaping the Arbor Vitaire whatever it's going to be is planted and I did bring up the power poles before and the last hearing in May and now gave us a reference that it's going to be taken underground at what cost to all of the folks on Gaines Court and is that into perpetuity that it would be maintained underground because we've got a paved road now. So I have a question about that if it's not going to be the polls and it is going to be underground. But I really do I like it a lot. It's a major improvement from what what was initially presented. So those are my comments. Sorry. Would you mind just being by the mic so that you get I like to sit there. You can I mean it's just for the microphone. I'll do it just for you Chris. I was trying to say is the site plan is not updated because last time we were here. John you said come back and show us the building. That was the whole focus on the building. So we did that the building did shrink. That's how we created the four stories. So Mary Joe concern or last time was being looking at the building while not looking at the building anymore because we shrunk it. Yeah. And that's just what you know that the site plan is not updated. It's okay. So we the question was on the landscaping here. So burying the power lines and the utilities is a great thing to do with if that the question was are they paying for it. Who's paying for it based on your track record. You've been paying for those things. I don't know if you plan to try and share that cost with anybody or not. No actually the lady on the corner of the 10 units I offered to pay for her service because her service need to be upgraded and I made I already spoke to run the phone three months ago and I told her what's going to happen and I said it's going to be on my cost and she said as long as it doesn't cost me and I think it was fine and Mary Joe helped me get her phone number because I didn't know her. I don't know who she was and so this may not be a question for you exactly. But the Arbor Vitey often times even though you put landscaping up there you actually put a fence behind it like a change fence or something for security. I was doing a half a fence half a half a fence. So still be exposed to the air. Yeah movement under the building. So like a three or a four foot high a four foot high and the way which will be behind the Arbor Vitey. So you won't necessarily see the fence but the pedestrians or people wouldn't be able to walk through. That's correct. Is that answer your question Mary Joe? Yes I'm still I still have questions about the underground. What's the power in this game? And and what and the reasoning of the road etc. Is Gainsport cave? Yes really. It's been a while since I've been down but I've seen all that smooth. So can you explain the power part is the power lines in the Gainsport. I'm going to call it right away even though it's not right away or they on your side of the. They on my side being taken care of anything on Gainsport is not going to be touched. Okay only the 10 unit in the front. Okay that's the one is the service has to be changed. But the rest of the houses on Gainsport they will not be interrupted. Those holes are not in this rendering. Because they're underground. He's going to put them underground. They can't go underground unless the service to the units that they're servicing. There is a I'm sorry. There's a pole on the end of Gainsport in front of my property the three units and that's what's serving Mary Joe and the other folks. It comes out of that pole. That's not going to be touched. The pole stays there. This one yes this pole is going to be moved. Think there's then you can see the power line running along the back. The lines go through the trees but there's some poles back there. That's correct. So just this front pole is going to be taken. Yes so what's going to happen the meeting with Green Mountain Power. They're going to take an underground they're going to move this big pole. Yeah create a wider entrance. Okay they're going to take an underground to a transformer from the transformer it's going to go back to the back pole. What's not further not the one in the middle that's going to be disappeared the one in the middle the one in the back. And that's what feeds the three houses on Gainsport. So the power will come back up and tie into that pole and then their service will be uninterrupted as it is now. That's right. So there's only going to be one pole left. That would be the first one and the one all the way in the back. The one in the middle disappears. And this one gets moved a little bit. That's going to be shifted to create a think 12 foot or 14 foot. 14 feet. There's like there's four power poles on Gainsport. Right. They're going to move to in the middle of the way to in the middle go away and the one in the end goes away. The one in the end and then moves the one of those three moves the next to go away and the one in the back stays and continues to feed the home. That's why I understand. Currently the power runs from my house. Right up to the pole. So if there's no pole. I was I think that pole remains and the pole of the street remains in a different location. The two poles in the middle of Gainsport. Right if I'm wrong here will go away. The service between the street pole and the pole that serves your property, your house will be. There's a pole across from my house. I'm looking at it and then there's a pole across from Mary's house and the power lines go right out to those poles. If those were going to be put underground my understanding would be that our power would go from under the house under Gainsport and then wherever that routing would happen. I mean I know nothing about what that would would have means to put poles underground but seems like there's a little ambiguity in this area. All right well when you got when you guys come back over and we have a it'll be on the drawing or something. Yeah we love the new mount power explaining the yeah so. All right anyone else in the audience here have a comment? Anyone else on remotely have a comment? Any more comments? I just want to say I love the building. I wasn't here last week but I think the building is fantastic. I really really really like the design. You know the 15 feet is is certainly top of mind for me but I mean I think that the overall taste of the building is just beautiful. I think I think it fits as much wonderfully so like really good job. Thank you. Cool. All right. Anyone else on the board? Scott? I don't have anything. It's just the 15 foot issue and the waiver for that and whether or not that. Do we have can we do we know whether we have the ability to waive that? Yes it's it is and I put that in number five. So section 7085 and I've also quoted that in the staff report. On page six. Yeah but you have to have the new one. No it's in the first one. Yeah it's in the old one as well. So basically it says in the section 708 B5 that's the planning. The development review board may waive the screening and buffering requirements in the village center district if it determines that the encroachment will not have an undo adverse impact on adjacent properties. That's the test. My first thought is that you're going to have a tough time proving that. And I guess I think it's nice to know we have the power to do it. I think that's the first thing is that you have an issue in the back two-thirds of the property with the screening buffering requirements. There is a requirement to have a 15 feet but the planning the DRB can can waive if we agree that it isn't necessary. That's a little subjective but I'm not sure we're quite there yet. So I would say that's that's an item that we have to look at but I don't know that we have any other items that are that grassy in the building itself has been taken care of the rest of the site can sit considerations