 Good evening folks, I'm going to call this Eagan City's Community Development Review Board to order. My name is Phil Zallinger, I serve as chair. The other members to my right are... Kevin O'Connell. Mike Miller, staff. Roger Kranz. Daniel Richardson. Pete McCarthy. So the first item on the agenda is to identify who the five voting members who are going to be on participating tonight's decision. I'm happy to abstain. Just to facilitate the hearing. So five members will be Jack, Kevin, Roger, Dan, and Kate. Speaking of five members participating, is there a date when the charter agreement will be effective? I don't know. Have you heard if it's passed? I know last week I saw John Odom going over to meet with GovOps and they were going to fast track it. As far as I know it hasn't been passed yet. Okay, let's just say it has to approve of the proposed charter changes. I think they usually combine it all in one bill. Yeah. So it's everybody. Yeah, all of them. But my understanding was that GovOps took it up last week and they were fast tracking it. So usually it's one of the last bills out. So we're still in the purgatory. All right. To Pete, news at 11. Film it all. Next item will be approval of the agenda. The move that we accept the agenda is printed. Motion by Dan, second by Roger. All those in favor, please signify by raising your right hand agenda. I wasn't. Oh agenda, sorry. You're here now. You're at the program. Comments from the chair. The chair does have this comment for the public. I'm going to accuse myself from participating in the second matter. On tonight's agenda application on Elm Street having had a relationship with the applicant. So next item is approval of the minutes on April 2, 2018. I wasn't. Roger. Kate. Be accepted. Second. Jack, second by Kate. All those with the capacity to vote. So adopted. Second. Freezes to the first item. 70 spring hollow lane application of Amanda kitchen. Good evening. I'm Don Marsh, render engineering, engineer on the project. I'm Richard Groban. I'm Amanda's stepfather, but I'm also here as our lawyer. The dual editorial comment. Well, it's a difficult one. She's out of town. So I'm doing it for her. I would you please raise your right hand. It's always 30 minutes. It's a matter of consideration. True. But true. Yes. Thank you. Why don't you give us a brief outline of the application and then we'll discuss the new ordinance. Okay. This is a. Existing. Existing for interparsal. End of spring. Hello. Here we go. Colesack. The parcel is. Front of John. Spring. Hello. Yes. Thank you. Why don't you give us a brief outline of the application and then we'll discuss the new ordinance. Okay. This is a. Existing. Existing for interparsal. And. Spring. Hello. It's self. And front of John. The. Colesack. And then it has. About half of the acreage is in the rear. Kind of a second lot on. Spring. Hello. And. And the purpose of this is to create two. Two of the lots. In the. Residential 24,000. District. And. This land. In the rear. Just as a point of fact. At one point. Were. Two separate lots. As part of a lot of. 1973 subdivision. We didn't include that. In the application. Is. Just more general information. With the two. Down here. There's a whole subdivision. That. Was. East of. Spring Hollow Lane. Most of these houses. Have. Purchased. Rear lots that were part of that. Former. Flat. So it's a. There were two parcels back there each about an acre. We originally looked at. Trying to represent that they were. Still separate lots. But. The language in the deeds about 15 or 20 years ago. Sold them together with the front lot. Wasn't clear that they didn't say specifically that they were. Merged. But they were sold. All of them. Both mentioned in the same lot. And. The same deed. And they subsequently. Been. Transferred as all in the same. Lots of came. Earlier. So. We felt that it would be cleaner both now. For you. And in the long term. For. Clear title. To. Create this as a. Two lot. So. Two acres. And. It's it is a. It meets the section. Three. Three zero zero two. F. Three. B. Which is. When you created a new lot. If it's an irregular lot. You need to have 20 feet of. Frontage. Not a right away. Frontage. So this lot is. Comprised with a. 20 foot wide finger. Through the. Portion of the existing lot so that it. In fact has a required. Frontage. On. Spring Hollow. A little bit bigger. So this is a man who's existing lot on spring. Halloween here cul-de-sac. So we have this 20 foot. Portion of the lot itself. That feeds back to a. Larger portion. And I missed it in the new ordinance. Slopes are more of a concern. So. We've done a slope analysis. In those areas that are in the light gray. Are. Less than 50% slope. So. Easily buildable. And then as you get to the dark blue. Those are. Slopes that would be prohibited. From development. There's a small section. About. 480 square feet. Up in the front of the road, which actually was caused. It's man made. It was caused with the construction of the cul-de-sac. Where there was a. Cut and fill in a. Road ditch. That area. Is actually. Over 30%. And. Except for. The. Provision in the ordinance. Of 307. D. Four. Which allows us to. Exclude small. Isolated areas. Of slopes. Greater than 30% of your slope calculation. Now we sort of, we meet that. Literally. I would argue. That. I thought as the intent of the ordinance was that you don't. Build on 30% slopes. Not that you couldn't. Construct the driveway through. An existing road ditch. Where the road had. Artificially lower. And. Steep in the contours. In order to. To build the cul-de-sac. So. Consideration. We have shown. Building envelopes that show. Significant land. Within the proposed lot for construction of a. Of a home. And also. It's. The land that would. With some clearing amount for. The. Solar. Solar access as required by the. By the new one. That's. That's. Any questions. Square feeder. At the end of that driveway in that impaired area. About 400. So it's under the 500. Under the 500. You did the measurements. Oh yeah. That's. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The, the the. The. The. The. The. He did the measurements. Oh yeah. They have a question that relates to. Getting to know our new ordinance, and I thank you for. Bear bearing with us. Do we have a definite. I didn't see a definition of building envelope in the back. Is there one. There. It is addressed. There isn't a building on below provision. It is in section. And what it basically says, and I can hunt down the exact thing for you, is that you can put them on, oh, 3503.C, which says, building and building envelopes on recorded plat shall be representative only and be placed to demonstrate a suitable area for development. Approval of a plat with a house site or building envelope shall not be inferred as a permit to build such a structure, nor shall it be a limitation on future development outside of the envelope or house site unless included as a condition of approval of approval. The reason for that is we had a number of old plats that had been, every time somebody put in a plat, they would put in the setbacks and say, this is the building envelope. And then we would change the setback requirements and zoning, and then in order to build the deck or build the porch, they have to go and file an amended plat, which was a three step process before they could get a permit to build the deck area. So we just eliminated the building envelope unless you require it as a condition. It's just meant to demonstrate this is an area that's buildable. Okay. So for example, we could require it as a condition, not in this case, but if there were an area that were unsuitable for development on the parcel, that would be excluded from the building envelope to protect that area. Yes. Okay. So it does have that function. Thank you. Unless development is already prohibited in those other areas. Unless it is otherwise prohibited. I will point out there were a couple of pieces because I was playing a little bit of catch-up at the end of last week. You'll see a number of points. This is sketch plan review of this application. So there are a number of little points that I'd highlighted and read in my staff report, most of which I didn't have large concerns about. I think they were just pieces of information I had to get from Don. And I highlighted pieces that I thought were things that needed to be addressed, but some of these other ones like existing lot coverage, it's going to be clear that it meets it. I just don't have the number to go and say it meets it, but so there were a couple of pieces you'll see in there that maybe highlighted and read, and it's only read because I didn't have an opportunity to have a conversation with Don to get those numbers. You mean preliminary and final. Preliminary is now gone. Preliminary is now gone. Yes. You always have sketch and you'll always jump to final. Now you could in final end up needing two hearings to get through final, but if somebody comes in fully prepared and you can approve it in one hearing in final, then that's up to you guys in the quality of the application. The issue of frontage, when you propose a 20-foot frontage, that's requesting the DRB to reduce the 75-foot frontage down to 20%, is that right, Don? Well, I'd like to phrase it in a more positive term. We're really asking, we do need DRB approval, but just that the DRB approves it in accordance with a reduced frontage requirement to not less than 20 feet for irregularly shaped blots or blots got by a shared driver and it's not the case. Page 3-6, technically it is reducing it, yes, from the 70. Again, I mean, part of this is just because we're going through the second or third application under the new zoning bylaws. This is an irregularly shaped blot in part because of the choice that you're making with the design, but also because of the cul-de-sac, the circular drive, it's not as if it's a long rectangular straight line of frontage, it's on the circle, correct? Well, and also it's because that Amanda had purchased essentially four lots earlier, so I think this is a regular shaped blot even though it's on the cul-de-sac, but the fact that she has two more acres in the back is sort of where we were thinking it fit into that irregular shaped definition. Based on the history you gave that's also provided in the materials, I think it's also an irregularly shaped blot today because in the past it was meant to be served by a road parallel to one that goes to the cul-de-sac. So it's irregular because of the way it's accessed now. It wouldn't have been irregular if that road had been built. So it's irregularity is a function of history and how we want to use it today. Correct. Yes. It would have been at the end of that other, well it would have been bordered on that other loop road. So it wasn't created as an irregular lot because as envisioned it would have been quite normal. Yes. I see that you've