 I'm going to call the Tuesday, June 20th, 2023, Burlington Development Review Board meeting to order, and we have a quorum, so we're going to proceed in accordance with our agenda. The first item on our agenda is 401 Shelburne Street, Thomas Bachaninsky, Silken Kirschner, proposed two-lot subdivision. I'm going to cite work, ZP 23227. Is the applicant here? So, AJ, we have a single person on the phone. I assume the applicant's not there in person. Correct. Okay. If you're the applicant for this item and you're on the phone, raise your hand. I think it's star nine. Otherwise, we should move on to the, oh, there we go. Yeah. Okay, we have an applicant on the phone. New unmute said phone applicant. Yeah. Yes. This is, this is Thomas Bachaninsky. And I think Silken just arrived too. So. Excellent. I think she's just filling in the attendance sheet. It's okay. You're first. It happens. Good afternoon. So this item was proposed for our consent agenda. Are there any board members that would object to treating this as a consent item? Anybody? Did you get a chance to, what that means is we don't have to open the public hearing on it. Right. Did you get a chance to look at the staff's findings recommendations? Yep. Do you have any issue with them? Is there anyone here in attendance who wants to be heard on this? This item. Seeing nobody group is on consent. Brad. All right. Second. Caitlin. Those in favor? Aye. Very subdivision. So the next item on our agenda is another consent agenda item 37 Colonial Square, Susan Lentz and Dan Goldsman proposed to subdivision no development, including ZP 23211 the applicant here. One up. So this again was proposed for consent. Any board member that has any questions or object to treating this as consent? No. Anyone here in the audience who wants to be heard on this item? All right. So we will have to open a public hearing. So can I get you to raise your right hands? Whoever wants to be heard. Do you propose that, do you swear that the testimony you're about to give in the item under consideration is a perjury? I do. All right. Well, so we've seen the project. It's a proposed to lots of division. It's relatively small project. It was proposed in our consent agenda item. What I'd like to do is give the individual in the audience an opportunity to be heard on it and then give you an opportunity to respond to it. Is that okay? Sure. Sir. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Richard Hilliard. I live on the High Grove Court, which as you can see on the plat is immediately to the south of the property where Mrs. Lenz resides. So in two years of being a neighbor, I haven't met Mrs. Lenz until just now. I was going to be called on Saturday and we had a good discussion and I was hoping to see that the report, the staff report on this would have been tightened up to remove inaccuracies and ambiguities, but as it hasn't, I feel I need to raise an objection or a number of objections to the project as described in the staff report or will turn to be not described in the report. Okay. Those are right. So in the report by Mr. King, background information, now this may be my problem rather than the DRBs, but the new lot will be a corner lot with frontage on Pomeroy Street and Colonial Square. In this context, I'm not sure what frontage means. I know literally, but if I move on, there's currently no access from this property to Pomeroy Street. So if I move on to Article 4, the paragraph 3, it's under residential low density, et cetera. The subdivision will leave the existing single residential structure with frontage on just Colonial Square with the new lot having frontage on both Colonial Square and Pomeroy Street, but where is the access? Where is the access to the new property? Okay. It's not specified. Further down under affirmative finding, permitted and conditional uses. I don't think this is very well worded. No new construction is included within this proposal. So will the butters be notified if and when this comes to the DRB? The third sentence prior to closing out subdivision permit, and this is just being a bit picky, but we'd like it to be correct, I think. It doesn't make sense. There's a sense of the cart being before the horse a little bit as far as the demolition of the garage is concerned. Demolition of the garage doesn't make sense if no new construction is included, but it says no new construction is included. So I don't really understand that. Lastly, both, so where am I? Excuse me, Article 6, Development Review Standards. Statement E is incorrect. Both parcels have direct access to public sidewalks. That's incorrect. There are no sidewalks in that part of Pomeroy Street. So there is one on Colonial Square, though, right? There is on Colonial Square, but that's not what it says. So my objection, my objections really may be being fastidious or picky, but they're calling the report into question because I don't know what else is incorrect. So yeah, I think that's it. I was going to reference the plat again. So in terms of the conversation that I had with Mrs. Lenz on Saturday, I'm in agreement with the project as verbally described, and I'm not in agreement with the project as stipulated here if the information in the staff report is thought to be accurate because it's not partly ambiguous and partly inaccurate. So that's my comments. Okay. Dan and the applicant, do you want to have an opportunity to respond? Well, since I spoke with Mr. Hullier, do you want to step so Dan can have the plank? Okay. Mr. Hullier and I did speak on Saturday, and along Colonial's sidewalk that's in front of my house, there's also a stone