 Good evening everyone I'm going to open the meeting for this evening for the meeting of the development review board for the city of Montpelier my name is Daniel Richardson I serve as chair of the board the other members from my right part Kevin O'Connell Meredith Crandall staff Kate McCarthy Ryan Cain Rob Goodwin Clare Rock okay first item of business is approval of the agenda we have three applications to continued from last time one new application does anybody have any additions changes or alterations to the agenda mr. Chair I'll make the motion to approve the agenda for the meeting for tonight's meeting as motion by Kevin do I have a second second second by Rob all those in favor please raise your right hand agenda no comments from the chair this evening we have the minutes of the July 8th board meeting myself Kevin Kate and Rob were in attendance and are eligible to vote do I have any alterations or corrections to the minutes yes mr. Chair on page two in the discussion of 18 Marvin Street I noted in the second paragraph that there's an existing parcel of 15,000 square feet to be subdivided into 8,500 and 7,500 square feet and that adds up to 16,000 so maybe we could verify the acreages are the square footage of the subdivided lot thank you Kate you're welcome that's why we play for a bit so it looks like from the application it was a 15,822 square foot parcel that they're looking to divide into 8,167 for a lot one in 7,655 for a lot two thank you mr. Chair you're welcome okay that correction aside which we can make any other changes do I have a motion to approve the minutes with the correction noted by Kate that's eligible to vote for post by Kevin second by Rob second all those in favor are eligible to vote on the July 8th minutes please raise your right hand they are through right the first time of business is 29 Franklin Street if you'll come up to the table and if you state your name for the record hi there my name is Mary and Birch like I'm the co-owner of this house my husband and he was here last time certainly understandable so what I'm gonna do is I'll put you under oath okay so if you raise your right hand do you solemnly swear a firm at the testimony you're about to give for the matter under consideration she'll be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth under the pain of the country absolutely great mr. Chair I noted off the record but I will just note that although I was not here at the last meeting I did review all the materials and in fact watch the video of last DRB meeting for both this matter and the two Sunset Avenue so although I was near and prepared to participate in consideration of those that's perfectly accepted great thank you very much I also was not at these meetings prior yes I didn't watch the video but I read all the information and talk with Meredith provided me with an update on the two applications why I think that's where do you feel comfortable making a decision good okay so we'll go forward with that and then unless there's any objections no the only thing I don't know what I would add to following the other meeting which of course I was not at is that the ward has gone ahead and reduced the plan for the impermeable service area as requested and also he brought this to Tom Ricardo of Public Works I'm sorry if I'm already telling you no no no good a good summary of what's been added is perfect okay so he Tom Ricardo signed off on the two foot addition to the porch okay we have some photos here of other setback violations that are common in this particular neighborhood but also as he mentioned Tom okay and just that's all the items I think I have okay we have those in our packet we have the drawing that's dated looks like it's dated July 9th yeah looks like Tom has actually signed off physically signed off on on it and on the backside it looks like there are photographs of joining or other neighbors in the neighborhood with porches that are very close to the setback that's right the one on the lower left is actually our direct neighbor and that is the porch right there with that kind of oval window on the front door so it would come out to the end of the staircase basically this is your primary residence yes okay and then the other drawing looks like revised architectural drawing showing the permeable surface and impermeable surface that's right okay so my understanding from your statements as well as the representations in the the the drawings are that you've now reduced the impermeable area so that that's no longer issue it's below the 65% yes so I want to actually flag this for the board this is an issue actually Kate raised at the last meeting thanks this is an issue Kate raised at the last meeting as to our understanding of what our ability with the coverage issue is and I'm looking for the exact language so it talks about a waiver coverage maximum waiver is 5% or 2,000 square feet more than the district standard whichever is less so in this district 60% is the standard coverage for a lot that's allowed so the waiver the question is does the 5% mean 65% or is it 5% of 60% if I'm framing that correct is it 5% of some amount or is it 5 percentage points right so 5 percentage points would lead me bring you from 60% block coverage to 65 whereas 5% of the existing impervious surface would get you a different number I see have we done the math on both of those approaches given the reduced amount of impervious surface under the new design you know what I didn't do that I went for more of a big picture analysis as to whether as to looking at what makes sense when you take that coverage maximum waiver and apply it to some of the more extremes so we have some like in the rural district your maximum coverage amount is 20% so and the minimum lot size is two acres so that's roughly 87,000 square feet for a minimum lot size so nope so if you have a you know your 87,000 square foot minimum lot size and you're only allowed 20% coverage that gets you to 17,424 just to get you exact max if you're only saying that your maximum waiver from that is 5% of that coverage amount versus 5 percentage points you're only adding 871 square feet additional coverage which is when you're talking about an 87,000 square foot parcel that's a pretty small amount that's also one of the largest I mean one of the larger parcel size so it makes sense because the alternative is or 2,000 square feet which is whichever is less and we'll merit at the saying even on a large lot with a very low developability very low coverage allowed you're still nowhere near 2,000 square feet so if we do it as 5% of the impervious it's never gonna get close to 2,000 square feet and therefore the 2,000 square foot doesn't mean anything it's always gonna be the other one so I think and they'll make sense to me that you're measuring it in percentages of the lot and you get a 5% bonus that would also be of the lot so it's a 5% 5 it's supposed to be 5 percentage points and it's I think it's a language issue yeah because your other dimensional standards down below at the bottom of that figure 306 it's referring to by not more than 10% they can get away with that because I don't think any other dimensional standard is a percentage and I think this isn't just an error in language and a people drafting this and not realizing that it should say 5 percentage points I think yeah when you rationalize it out it that 2,000 square foot or less option just doesn't ever up won't ever apply so I think this is a good thing for us to contemplate and communicate with the planning Commission about in addition I think that all of the initial discussion with the applicant was based on the 5 percentage point interpretation so out of fairness we should probably stick with that even if we revise our view later though I appreciate the analysis and I bet you were gonna recommend that well yeah there's and then I've talked with the planning director about this issue and about having that change to 5 percentage points for the zoning fix because it just didn't make sense I would still be good to talk to the planning Commission about it but not for tonight not for tonight's purposes I mean we're also saying under the 5 percentage points interpretation the increase is 185 square feet so I think if you did it the other way if it were 5% of the existing impervious surface then that's gonna be another factor less and then then your waiver 55 instead of 185 but yeah yeah allowing a waiver for 55 square feet it doesn't doesn't seem like it doesn't seem like it doesn't make sense the intent would logic dictates that the for what we know the intent would be the full lot but I can understand I can understand Kate your view in that it's important enough of an issue that we should raise it to the planning Commission my guess would be that they're going to say yeah I appreciate that discussion because the lack of precision in that part of the zoning yeah okay and I any other thoughts on that okay I think that's the consensus that the board has that it would be the 5 percentage point so given that the impervious surface is no longer well it's it's now within the 5% waiver so that we're not faced with the challenge of can we go beyond what we've been designated by the bylaws to give the 5% waiver so in that respect does anyone have any further questions on the impervious surface that's being added to this that was just in the original plan or the driveway right is currently paid but we're just not anyway yeah I mean I should say that you know these we're going through the first two years of really testing some of these bylaws and some of these waivers which were a new concept as of January of 2018 so some of these numbers as you can see we're trying to figure out how exactly these these numbers are applied and what they look like and you know to a certain extent whether these numbers make sense so certainly taking that off of our plate and just making it a very straightforward application of this makes it a far easier decision but that leads us then to the frontage issue which as I understand so from last time and this was Rob's issue is that what you're proposing to do with the front porch is bring it out to the edge of the steps and we had we had a discussion last time that in fact the steps are not part of the structure porch structure for purposes of figuring out where the front of the porch was Ward made the argument that you know very bringing out to steps you weren't increasing the nonconformity where I think we have to look at this as increasing the nonconformity by bringing the porch out to the steps so if the so as I one of the reasons it's asked we came up with the idea in the first place is because and I think maybe Ward mentioned this it's a safety matter of ice I saw it almost hit two people last winter the mailman delivering the mail and someone who is approached someone I had over so that was we were trying to address when Ward suggested well if we just brought the roof out over over the steps that would that would be the way to protect someone from the future so just so I understand the nothing's changed about the the front porch it's just that we've gotten now now have sign off from Tom McCartle saying that he has no issue with this plus you have the additional information that this in fact is consistent with the pattern of the development in the neighborhood yes use structures so and just so we're clear on the numbers right now the roof to setback is about seven feet eight inches and you're proposing to come out what looks like two feet seven inches so that the roof to setback will now be five feet one inch which would come out an additional two feet right have the actual it's if I have one signed off by Tom I see one side of the Tom the current roof to setback versus the proposal okay and that's that's what we're going off of for this so Robin part this was to go to I think you raised a valid concern about that you know whether or not this was going to cause any issue with the Department of Public Works but then if we go to sorry the table on this same table six yeah I think it's four dash oh two right I thought we already went through the oh oh cuz you're looking at the neighborhood issue yeah so that's page four dash 21 or at least that's what it is in the interim sorry I might have a slightly different page number yeah so okay so when we look at waivers we've got two criteria the variance the waiver in this case if authorize shall not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is located substantially or permanently impair the lawful use or development of the adjacent property reduce access to renewable energy resources or be detrimental to public welfare so I understand the additional information really going to that criteria there that we have an answer from both public works as well as you know a sure fit of evidence that this in fact is consistent character of the neighborhood the other criteria for the waiver is that the proposed land development is beneficial or necessary for the continued reasonable use of the property and that was more of the testimony and believe last time where we're both Ward and Andrew testified that this was a release this increased the usability of the porch which at the current time is a little bit restricted the narrowness of it so this we then go back to what we can do for the waiver and that is figure three dash zero six in section three zero zero two as interacts with your initial waivers clause four six oh two a that specifies that the board may approve waivers as specified in these regulations so we have waiver limitations a maximum waiver for what has signed rear right well that's the thing is that there isn't a specific front set back waiver in here at all so we had to go with the other dimensional standards and honestly I don't know if that's just an oversight by people and failing to set a front setback waiver or if it's supposed to be in other dimensional standards