addressed all of your sections. This is sketch plan review, I don't think we have to go through all of them. Yes. Fine. Let me ask you this question. You want the board to reduce the frontage to 20 feet? Yes. That's going to create a finger that's 20 feet wide and 235 feet long? Yes. Yep, yes. And you'll install a driveway? Within that, yes. There's actually sort of an old wood road that, a grown-up wood road that's sort of in that same alignment as it turns out. Is that where utilities will be run through electric and water? Electric and water, wastewater would be on site. Right. So there's no city sewer up there. But electric, cable, phone lines, the essentials? Yes. And that, with that's sufficient for both the driveway that will meet the emergency services minimum as well as the utilities? Yes, I'll be the 20 feet so it'll be probably a 15-foot driveway. And then we need a curb cut across from DBW, which we anticipated to get in advance of ultimately a zoning permit. If there's a driveway that's 15 feet width, it'll be completely with all 30 inches on either side of the driveway. Yes. I mean, we can have that on the other, the neighbor's parcel. Well, it won't have any impact on the... I haven't done a site visit, so I'm not sure where the house is constructed on the neighbor's parcel. The one to the south here is right, it's right up there. So which finger, you have all four fingers on the other side of the driveway there. That's right there, that's right there. Actually they have a stone wall that sort of runs along the property line so it won't be up above behind the stone wall. What is the width needed by the fire trucks to get to that structure? Consulted with the fire department? We have not. I mean, typically 15 foot driveway is what we've gone short of, but typically we do 15 foot drive. The access is less, there's a lot of the attorney radius to get in, which you'd have to have the attorney radius to get into it. I'm not too concerned about the driveway, what 15 seems appropriate. The width is more when it comes to plowing and driveling and such, but we do have a note here that there may be a requirement that it be built to the B71 standard. And does that standard include width requirements or does it have more to do with the base and such? Width, but also the radius on either side for 30 foot radius is what we have. I mean, so it's not about the width, it doesn't require you to go wider than 15. No, I have to. I would want you to get stuck with a 20 foot wide piece of land and a 24 foot requirement. We haven't gotten there yet, to be honest. I mean, if that were the case, what would be easily done is that we may end up, Amanda may have to give this lot an easement for drainage and filling because by the time we get done, DBW had some questions about drainage. We may have to put a road ditch on the upper side, so it may not realistically fit on. Like I said, narrower is better for... And before we come to final, we can have a discussion with Amanda. Maybe it would be more appropriate that it's a 30 foot finger that we were just trying to meet sort of the minimum requirement. And I don't mean to encourage you to go wider. I'm just sort of curious how all these things fit together. Thanks. How much do you do with that 30 inches? Easement, easement. Well, it doesn't say easement here. It says 235 foot finger. I mean, I'm thinking like a plan perspective, it's going to be sloughing off in that 30 foot, the 30 inch. I don't think there'll be a problem. There's a lot of space between Amanda's house and the garage. So to create an additional easement or put that condo in it or whatever, I think it's an easily solved problem. With an easement, it's just concerned that once Amanda sells this lot, second lot, she sells her own. I could see a future set of landowners that might get into a fight about that if there wasn't clear language in the form of an easement. That's why you have to own all the green ones to build hotels. I'm not particularly enamored of this part of the ordinance that allows us to shrink the frontage now to 20 feet and allow a 250 foot driveway. But it says on the paper in front of me, so I guess I'll flex just a little bit. The old ordinance basically permitted a subdivision and then you just give an easement of 20 feet. So you wouldn't create a finger that you could accomplish the same infill. The easement was 25 feet. Or am I going to explain? But it seems like with Leap for Alcala, we had a 50 foot. Yeah, that's a lot. But the intention was to put it, I think, was to make the back, the lot, the back, go and develop. Because the new ordinance, we actually have to deed what normally would have been done with the right of way. This makes it kind of look funny, but it essentially creates the same results. Neither of which are optimal, but we understand it's one of the consequences of what is called now infill. Just where I was going to use. I mean, it's a two acre lot in, you know, literally downtown. It's a logical place to put dwelling units next to at least part, you know, municipal services, close to municipal services, not all of it. I'm primarily concerned with the idea that, you know, this lot could ultimately be subdivided again, given the density. And that when they do, they won't have another bite at the access, this finger. And so whether it's, whether it's deeded as the new zoning bylaws seem to require, or in easement, I just, I think it's important to make sure that