on our list that we are they all pretty much taken care of right. So we have the other things are if we if we look at all that's all called proposed stipulations which you wrote as if this were being finally reviewed right or the recommendation. So there's some landscaping I guess we still have to deal with the amount of landscaping and the percentages and what happens and where is it and how do you do it. There's a buffer that we're supposed to have that we might be able to waive if we are happy enough with mitigation efforts. There was a pedestrian access item was that resolve that was from the front of the building out of the out of the read or is that oh yeah actually now that's it's clear that there's there's pedestrian access from both the front of the building and from the parking lots. I think that is addressed. Okay. That one seems to be alright. Going through your list from last time. Okay. An access through to railroad street for garbage trucks and oversize vehicles. We already talked about that it looks like it's in place on the proposed site plan to some extent. Well we'll codify an easement with to railroad street for access. We need to look at additional fencing or landscaping in accordance with the screening requirements so that one's kind of still out there. And the rest of it is I think it's okay. I mean there's a I think it's really helpful that the building steps down in the back because I think the back is the area that you might have a sensitivity issue with the scale of the houses that are adjacent to that portion. So that was really nice not to see the whole thing go up higher I think and the fact that the front is higher makes the back look shorter which kind of interesting. So then the proposed stipulations. I mean it's kind of all technical and in a lot of ways drainage and bike parking and stuff. I'm sure you guys will deal with all of that. I don't think we need to keep talking about that here. I I guess I'm a lot more comfortable today than I was meeting on the presentation of this project. So are we going to get a new plan to show the building like what you have like submitted? I think that would be nice to see like a final. Well, they've got to come back probably twice more because that would that will be helpful and then I don't know if there's like a visual that we could see the what happens with the power lines. Sort of the visual like how it's going to look when they come in for the next one. It's it's preliminary and the requirements are higher for them to have what is considered a complete package. So they'll have that engineering stuff all worked out and the plans updated. So we'll see all that. So are we basically kicking the buffer can down the road? Well, preliminary, if I understand correctly, they have the option of going to final from from here to final. Yeah, so I would recommend figuring out the the buffers because that's such an integral part of whether or not they they can move forward with the the site plan. Yeah, if I may. So the the idea here at the last two meetings was to take the temperature of the board and we got you know whatever feedback we got the first one and it seems like we we did okay with some of it, but the viability of the project really such as it is really depends on that. So is it possible before the full submission getting a some sort of temperature of the the way the wind would blow on that issue or do we have to do a full show and submit and wait for a formal deliberation? That's really the big question. I it's such a strange one and there's a there's a street there in between, you know, it's not like, you know, the edge of my house is right up against the edge of your house. It's there's front yards and streets and you know, there's essentially all the aspects of buffer that normally occur except the trees and the fact that it's actually on the all those elements are currently on the neighbor's property. Not you know, so it's a 15 foot setback from. Well, does it really be set back? It's a buffer, but where's the like 15 foot start? It's from this. It would start pretty much on the edge of the drive. So right. So you're on the right side of it, right? It would start on the lot line. Okay. Just because you're legally speaking. The beans court is owned. That makes sense. Just. Hups. I mean, the trick department, I would love to say, well, let's do a narrow or buffer and, you know, landscape it up and, you know, they aren't going to be able to spend their whatever percent of landscape on this parcel anyway. But, you know, if you gave them more green space to work with they could put a lot on there. But then they don't have room for the building because they can't push the building over. They can't take out a row of parking really. So you either want the density and altitude in their district or they get the buffer because the neighbor arrangement says it's got to happen. You know, so I don't I don't think we're helping the the buffer requirement at all by waving it entirely. You know, I just don't see a way that we can do some kind of compromise and make everybody happy. I mean, they're on the property line. There's zero zero space to do something. Putting in a fence doesn't really help. Well, so so that I think the test here is whether or not the encroachment will have an undue adverse impact on adjacent properties. How do you what's your reasoning behind? How are you thinking through that? So far it's just the multi-family use next to a single family. And, you know, again, I'll say that I think that whole section in there at some point is going to have to be reconsidered. There may be multiple improvements to that area just based on up and coming new traffic patterns and new use patterns. It's essentially underdeveloped territory, but at the same time it's there. It's been there for a long time. It's in its own district that has its own rules. It's not supposed to be, you know, you're not supposed to do something to it. That's overly burdensome. So I find it to be a challenge to split the difference. It is housing. It's at the moment, you know, it's actually pretty nice housing, the nice project, but it's on the property line and there's no option for a buffer. So because it's multi-family, that's what's triggering the buffer. If it were a commercial property or... No, multi-family or commercial property. Yeah, the front property is multi-family. So it's fine. Yeah. It's the back, too. Yeah, I was just trying to think through it. Like if this project were not to move forward, so some other type of project that could be, would not be subject to the buffer, but would be more undue and adverse to that. No, commercial would require an even bigger buffer. Yeah, no, it's not. You know, I'm looking in the MF3 requirements just to see what their requirements are and they allow a three or a four-story if it's affordable housing. So they would allow the same building height. It's possible to take those parcels and put, you know, something bigger on them. PUD could change the whole thing around entirely. I don't see a lot of buffering requirements in that district itself, but they do only have a 40% lot coverage. The buffering requirements would be under section 708. It's just the same ones. Yeah. So, you're back to the use here and the use there. So essentially, they could be the same uses because multi-family three you can have, right? Yeah. I guess that, again, that tends to say to me that's less of an issue than it would be if that was, for example, MF1 or it wouldn't be MF. It was residential one. You'd be in a totally different ball game, but all right. Anybody else? Questions on the buffer? Anybody online? Have any additional questions on the buffers? I mean, I think for seeing it, I feel like we want to help get this project like over the line for housing and, you know, for value to the