but it's that's where it falls with the way this is drafted right so the issue here is that what we're talking about is more than 10% yes just for background to make sure I have this right the required front waiver or setback in the district is 10 feet and what the bylaw is telling us is that the maximum we can wave is 10% so one foot based on the information providing the application is more than 10% and that's what we're so it because there's nothing that says you can't have a front setback waiver anywhere so then it logically must fall under other dimensional standards waiver limitation right I mean the problem is is that if we look at the other setback requirements for dimensional the side says ten feet less than the district standard but not two less than five rear setback says ten feet less than the district standard but not less than ten feet so the question is does that front yard setback at one foot which is a somewhat brutal standard is that consistent with the other setbacks well some of these side and rear setback limitations don't actually get you any waiver allowance because in many many places the side setback is already five feet same the rear may already be turned feet so sometimes you don't you don't get a setback waiver allowance right so what we have is a bit of a procedural bit of a nullity as far as whether or not this waiver can actually apply because the side and rear setbacks in this particular district would not seem to be even eligible with the ten with the minimum ten foot and the minimum five correct where's the property line I was really confused looking at this because the this dotted line is labeled front yard setback yep the roof the setback is the is what we're talking about the distance right yeah I set back to I mean this shouldn't this dotted line right that's that's actually the public right of way yeah it's there's some mislabel's on here that front yard setback line the label yeah should be public right of way slash property boundary but they don't know exactly where that is so that's figure 3-02 on page 3-4 where if the location of the front lot line is unknown it will be assumed to be 25 feet from the street center line or half of the street right of way if the right of way is not 50 feet which is why we needed to get Tom McCartle sign off of where the right of way is shown on the document that he signed off on July 9th so he was aware that the front yard setback line is actually supposed to be public right of way but that's not that's still the line that's depicted on the site plan isn't the property links we don't know the distance from the center line no this is this is Tom's confirmation that this dotted line in the front is what we're assuming is the edge of the right is the edge of the right of way which means it's the counted as the front property line so the current setback roof to the current setback amount is 7 feet 8 inches to the front of the porch not the front of the steps and then the proposed new setback from the public right of way line which we're also assuming is the property line will be 5 feet 1 inch to the front of the porch because we've had to assume where the property line is based on a the city's understanding of where the public right of way is right and this was actually based off of surveys that had been found yep in the Department of Public Works records right I mean but like if you look at the three dash oh two illustration here it's the depicted setbacks are from the end of the sidewalk no well that's three dash oh two you're measuring from that little arrow way to the top yeah your setback that's a minimum water setback this is just saying now I'm confused minimum front is measured from the edge of the depicted sidewalk to the line that is shown at minimum front yeah that's a different right so wait so that's how they've drawn that front property boundary that just happened to be the way that that drawing shows but as this this lot the lots we dealt with last two weeks ago on East State Street and other many other lots in Montpelier are are not so clean where in fact the the minimum the the setback goes into the front yard you mean wait wait you mean you mean the right of way not the setback I'm sorry the yeah here the right in many cases the right of way extends beyond the backline the sidewalk I think that's very common right but I don't know but it also when that's the case it doesn't then necessarily make sense to me that the setback would be from the public right of way rather than every other setback which is from the property line no here the assumption is that the public right of way is the property line that's that's what's the problem here we don't know where the property line is there isn't a survey that it's it documents that but there is a survey that documents where the public right of way extends to and they can't build stuff in the public right of way because technically that's the city's property so I think what's confusing here is that the distance between the sidewalk and what we're calling the end the edge of the right of way that appears to us intuitively as functionally part of the front yard and so this line that we're discussing the edge of the public right away which is being presumed to be the property boundary feels a little artificial as we're talking about it I think that's where I'll get hung up on right even though we appreciate and based on the points that you brought up that that is the legal boundary right that's not what you meant okay take that back I think you were would you want to clarify that it would not undermine any future public works projects yeah I think that I interpret Tom's statement as he doesn't see any issues with it he says the best they're knowledge that you know essentially that represents the right of way but I don't think you know I think if a surveyor came in came to a termination where it is and I'm not sure that he wouldn't by saying this he doesn't he can't disagree with it he's just saying like what's here sufficient for me I don't believe that this is gonna be in cities right away so you know we're fine I think what we're talking about here is we don't know where it is so if we're talking about a 10% waiver well it may be it might be at the end of the sidewalk you know we don't we don't know there's there's not a certain I haven't seen a survey in the record that that comes to a determination as to where the right where the property line which is fine well it's they're the same thing in this case they can get interchangeable property line over the right away for the paper system I mean like a setback this survey they'll segment here that it seems to indicate in an iron rod in the corner here which while it isn't depicted on wards sketches I mean that this is the line that we're talking about right from this for well I understood Ward testifying to last week was that this this iron rod pin and this line that was even with it he took that and then plugged it in and that's the dotted line here and that's consistent because what's happened is is that you know you look at the survey segment that we have and the line seems to move further away from Franklin as it goes towards the corner intersection was cross street I I just you know maybe it's just the opinion of one member of the board I think that this note from Tom who's gives us the ability to say that there's not gonna be an issue with public works yeah I don't think that the information the record is information that constitutes the location of the right-of-way being known right and I think there's a clear pathway in these regulations where you do not need to provide a survey you do not need to you know go dig in and you're not need to try and find any iron rods it's you know these regulations it's a it's a measurement from the center of this of the of the street right and you know and that's the that's a physical object that everybody can go by so that there's you know equality all along all along the street everyone's better in the same spot when things are unknown right so does the Tom McCartle's assertion that does Tom McCartle's assertion that there will not be issues with this project as far as the right-of-way is concerned make it so that we can basically use the sidewalk as the point from which we set back because functionally that area behaves like front yard I think it out loud here yeah I don't think that's what Tom's saying I'm saying if he's speaking to the impact of the right-of-way right right because you're saying oh he's not actually he's not making property line determination he's saying that this project will not interfere with future road maintenance so here's here's the question is that what you want to hang your hat on on everybody who might come and say we want a waiver that's more than the waiver that's in here as long as we don't impact the front that the city right-of-way that's enough for the board to grant a waiver beyond the explicit waiver maximum that you've been has been you know flow down to you well I mean the other the other point I think Ryan was getting is you know and and this is maybe what's troubling us is that you have close to five feet a front yard that while within the right-of-way would appear to be any type of would appear to be part of the setback and so when we talk about measuring for purposes of this calculation and waiver and I just I don't think that there's necessarily a way to get there given the dimensional standards and the instructions that we have that are fairly clear that we're talking about setback from my boundary point that in this case is the is the front yard setback and yeah I mean you know it leaves a lot of unused space on the table and I mean unused space that the city could decide to take away and put in a wide the street oh I think public landscaping planting trees whatever 50 years down the road type of transportation structure we want may have I understand that don't forget you know they're not posing to put the porch into the right-of-way they're just proposing to put the porch closer to the right-of-way and it's not even the closest porch to the right-of-way in the budding neighbors and that and that's I think what's giving us some pause and that you know certainly the stairs it would be a nice way to sort of look at that with the existing stairs but I think that's foreclosed upon as well yeah this is a 3-0 to this illustrated setback dimensional standards is the only place in the regulations that makes this assumption as to the property line being co-extensive with the edge of a three rod right-of-way I believe so for these small local roads I mean one assuming that it's a three rod right-of-way that you know Franklin Street is a three-road right-of-way but it's like I think the idea of the setback is a functional one to keep things back from a road the three-road right-of-way is a legal fiction that just sets the the illegal right for the city to maintain and do what they need to do within it but well it I mean it's more than a legal fiction I mean that's the law and the city has a right to but I think the function of the right-of-way is what Tom McCartle is saying we need an ability to run lines and pipes and sidewalks and infrastructure and whatever we need to do within that right-of-way and the city has that the setback is more of a uniformity of development of making sure you're not too close or as this illustrates too far from the road to kind of keep the character of the neighborhood and that way that's why it makes so much more sense to me to think about this front yard setback from you know either the sidewalk or Franklin Street rather than this right-of-way line which we don't even know for sure is co-extensive of the property line and we're basing on this assumption of a of a three-road 50 foot I mean I I agree conceptually however I mean I think there's a practical problem if you just even look at the measurements is a five foot four inch sidewalk and then four feet eight inches of yard before you get to the front yard setback so the setting aside Rob's concerns about whether this is the actual setback assuming for a moment that it is you know under this analysis of going from the Franklin what we keep calling it setbacks right of way line using right of way line and that's from the right of way that's exactly what we're doing and I keep messing it up but if we if we were to measure the setback from Franklin Street you could using that analysis that analysis that it's it's it's over 10 feet to get to the right of way line and so technically you using that as your starting point you could build within the right of way and I don't think any one wants it's not this we're still talking about waivers it's not like you can just build within the right of way you the DRB could hypothetically improve a structure within the right of way under that analysis but again only upon meeting the standards that was set forth and certainly upon hearing input from the public works department who if there was an issue with the DRB granting a waiver for somebody to build under that analysis it would be you know eight inches into the public right of way they could raise that concern and we could deny for that reason I don't know if I'm I'm that sanguine about the idea of being able to approve building within a right of way for a knot for the for a private entity I mean that's encroaching into the into the right of way that's not what's being proposed and that's what not what's being proposed here I mean I'm we're kind of we're gonna play sort of lenience here I kind of be actually more insert exploring not that under the you know 10% of the setback but go back and look at the building to the north and building to the south now that didn't I think you look at the building to the south and that is a believe a commercial apartment building with and there's parking in between the design parking so it's like that certainly doesn't fit the character