wall that runs the length of the frontage on Colonial Square. So what we talked about was, if there's ever a home built on the lot that I'm subdividing the driveway, the way it was envisioned by me and by Dan also, the driveway would be off Pomeroy because there's no intent to disturb the stone wall that is an attractive feature on my property. But I guess because the DRB report says the frontage is on Colonial and Pomeroy, which is correct, I guess it's unclear where a driveway would be, but my intent or what seems logical would be to build a driveway off Pomeroy. And it is correct, there's no sidewalk on Pomeroy on that side. Just point reference, you would need to apply for a permit to do such a thing, a driveway of either street. You would have to apply for a PW for a curb cut and all that kind of stuff. So the subdivision is just creating a lot, future construction would be future permits. Do you have any questions or do we have to be on the back of the call? I swear you win, so raise your right hand if you'd like to be heard on this one. Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give in the matter under consideration is true and correct under the pains and penalties of perjury? Okay. Yes, you need to be at the microphone and you address your questions to the board. And before you do, say who you are and where you live. My name is Chris Charek and I live across the street at 26 Colonial Square. Okay. And the question for me is just, you just raised that. So yes, it's a future permit for the driveway, but if the subdivision is granted, could then they apply for a permit to get a driveway curb cut on either frontage, Pomeroy or Colonial Square? We don't speculate on future projects and there's no driveway proposed here and it would be up to the owner of that lot to determine how they would like to proceed with permitting. We're not asked to adjudicate whether or not a driveway on Colonial Square or a driveway on Pomeroy satisfies his zoning regulations. So I don't think we can comment and answer that question. That would be speculating on a project not before us. Okay. And the other question I had is just whether or not the building says an article four under number one, it says primary buildings have to be oriented towards sidewalk. So like the width of the lot doesn't seem as though you could build and be oriented towards the sidewalk unless there was a sidewalk on Pomeroy Street. We've confronted that several times and not in this application. We've confronted that on other applications and given the city's current sidewalk construction, there are some challenges that presents applicants are encouraged to meet the zoning regulations when they apply for projects and it's up to the designer of the house to satisfy those standards. Yes. So I should have asked this before, but if there is further development, whether it's a driveway or a structure, whatever it might be, will the abutters be notified again? The zoning regulations set forth in accordance with statute who is to get noticed depending on the scope of the application. Ultimately, if you're concerned about an application, it is your obligation to ensure that if you believe it's important to check in with the zoning office and check in to see what's proceeding before us, not all permits are noticed the same way. And I can't speculate on what they're going to try to build there. What they try to develop changes what the notice requirements are. If they're going to just have a well, then things like... I can't answer that question and we can't answer that question. I would contact. I would look at the zoning regulations. So the abutter is basically it's up to the abutter to... No, title, Vermont law and our zoning regulations set forth notice requirements. Okay. All right. Thanks. I have a few questions. So this doesn't show any particular driveway, but it does show two setbacks on your plat. One you call the front yard setback off Colonial Square and one you call the front yard setback off Pomeroy. So you're calculating both since it's a corner lot as the front yard setback for this point. The property is two front yard setbacks. So that further limits it because the front yard is typically larger in this district. Both of those are in line with the adjacent properties. And then just be clear this is the creation of a lot. And so you understand any further development construction of a house or whatever will require additional permit. We're just putting a lot in the line. Pardon? Putting a lot. We're putting a line on a plat in the records. We're subdividing Susan's property. Got one property before, hopefully two in the near future. Okay. Does anybody on the board have any questions? My apologies for coming in late. Was staff already asked any questions? Staff would recommend consent. So, okay. I was trying to make sure that I understood the requirements for subdividing. And this is a question to to staff. And so if I understand correctly, there's, I believe it's section five. There's, there's size. There's front yards setback. RM has no minimum size. And so therefore in an RM zone, my understanding is that there's wide latitude for subdividing lots. And it's based off of those couple criteria in terms of minimum lot size, front yard, back yard, sides, setbacks. Those are the general requirements for subdividing. So I was getting, I think, another project. Yeah. Good. Thank you. Any further questions from the board? All right. Well, with that, we'll close the hearing. We'll deliberate on this one tonight and make a decision shortly. Okay. Thank you. Next on our agenda, 175177 South Prospect