junction. It's really hard to sort of say, yeah, I'm going to allow something like that close to my home. So like, I mean, for me, the path forward is like, what does the design look like to accommodate the buffer? I mean, is that like rethinking like the height on the multifamily side? You know, is it green spaces mentioned previously? Does it mean fewer apartments? I mean, there's, I feel like there's a lot of ways this could potentially go through. But yeah, I mean, I'm in favor of it. This is what I want to say. But I'm also in favor of the code. In favor of the building as opposed with 15 feet or where it stands now? Well, I can't say that I'm in favor of the building as opposed because it doesn't meet the 15 foot buffer requirement, right? But I'm just saying in principle, the building, I think it adds value to the space that's there now. Like currently, there's a lot of use to it. It's just sort of empty space across from the home. So adding value in some way, I'm definitely in favor of. Like I'm in support of the project in principle, I guess. So that's all I got. It is tricky because it's it's currently a multifamily use proposed to be adjacent to a single family use. Even though it's in a district that isn't single family, it's not zoned single family. It's zoned multifamily three, the the densest multifamily you can have the densest residential you can have and still be, you know, residential. So I'm a little I'm a little less concerned. I mean, you're talking about, okay, multifamily use next to residential is here. But but now you're really, it's not really single family. It's currently single family use, but that's not its own. Somebody could come along tomorrow and change them. So if there's it's a tricky local government, move that quickly. It's not about government. If this is all private private development, I mean, unless the city or the city, the city turn that into a duplex tomorrow with somebody, if the owners want to get these into duplex and it changes, yeah, I thought you meant change the no, the zone, it's zoned the zoning use is much higher than its current actual use in terms of density and what's allowed and I'm still struggling with that part of the code because I know we changed the code to say use and use, but is it the current use or the allowed use that we're talking about? So I'm I'm I'm kind of on the fence because I would like to see the project go through, but I can't quite handle the the way the code is still written. I think it still allows for somebody to say no, it has to be a 15 foot buffer. And I don't I don't know that that's what we really wanted. I'm interpreting it as the 15 foot buffer has to be would I have not been swayed to thinking a waiver would be appropriate in this situation. So for a pulse check, that's my I mean, that's definitely how I feel as one of the homeowners. I mean, is it not an option to widen games court to reach the 15 I mean, I'm not an architect like I had no idea what it would mean to like take that buy down game to take the building and bring it in. I mean, I've realized that there's parking spaces in the space in between the parking spaces is actually like reducing the width of the building as a whole. Is that impossible or completely unreasonable to reach the buffer? I mean, it reduces the size of the building. I understand that. Well, that's interesting because the parking lot really is the surface. It's not the building. The building is only standing over the parking lot. So you would end up with a building that was narrower, but no change to the parking lot and you could maybe screen the parking lot. About an underground parking lot. Yeah, that that would probably be completely on, you know, the cost of that would be way out of. And it still requires 15 foot buffer because you're putting that structure right there on the property line. Yeah, right. So the parking lot in order for the parking lot to be Bible has to basically stay that size, but building above it could be smaller. And I see. So the bottom number in house is the parking lot. So actually, you know, I think the applicant would probably argue that making the building narrower is going to reduce the number of units which may have its own impact on the viability of the project. But I think that if there was another way to do this, it would make it would be making the building narrower, but not changing the parking lot. Would there be any possibility of you using the space over here a little more into for the building? So, you know, one option is to make it a single loaded corridor at the back. So go from a 34 unit project to a 19 unit project, which is just that's a different economic issue. Turning the corner with the building, making it an L-shaped building. That's sort of like us. Yeah, it's that's a lot of elbow. It's a lot of room in that corner to try and get units and lighten air and and figure that out. If it was like two, if you don't try and fill in the whole elbow, but you build two buildings with a connector, and I think that's an interesting point, Chris, is that you don't have this problem on the other half of the site because you're by definition more than 15 feet away from that line. So that that's a pretty fascinating concept really. You know, we're we're putting the building in the only place that has a buffer requirement. No other part of the site has that. And I suppose there's also the fight issue where you could the front of the you go back to three stories. You could it wouldn't be possible to make the fourth story go back a little further to maximize the use of all the way to the end of the property. Yeah, good look at it for sure. Yeah, I mean, and there's nothing stopping you from going maybe parking going the other one for four stories on the rest of it too. If it's set back, I just I appreciate the simplicity of this because I think, you know, it feels artificial to take a chunk out of that thing just because there's a property line there, but that's the that's the way the boat is written at the moment. Yeah, I do understand that any simplicity of it. Adds to the financial viability of of projects like this too like once you start making weird, you know, geometric changes because always go well. All right, so can we take a straw pole on the buffer? So I've got one has to be there. I'm at the end of the baggy got to be there has to be there. I think I have to be there. I don't be there. So doesn't matter what I say. At the moment, there has to be there. Nobody feels comfortable waving the buffer and and the reason for that is because of the written ordinance. So right. So the the waiver is possible that the DRB may choose to waive the screening and buffering requirements if it determines that the encroachment will not have an undue adverse impact on adjacent properties. So my read of this is that the DRB thinks it would have an undue adverse impact on adjacent properties. Is is that because of the experience of the homeowners or because of the written rules of the document? I'm going to say it impacts the adjacent single family use homeowners. I suppose if they all got together and said I don't know if that matters if they got together and said we don't mind. We like this project and that differently. Well, it's a step in the right direction. But is that how the in trying to be crass or anything? But who cares who the current owners are? This goes with that property for the rest of its life. So if you know, it changes the character for those those units forever. But at some point maybe they get redeveloped anyway because someone's going to look at them and go, oh, I can put a mf3 on there. Four stories. So. All right. Yeah. What's your question? Oh, Mary, Joe. I mean, I'm going to talk to my neighbor. This in spirit, they just said. I like this project the way it's currently been reconfigured. I