of the houses on the street and so I'm interested if we look at going one house that you know further south would be maybe the more appropriate you know house downhouse nor since that whole part of the regulation sort of written more maintaining the character of the neighborhood that kind of I just don't see us getting we can it seems like pretty clear we can improve one foot which is 10% 10 feet and so I think the second right but not only that but we're we're if we measure from the right of way line again setting aside whether this is the actual one I think we're beyond that that waiver because it talks about one we can't grant one foot yeah a total of so that the non-conformity a total of one foot the non-conformity is already plus meaning in some in some ways and then we may want to simply take this into a deliberative session you know this this reminds me of why the general variance criteria was often better for this particular type of except this since been amended to be more strict and when you can apply it mr. Sheriff I just interjected this point this is one really small application we have a sign off by the director of public works we're not going to solve this issue on this one application nor isn't fair to the applicant no I think we should use our common sense caps and look at this as the individual incredibly small impact that it's gonna have for one foot or either direction and let's move on I mean this is this is part of the record and when we deal with this in a holistic fashion then this will be one one of the you know items that'll that'll be used as part of the evidence to back that up but right now I think you know let's make note of it but let's move on I'm sort of picturing the the bell curve of property parcel sizes that we have throughout the city and this parcel in question is point oh four acres it's on this little tail and of the bell curve so the likelihood that we're going to be dealing with this is quite exceptional so it becomes as Kevin is saying a data point in our interpretation that we need to be cautious about I think a data point is but it's a data point for a pretty exceptional lot I was just wanting to note that in the staff report on page five there is an indication of a I think it's kind of references a prior decision but I don't believe that was actually a decision that was made for a similar application you're right thank you the applicant ended up with drawing that application so you're right that was not an actual decision thank you well okay I mean you know what's the pleasure of the board do you want to entertain a motion as Kevin's suggesting or do we want to put this into deliberative session and masticate a little bit more on it to come to some consensus I mean I see I see Kevin's point and I'm I'm certainly inclined you know I think there's a reasonably justifiable sort of taking Kevin's point and Brian's and synthesizing them which is if you just went from the edge of the sidewalk as something that's a really reasonable seemingly clear point of view for a point of measurement here on this particular lot then they're within a 10% because your measurement from that is going to be nine feet nine inches from the edge from the edge of the sidewalk yes I guess I'm still concerned by what is stated in the regulation as far as what's stated under figure 3-02 about how you would measure that setback using the right of way so I feel like we have to kind of recognize that and recognize the statement of the the 10% we can recognize that I mean you know I guess in a way of recognizing it and then tossing it to the side is is to say that you know these are these figures there's a question as to whether these figures contain the same sort of import as the numbered bylaw provisions and the fact is is that the Planning Commission did not give a definitive statement as to front yard setbacks so we're already in a very gray area and that we're dealing with you know sort of these these other dimensional standard they haven't chosen to call out front yard setbacks in any particular way and I can interpret that as a way of giving us as a board some degree of latitude as to how we how we interpret these front yard setbacks a little bit more and some flexibility and then you have I think what what Ryan pointed out which was the the contradiction that while it does recommend that you have the look you do locate the front yard setback when it's not otherwise identified by a survey line as 25 feet from the the center line the drawing itself seems to indicate the sort of logical point of the edge of the sidewalk so I think in a case-by-case analysis where if this was a really sort of solitary large parcel single thing where this might represent a significant encroachment towards the right-of-way we might have a different type of analysis but sort of taking these various pieces and taking the illustrations for what they are which are illustrations not necessarily binding dictates more dicta the dictates you know using our common sense we we go from this sidewalk in this application and and make clear that this isn't necessarily presidential because we're trying to feel our way through and given those very specific qualities of this this particular lot this particular layout the safety improvements the actual improved functionality from being non functional to functional ports that'll add to the character of the area there's a lot of great testimony is why it makes a lot of sense to do what they're doing we're wrestling with how do we figure out to do it under the bylaws and I think that given that all the reasons and everything we've discussed I feel comfortable that at least in this case this is something that that we should be allowing to go forward rather than not allowing based on some strange reading of a figure of a illustration I mean it's not strange it's strict exactly that's what I intended to say and by that view I mean I mean what we're doing is is we're using the common sense approach and as Kate puts it it's a data point in the continuing analysis as we go through this I would say that I very much agree with what everyone else has said and that I think that it's very reasonable based on everything not to get hung up on the specific numbers here I think that this discussion has been incredibly helpful for guidance to further applications for setback waivers to so that maybe the applicant actually has to do less work in order to get to the point at which they're at before they even come before us but I don't think it's fair for the applicant to go back and collect more information they've done nothing but be diligent yeah and as always when we have discussions like this with these relatively new bylaws we thank you for being a part of it and recognizing that we are we are learning and that's costing you some of your time in the process but thank you well the ship's not into port yet what how do we want to proceed I'll entertain a motion I'll make a motion to approve both the request for the renovation and enlargement of the front porch including extending the front porch approximately two feet as depicted beyond the existing front porch as well as approve the creation of the rear patio and in doing so we're granting a waiver of the impervious coverage to 65% of the subject parcel okay so motion by Ryan second second okay and would any discussion just I suggest maybe as a as just simply because that's what we've titled it we call it a setback waiver request granting of the setback waiver request yeah I'll accept that friendly amendment to the motion all right all those in favor of the motion please raise your right hand all those opposed I'm going to abstain okay one abstention you have your permit or you have approval the permit will be forthcoming thank you all right we are on to two Sunset Avenue I'll just say that I was up there over the weekend just visually I didn't talk to good yeah no I drove by as as well I did not take I did not stop consulted Google Maps Street View up and down a couple times with the little clicker arrows well I mean I'll just remind the board I think because you know if we do take views that's perfectly legitimate but it doesn't become evidence or part of the record unless we make it so so merely going out and visiting without coming back and saying this is what we saw or this is our impression if we wish to do so you know is an important part and that is my elaborate on something I observed you can tell me whether this is record entering or not yep so what I observed we heard discussion last meeting about some driveways being pretty much in the neighborhood being pretty much flush with sunset and other driveways having a little bit of a dip to get into their own garages and driveways and what I noticed is that the driveway the only two driveways that really have much of a dip are two sunset which we're discussing in this application and one sunset across the way the others don't have that dip going up and that is relevant because we've talked about visibility and we've also talked about neighbors dealing with the same circumstances as far as what it takes to get out of their driveway onto the road and so what I know is that one and two sunset deal with that circumstance of getting up and on to the road over a little hill more so than the others that's a small thing but it came up last time so that's that's my take on it so if you would mind stating your names for the record please how are we Michelson Allison May okay and you were both put under oath at the last hearing you understand that you're still under oath as well yes okay so okay so when we last left I believe one of the concerns one of the primary concerns about going back was what type of landscape you were proposing for this this driveway and I see that you have a new site plan that contains a few drawings so if you'd like to explain and put onto the record I gave out all mine but if you'd like here you can I can share and just to know you don't have actual colors here so you might want to state which is right yeah and certainly if you want to label things and submit that to Meredith for our records that's so the green is existing and the red is proposed the I'm not sure what needs to be elaborated on particularly except our intent to bring in at least a few fairly large bushes so we met we met again with our landscape our Jacob and so he came over and he looked at the plan that we had already talked about and had made a few more suggestions and he also wrote a letter mostly focusing on his thoughts on the safety issues and for some reason didn't add information about the landscaping piece I'm not sure why even we asked to do that but so do you have a copy of that letter for us okay I can read it we could also display it up here potentially no okay let's read it we wanted to do you want this one this one yeah go ahead and read it dear city of Montpelier I'm writing this is a Jacob Miller of Jacob Miller landscaping plane plane field I'm writing this letter on behalf of the Michelson's pertaining to their application for a second curve cut I feel a second curve cut would increase the safety of entering and exiting their property by allowing them to pull in and turn around to drive out as opposed to the current situation which forces drivers to back in or back out of the existing driveway the new driveway and curb cut would also increase the amount of off-street parking which at this time hinders the neighbors from backing the neighbor from backing out of her driveway I think he was referring to one set set one sunset if we somebody comes over and parts next to our driveway that blocks her ability to come out I have done some work for the Michelson's and did on-street parking parking below their driveway made the street very narrow where the street turns 90 degrees parking above their driveway I had to move every time the neighbor across the street wanted to pull in or out of her driveway if parked in the driveway it is very difficult for the vehicle on the lower side of the driveway to see past the upper view in addition to the safety benefits of adding this curb cut and the driveway in the location plan we hope to retain the large oak tree above their existing driveway the current driveway is very close to the tree and has damaged some of the roof with the inevitable of inevitability of new drivers in this household in the next few years it is likely the damage and stress on this tree will increase eventually leading to the removal of this beautiful tree the new driveway would move the vehicle traffic a safe distance away from the exposed tree roots thus lowering the stress and damage that could be caused thank you so sort of reiteration of stuff that we've already said sure so Meredith has a copy of that she can just simply put that into the record and you already emailed that to me earlier okay so just so I understand for the landscaping is concerned and I'm looking at the drawing that you've submitted you have the two oaks on either side of the existing driveway correct and then there's a red blot that would be a new shrub yeah any specifications to what kind of nine bark is supposed to live in the shade of an oak tree so it's a shady spot because the gives quite a bit of cover right but it is a tree that's not invasive and a bush that gets rather large and it's not invasive and you said a nine bark is that nine bark yeah I don't think it's the only thing but it I think it's what we've narrowed down okay what could actually live we were a little reluctant to say specific variety of plant at each one of these locations only because we wanted to be able to respond to what the situation was when we're done doing the work and just if our intent is for it to be as good a year-round screening as we can get so would it make sense to have a non-invasive large woody shrub that would get to you know three to four feet tall so our that's what we had hoped but our landscaper