the, that that road to Berlin, as it were, is sufficient for future uses in that you don't cut off, you know, the value of this property to be either subdivided again, or, you know, create additional infill when the time's appropriate. It may be difficult to further, I don't think there's any, we have no intention of doing so. But it, because of the slopes down below, it may be difficult to further subdivide this lot once a house is built, kind of at the end of that finger. On the gray, light gray areas of the house side, there's plenty of room around there, plenty of room for setbacks. Do you have to put another house in there? It would be really very difficult. It would be especially difficult without wastewater, right? I mean, you couldn't get three septics back there. It would probably be the main limitation. Two. Or two, if you ended up with two. I, we haven't done the explorers, you know, so I was testing it, but I agree. By the time you put a septic system in, it, it gathers up a fair amount of time. And, and we need both from not being able to develop. I mean, in the blue areas, for instance, we can't develop by your ordinance. Technically, you can't cut any trees, which is a little conflict with having to have the, the solar access for 80% of your, your first floor. But, and by saying, put the contours in for a septic system, there isn't. Westview Avenue is obviously still on the land record somewhere. Oh, that was the escape number. The neighborhood. So if you have that much of an avenue created at some point, you would then have access to the buildable part that's not available. And then we wouldn't have a 20 foot car. Of course, you all of that road is now owned by a separate landlord. But isn't there, isn't there a deed left somewhere for that? I don't believe so. I was, I've been involved in other land discussions in that area. To my knowledge, there was no, that, that doesn't exist anymore. It's in, most of it's in one person's. You like the, the public works comments? Yes. I went up and looked at the drainage. It's pretty hard to tell. There are some culverts there. And it looks like we can have a road bench that would bring it into a culvert in front of Amanda's house. It is unclear how water crosses from the outside to the inside of the cul-de-sac. So I'll follow up a DBW on that prior to our final. So this scheme, the subdivision plan is not engineered and just generally design the perimeter near it later? Well, our thoughts were, and I assume it's appropriate in the ordinance, is that we had obtained the subdivision. And then prior to asking for a zoning permit, we would get the curb cut, the water and sewer address, and the driveway designed as part of the zoning permit. My understanding was this was strictly the subdivision. I think we have enough data to demonstrate that it's, it's possible to subdivide the parcel and build upon it within the ordinance. It's subtly different from what we've been dealing with 25 years under the old ordinance. Any other questions from the DB members? Mike, do you know, is our sketch plan jurisdiction similar to what it was? On the last page, the back page does outline what the sketch plan DB shall make recommendations to guide the applicant in preparation of more detailed plans. You can request additional application materials deemed necessary to determine compliance with these regulations or and or requested advisory committee review and make recommendations on the application is appropriate. Probably don't have any advisory committee reviews on the back page. Throwing everybody off with the wrong picture. Mike indicated, pointed out that we had not addressed the location of an extra shed on the existing Amanda kitchen parcel. And we didn't show setbacks on that partial itself. And so we'll, we'll do that prior to final. We did suggest also that the lot one be surveyed. We've obviously served surveyed a lot too. We would, we would like to ask a waiver from that. If we can, we prefer to just stay with that one survey parcel if we could. But I suspect that's up to the board's discretion. Exactly. It's, it's two acres. So it's well beyond. And the other things we need to show. We'll, we'll give you the calculation of the coverage on the existing lot to demonstrate that meets the percentage coverage and it's way in excess of that because it's two acres. But I think those details we need to provide, but we would ask them the requirement for a survey of the existing retain life. I have one more question. Is it conceivable that in the future that neighboring landowners along Spring Hill, each many of whom have bought the lots in the back may want to do the same thing. And I'm asking this for the board's contemplation as we think of suitability of land development and character of the area. We're doing this once it seems suitable. We've got a lot of good information about it. How might we think about this if each landowner along there wanted to do that with their backyard? Do we need to think about that future possibility when we're thinking of suitability and when we're thinking of the neighborhood as a whole? I guess my only thing on that is that we could speculate, but we don't know. I know that the way I walk down in that neighborhood, I'm not sure those other back parts off of Spring Hollow are necessarily will meet as this does an area that is built. So they're more sloped. Okay. I'm not as familiar with that area. I think that has to do with a