would vote for a compromise in the buffer rather than going up to four stories all the way to the back. Personally, because it's already going to be this management moment. You know, it's just going to be a huge change like what's so I would like to talk to my neighbor about what what we feel is adverse to us. Yeah, and I got to say with the changes to the design, I don't I personally don't object to the building, but there is an impact of the. All right, would it be would it be possible to get a rendering like from my perspective or my home's perspective and Mary does perhaps like what that would look like, say standing on my front porch. Is I don't know if it's possible with current architectural software that's easier to do, but I might be useful to get some perspective. Yeah, which which is your house exactly? I'm Kelly Kelly Berry. Yeah, yeah, so that's one. So the the gains court really starts there. If that's one gains court in the building that's up against railroads, Jesus is something else. It's something real. Yeah. Okay. That's really good. Okay. Yeah. So it's really, you know, those it's really your two properties. There's a Mary Joes that are the ones that generally affected by this. So you're kind of the neighbors that are the most important in the current scheme of things. And I guess it would be extremely important to know what the thoughts were. I think to sort of touch on John's point earlier, if both neighbors were to come to us and say we don't feel that it's undo our adverse and would recommend moving the waiver. I think that would be persuasive to me. I like the project. It's needed. Appreciate the you've been corporates and the feedback board has provided in terms of the design elements. I don't want to. I don't want this to be the reason the project doesn't move forward, but I do struggle with the way that the code is currently written. And I recognize that there are some challenges just given that the obviously the situation could change tomorrow if either of those property owners went to turn it into a multi unit. It would would would change the way that that buffer is treated and and maybe moving to a four story building and including the buffer would actually have more of an adverse impact to those property owners, but would conform with the code. You have not building it's kind of pigeon holed in and actually have more of a more of an impact. So this could be an instance where the code is actually driving form develop. Yeah, well, I'm looking for a different angle, which is that the what it intends to say when it says single family use is not exactly because I wanted to mean that it was zoned single family not happens to be single family. So I'm trying to figure that out. I won't get it anytime soon, but I'm I'm working on that as an interpretation well of use when we I spoke with the city attorney on on the language of that and it says clearly it's it's it's it's associated with use not the district. It is that's how they interpreted the right so it doesn't really matter what I wanted to mean. That's that's how that's how they interpret it. All right, well, that's important to know because it really if it comes down to somebody arguing that the attorneys get involved and then you know, we don't that's what I'm saying. You don't get common sense anymore. You get you get whatever the accepted use means. So okay. Well, it sounds like there are a couple of paths forward, but that the buffer is a challenge. I would just like to say nice job on the rest of the project. I think you guys really did a nice job bringing it up to another level. So and that's evidenced by the support that that the project is getting from for all other purposes and from the neighbors themselves. So yeah, really nice job and hopefully we can get this on track. So John, I would suggest several the paths forward for the DRB is to either continue the hearing and see what changes can, you know, what what additional work is done and review this again without needing a new application or you'd have to approve or deny the conceptual site plan at this point. Does the applicant have a preference like to move to find but if we deny the application now you got to start over again. So that's a route. I would like to take tonight. John, the project is final. He did not mean that will happen. Take the next step. Okay. Fair enough. Do I need to close the public hearing side of things? All right. Well, you can either close it or you can continue it if you if we want to see another version of this next month. But yeah, that's those are the options. I'm hearing that the applicant doesn't want to do that. So I'm fine closing the public hearing and moving on. Just one last thing. I mentioned the render and the applicants commit to that. Well, the elevations that were presented it when they zoom in on is pretty close to what you're going to see from your front porch. I don't know if that helps you or not, but the rendering the software. I don't know how close you guys are to the software. Is that in Revit or is that in? So this was done in Revit and I could snap a view from, you know, where I think you'd be standing on on your front step. What would you see? I'd imagine it's it's what you think you'll see, which is a modestly large building blocking the majority of what used to be your clear view of the parking lot and the empty space. Yeah. That's what I'm saying. I think the elevations are pretty good. You know, they're detailed enough to see that. All right. Eric, anything else? I mean, I'm only asking for it to I'm not asking for it for further evidence to be convinced that, you know, I need a 15 foot buffer. If anything, I would want it to say, oh, actually, that's not bad. Right. So it's just kind of I'm in favor of the product, right? And that's that's sort of like, if we look at it, we can, you know, the board looks at it and says, yeah, that's that's actually seems unreasonable or, you know, it just seems like adding that information might help. But yeah. Eric, I think we're moving. Yeah. Sorry to interrupt. I have a question for you, which is, you know, I think what I hear my fellow board members saying is that they feel like the code dictates a 15 foot setback or buffer and we have the ability to weigh that. If it's if a project moving forward would be creating undue adverse impact is your view that the project is proposed, which you support would, if it were to move forward with the waiver of the buffer, would you would you do that as an undue adverse impact? Yes. Today I would say it is definitely an adverse effect. But I also said, you know, willing to like I'm in favor of the project in principle and so sort of it's I wouldn't want to see the product just sort of. Dying. I guess I'm in I'm in a room with Mary Jo what she said. Thank you. Yeah, thanks. All right. I would take the motion to close the public hearing. And I will mention just before you do, if you close it and the applicant does want to come back again, they will have to pay the the the again and to come back to the to the DRB if so, we can't make a ruling on it, whether we approve it or deny it without closing it, right? So we would have to just all agree to walk away, right? It's the only other option is to keep it open and without for another revision, the only thing I see happening. It could be another revision or there could be, you know, somebody that one of the, you know, maybe the current homeowners say that they support the project and that leads still on on the DRB's shoulders to decide that there's no undue impact and you know, I'm looking at that year 25, maybe 30 feet away. You have a new three story wall in front of you and and that's a big trade off to. 55 feet away or 50 feet away. So I'm not I'll go either way, but we got to do one or the other right now. So it's the applicant willing