said that no shrub would live no evergreen show up would live right under that but if well I yeah and I wasn't necessarily proposing an evergreen but a large just a large woody shrub meeting any of any of these as opposed to like a perennial yeah so I think that's yeah so it's gonna be a large way shrub so Mr. Terry you're getting to explore what a definition of shrub type in a condition could be yes yeah I think we're talking about one that actually would get larger than three or four feet we're talking something that might reach five six seven feet and cat and in fact we're hoping to be able to bring in ones that are already fairly large you know putting in a half a foot plant and hoping that in ten years it's gonna be screening for so just so that we're not trying to define things that aren't already defined if you look in your landscaping section and three two or three so that's on you should all have this updated interim landscaping provision your planting specifications a large shrub is greater than or equal to six feet high mature maintained height and then it needs a 12 square foot minimum planting area so I mean we can we can pick some of them the heights from here as long as they're able to then manner this is from the landscaping requirements that technically don't apply here but if we're talking about screening the landscaping we probably want to make sure that we've got no minimum planting areas to help it live and just use these standards and then and then going along you have the existing maple bush that's there shown in some of the pictures and then another large shrub the red or maybe much of the width of that space okay so maybe maybe multiple yeah there's what's on the property next to it is which is not Ron is a very large maple tree so it's again it's a trouble that's a tricky spot because it's you know shady and it's competing with some significant roots so but we would like to put in some sort of shrub okay and then there are three existing trees along the boundary just planted right now and then another green bush towards the back but you're proposing a red this red outline is another planting okay and then and then going back along the shed you have another shrub is that another another similar kind of thing that might work there or or a lilac and just as a thing to put in because I know it's not on here that would then potentially screen your solar installation from four and three sunset right so I guess I just wanted to add that the the I'm familiar with these species that you're speaking of and they are not evergreens for more than half the year there's gonna be no foliage on these shrubs so I think just kind of being aware of kind of the the purpose of which we're considering these shrubs for them to be screening they'll be screening for a portion of the year but not for the entire year and when we talked to our landscaper about that you know again we were hoping for something evergreen but just said nothing would live so we were looking at shrubs that would have significant woody mass so that you know there's at least a structure in the winter time that could do some right and that's what I was getting out with the idea of a woody shrub as opposed to perennial that just will die back or something smaller I mean you know yes it's the intent is to have something right okay okay well I think I understand the proposal here any other questions from the board about the landscaping I wanted to ask a follow-up question that I had if my understanding and maybe the best picture in your packet the edge of the driveway is how far beyond the overhang does the driveway actually go there so I'm sorry right now the driveway ends no no I'm sorry not not not we're not where the the back end of it but this side here how far beyond this edge does it extend I think so you have a foot or two feet maybe past this edge so and it's a little vague because I think at one point it probably it might have been paved I'm not sure but Brandon got graveled and graveled it's kind of grassy and it's a hill slope and so it's a little hard just exactly distinguish where the edge of the driveway is right and so your truck is actually sitting off of the driveway and part close to well I wanted to explore if there was you know if one of the conditions was that in fact the edge of this existing driveway be defined and limited and understanding it's underneath the oak tree so you know either bermed up or you know some type of landscaping requirement curved or or you know like a berm with with wood chip type of thing to define to limit something that would impede any parking beyond that because that's the whole purpose that you're saying is in part to save this oak tree you don't want people parking off of the existing driveway so if one of the conditions was do you have to very much delineate and prevent that from being expanded while maintaining the air which is something new that I didn't know anything about these all these routes that are you know living on top of the grass so like I thought oh can't we just put a dirt on top of that and the arborist and the landscaper said no right there are these all these surface what I'm talking about either either some curbing or some some type of people from wanting to go right keeping their keeping their tires to not doing what you're doing with the truck which is sparking over a bit and again we're talking about not just you but successive owners of this property as well it's not clear to me exactly the best way to make that delineation but I think we were standing there and looking at it we can say oh you see how that comes down there and maybe we could put some sort of set of rocks along there to make it not you know not inviting for someone to try to drive over or something like that right but yeah we could we could delineate the edge of that edge reasonably well at least for someone who was wanting to pay attention I don't know if we can make it so that we prevent someone from going per se without starting to hinge on the roots yeah I mean either either some type of raised significantly raised curbing that you know not is not friendly right to tires or yeah we you know I mean we could lay we can lay out something I think if we can find the right set of rocks we can come down there I don't know I guess we could put some sort of timber you know sort of well there's a stone patio kind of space from to the left of the drive right now and it would be nice to continue that somebody would drive on a stone patio but it would tell you would make you feel like I'm confused are you suggesting making what's now a parking area stone patio or putting the stone patio on the other side because wouldn't that impinge on those air routes yeah not on the other yeah no not on the other side but it kind of extending it maybe along the top of it I don't know this is the first I've just you know I mean you know and and the concern I'm express trying to touch upon to see you know part of it I don't want to all I have us to come up with conditions that you know are you cannot meet you know sort of a recipe for failure but at the same time I mean it is certainly one of my concerns and looking at this is that you know if the existing driveway was to be maintained or was to be not dug up that it be limited so that you know as you described it's a very narrow driveway and that you know you don't have this creep and again it's not you so much as any successive users of this that they have some real limitations on that that particular pull it so this is like Steve down here yeah and the driveway kind of peers out as you go closer to the tree so you're talking about doing something right along that edge yeah indicate that that's the exactly and and and really you know if we can keep it maybe just make sure you email that to me okay yeah I mean I think that makes sense I think there's testimony last time from some of the neighbors that in past owners had like squeezed three cars into this and I think that's what Stan's talking about you want to cut that down so you're not trying to really jam them in and push over I mean in picture one you can see quite a bit of space between this Hyundai in the truck so if you know kind of imagine the truck moving over and like more can just kind of two spots and then having the space over there being it would be to get three in there it would definitely be a squish you can be coming up yeah clearly preventing that by delineating just the two spaces and then away from the tree and with you know a better driveway there won't be I mean I understand you're trying to prevent future-wise but certainly we wouldn't be inclined to understand and so having some sort of clear boundary of that upper edge of the driveway is should be pretty doable any other questions from the board I mean I think those were the only things that we sort of had left over Claire I was just a question about access permits when an access permit is granted by public works that access permit has a width associated with it is that correct yes okay because I'm thinking that's where some of these issues would be addressed would be within the access permit as far as the the width of the access for the ex yeah that would be for the existing why this would be for the new driveway I don't know if I mean that the existing driveway has probably been there for a very very very long time so I don't know if there was ever an official access permit for that original okay you know it's not even a true curb cut so I don't I don't know what was issued for that okay anything else I did want to mention that one of our neighbors wasn't here expressed concern about our intent for the property in her email I had four sunset and that was based on her understanding that I was gonna bring in my my trailer there is a trailer there that's actually gonna go away and then I'm storing stuff there I just wanted to indicate that I am actively in the process of negotiating space over on River Road for parking my trailer as well as storage space for my business so that I can clear that stuff out from our house it just I mean I understand the concern but I also just from our own perspective would help us mix the two things that residential so I just wanted to mention that hopefully that will lead you some level of concern any anything else where any of the neighbors wishing or any of the parties here okay please come out to a microphone introduce yourself and I believe you spoke last time and so the same instructions that you understand you're still under oath I I wanted to let you know that I appreciate being able to see this we appreciate being able to see this we understand that it's not to scale but I do want to point out to you we live directly across the street from where the new proposed driveway would go and our house actually sets a little bit more to the downhill side so if you look at this driveway that's proposed in this drawing it doesn't look like it impacts our house but it does it's just and I understand this isn't to scale right but I want you to understand that it's directly across from the front of our house look at number 10 you can see where it's where it's going to be where the impact is going to be so I have some comments here we wanted to know what the driveway rate is going to be from the designated parking area and at the street level we want to know how wide it's going to be coming off the street and where it interacts it intersects with the proposed parking we want to know what the drop-off is going to be on each side of the new proposed driveway and we want to know what the plan for downhill runoff from rain and snow melt in photos in the photos 8 and 9 it appears that the proposed area but the current driveway and I know we were just talking to Howie about that but what I want to know is why can't they use part of their driveway and as a drive-in towards a proposal that looks like this on that I've added on the back page so they could drive in there and they could have a driveway they could extend their driveway here in front of the shed out in front of the carport without having to disrupt the leaves they already drive across there on a pretty regular basis from what we've observed you did address putting something to prevent people from driving and I do appreciate that because that's one of the questions we have is if they start using this as a circular driveway who's going to enforce that it wasn't approved as such and the other question you did he did mention that he's looking for parking space or you know property to have his business equipment on there and that's one of the concerns that the five neighbors who have signed who signed the original letter on June 5th and as well as have reviewed these notes are concerned about is the possibility of equipment being there the last time we met you said that you didn't understand some of the safety issues so outlined them if you look at this this bush right here it's an existing bush it's going to create sight line issues up the street this proposed bush has the potential to site to impact sight lines down the street there's also a telephone pole right here that's about 14 feet from the edge of the proposed driveway in any drawings or any information that I found in the proposal it says it's 20 feet but we marked it off and it's about 14 feet it's going to having this driveway is going to create another turnaround option on our street and yet as you know if you come up sunset you have to turn around to go back down so this is going to create another turnaround option and I would argue that it has the possibility of being somewhat dangerous because of the drop-off on the downhill side the rise in the grade on sunset is steeper than is depicted if you look at photo number 10 pretty carefully it looks like it's just a slight ray but that's not the case it's a steep rate and on you know bad winter days it does create problems for people and people