Street, Eleanor Lanahan, ZP 23191, variance request for relief associated with proposed front yard parking. Is the applicant here? Yes. Come on up. Agent, I just record one note. I do know the applicant's stuff. Okay. Only represents conflict. Lanahan, hot seat is yours, please. Sorry, I didn't hear you. Come on up. Okay. Hello. So please raise your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give in the matter under consideration is true and accurate under the panes and penalties of perjury? Yes. Okay. So we have in front of us your request for a variance for additional front yard parking. And I would ask, Scott, are you here? Can you hear us? Yes. Yeah. Scott, can you go to the beginning, please? Supplemental photos. You mean? I actually have a- Number one, but I'm not ready for it either. Yeah, I have a question for Scott for a month first because his staff report is a little confusing and I want to just set the table before we go down this road. So Scott, you make a, there's a, the applicant applied for construction of a similar feature in March 2023. That application has been put on a whole pending result, results of this variance application. Could you explain that to us a little bit? Did we see that? Have we seen some? No. Okay. Could you walk- No, the applicant filed an administrative permit to build this feature back in March and I followed up and said, hey, you can't do this because of front yard parking. I have the discussion, is there any way possible variance came up? And applicant here wishes to pursue a variance for the front yard parking. So the original application to build it is on hold pending a decision from the board on this variance request. Okay, understood. Thank you. So, Slen Hen, why don't you walk us through your request? Yes, but that first application- Slide the mic over. The first application was filed by Vermont Stone when I was out of town and I would have withdrawn it completely because I'm not interested anymore. It was a misfire. Okay. And we were just advised to put it on hold. Okay. Okay. But you are interested in this? Yes, I am. Why don't you please? I want to say hello to Chairman AJ LaRosa and the Development Review Board. Thank you for listening to me today. This is not as long as it seems. It's mostly pictures. Okay. I'm Eleanor Lanahan and I live at 177 South Prospect Street. Recently I created an apartment out of part of the house which has increased my need for parking and the ability to turn around. I assume that you have read my application for a variance to parking regulations. So I'll limit my statements to the comments from the zoning office. The comments address issues relating to Article 8, Parking Section 8.1.1 exclusively. Those comments do not address the zoning variance regulations in Section 12.1.1. I assume there's no need to reiterate those as they're presented in my application. The zoning comments state that in my application I focus largely on beneficial circulation and problems of snow removal. In the application I tried to directly address relevant ordinances. I did not talk about aesthetics nor point heavily to unenforced parking codes in the neighborhood, nor emphasize the diminished quality of life issue that an overcrowded driveway causes that would require us to negotiate frequently the entrance and exit of each vehicle. Most importantly, I didn't emphasize enough the need for cars to enter South Prospect Street facing forward from my driveway. My property is situated at one of the busiest intersections in Vermont. With the increased enrollment at UVM, traffic has also increased. My block has become congested. There are many more pedestrians and bicycles passing by my home. There also seem to be more ambulances and fire trucks and more UPS and FedEx vans and for the past few years more construction across the street as UVM has reconfigured their parking lot and is moving buildings and more city trucks that work on the major power lines that run along our block. During the week at morning rush hour and afternoon rush hour, the street is congested. A parking space in the front yard would allow all of us at 173, 177 to turn around and exit the driveway headfirst. Better able to navigate the times of intense traffic at the intersection and random trucks that pull up on the verge. It's challenging to exit frontward, but it's an especially dangerous situation to those of us trying to exit backwards from 173, 177 South Prospect. Begging space from patient drivers who are busy jostling for position in two separate lanes and focused on the traffic signal ahead. So now I'm ready for number one, Scott. So, Eleanor, I put these together in a single document. I'm not sure which one is number one. Would it work to tell us about these and I can scroll through them one at a time? Yeah. OK. Maybe you put them in order. Scott, what's the... I might be lucky. We'll see. That looks good. What is the front yard setback here? That's one. This is the property we're talking about. It has two... OK. The comments from the zoning office state that the whole property is permitted for six parking places. Two of those are in a separate driveway on the south side of the property to the left. Those two spaces serve the apartment at 179 South Prospect Street. This works well because the driveway enters South Prospect Street just south of the heaviest congestion. The other driveway at 173, 177 is permitted for four cars to park tandem. Theoretically, this should be adequate. So the next picture, please. No. Oh, my God. It's OK. We've seen them. Oh, please. Scott, they're all mixed up, aren't they? Is it the one with the