to come back and show us something for the neighbors like a picture or we want to close the hearing. Okay. All right. So I need a motion to close the hearing. Motion to close the hearing. Second. Okay. All in favor of closing the public hearing say hi. Hi. Hi. Anyone? Hearing closed. Thank you. We now need to decide if we're willing to wave the buffer or not because that's really the only thing we don't really have to say that. We can say we need a motion to either approve the conceptual plan or to deny the conceptual plan. And we probably ought to have a reason and it probably ought to be that we won't approve it without the buffer because I've heard all four of you say that. So that's it's that or you approve it or you deny it. There's no middle ground. So we have a motion to deny on the grounds that we don't approve a waiver for the 15 foot buffer. That's a motion. That is a motion. Second. All in favor of the motion to deny this project without a buffer. Yeah. Hi. Hi. Anyone else? Carries. That's the current ruling. Well, that was. Okay. We're on to I did something to add it to the. The list that's not actually on my old vendor. Yes. I don't. The next item is sketch plan for two. Yeah. There's a typo on the. Oh, sorry. It says to railroad street, but it's. Oh, that's the. Staff. To river. All right. So public meeting for sketch plan for two lot subdivision. At two river street in the R2 district. This is my neighborhood. But I don't. So you're trying to say that you you. You thought about making that announcement, but you don't believe you need to be. I don't believe. I don't believe I need to be. I would. I would. That just gives you extra understanding of the situation. All right. The applicants are present. I would love to hear more about the proposal. Take it away. Brian courier, Larry Burke civil associates. We're here tonight for sketch plan. So we're going to go ahead and get started. First step of a minor subdivision for a lot at two. River street. Located in the R2 district. There's an existing single family home on the lot. It's approximately 0.41 acres. We're proposing a fairly simple two lot subdivision. Both lots meeting minimum lot size meeting frontage requirements meeting the dimensional requirement. Sorry. Okay. I don't have any real issues with it. There was a you want to go over the staff notes or. Sure. I can do that. Just going to throw this on the screen. When I saw this the first time I looked at it and I thought, Oh, this must be the waiver. The existing instructor appears to be well in front of the setback. Yeah. On the west would be a little tighter than eight feet. Okay. So we have we have the lots on the proposed subdivision on the screen now. So, yeah, we had mentioned a little earlier before that there's a two to one ratio that that you can't exceed for the frontage versus the length. We are just within that now. The way this is proposed. Then why did we come up with that? It seems a little bit of arbitrary. I can't have a deep lot anymore. I mean, that was from before my time, but I'm going to guess that that I mean these narrow, narrow long lots. There's a lot of space that you can't end up using. Like as we saw in that in the previous example with the very long lots, it's just a forested area at the back and it would be very difficult to get easements to use that space. I think a lot of times came up with those two to get away from any lots. Once upon a time, 10 acre lots, except for the rules in the village. Not really a thing. So it's a little more curious of where it comes from. I'm not really worried about it. I thought it was a little overly restrictive. Yeah. All right. So do you want to go through the staff comments or how do we? There was also there was a part about the. So section 909 pedestrian and bikeway standards. So, yeah, the LDC says concrete sidewalk shall be constructed along both sides of major arterios and along this one side of other streets and the DRB may waive this requirement in favor of a specific alternative, which provides equal or superior pedestrian access. I would note that River Street does not currently have a sidewalk, nor is it designated to have a sidewalk under the comprehensive plan, but River Street is the access or one of the major access roads for global foundries. If you look at page four out of page four of the staff reports you'll see the where the sidewalk ends and the cars that are lined up to get out of to leave work from global foundries. So it looks like the sidewalk ends, the concrete section ends just past the crosswalk. But then there's some other pathway that goes at least to the first driveway. Is that just a shoulder? Yeah, I think it's a paid drainage ditch. Yeah, I think we're all set. I'm fine with the staff comments myself. I agree with the recommendation that the LGC intends to have a sidewalk on at least one side of the street and I would encourage that. So I would just say with typical subdivisions, a lot of times you're building new streets with sidewalks, usually new streets, densities much higher, much bigger budget. Here we're talking about a two lot single family subdivision and potentially building 230 feet of concrete sidewalk along the front of River Street. I only see 158 feet that we have purview over on this. Well, as a subdivision, I think you would have purview to require the connection to. So in Williston, they says the Park Street. The Park Street. In Williston, the sidewalk connectivity was packed for a long time because they were allowing people to build. If you wanted to develop your parcel, go ahead. You want the sidewalk or the bikeway or whatever it was. And you built it on your piece and when the next piece came along, they built that and it was regular. And it's now all coming together. It's pretty nice. And up in the town, they did the same thing where the NBT bank is, they built sidewalk on theirs and stopped it. And I'd also say those projects coincide with much bigger projects. We're talking about a two lot infill development. And you'd have to do 150 feet of sidewalk. So what are the people do that live down here? Do they walk in the street? I mean, just start off, I live over at 7 River Street. I mean, every single day, there's maybe a handful of people that walk past by. Mostly there's vehicles traffic. And I think there's, I was very minimal with traffic on River Street. And what happens on Stanton Drive? Which is just down that corner. You know, what goes on? No sidewalk there. Yeah, there's no sidewalk on Stanton. But it's also not an entrance or exit to Global Foundries. Which is busy part of the time, right? Commuting hours, mainly. Peak hours, probably, right? Seven to nine, four to six. Other than that, it's an entry drive to Global Foundry. I think we need to, I think we need to follow the intent of what's supposed to happen here, which is, it's a, it's a parcel, set of parcels in a area that I mean, they're trying to take, they're kind of weird. They're trying to take sidewalks out of some places around the city. And because they only need them on one side, according to the priority list. But I think we have to have the effort to make more connectivity everywhere. And we've been doing that for, as long as I've been on the board, that's been a thing. I can't see allowing an opportunity to go by and not doing that. It's a busy road. People come down that curve. We're more than happy to provide needs. But in our view, this is more of a public works initiative than a sole, not even a developer, a homeowner. Is that a fair thing to say? I would not, that, that would not be the intense of how the subdivision rules were, were written. And you do have a point. He's in the same rags for a hundred unit subdivision and a two lot subdivision, right? Right, but if we're asking for sidewalk in front of your house and maybe one more house