would have to slow down to turn into that driveway and people would have to slow down if they were coming up and there was a problem getting into that driveway and anybody who's coming out onto the street from the new driveway is going to have to be across the middle of the road because our street isn't very wide so that's another safety issue and as we stated in our June 5th letter this proposal is going to create a very tight cluster of three driveways that are just within feet of each other and certainly well well less than the 45 foot requirement as far as landscaping is concerned landscaping is great but when somebody drives out of the proposed driveway or comes up around out of there it's going to shine in the windows of four sunset it's going to shine into these bedroom at one set and it's going to go right directly into our living room the they've put many truckloads towards the back of the yard that's there now we presume that's going to be moved to create the proposed driveway but we want to make sure that if this is approved that it doesn't turn into an extension a driveway extension you mean you mean the gravel that where the is now we would you know if this is approved we would presume that that would need to be seated over and with you know appropriate grass the carport is currently as Howie states the carport is currently being used for parking they for storage they said that they don't choose to use the carport for parking but it's not without outside of the possibility they could I mean we have a very narrow carport and we park our vehicle in there in the winter we also back our vehicles into our driveway to mitigate any safety issues and both at both hearings Howie and Allison said that they consulted a an arborist or a tree specialist but we've never seen anything in writing from that person so if that if there's no written report we'd like to be able to request a written evaluation from an independent and objective arborist and my last point I guess is it's personally from Bob's in my perspective is the fact that zoning regulations are there for a purpose and they're there to so that there's no adverse effect on properties and we feel that this proposal will have an adverse effect on the value of our property because it's putting the driveway right across right from us okay well thank you very much one thing that I will make note of is that you know we are under the driveway standards of 3011 point I that talks about design construction and maintenance standards of driveways including erosion and drainage off-street parking and loading areas shall be surface graded drained and maintained to properly dispose of all surface water and minimize erosion in accordance with the provisions section 3009 runoff and eroded surface materials shall not flow onto adjacent streets or properties and so 3009 are the erosion control standards that any driveway has to meet that's constructed in the city of Montpelier so you know but that said you know I mean that's you know that there are private rights of action should you know water be diverted that's not what this is our review necessarily incorporates into well and this is sort of a question for Howie so my understanding is that yes the the driveway will be built up from where that grade is right now to some extent so that you're not having a massive drop-down and that the grade if you look back in the original packet for the rest of the applicants with the original plan B everything here in yellow there's going to be some fill added to decrease what slope you have from the drive from the road to your property so it would be easier to maintain and plant and deek and that also will decrease any amount of drop-off on the sides from your driveway but that in general your property slopes a bit from this this corner with sorry I'm let's see what the three like five and four sunset is maybe your high point that corner and that the property slopes a bit back towards this back corner here right so erosion runoff would be going behind you it wouldn't be going towards the street so much there would be no runoff towards the street right and and you know the driveway requirements that the public works department has says that we have to have bring the we can't just drop off from the street it has to come out somewhat level from the street for a certain distance before it starts feathering down right and that's why all that gravel was there was to be able to do that and then and then to feather out on the side so it's not just the you know raised which goes to the October 25th letter from Jacob Miller that was in the original packet and the fact that Department of Public Works was ready to they had their conditions and we're ready to issue you the access permit when I had to hold it off because of the development review board needed to review correct okay okay are there any other neighbors that wish to testify or interested parties any other questions or comments from the board mr. Chair I just for consideration would suggest we consider closing the public hearing and adjourning at the end of our meeting to deliberative session I think that makes a great deal of sense what's the rest of board so what we what I would entertain a motion which would be to close the record and the evidence will take the matter into deliberative session which means that at the end of our regularly scheduled meeting tonight we have one more application will deliberate about this and make a decision that would then come out as a written decision as opposed to what you saw with the last application where we did it and it's a public motion and we have the authority to do that to do those deliberate sessions we often do that when there's a number of moving parts such as this application that way we don't either miss a condition that we're thinking about or a discussion point that we need to resolve as board so I'll take a motion to close the record and to move this application into deliberate session I'll make the motion based upon my suggestion to close the public hearing and me again deliberative at the end of this at the end of this meeting okay motion by Kevin do I have a second second that motion second by Rob can I have a quick question yes which is what what are the options for your decisions in other words what decisions could you come up with we have a whole range we could approve it outright without a condition we could deny it outright without a condition we could approve it with certain conditions that we've discussed tonight we could approve it with this conditions that we discussed tonight and additional conditions that occurred to us in the discussion that we have the legal purview to to that's sort of the waterfront yeah there would be no additional evidence taken in so anything that hasn't been mentioned or either submitted and rating or discussed in this hearing or the previous hearing nothing outside of that could be part of the decision unless the hearing got reopened I was just wondering if part of just wondering what the range of conditions might set and whether there's a process for dealing with conditions you might set that might not have already been well I mean we've we've tried to discuss the range and that's why I've given the board you know an option we've also heard testimony and you know what I would say is that you have the range of issues that could rate that could generate conditions if the board is inclined and you know they deal with aesthetics they deal with you know defining the old driveway and making sure that that is clearly delineated and limited they deal with some of the questions potentially of safety concerns of you know how the driveway is to be constructed you know those are all potential either conditions that we either feel are satisfied by the application as proposed or that we have to impose condition I will also note that we discussed a potential condition last time that could be because in addition to the safety and everything else we're considering we're looking at a standard as to whether there is an exception to be made for having two driveways instead of one that's kind of the foundational thing here so I just will note that one of the potential conditions we discussed last time was swapping out the driveways and closing the existing one in order to create the more versatile so just in the interest of trying to put the full universe on the table let's try that one again good well thank you all again so we had a we had a move you didn't have a second or no no we didn't have a second we did have a second sorry all those in favor of the motion please raise your right hand all right close the record and going to deliver session now I can say thank you very much thank you thank you Mr. Chair five minutes five minutes take a quick break and then we'll come back with I believe in our seat yes and for this application I will be recusing myself okay I'll note that just before the break Vice Chair McCarthy recused herself and we have conditional use and minor site plan review for 11 Baldwin Street the applicant is there for Montenegro Resources Council if you'll introduce yourself for the record please on the executive director we're actually co-applicants with the Gibson family or the sellers of the property it's under contract now okay and that's that's bring me here tonight and you're the under contract purchasers we are the potential purchaser so let me have you on put yourself under oath you solemnly swear or affirm that the evidence and testimony you're about to give for the matter under consideration she'll be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth under pains of penalties per tree so why don't you give us an overview of what you're proposing so we have been located at 9th Bailey Avenue since the 1980s we've grown since that time we've made one addition to the building we've made some internal renovations but nothing really significant since then and we're looking at the opportunity when the Gibson property came on the market we toyed with the idea of looking at it about a year later I mean toyed with it again and and subsequently made an offer about a month a month and a half ago as a way to explore whether we provide larger office space or an ex-space for us we're still at this point if we were to purchase the building and renovate it we're not sure whether it would be used in conjunction with our existing building or as turning that building you know sell that building which is right who'd likely do we don't have a lot of money we do have an opportunity that is kind of unique to us so we're just looking at pretty straightforward the building hasn't been renovated much it's had some roof improvements and some stair it's it's a pretty significant project it is the only single family dwelling on that street it's the only it's one of two residential dwellings on the street the apartments on the corner of Bailey and Baldwin is owned by down street housing that's our neighbor on everything else along the street is office buildings the biggest site constraint to the building is parking and that was raised in the staff report we're very aware of that what we're hoping to accomplish is to determine whether it meets the minimum requirements of the city for renovation and if we were to move forward with the purchase and the renovation of the building our plan is to explore additional options including some minor ledge removal which would provide more space in the existing parking area and the lot does go through to terrace street and I know there's at least one other building on Baldwin that has gotten satellite parking up on terrace on the back part of their lot that's another option we'd like to explore frankly I've been an rdrb in weightsfield for about 15 years I understand the applicants problems aren't your problems and I don't tend to make some years but we're under a pretty tight time frame and there's a lot of expenses and design for those other parking alternatives so we if we were to move forward we're going to explore those but we're not able to provide any evidence or design tonight that we can meet any additional parking standards other than what we proposed with some minor variations and I have some handouts that are based on the staff report and my conversation with Meredith earlier in last week okay so in a nutshell I just hand out what I want to hand out you want me just do you have specific things or you want me to continue kind of no I think the narrative is helpful I mean obviously parking is the key here but let's so I have two pictures of neighboring properties the one at the corner of Baldwin and Bailey which was recently we have in the one next door at 9 Baldwin just to provide you with kind of concept of looking to replicate with having parallel parking in the driveway by widening the driveway and that's that's really exactly what we're hoping to do I also have a revised site plan the zoning administrator mentioned that landscaping would be a question space no removal be a question and some additional thought to how parking could be configured a little bit better than what is on and then finally I'm familiar with the provision of the zoning that allows you to grant waiver for parking under certain circumstances and I just wanted to provide a Google map that shows the context of the building relative to transit on-street parking in other facilities near so perhaps starting with the revised site plan what was given to you shows adding on to the existing parking area with two lower parking air parking spaces on the right it actually makes more sense to extend that increased parking up further and that's the area that I highlighted in green and that'll do a couple of things one it'll ease the little bit of a bottleneck between the parking area up in front of the garage and it will make sure that at least one space that's 18 and a half feet long can be within the building line of the building