orange Ford Escape? OK, stop. Go back up. Back up. No. Up one more. There. OK. Thank you. Yep. However, if two cars park in the garage, they're blocked by the other two cars. That's the garage in here. At all times, two of the four cars are blocked. Most of the city of Burlington provides street parking for residents, but we have no street parking on this block of South Prospect, and there's no alternative parking nearby. Now you can go down one, Scott. OK, thanks. We use two parking spaces, one for myself and one for my granddaughter, who attends UVM. Family and friends use it too. Guests create a challenge. With four cars park tandem in the driveway, it's impossible to turn around. Adding tenants to the mix will create even more crowding and more danger as we back into the street. If a family moves in, there could be as many as five or six people trying to use one bottleneck driveway with no on-street parking alternative. OK, you can scroll down one more. There. The driveway narrows to the width of a single car between the buildings. It requires a skillful driver to navigate this, especially uphill and in reverse. When the driveway is full, there is simply no space to turn around. And as a footnote, no avenue to push snow into the backyard would normally go that way. OK, I didn't see the other next picture go by. Let's see if we can find it. Oh, there it is. OK. The zoning comment was there is no hardship. So this is me. I don't have a definition of hardship in this context. So I'll try to address this by appealing to common sense. Tandem parking with five or six people from two different households would be a certain hardship. Exiting uphill and backwards while navigating around other vehicles, snow banks and the walls of each house would be a certain hardship. Is difficult topography a hardship? It's inaccurate to say that there is no exceptional topography to the driveway. At first glance, one might not notice the slope. Let's see if the next picture comes up next, Scott. OK. The slope makes backing up challenging. Some cars do not have rear windows that allow them to see the edges of the driveway. I don't have a backup screen myself. And due to the slope, my rear window obscures the driveway's terrain. However cautiously, one backs up. One is still exiting into an intensely busy section of South Prospect Street. A permeably paved area in front of the house would allow the tenants' cars to turn around. It would also allow the cars parked below enough space to turn around. Let's see the next picture. OK. Behind the tall thick hedge in the front of 173-177 permeable pavers, in addition to their environmental benefits, would make a parking spot practically invisible from the street. Next picture, I hope. OK. A variance to the city's prohibition on front yard parking would alleviate a unique and dangerous situation at this address. Next picture, please. There we go. The zoning comment was, D, neighboring properties contain on-site parking to the side or rear of the primary buildings as required. This is my next-door neighbor. Still the zoning. The property immediately north of the subject property may have an unpermitted space in front of the residence. There's also a driveway to the side of that residence leading to a rear garage. So I'm answering. Front yard parking will not alter the character of the neighborhood. All of my neighbors currently have front yard parking. I believe some of my neighbors' front yard parking to the north is grandfathered, but I don't think all of it is. OK. Next picture, please. Down. Wait, can you stop them at the bottom? There are some other photos. Higher up. There, stop. OK. This is two houses from my house, the corner. That's actually the environmental program. I see some irony there. Yeah. And most of my neighbors are able to exit their properties frontward. OK, let's see what comes next. Here is my neighbor to the south. And the zoning, approval of the variance for front yard parking would be inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood. Well, this is my next-door neighbor with six apartments and 12 parking spaces along the property line. A small parking area at my property would not diminish the character of the neighborhood. Right now, UVM is on its biggest break between the school year and summer school. If you look at the neighborhood now, you won't see the whole story. This was taken probably in May, I don't know. Next picture, please. This is my neighbor two doors down south of the last picture. And obviously, there is front yard parking. So let's go to the next picture. Here we go. This is the parking lot at UVM directly across the street from me, which has unscreened parking right to the street. Next picture. Last picture. Here we are. One comment, E, is although behind the 20-foot front yard setback, the proposed parking area is directly in front of the residence and consumes a significant portion of the front yard, the ordinance states, I'm quoting the ordinance now, not zoning, parking spaces shall not be located within a front yard setback except within a driveway and located to the side or rear of the principal resident structure. This is referred to section 8.1.22b page 14. This is me. It clearly states that parking is prohibited inside the front yard setback, but it does not say it's prohibited in the front yard outside of the setback, which is an important distinction for those of us with properties that sit quite far back from the street. What section were you reading? 