to reach the front, like Main Street over there, it's, at this density, it wouldn't get any cheaper than that. Like, unless we're saying that we only want sidewalks for multi-family areas, that's in terms of how you share the cost, it's not going to get any better than that. In my opinion, it is, that seems to be the intense of the LVC is that sidewalk should be provided. That's a good reason to say that it is safe in another way. I think Mike has something to add too, but I would just say that I would view it as the project needs to create a nexus to require a situation where the sidewalk's necessary. The two lot subdivision, really making the pedestrian connectivity that much more of an issue there. There's no sidewalks now. We're talking about one single planning home. Another point I want to point out is having various power poles and then also traffic lines in the, I mean, if you can see the picture from it, that would be, you know, in the way if you were to construct a sidewalk. I'm not pretty sure there's utility underneath, beneath the neighbor house as well. The sidewalk's going now 40, 60 bucks a foot. If we're going to pull it right against the road, which we're going to have to go through the city engineer and see what they feel. If that's the case, then we're pouring concrete and sidewalk. We're splitting the cost with one new lot. There is a lot. The water means not under the road there. It's right where the sidewalk wants to be, isn't it? Likely, I think Mike's more referring to the telephone pole, multiple utility poles, trees. That's pretty narrow. How wide is the street there? Probably 22, maybe? Like that? Two lanes with a shoulder on each side. Well, if you include a little bit of asphalt on both sides, you're looking at 26. So we're not really asking for an easement because your property, you wouldn't even be doing improvements on your property. It wouldn't be for where the existing house is. That's right on the right way, but we could give an easement on the new lot. If a scoping study in the future determines the sidewalk needs to be on that side of the street, first off, and then if there are utilities in the way or issues, even if it's a construction easement, a lot of towns get five-foot construction easements for future sidewalk connections. We're fine giving those to you. What's the deal? Why would we want the sidewalk on top of the water main? I don't think they'd even like it. The water main is pictorial. We're exactly at lines there. We shot a valve, so it's close. Whether or not it might be a few feet one way or the other. I guess I want to say we would request at least the easement for the sidewalk, but it doesn't look like the sidewalk would actually be on their property, so they can't. Right? No, it would be in the right way. It would likely be in the right way. It would allow for a bigger green belt or just a lot more flexibility when a design does get done. But even if it's not used for the sidewalk itself, construction activity typically goes beyond the right way if the sidewalk's within two, three feet of the right way. Those are things municipalities may pay for later on. Well, I would note that Section 909 says the DRB may waive these requirements in favor of a specific alternative which provides equal superior pedestrian access. I think if there's an alternative, the alternative of not having a sidewalk provides equal or superior pedestrian access to having a sidewalk. It certainly doesn't provide a superior pedestrian access. I mean, I don't mind widening the shoulders of along the way that pedestrian or bikers have more room along mine properties. If that's the case. I guess I don't really get how that helps either because now you're talking about creating and taking the drainage ditch and making it paved so that it's... I mean, that's pretty much the road is along the neighbor's house before if you see the street view picture it's a little bit like a widened shoulder area. So this way. It does feel over. Who would just be asking for just a sidewalk on the section? Basically. Going nowhere. It would end at the end of the property. So you can see. Does the village have any... Chris, does the city have any mapping or any projected, you know, if we were to put a sidewalk on here, here's where we want it? No. That's the thing they had in Williston as they knew where they wanted everything. So if you were doing the development, you put it in. But it was part of a master plan. I don't know that we have anything. I kind of... Also, most of those who are talking about are large PUNs. Well, that's why I did put here that River Street does not currently have sidewalk nor is it designated to have a sidewalk in the current operation. Yeah. That's... Yeah, we don't have. So... But... Why are we asking them for a sidewalk if it's not designated to have? Well, it's not designated to have a subdivision. I think the idea is that when there is a subdivision, there's additional stresses on... I guess additional pedestrian traffic that is generated. But of course, in reality, that is true of all developments, even if it's not a subdivision. But the rules are... Board members, any... I'm just gonna try and go to the audience. Sorry, I got at least one person in the audience. Could we just ask for the easement? Just so for future development, there's the room to put in, right? So they wouldn't have to eminently domain the front yard to put in a sidewalk if that's the way they chose to put it in. Yeah. This is one of the situations. I agree that this does seem kind of silly, but also kind of viewing my seat as being what's the LDC say and how are we applying it? It seems pretty clear. You can wave it if there's a specific alternative that's as good or better. And I haven't heard anything that's as good or better than a sidewalk, even if it's connecting to nowhere, which isn't great to hear, but that's kind of where I'm landing in this. I would say if the city comprehensive plan does change and there is designation for sidewalk on this roadway, if it determines that it should be on the other side of the road and not our side of the road, it is equal or better that it wasn't constructed on our side of the road. I don't know what side of the road's better. Yeah. Yes, sir. In the audience, in their relationship to the project, but you might going up to the microphone just so it's captured on. Come on up here. My name is Greg Barrett. I live at Three Silver Bow, which is the red house directly behind this one. And she wanted to mention that on the other side of the road, there are multifamily use. I think there's a condominium back there that seem to be more people on that side of the road. Believe all the utilities are on Mike's side of the road. I don't know if I can be pushed over it or not. Well, if there is. Yeah. I guess given the notion that the city has no actual plan in place for this road, I have been a hard time forcing somebody to put in a sidewalk that goes nowhere. Because I don't think it's fair to make them tie it into Pearl Street or Park Street, sorry. I doubt they'd even plow it. Yeah, the city will probably say, we're not plowing it, we don't want it. Anyway, if the village city wants to come up with a plan that has sidewalks that are future sidewalks or whatever, I think we have a lot more. A lot more cause for trying to get people to put them in when the development's come along, but I'm losing my steam on this particular one. For this side, it looks to me like maybe the other side of the street is actually a better place to put it. Except for that guy's driveway that you'll cut in half. Our house is on the right away. Yeah, I can see that too, it's like right there. Yeah, so what's the fallback position? Is it some kind of an easement that says if you ever get around to it and you pick our side, you don't have any more, you