it won't be in front of it I wasn't under I didn't understand in the zoning whether parking was prohibited in front of the building line I thought it was prohibited in front setback so that's a question that I have is it is it is it not counted towards the total or is it prohibited so you are not supposed to have parking areas between the front line of the building and the front property line with the exception of residential that residents residential driveways may be parked in so since this is going to be commercial my understanding is you cannot have vehicles vehicle parking areas between the front line of the building and the road right right those those we know these are businesses that's all I know the one business that was yeah that one's Baldwin yeah the corners of that one can happen but this one the square building that's not residential correct that's an office yeah we but the thing is state it's a state building we don't do anything with that they don't if it's if it's state property they don't come to us does it automatically become part of the capitalist district well it has to be within no has to be within technically the capital complex but yeah so yeah we would still have regulatory depends on what you're talking about and who's talking about it there's a debate most of the cap right anyway the this is this is the first property where I have dealt with since I've been here where something within the capital complex has come forward for an application at all I've had things come up where the state is starting to do something on their site plan and luckily I have been able to find a way under 4413 to say we have no authority over it so I'm not going to push to have you come in if the state starts doing something that you know falls within that allowable zoning regulations under 4413 I'm probably gonna have a fight on my hands to get them to come in with an application so yeah this is in state property so we don't have but my whole point was that you know we haven't something like this on private property we wouldn't allow right now on private property commercial or I should say non-residential I don't believe there's the I'm not sure about this I don't believe there's a 36 feet that would allow for two spaces then but there's definitely with expanding the parking in that green highlighted area it's the potential for a space my understanding is also that you allow stacked parking up to two is my understanding it's actually for commercial it should it the freezes tandem and it's defined in the languages you know one parking behind another so you can block in one other car another feature on this map I want to point out is the area highlighted in yellow that's the area between the existing end of pavement and in the area that's relatively flat before it starts to go up the grade up the hill it's about 12 13 feet and that extends all the way behind the garage which I concluded today's maybe potential other parking space but what's more importantly I feel like that's adequate area for snow storage it doesn't start to go uphill for like I said about 12 to 13 feet snow can be pushed behind the garage so that's that's one of the issues that I saw on the staff report that was an area of and then finally the fourth thing that I passed out was regarding to transit we are within a thousand feet of the transit shop stop on State Street the Burlington link and also the Capitol shuttle the circulator stops right down the street at the Capitol within a thousand feet so those are the two transit stops and the significance of the shuttle is there is satellite parking at the Department of Labor that would allow people to park there and either walk in or ride the shuttle I also I just wanted to make one comment with regard to the staff report I believe it was attributed to public works that walking or biking is seasonal and it's not necessarily we have some pretty hardcore folks who one of which recused herself from this meeting who walk and during all you know all elements and all seasons and we are as recently this was kind of unrelated to this last week one of our staff members attended a workshop at local motion in Burlington regarding alternative commuting and we will have interior bike storage we will have at least one shower and we are putting in programs we will put in programs that I'm not I'm not sure what the final program can look like but it is a incentive programs to encourage people to not drive a single occupancy vehicle to work we have folks who live up in the Burlington Winooski Wilson area who take the link to work we have four staff members or five staff members who walk or bike at least sometime to work some more often than others and there is the possibility of having a lot of our staff members walk or others carpool so Brian are we my reading this correctly in that right now short of any waiver of parking it's a five car requirement given the square footage of the space that's what that's what I was told they initially thought from an earlier conversation thought it was three spaces but that was correct it is the garage usable yes it's a garage but it just with the I just want to say one other thing about kind of demand management for parking we do lease a vehicle and we do that for two reasons one frankly it's it's cheaper than reimbursing staff for using their own vehicles by just paying for the gas and leasing the vehicle it's quite a bit cheaper but more as equally important it allows for and encourages staff to be one car families a couple of our staff are by having them not have to depend on their own car for work all the time so that's just another measure we put in place I mean my concern is I mean you know Baldwin Street it's crowded it's usually when the legislature is in session but I mean I've been when the legislature is out of session and it's not that much better Baldwin is always filled you know first come first serve in the morning redstone street up to red stone usually has spaces when the legislature is not in session I parked there a lot for various reasons my one concern about off-street parking is that this is just sort of and we've had applications as you've noted on Tara Street and you know there's a lot of concern about the fact that you know this is a high-demand on-street parking area and that would be just simply one of my concerns about any type of waiver that this is not a downtown in the same sense as a commercial space that just really doesn't have any parking that my concern would be is as much as the NRC may be dedicated to you know has employing hearty walkers and bikers and transit users that if the building is sold to somebody else who's not maybe the oil and gas industry decide to occupy the spaces there you know that could that might not have the same dedication but I'm looking at your and your drawing the C1 point zero one and are each of these rectangles essentially one car a space for one yeah space for one so we've got one two three and four and then the the fifth one is this one that we really can't allow because it goes beyond the front of the building but it also doesn't include the garage either does so I mean I wouldn't necessarily interpret that with a little tail end go beyond the building that it would somehow be inclusive of vehicle overhang that was my you guys I know I'm I know I'm being really strict here that's sort of my job so 3011 locational standards 3011 g of course I have it in my staff report yeah I see it's g2 parking and loading areas parentheses inclusive of vehicle overhang right so I shall be located behind the front I don't know if you can count either of those first two parking spaces well certainly if they bump into that green area then you get one two three four counting the garage it's a little confusing because I super the green area was not if you look at the so the line to the you can see the existing parking driveway configuration is the center line and the larger line I believe if it were to be extended up to that octagonal area which is basically it was not a landscape designer but somebody who wanted to show landscaping and that's a large lilac edge and that lilac edges is located on some legy ground but there's room to have to without really much site work at all to put the pavement all the way up to the edge you could have one one space on the right and then the way that this other space is shown you could have two parallel spaces they would be stacked and I understand I mean I understand the practical challenges of that we do stack parking from time to time now but I believe you could you could fit two spaces between side by side next to that green area what's the total number of folks you have on on the property at any one time 13 including one part-time person who's there two days a week so that's just the staff yes that's your staff and then they're during any other any particular date meetings yeah we have people come by by appointment meetings and they they park wherever they can same as you do for anybody else in that neighborhood yeah but yeah the minimum the minimum parking requirements are now based on square footage of the use so even with that many staff it's still five parking spaces okay yep nope it doesn't agree and up on terror street is is that a workable site to put yeah you would need to um put in fill bring in a retaining wall it's not 30 grade but I would need to be engineered I mean I wouldn't just have my contractor come and do it I want to make sure that it was safe and stable and drainage was sure so you wouldn't have a car come crashing into the ala bush from above um I mean I think you have a couple of different options here the around the back um the highlighted yellow the um the green as well as the terror street could all get you to five um even with our somewhat draconian um no overhang in front of the building uh rules so I I I think and I think five is reasonable given how big your staff is knowing that some will not need this but at the same time you know between between staff visitors meetings I hope we get to the point where we won't need five I understand where we are now right there I mean it'd be great if we had jet packs too but you know um I just think that that's given what we're and we're always wrestling with parking here in the city and but in this in this neighborhood in particular I think it's because it's so close to so many while this is the last residential or one of the last residentials on the street up above on terror street it gets very residential and I know there's been a lot of uh push and pull because of the spillover and state government and commercial use of the streets I know that you have permitted one space for a Baldwin street property and also I haven't ready to go down there yet because you know I need to talk to neighbors and and frankly if you wanted to build like a one parking space up on terror street I think that's a workable option and certainly what we've approved before um and our concern then was just simply circulation but uh you know how the how the pedestrian was to get from upper up on terror street down to Baldwin but I think that they've proven that they've that I haven't heard of any difficulties yeah we talked about a staircase or something and frankly it's there's a sidewalk that goes right around the block exactly I mean I think that's what the that's what the other the Baldwin street property that uses that um so given that um were there any other questions from any other board members I mean I'm just one board member talking about the five but that just so I haven't located just so sorry um I haven't located the one pin up there is another concern based on the site plan I've seen there's there would be room without encroaching into actually I would need to know what the setback is but um there would be room for two eight and a half feet wide spaces at least I don't think there's room for three um because of the structure that would be involved but there's room right to you know I think if you did that and and then you had three spaces down below even if two two of them were sort of stacked um I think that that's more than sufficient I mean I'm not looking to impose nor could I impose additional parking but I think meeting minimum in a case like this uh is important and certainly the upper terror street is an option um the highlighted yellow seems to be workable as well you mentioned before that the yellow might be the best spot for snow storage in the winter and that's certainly you know an important consideration I mean if you did not have an on-site uh snow storage location you know I don't know how you deal with the the the Bailey um if that's if you have an on-site storage or you have to truck it off at certain points occasionally but not often it usually goes over the bank and fortunately doesn't go all the way down into the Union Mutual Park a lot um can I throw it I'm sorry I'm going to throw another potential mention just because I'm not quite sure um on the year what is it hexagon um that you said was the large lilac is that area that you've marked off there all the multiple places where the shoots come up or that's sort of the growing area that it needs I'm not sure can you repeat that so under the landscaping regulations that we have now every tree and shrub has its own individual minimum um planting area to allow the roots to stay healthy so I'm not and we haven't really gotten to the landscaping discussion but it is a question of if for where that green possible pavement moving forward is that lilac we have to make sure it retains enough growing area I don't think that's a problem but it would be something you would need to have made probably a determination on it yeah I mean we can make a determination but I also don't think it's I mean I don't think it's topographically speaking if the lilac bed is above at a certain level get much closer because it's not as if the lilacs need root space into