8.1.22b. In conclusion, in any case, this is not a one-size-fits-all rule. I live in an especially congested section of the block without any residential parking on the street. A parking spot outside of the setback would not only help driveway circulation, but greatly increase safety upon exiting. It's my intent to make responsible use of my property by creating a reasonable parking solution for the recently approved rental unit at 173. A solution which is in keeping with that of the surrounding properties. The variance I request would improve the quality of life for president and future residents, improve safety on the street, and serve the neighborhood well. For this, I seek the understanding and approval of the city. I hope that we find a solution to this unique parking problem that will be agreeable to all. I thank you for your time. You used for turning around, but also for parking parks. Tell us more about what your primary intent of that space is, because it is handled differently to us, if it's driveway portion for turning around versus parking spots. Well, for the tenants, it's an automatic. They could pull in down the driveway and back up, and it's a turnaround for them. If they're not there, it's a turnaround for me. On the other hand, if they're not down below, if I need to turn around, I will, down below. So it's not an exclusive turnaround area, no. But is it a turnaround area, or is it a parking area? Oh, out front? Yeah. Parking. Okay. But dual purpose. Scott, am I, are we correct that there's actually no need for park debt to even provide parking in this area under the new group? There's no need for any parking at all. Is tandem parking something the city likes? Some applicants use it. Some don't like it. Depends on the structure and depends on the design. I have a question for Scott. Scott, when the zoning refers to principal residential structure, we have here sort of the main house in addition to the south and in addition to the north. Is that all principal residential structure, or is it just the original house, the principal residential structure, which is the main residence, and then the apartments in the north and south? Are they not principal residential structure? So this was permitted, Brad, by Ken Lerner and the board, I believe, as a single structure It's not a PUD. The property isn't big enough to be a PUD, so there are not multiple primary structures. So I guess that's a long way of saying that's a singular primary structure. Okay. Well, you're permitted for six spaces on the property and so you have four behind the adjacent building that's underneath the walkway. So do you utilize the garage spaces? In the winter. It's tight. It's an old fashioned garage. It's a close call. So why wouldn't you be able to utilize the garage and then use a turnaround on the back of the secondary structure for a turnaround? Not sure I follow. Well, if there's two cars in the garage and two just in front of the garage, then you'd be able to back up and do a turnaround on the back of that building rather than... Yeah. All right, I see. You could certainly put two spaces to turn those two red cars that way. Do you mind pointing? Because I don't get it. How would I turn around if someone was blocking me in the garage? Well, behind the building that's on the right, that you access to the walkway, to the overhead walkway. To the west of it, there's a green lawn there now. Why wouldn't you be able to use that as your turnaround for the two cars that are outside? Okay, if there are two in the garage, which there is when there's snow on the ground, but we don't normally plow the lawn there, that's where we pile the snow. Are we talking about this as if there's no extra parking out front? You can't, with four cars there, you can't get to the backyard. Well, I was just, what I was looking at was if there was two in the garage, in front of the garage, then there would be some maneuver right in there. Oh, I suppose. What could you do? Back around and back up. It's very close, and twice, I put it into my application, but twice the deck was hit by the plow. It's very tight to get through there. It's almost worth backing out. Just a suggestion. Yeah. You said that you stored snow on both the right side of the red cars and the left side? Not the left. There's a stone wall along there and a different elevation of the backyard there. There's a stone wall on the left side. Yeah, and some steps up. It's higher. I see. Yeah. So let me ask this more open-ended. Have you considered positioning the turnaround and the two other parking spots anywhere else on your property, and can you just tell us a little bit more about why it's not possible anywhere else but in the front yard? Well you see the setback dotted lines, the inner square? So there's no way to park behind my house in the middle up high. That would be just unlivable. I can't imagine it. That would destroy all the back yard. If the grade goes up towards the back of the garage, it goes down. It goes down that way, and it goes up that way in the backyard. And it goes downhill from the street down to the garage. So I had thought about parking off to the right. Of course, this right side structure only has windows on the downhill side. I mean it has some up high, but it gets into aesthetics. I mean you're parking in front of your entire view. Boom, your car. But also you haven't gained— So you understand that is why the regulation says no parking in front of your setbacks or in front of houses. Except my situation is the opposite, isn't it? No, not really. The aesthetics? Yeah, because it's not just your aesthetics, it's the overall neighborhood aesthetics. It's the aesthetics that we don't want. We want houses, not cars in the front of