don't have to ask us anything else, you can just make it happen. I mean, there's no, I don't know that we, I think we want to allow for a sidewalk if somebody deems it's appropriate there, but I don't know that we're, I don't know that it would be in anyone's best interest to just put it in at this point. Would it make any sense to widen the shoulder a little bit so that the residents could walk there without walking in the lane of traffic? Yeah, there is a little bit of a line there somewhere that looks, maybe you can see it on the other side of the road, you can't really see it on this turn around. So the subdivision would start, I think, around the trees. Yeah, so there's the line. So there is some... It was there in 2011. But I mean, the width of this is not, a person is wider than this. So Brian, what would actually happen if somebody wanted the shoulder widened a little bit? Is that a little strip of pavement? Or is that... It could, for a shoulder, typically, as gravel, but it'd be likely whatever the city engineer would allow because it's going to be in the right way. The city's going to have to maintain it. That would be up to their recommendation. Yeah, I just don't, you know, that feels like that's a, not a great solution for me either. I don't see that as being better than anything, you know, the overall uses. This is it. So when we subdivide this, we don't actually know what's going to be on the parcel. It's dense enough for a single family home, but I believe with this 100, you can now do two-player. Well, you can actually do up to four units. Four units? Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Four units. Which would require a site plan. Am I correct? Which at that time, if the board does determine the sidewalk, it's necessary. You have another shot at it. There you go. But today we're asking for a single plant or a new lot of its size. But if you go with a duplex and we say, okay, do you not have to come back? That's correct. I do. The duplex would not require a full site plan. That's right. I'm trying for a plan. Yeah. So if we were like, hey, you have to do a sidewalk, you have to then go to the city engineer and be like, can we even put a sidewalk here? Well, you could, you could say if, I mean, these weasel words are not always good to put on a, put on official decisions, but you say if feasible in consultation with the, with the city engineer, the possibility. Because it does seem silly. It's just not going anywhere. The, I mean, it would connect to, if you could, if you, if you could make it connect past one more house, basically, it would tie in. Right. There'd be substantial cost to serve three property. You know, there's definitely utility pool right there. Yeah. That was the, under traffic, right there too. Yeah. Plus the utilities. I think that's unreasonable. Yeah. Well, I would, I would say in any, even when there are no sidewalks, a handful of people will be walking out here. Yeah. So, anything you put in will not just be certain. The two months, there, there will be members of the public who gain a safety benefits for whatever is, is created there. But, I see a point about, which side it would go on. There was a choice. They even turned the corner on the sidewalk. I'm right there. Like, I wanted to go somewhere. See that? That's, yeah, a lot of times for ADA. That's, that's the crosswalk. That's the post. It's the landing for the crosswalk and then the stock. Well, you do see that this at the piece of asphalt here, it does kind of ramp up to there. You, right, but you have a bit of a. On that piece of asphalt there. The city. Okay. I need some help. All right. Well, until the city decides it wants something there, I'm not going to make it and put anything in. All right. So where does that leave us? Essentially unable to, to meet what we think is a reasonable requirement, even though in practice, this is so messy. It's unreasonable. Well, I mean, I think the, if you're looking for a reasonable alternative, ease would be a suitable alternative. So it's providing for the opportunity. Because we have to give away the rights. I like the idea of an easement so that the city determines it needs to be there. And that side of the road, then. I just want to be clear. It's just can't go through the house. Right on the right. So, where? Oh, but we won't paved right up to somebody's front porch. Yeah. Yeah. No, no, no. I mean, that it's, I mean, yeah. How old is that house? Do we know it doesn't matter. We can't do it. It was late, they 1800s. I mean, I don't know exact the time was billed, but it was owned by family the whole time before me. It probably wasn't a big thing when we decided the horses are. All right. All right. I think. Unless anybody else has any more comments. I'm one. I just had a question about it. We shared it. Maybe 37, 38, 39 feet of fence in the back. Apparently my fence has a jut in it, which you can see from the aerial. That's a little jogging in there. Person put that in prior to us buying used to be. 50 foot trees there that we had removed. They put it there for a cleaner line. My intent this summer was to stump grind those trees out with the fence back, but I don't actually know. Where? Oh, that's good. So with a subdivision, we'll be filing a subdivision flat. And as part of a flat, we actually have to survey common lines, all the budding properties. Since we're share property line with a lot of other properties because we're kind of that interior of all the other exteriors, we'll define. Fantastic. And you don't have to pay for it. That's even better. And then you get the pleasure of telling somebody that they're not near property and they can either read on me or they can fool him. Or they're the way around. I know it is a straight line from Stanton straight through the three properties there according to the parcel math that's done. My other question was the house. How high can that be? I mean, we're not going to put a condo, like a five story. Looks like the maximum district is 35. It's like two and a half. That'd be closer to the street side or middle lot back. We went through this last time I was here. The village has a way of determining height. And there's more space in the front of the lot. And it would make more sense. Right. So there's a height limit that's, there's a number of floors and the highlight. This was what district was this year. This is our two. So I believe this would be three, three story or 35 feet. But there are setbacks that you have to meet. Unless you can somehow get a waiver. And the setbacks would mean that. If there was a three story building cannot be right up to the edge. Okay. I'm good. Thank you. All right. Anything else? Close the. With me. What I mean. Close the public meeting. Are you making a motion? I'd love to hear more. You got about you were making. Oh, I'm, I'm going to move that we approve the subdivision with. Inception. This is all because this is only going to come. So actually, if you wanted staff to work with them on any. Things around. He's been to anything. It's certainly there before final. All right. I mean, I have no problem with subdivision. I think, you know, it's fine. Reasonable parcels. I'm, I'm only hung up on the. Sidewalk piece. I would like to see at least provisions to allow the city to. Create a sidewalk in the future on the. It happens to involve these parcels. Whatever has to be done to allow that to happen should be. In place on the on the subdivision. But I'm having a hard time seeing that. That's even the right side of the street at the moment. Other side, you know. Might serve more people. I'm not sure it's any easier, but. I think we're not here to design the municipal sidewalk system either. So. Staff, I guess I would ask staff to confer with the applicants and with the. City engineer on any potential intention. I think that's a good idea. Creating sidewalk in this area or having even a plan for sidewalk in this area. Any. Right of way or easement that needs to be part of the subdivision. Flat could be applied at that time. Before they submit the file. All right. So that's a motion. Yeah. Work with staff. Right. Cause we all want something there, but we don't know if this is the right place. Right. I think that sentiment is, is 100% here, but. I don't think we should have to design the sidewalk. All right. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. Right. What have I got? I don't think I have anything. Do I have anything else? I know that. Maybe it's a lot, but I thought we had another. I mean, something else. I would also. It's on other business. There's a lot going on in the state and the community. I don't know if it really impacts us. There's an awful lot of activity happening. Up and down main street right now as you head up past. I think I had to stop her for separate. But possibly related street digging activities on my way up to the office today. After I went around the detour on brickyard. You know, just to get out of my neighbor. So. Is that, does anybody know is that all related to work that was maybe impacted by the flooding? Or is that it was planned work that was part of the replacing all the water and stuff. So actually there's planned work on main street. That's that's supposed to happen this summer. But I think it's actually just a little bit further north from. The beginning that we're seeing right now. My understanding is that is that's emergency repairs. But I'm not directly involved today. Yeah, that a water main. First there. I know, you know, the last summer. They replaced one of the two of the culverts on dense one. And so they had planned to do the one under a brickyard. I just thought it was incredibly ironic that place flooded during the replacement of the culvert that was being replaced. Okay, so the excellent under that you guys don't know that it did. It was a house Senate bill. Here in the legislature that affects zoning. And some other things. And maybe Chris. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Yeah, I do. The senate bill, but here in the legislature that effects zoning. And some other things. And maybe Chris, if you could just put a memo together. Yeah. Everybody packs us. But I think we talk about the little bit. And I think. Yeah. What it really, it didn't really affect us because we had already forward with density allowances or bonuses for certain things. So we're pretty much ahead of the group. Right. I can share a memo that I wrote for city council and for the planning commission a while back, but all the changes that we see as immediately necessary to comply with S 100 are in the land development code now. We actually got it in just in time. So probably the biggest changes that you'll notice as the DRV is that Foreplexes are now allowed in all areas where single family homes were previously allowed. So R1 and R2 district now allows up to four units on one lot. Of course, a lot coverage limits and still a buy and there are parking requirements that we're maintaining, but parking requirements we've adjusted to one parking space per unit minimum. That is also a requirement of S 100. What else? There were, oh, there was a density bonus, height and density bonus portion of that as well. For qualifying, I think it was affordable housing developments. It's also in there, I saw that. That's in there. So if you're building a development that has a certain percentage of the units that are at or below a certain threshold based on area income, you, the municipalities have to allow one additional floor and a density bonus. So when I was looking at the MF3, it's allowed up to three stories, but if you have the affordable piece, you can do it before, which is why on railroad street, the fact that it's currently a single family home is softened in a way by the notion that if somebody chose, they could actually build a four stories structure, which would be taller than the three that we're looking at. So I'm really struggling with the whole thing there. I don't really know how to deal with that, but I'm struggling with it. So clarification of use was helpful because it says if you're using it in a single family home, then you got treated as single family home. So even though it's could be a four story, multi-family orplex, I have to think of it as a single family home, which is a little weird. In that the code is written for what you want it to be or what the maximum allowable could be, not what happens to be there. Because it could impact, it is impacting this development. All right. Anything else on other business? What's the process for the applicant that we denied? The waiver? They have to come and they have so they'll come back. Well, so they also heard several paths forward, which in blue. Yeah. Talking to the neighbors, which is always helpful. I think that would sway a number of us. Or reconfiguring, I mean, it's a fascinating and kind of strange thing that gains court and its zoning doesn't actually start until you get back past the first. So they can do the four stories with no set back there. And then they could turn the corner and figure out how to do another unit that's 15 feet away and connected and not have a problem. Yeah. Done. Yeah. But I was a little surprised that they asked for it to be closed because there's whatever they come back, what they're thinking of to pay and start over again. So my $115 is a big deal. I don't think he has. Correct. But it sounds like the intention is that they're going to take some time to think about it then. Maybe. I think I have to figure out whether they can get the neighbors to get on board. But to me, it seems like if they, if it was just talking to the neighbors. They would have done it with a continuance. Yeah. That was my feeling because I think, I think Gabe, my take, the applicant wants, he wants to know if he can do it or not the way it is. And he doesn't want it to be ambiguous, you know, because that's recent. Who, who, who owns the old story? We haven't adjourned to be together. No. No, we're just, yeah, we should adjourn. We're in public. I just had a question kind of concerning that, that building. The old railroad and main building with the restaurant, the parking for that. I mean, who owns that building? That's not a different, but isn't there parking back there that kind of a butts the parking that this new Oh, there's a fence there used to be. It was very fine. Right. I was just thinking like, does that have that parking for that building comes up against this parking, this building? It will. Okay. Okay. It's great, but there are no parking requirements for the village center. I mean, it's kind of, the DRB can make a custom requirement basically based on what you think will really happen if people will be able to share, you know, share resources or just walk to the destination from nearby, nearby transportation nodes. But there are no specific parking requirements. So if there's no parking requirements, like they should get rid of the parking, some of the parking. Well, they actually need it functionally. Yeah, yeah. But they could, I mean, they're building all efficiencies. Yeah. All the bus stop and the drinks. I know, like they could cut some of the parking out. If they, if that's not, I mean, that's the thing like that side of the building and there's parts of that that are not required so they could, you know, technically are not required. I know you're supposed to have parking with the building, with an apartment building, but in the city, you don't necessarily, if they're all one. But I mean, I don't know, people are getting away from cars. So. Yeah. All right. I will entertain the motion to adjourn. Motion to adjourn. Second. All in favor. Aye. Thank you.