the air I'm trying to remember what the green highlighted area is lawn great and it's you know it has the same grade as the driveway just a gentle slope up and then when it hits pretty much the edge of that that shape um it rises up it is leggy if I can see the the it's one foot contours um is what you have on here right now um and I have no idea how many lilacs are in there they've probably been there for decades and they're okay no no worries it was just also getting sort of on the record what you a general sense of what you've got there well so I'll just point out I'm not I'm not I guess I'm not clear even is there are there four spaces on site that you can accommodate not including a space between the road in the front of the building yes okay because you were just saying three plus one up on Baldwin oh I I know I was when he was saying two up on Baldwin I said yeah if he did two up on Baldwin and at least three down below but how I mean the so the one I'll just the the calculations I mean the regulations do say that you always round up it's 4.4 three if you divide 2660 by the 600 square feet so if you didn't if we weren't required to round up you would otherwise round down to four um I know I know I know I know another regulations that's what we do we round up but then there's also these specific provisions which says we can wave some or all of the parking so we could wave all parking departments if we wanted to to the extent that and there's you know factors listed and and I think there's been clear evidence that multiple of those are addressed here there is public transit there's multiple public strength transit stops serving both Montpelier as well as you know Burlington and between within a quarter mile there's been testimony that there will be secure enclosed bicycle storage and shower facilities adequate on street or public parking seasonally there's been representation that the streets in the neighborhood provide those opportunities at least part of the year so I think I mean it's it's like if there's any case where there's it's appropriate to waive some of the requirements this seems to be a good case given the representations of the evidence has been provided so and given the fact that you know again it's based on the square footage it's less than half above four um then they were rounding up to five so as one board member if there's on-site space for spaces and given the representations on some of the factors that would justify waiver I would be comfortable waiving the requirement of that fifth space and just having the four on-site spaces as one member I would I would agree with with what you're saying I think that this is this is the case in which these parking waivers make sense to be applied and that it'll be kind of dictated based on keeping their employees happy with how they manage their parking so I would agree with you. I mean that's an interesting thing but since part of the justification for the waiver is that you have to do these things you know you have to provide enclosed bicycle storage and shower facilities presumably if another office if this another office use came in and took over the existing permit they would be bound by the same conditions they couldn't say eliminate the bike storage and eliminate the shower without but you know my concern would be that they would then you know that the impact of parking when you grant these type of waivers is you know I understand that to a certain extent that the testimony about the lack of cars means oh we don't have that big of an impact but in fact that matters if there is a larger impact if people do drive the neighborhood bears that. But I think in the the times of year when there's a real issue with parking the neighborhood bears it to the full extent anyway and I don't think having vnrc who's represented that there at least meets some of the factors which are then titled into a waiver is you know that one space on vnrc vnrc's laws gonna have any I mean real impact that's one word okay no I mean I'm just saying um I would actually almost make the argument that if there's four spaces instead of five of it drives a more of a culture to use other modes of transportation to get to work and you know could even do the opposite I I I think it I think it just depends I mean you know and we all have our experiences but you know I mean every when people drive for whatever reason they drive they bring a car into that and you bring 13 people in and you can provide shower space and you can provide um bike storage space but if people need to drive for whatever particular reason it has that impact um and in a neighborhood is I mean that that's my sense is that this is a neighborhood that that doesn't need because this is a new we're not talking about taking an existing commercial use we're talking about taking a residential use and expanding it into a commercial use you know there aren't 13 people coming in and out of this building every day right now but it's also I mean this is the last single-family residence on the street I don't think it's I think the character of the area is is office uses um I don't think it's realistic given the changes to the neighborhood since this was residential however long ago that you can really say it doesn't make sense to treat it just as any other single-family residence to me anyway well yeah I mean not any changing into an office space fits very well with the character of the area so I think all right think about it as an office space then the four to five space parking space kind of consideration uh isn't as meaningful as that if you think about it as you're taking a a pre-existing single-family residence which have brought you know much less parking needs and converting into an office I know that's what we're doing but I know what I think is that I'm saying it's like the office use fits very well with the character of the area so I think the office use fits very well with the character of the area given that there was other office uses I'm just I mean I think we're looking at this very narrow issue about parking but you know that may simply be of all that lies where it's been hit I just a thought it's the thing I noted in here is that you know yes we're dealing with the parking on this site and vnrc's you know presentation of we're gonna do all these things we currently don't have a lot of people as many people coming in driving individual vehicles as we have employees we're planning to keep that maybe even encourage more alternative transportation use and they're just shifting their you know on-site on-street parking impact from their current parcel to the new parcel as long as the use doesn't change and the property that they're in now if they happen to sell that property somebody else could come in there and have even more employees potentially I know it's not necessarily gonna fit but or even have the same number of employees with more people driving and there's nothing we can do about that yeah and they have the current expansion of the other it doesn't have to be expansion I know what I'm saying you're you're hypothesizing that there could be more cars coming to the old vnrc right which is I think part of what Tom's concerns were is that you're potentially adding quite a bit more traffic to this street you know not just traffic but need for parking and it's not so just just to make sure we're you know we're not talking about one more car parking on the street necessarily no okay Tom McCartle's point on this is there's only a limited amount of available on-street parking in this area with demand typically exceeding supply which is consistent with Brian stated especially during the legislative season additional office use without adequate parking accommodation will create additional demand for on-street parking in the surrounding neighborhoods which currently stresses municipal services to manage considering that walking and biking or largely weather and proximity dependent alternative transportation with secure off-site parking should be considered for the life of the purpose and that's just I mean I think that's I I think the fifth spot I mean I don't think with much effort the applicant would it would take to get the applicant up to five is the other thing I mean this is in a situation where like we're dealing with the first application tonight where there's another space I fully get that the that you know their impact may be lower and and that you know in that in case in that case that's great you have plenty of parking for when you have big meetings but I think the fives you know setting this out so that it has five spaces however we get to that number whether it's up on Terra Street or reconfiguring within that green area or that highlighted area I think it's consistent with what Tom McArdle is saying but also my sense of the neighborhood as well and fits within the idea that you know they're going to the they're a big office 13 people's a lot of people and you know their success in making that work without having an oversized impact to the area you know is the success of the alternative transportation so let's let's move on beyond the parking come back to that when we talk about how we want to treat this application so Brian the bicycle storage where is that going to be we haven't designed the we're we're I just want to know whether it's it's an office space is a formidable use and then there's a lot of work to do righty the inside it's it's a fairly it hasn't seen many updates inside the building in quite a long time so it's really we don't have a program for it yet we're laying out offices new walls will go up some walls will go down there's a large entry way which is currently a kitchen which is very flexible there's a butler's pantry there's a washroom there's plenty of space in there for secured interior bike storage we really don't have a formal area in our in our current office we are putting we're looking into covered bike racks on the porch people do bring their bike into the to our our building now I would want to formalize it to where it's easy and out of the way and but we don't have a floor plan yet right okay um well I mean I don't get the sense from any of us that there's an objection to this as office space I think it can work I think we're getting you know bogged down in some of the parking spaces which is what DRVs naturally do no I know and I admit that um there are some ideas that are not fully formed now that I think have a lot of potential but I don't I can't provide you with the information to to well so I mean would you do you think it makes sense for us to just continue to go through and and give you our feedback and with the idea that we would table this and then you'd come back with some more specifics or how do you want us to I guess if any other areas of concern helpful I will say yeah and I'm just I'm not saying this to kind of again is my problem is not your problem I don't you know we have a tight timeline to get things done and if there's I'll have to seek an extension and you know we'll do that contract extension oh contract one of the one of the the conditions of our contract was a change of use permit recognizing that we're going to have to the building permit we feel comfortable we're going to be able to get at that time right so the the contract is that you have to have that change of use permit in hand yes but but I've I've sought one extension and can seek another one right I mean I I I don't see this coming out with you not getting that change of use um just based on the feedback that we're getting from other board members as well as my own impression as one board member that this is a consistent use with this neighborhood and that there's plenty of options here and you know if majority of the board said four spaces then it would work even easier if if they say five spaces but but even if they said five spaces it looks like you have I think you have the space it's not an impossibility but we'd have to bend the bend things to make it it sort of fit I think this is easily adaptable um so the other one of the other staff comments that you may have seen was just pedestrian circulation you know is this something where people are going to come down the driveway up the front door or would there be sort of a right in that back corner area where the kitchen is and the porch uh that's the main that's currently the main functional interest right and I expect that it would continue to be okay I don't recall the Gibson's ever shoveling the front steps in the time that I've been at the nrc and I don't know that we ever would do that either we encourage people to go to the side door okay so it would it would be essentially directed and one of the reasons is that would be the handicapped access um and um that space with the bcp I don't think it relates to the space is intended as handicapped access um the dimensions of that area allow for it and the one of the questions we have is whether the kitchen door or the door to the um sun porch which is that extension to the right uh would be the ada access and there's there's internal reasons door widths and and some great issues that all determine that but the architect we've worked with has said that ada access is possible in that area okay and my understanding of the merit that's correct me if I'm wrong is that this doesn't trigger ada parking requirements does this um no that they because it's a commercial use they have to have at least one spot I think is what I said in here sorry I was thinking about something else while you were talking so it is one it is one spot that they have to have that's ada and so then also an entrance that's ada yeah yeah that's if the if the parking spaces will be actually painted then they have to have at least one accessible space ada accessible space whether it's required or not we feel as though we would need to provide accessibility and I mean technically because they're it