buildings. That's the intent of the regulation. Tempting to say stuff about that, but I don't think it's relevant. I don't think it will offend my neighbors. I can appreciate why you say that, certainly because you have a giant hedgerow. You can't see the cars. We have to consider what the ordinance intent is, not just for your project, but for all of them. And this is something that we have dealt with a number of times and have struggled with because of some projects and other projects have different setbacks and front yard setbacks and uses. Does anybody on the board have any more questions for the applicant? Well, I've got Bob Duncan waiting to speak. Bob, you're here for this project? I am. OK. But I didn't have the opportunities to be sworn in. Bob, are you raising? I am. Do you swear the testimony you're about to give in the matter under consideration is true and correct under the pains and penalties of perjury? I do. OK, Bob, floor is yours. So the couple points that I wanted to reiterate, I think Eleanor has made these points in her presentation. But and I know this is a distinction and I know that we're you're thinking about intent of the ordinance versus what the ordinance says. But the ordinance very clearly says that parking is not permitted in the front yard setback. This parking that's proposed is not in the front yard setback. It is in what would be described the front yard, but it's not in the front yard setback. I think that's an important distinction to think about because you're if you choose to deny this application or this variance. Based on intent of the ordinance, not necessarily what the ordinance says. So I think that's important. The other thing that I wanted to reiterate is that even though the topography, this is the drawing that you see before you doesn't have topo lines on it. It is about a nine or nine and a half foot grade change from South Prospect Street to the carriage house in the rear. So when Eleanor was talking about the difficulty of backing up the driveway, it is a pretty significant all the times that I've been there to visit the site and construction and so on. I've always been able to work my car around because there weren't cars, other cars in the driveway or in front of the carriage house. But it's backing up on the South Prospect Street is not a pleasant experience under any circumstance. When you're also going uphill at a relatively steep slope. So I think that's an important consideration. The other thing that that Eleanor was just trying to allude to is that the design of the portion of the property that you approved last year for the third apartment. The east side of that apartment on the ground floor does have clear story windows. So there is essentially and they're they're about seven and a half feet or so above the floor. So there's literally no visibility from that living space to the front of the house other than some daylight. But you're not looking out at anything. What someone was trying to ask for earlier was could that. Excuse me, Northwestern portion of the site be used as a turnaround. It would put parking or parking spaces. It would put those directly in the view of the living space adjacent to that deck. It's very tight. We examined whether you could do that and you you can't actually park there and get a parking space that meets the zoning requirements for how big a parking space is. You would you would be able to pull it in in theory, it's possible you have to destroy some landscaping. But in theory, it's possible to put parking where that was suggested. And then back into the the space in front of the carriage house and kind of jockey a car around. But it wouldn't give the benefit. At least now there's the ability for parking in the garage and two tandem spaces and the two proposed spaces that are in the front yard, but not in the front yard setback. So I just want to call attention to your to your about the topography issues and the distinction between front yard, parking in the front yard and parking in the front yard setback. Front yard setback is prohibited. Front yard is not addressed in the ordinance. Thanks. Thank you, Bob. Hey, if I may. Yes, sir. So agreed with Bob that the front yard parking prohibition does refer to you can't do it in the front yard setback. And as I noted in the staff report, these plans show it shifted back. So it's not within the setback, but there's two pieces to the front yard parking prohibition and the other piece also noted in the report. Says parking has to be to the side or rear to the primary structure. And it's not on structure. Correct. I think it says should be to the side or rear. I don't think it says must be. I could be wrong about that. It says that in the enterprise district, as I found out with Rhino, but not with this. OK, well, we're asking for an exception for a tricky situation. Yeah, there's some other nuance to it, because you're asking for a variance and part of the argument is we can do it without a variance. So I wonder, I think we have to talk about variance versus letting the underlying application come forward to us and then dealing with this issue there, because the standards for our variance are different than what we would apply in the underlying situation. So in terms of the variance being in the front yard setback, which is not before us. So that's right. Not recognition. I have one question. Yeah, yeah, I don't know if this is desirable or not, but I just want to ask it. And Scott may want to weigh in, too. Scott, if this were not parking, but just a turnaround. Yeah, that was good. Yeah. Is that is that that's compliant, right? Scott, you're killing me, Brad. If it was, if it was a patio with like bulge in front of it, go ahead. For a turnaround, you know, we have some examples of turnarounds and treating them with different materials and basically serving a dual purpose, like a basketball hoop or something that could possibly work here, but it's not parking. Can walk the line parking. We have to figure out what line is walking. Well, I appreciate everyone's presentation and we should close this hearing and we'll deliberate on it and give you a decision shortly. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, everybody. Thank you, Scott. Welcome. All right. All right. We have 199 King Street proposed construction of a six-unit apartment building on vacant lot. This is a certificate of appropriateness. Is the applicant here? Thank you all. Dan, I'm going to consider you still under oath. New Andrew. Yeah, Andrew, do you raise your right hand? Do you swear the testimony you're about to give in a matter under consideration is true and accurate and depends on penalties of purchase. I do. So pretty clear projects. If you just want to walk us through it quickly, are there any issues in the staff report that you want to call out and address? I know that there's a revised perspective. So, you know, walk us through what you want to do. I could present the project very quickly. Is that sure? All right. So, this proposed building is to replace the previous building that was there for a long time, suffered two fires and was ultimately demolished. Purchased by Andrew next to me, who's going to be both the builder and is the owner. So, it's a 0.11 acre lot. We're proposing a building roughly 60 feet by 82 feet deep, 60 feet wide, a six-unit building like what was there previously. 2,200, roughly square foot building footprint, 8,800 square foot, roughly total built, six units each, all the same size, roughly 1,050 square foot each. On the ground, each floor will have two units. On the ground floor, the eastern unit will be built out accessible. It does have six units like the previous building. But the previous building, they were all two-bedroom units. These are all going to be three-bedroom units. A driveway is proposed on the eastern uphill side. Have a share pack or stone dust topping, not asphalt. A dumpster enclosure is proposed at the end of that drive. It will be built, this metal shadow box fence that we presented. The main building entry is also on that eastern uphill side. Off the sidewalk, there's a small concrete ramp to a covered entry porch, which has that long overhang, the large overhang over that porch. You go in the main door and there's a small lobby there with a stairwell. It goes up to the floors and down to the basement. Basement will have mechanical space and a large storage room for each unit, large enough to fit bikes. And just to mention, by that small ramp that leads you up to the porch, there will be a bike rack there for the required two bikes. You go in that front door, there'll be mailboxes right there for the tenants. So the mail person will be given a key, they'll go in, put the mail, and that's where all the tenants will be serviced there. Landscaping, per the site plan, three-arbre variety at the southwest corner, one service barrier at the northwest corner. And along the street, there'll be some perennials, most likely lilies or brown-eyed citizens. The only exterior lighting proposed is in that large front overhang just to illuminate the entry. And the building will be heated and cooled using air source cold climate heat pumps, so there will be condensers on the roof. And they'll be screened with that same metal shadow box fencing that will be the dumpster enclosure. So ultimately, what we're proposing is a building that's the same size, massing in number of units as what was there. You said that one of the buttons was ADA accessible. And there's two working spots for this structure. In that driveway, it's hard to tell. Maximum three, perhaps, but certainly... You know, it'd be a tricky tandem situation, but it depends how desperate people get. Or how Andrew chooses to operate the building. And all the long-term bike storage is in the basement then? That's the intent. And just two short-term... Who are going to be out? There'll be a bike rack there that will... The requirement for the short-term is two lines. So you can get on either side of that huge hoop rack, a little concrete pad and the hoop rack. Have you considered perhaps since you closed the town and two, three spots for 18 bedrooms, perhaps, since more bike parking? If the board requests more bike parking, I'm sure we could figure out a way to accommodate that. So staff noted some more information was needed on the trash and recycling enclosure. Do you have more information on that? I provided the image of the... Hopefully it's in some of the documents here. What that metal shadow box fence stuff will look like. I looked for it, Dan. I didn't see it. I knew you mentioned the DAB what it was, but I didn't see anywhere in the project plans actually depicting it. Tell us what it'll be. And then we can put that in the record and you can submit that later. Sure. So a typical wood shadow box fence has a wood wall and alternating panels on either side. And so that will be the enclosure around the trash and dumpster. And on the landscaping, it looks like you're putting in some pretty minimal landscaping along... I'm going to call the downhill side. And there's some perennial plantings along the front. Sorry, maybe I'm missing the reference now. I'm like, what was I asking? I apologize. Scott, can you put up a site plan? Come back to me. I should say ultimately that corner lot is empty and I'm assuming it will be developed one day. Most assuredly. A big exposure there is to the building right now will be... And it's a retaining wall. That's correct. I have a question. So I'm looking at the grading on this thing. And right now, all the wood is just heading south. Heading north, I mean. So I assume you're going to have to do some of the stormwater. I assume somebody's working on that. That is correct. That application is in process. And I would say that... It was a nice project. It looks like you tend to do a good job with it. I think there should be a landscape plan. I know you imply with a landscape plan. But it's not really a landscape plan. Part of destroying where the planting bed is. I assume that's a tree there. 3TO, that is... Somewhere you might talk. What country is that? 3R Provided. For some screening. Yeah. I think that's some... So again, 3 and 1. The one in front is an odd providing too. Yeah, that's mislabeled. It's a service barrier. So I uploaded a whole bunch of drawings to the online site. Yeah, you've got perspectives. That's not the same thing as submitting a landscape plan. I revised the site plan. Oh, you did? Yeah. I provide some specs, some drawings of the items in question. I don't see that. I revised the site plan. That has been posted yet. Has it, Scott? When was that uploaded? Yeah. Probably two days after you did the site plan. The staff report. We only have one revised perspective. Yeah, that's the only revision I saw of Anna. I could reupload them. Yeah, feel free to... So, what is happening on the... You've got 8 feet on the side of the building. On the west side of the building, is that... 6 feet. 6 feet. I guess so. Maybe just for clarity, too. So there's a red line that looks like it's a property line, but then there's another line that looks like it's a property line that crosses it on the bottom there on the south side of the property. What's going on there? The south side. Yeah, you've got a red line that looks like your property line, then there's another line that looks like your property line crosses it right in there. So the red line is the property line. That other dashed line above it... Yeah. The dashed line above it is a setback. I think I'm glad I was asking you, what is this line? That's why I was going... Because I'm not entirely sure. Okay. So perhaps that was something to do with the stormwater work and the extent of some calculations with that. So the... Is there a property line dispute? If you zoom out, it looks like it's the property line for the adjacent property. It's kind of not a corner though. So this landscape plan that you had uploaded... It's not a boundary survey. It shows the planting and... It correctly labels that surface barrier at the front? Surface barrier is a shrub, right? Yeah. Yeah. And I have to check whether it shows more detail of the planting bed, but the one that I reload will. Yes. With the one that you're going to reload, are there any other changes to the exterior of the building that we're not seeing here? Thank you. Because the DAB had you or suggested you widen the windows, put that spindle detail in. These are all double hung windows. Are there egress windows? Are there going to be egress windows? They are egress size, but the building is going to be sprinkled. So it's not required? So they're not going to have an egress window. Are they going to be sprinkled? They are egress size. Yes. Just because we want it nice and wide. You mean as far as the opening scope? Okay. What I'm asking was, is if they open out... Is it that case then? Then there would be a casement window. They would need to look like the double hung window. They are double hung windows. Okay. And the spindle detail is in there. As recommended by the DAB on the revised... Widened? Got it. I do think it looks nicer with widened windows. I think that's a nicer perspective on the building. Any other questions for the applicant? Nope? All right. Well, with that, I'll close the public hearing and we'll deliver on it. Hey, AJ, we have a couple of folks on Zoom. I think it would be prudent to request if they want to weigh in on this item or not. I don't know who's on Zoom. I can't see. We have... Well, we have Bob Duncan. I assume he doesn't want to speak to this. Evan Gould and a phone. If anyone wishes to speak, raise your hand. A quiet group, AJ. I wish you'd ask. We've heard nobody in the audience who wants to speak on this, including those on Zoom. We'll close the public hearing. Thank you. And our last agenda item was 98 Sunset Cliff Road. The applicant asked for a deferral to accommodate a neighbor. Do we have to take action? Typically, if the applicant asked for a deferral, we accept it and defer it. It was the neighbor's request though, right? No, the applicant requested. Well, a neighbor requested and the applicant... Granted that request. So, yeah, said okay. And so they requested deferral to July 5th. My only thought is July 5th is already probably a fairly long meeting. What is July... It's on the agenda already. What? It's on the agenda already. Of course, we could take it off. You could take it off. And what is July 9th? July 5th. What does July 19th look like two weeks later? July... Do you have it, Mary? Oh, I actually did. And it's got the large brine of foods. We have the four items on the 18th right now, including the joint institutional parking management plan. All right. Well, we'll keep it on the 5th and we'll see how it goes. All right. Anybody object to the deferral? So moved. All right. So deferred.