would be less than 10 parking spaces they don't have to provide they don't have to strike so therefore they don't have to have the ada accessible spot but if they're gonna strike them even if it's less than 10 they've got to have that okay I don't want to anyway so right it should be marked yeah that should ultimately be marked in in any sort of final outline um okay so I'm just thinking a lot too is you finalize your internal layout I mean I expected these uh square footage areas on here between office and then storage slash unfinished with 2660 office and a lot of 140 square feet I don't know how fits in stone those are I'm glad you brought that up and that is that is an area that I'm a little concerned about that there's a lot of unheated space that at this point we're not looking at moving into the third floor is a little bit of a question mark so I went with what was immediate and the idea being I by the time we do a building plan and evaluate other additional parking options I would come back and say here's the workspace we we finalize the square footage right yeah so that's an option going forward if you want to say we're only going to seek a permit to use 2,400 square feet of office space then you only need to demonstrate four parking spaces or if you even came in and just said we're going to start off with 1,800 square feet of finished office space you about three parking spaces I just say then you want to come back and say we're going to add more office space we'll add another spot then I really couldn't face scale it back too much in the space yeah and a lot of the space the biggest space yeah so I hear you um I'm sorry I it's getting late and I had a bit of a brainstorm that may help us out here and might help Brian out and I know I'm the one who's supposed to have the procedural answers but maybe somebody else will will back me up on this is it possible for the board tonight to just provide conditional use approval conditioned on the fact that no site plan changes will be made you know and limit the number of actual parking places they're here and the any actual use of the building the applicant will need to come back before the board for the minor site plan approval versus having the minor site plan go through me so that you can still have another look at the parking yeah I mean you're talking about bifurcating and essentially you know because that gets to actually what Ryan was asking about which is that we could give a sort of conditional use approval based on sort of the existing parking which would be three spaces that um as it kind of currently exists um right which could with with the understanding that any internal changes would require the minor site plan review Brian I don't know if that helps you get further down the road of what you need well and that also you know I have a suggested motion condition here that limits the office use to 1800 square feet within the building without getting further site plan approval the 1800 square feet matches up with the three parking spaces so they could use up to 1800 square feet of the building for office space without requiring additional site plan approval so in that in that respect what you could walk out with tonight would be the conditional use approval for the changing it to office space um on those sort of limited square footage with the understanding that your plans ultimately are to expand and then the minor site plan review would take care of that um because they are somewhat separate and that our minor site plan review would be looking at the traffic issues and the the larger impact that the expanded use would would contain that way I don't know if that means you wouldn't have to seek an extension or you'd be able to move faster on that or if you would want you would really want the entire sort of footprint before you went forward with your contract well obviously that would be the most desirable thing from my standpoint but I I'm I'm also recognizing you know where the bind here and you have regulations to apply I mean it it that kind of I then have to decide to take a little bit of a leap of faith I appreciate the feedback I've gotten and it seems as though the board is is willing to be as flexible as possible within the confines of the bylaw to allow us to figure things out and I I appreciate that feel good about that you know my experiences board sometimes change so I guess I probably want to act fast we're pretty stable I think we just had our renewal so you don't you won't get a new cast of characters in a month or so and I I think really I mean at least I mean unless your timetable is different you know the big thing is going to be sort of figuring out how you which way you want to go on the track on the the parking yeah and I think once you once you have that that's a matter of a meeting so if it was a matter of I mean that's the other that's the other sort of side of the coin is that you know if you just wanted to sort of table based on the feedback you'd get from us tonight and come back in two weeks on August 5th yeah just to note that any parking up off of terraced you're going to also have to look at new curb cut and it's it just brings in some new factors is adding a new curb cut and needing to meet your you know look at those driveway dimensions and more data and I haven't looked into that is is backing onto a street prohibited no that's it's fine it's just you know it's one of those things where we're going to look at sight lanes and adding adding a second it's an additional sort of exemptions where you know the board has to give you some level of exemption for having two curb cuts on one property and then looking at your spacing they might have to give you like earlier this evening give you an exemption from the spacing minimums and Department of Public Works is going to want to look at that again to make sure they're okay with whatever second curb cut you proposed so it's just it's more information gathering in the next two weeks but it's not it's not necessarily an issue I have a question about the access permits it would have to get a new revised access well so it's two layers of approval the the drb would need to approve the fact that it will have two access points as well as potentially reduced spacing between the new curb cut and whatever other driveways are up there I'm assuming that there's lots of driveways in right in that area and then in addition to that before they actually develop that they would need an access permit from the Department of Public Works I'm just I'm just wanting to make sure that if there is an approval that's by the drb that then a subsequent access permit that would be solved by Department of Public Works wouldn't then have the effect of needing to then change well no no that's what normally what you do is you have I mean I would we would have Department of Public Works look at that proposed new access we would need to have it early enough to have that work or if it changes it would have to come back to the drb you know you've conditioned it on the Department of Public Works approving the access point as approved by the drb does that make sense right I was thinking kind of in the interest of kind of keeping it clear about what we're approving is that if we were to say come back in two weeks have the defined area that's already been signed off by DPW it's sort of a clearer path for approval yeah I just can't I just can't guarantee that DPW it depends on when I get the information and when DPW has the ability to review it type of deal and I'm you know I'm getting it back in time for our office to okay let's uh I just want to touch upon two other points real quickly my understanding is that there's no proposed changes to landscaping actually it's a little bit rudimentary I did the front yard is somewhat barren so I did propose the two black dots would be street trees red oaks you know I don't know where we're going to likely have to replace a waterline for sprinkler I don't know where the utilities are so that hasn't been determined so I really space those two trees to frame the front of the building provides shade provide a little bit of sidewalk cover and they're they're intended to be spaced the same distance from the sidewalk as two crab apples at 13 Baldwin street just to kind of have a consistent street tree line but that's the only new landscaping everything else is is shown yeah one thing I noticed at least from especially the aerial photographs you can see this is fairly well um forced it the backyard all the way up to terraces is right heavily wooded and you know and and there's landscaping around the front of the building although it's you know sort of low key pretty as well established foundation yep shrubbery so I wouldn't I mean certainly the the two trees are are fine but I wouldn't see a need to put on any additional conditions for landscaping um and then the other issue is the whether this would have an undo adverse impact on traffic is one of the questions that we do have to for conditional use confront I don't get the sense that these I think the parking's the bigger issue the traffic is on the street what it is and that these you know the I'm sure at certain times of the day it's can get a little bit snarl as people come into work and out of work yeah when the legislature goes home there's a stream but uh right you know it's really not a very it's not that busy a street and right frankly we walk to the state house our staff several times a day during session we often walk down the middle of the street it's pretty common it's not a through street so you don't get no it is one way it a can right which limits it so I don't see any any reason for additional studies or that this finding of undoing adverse and effect on traffic so with those really the question for us and Brian I'll I think really question for you is do you want us to give you this sort of bifurcated conditional use approval for the office um with the idea that you'll come back for the minor site plan review with this with the additional information based on what we discussed tonight on on parking and where snow storage would be um or do you do you want to wait for the whole thing um you know I guess I take it one step at a time if you wanted to do the bifurcated approach that you find I'm curious what level of detail would be required for parking spaces off terrace I mean if I were in neighbor I would want to know what the retaining wall is going to look like whether any landscaping is necessary there to to screen it so that's that's a question I guess I just answered my own question that I would expect a reasonable level of detail so everybody knows what to say yeah well and also I mean you're on that that is it's not 30 percent or higher slopes but it is 20 percent or more slopes back there so I think some detail on the retaining wall may be necessary um so I mean you could if you don't think you can get that in two weeks we could also table it for four if possible if you needed it I know you're on a schedule and and it may it may be that I I take that leap of faith and go with this and come back a little bit with the bifurcated approach you're not losing anything no you know you may not have any positive effect but you but it's it's not going to have any effect true cool just checking all right so I'll entertain a motion from the board based on that somebody want to frame it sure I'll make a motion to approve the change of use at 11 Baldwin street from a single-family residential use to an office use as a conditional use with the condition that a future site plan will come before the development review board to review additional parking which is required for any office use of the building in excess of 1800 square feet which is approved now based on the existing three parking spaces motion by ryan do I have a second second that yes second by kevin uh any further discussion all those in favor of the motion please raise your right hand all right do we want to second motion I would suggest to table the minor site plan uh to a date certain so we don't have to be warned oh yeah but well did you feel like you can come back in a date certain with the minor site plan or do you want to file a new application for that um you know I think that the that the information that I need to have in order to figure it out with more another application okay sorry just making sure okay so if we can't do a date certain it doesn't really make sense sure I mean we could we could continue as well I'm fine doing that if you're okay and I know my board does this if I can't show up you'll move it move it'll kick it down the road so I mean if you just indicate beforehand that we've done that with plenty of other applications yeah I mean we can keep doing it in definitely I mean there's a point of absurdity we're pretty tolerant so I'll entertain a motion to table the minor site plan review to a date certain do you think I mean I don't want to yeah I mean august fifth is the next one but do you want to maybe give it to the to the one after that which would be the 19th okay I'll move that we uh continue the minor site plan application for 11 Baldwin until august 19th okay motion 7 p.m mcpether city hall motion by Ryan do I have a second yes second by Kevin thank you for the discussion all those in favor of the motion please raise your right hand all right we'll uh we'll see you back thank you all very much thank you thank you Brian all right so thank you uh any other business that we wish to have on the public record uh I will note that our next meeting will be Monday august 5th 2019 at 7 p.m at city hall yes august 5th the next meeting we're back on the one yes all right uh then I will take a motion to go into deliberative session to consider the two sunset application so moved motion by Kate do I have a second second second by Kevin all those in favor please raise your right hand all right we are in deliberative session