lot. Just considering they were subdivided in the past, I didn't know if someday that would be appealing again and how we might think of neighborhood as a whole. But the tools we have to work with right now, the ordinance guides us. The new ordinance guides us. I don't think we have the tools within that to speculate about what could possibly happen. I'm speaking of precedent character of the area. So you're right. I don't think we hang anything on that. I'm just sort of thinking if we end up with little fingers of land from every backyard, I think we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. Well, I think you have to take, I think we have to take the application that's in front of us and judge that against the ordinance. Thank you for entertaining my inquiry about the character of the area. Where did you pick up the character of the area? The character of the neighborhood and settlement pattern. Settlement pattern by definition isn't about a single site. It's about the collection of sites and how they're built upon. You tell lawyers, hold this. By lawyer. It was not. It wasn't. I think I have the answer that I as much satisfaction as I need for tonight and thinking about this. We don't need to spend any more time on it. But I think it's worth as we get get to know this ordinance thinking about how these puzzle pieces fit together. That's what the town is. If you're going to add the shed that's on the kitchen lot on lot one. Yes. To pick the other adjacent. So we get a sense for where the buildings are, where the driveways are as well. Yes. It's a pleasure to board about. Weaving. They're bearing on a survey of what one. Recommendation the applicant to be surveyed. What happened? Proposal is that. Kitchen deed would read a lot of needs about description of. Lot. To the result being that. That which was not conveyed is retained. So. I can explain why we're asking for this. You go down spring hollow lane almost lots. The old development was a develop. Paul Hannon tried to kind of determine where those boundaries are. And it's really difficult here. We're not precise in the subdivision. The original subdivision. They kind of land on the ground has to find where those boundaries are. And it's really difficult here. We're not precise in the subdivision, the original subdivision. They kind of land on the ground has to find where those lots are. They're fairly good size lots. It would be very difficult to have a precise survey of the retained two acre lot. On which remain this house now sits. And I don't believe that there's a survey. There's a survey of the. Abbi Adi Bob, which is the one you just asked to have the house located on. It's that survey. Other than that, I don't believe those lots have been surveyed quite difficult. Because there's no boundaries on the perimeter reference. Have a line of the backside. Some of these will be filed. A lot to this being sold. Subprime. That's why we ask a way to be very expensive to. Have all created a survey of that. I'm okay with waving. Where's the requirement for the survey coming from? I think it was a recommendation from Steph. Yeah, it wasn't it wasn't premised on a particular requirement. Well, typically, typically when I least in my. History of doing this for other communities that when you do a two lot subdivision, both lots are new and both lots are surveyed. And usually there'd be an exception for carving out a two acre piece on a hundred acre farm. You're not going to ask them to survey the hundred acre farm to cut off two acre piece. But usually the smaller ones. This is a two lot subdivision. Typically both lots would be subdivided. Or surveyed, but it's a determination you guys can make. I guess I would be looking for the farm. That I'm created by not doing. It's not seeming as though it's all been established. I'm not seeing it. There is a difficulty in that whole area. I don't see any problem. Does it complicate the city's management of land records? If there is not. Survey filed. No, it would be more critical. I think if boundary lines were closer, I mean this is a residential 24,000. It's a two acre zoning. We're probably not looking at anything where the setbacks are critical or the frontage is critical. Usually that would be a much more critical situation if we thought. Perhaps this line is plus or minus 10 or 20 feet. And it's going to make a big difference. I think hearing now that the abiati lot is surveyed, at least you've got a reasonable expectation that 20 feet off of that pin is going to probably be. Accurate if that had been an unsurveyed lot that may be a 20 foot. Finger that's now being placed on somebody else's property because we aren't sure where that boundary is but obviously abiati knows their boundary so. The 20 feet would probably be reasonable on that side. It's not a suggestion. Those lots have been sold for 50 years with reference to an original survey on spring hauling. So she's got a lot x and a lot y from the original survey. That was always from the beginning referenced. So that references how they were sold. I have no problem with that. It stops at Jimmy Johnston. But Jimmy John, is that Jimmy Johnston who is in? Well, it says stop at Johnston. So I know stop. Is it Jimmy Johnston? So in the past we always reviewed. We always approach sketch plan review as providing the application with a weather report. I don't know if there are any members of the public that had any comments. The application materials were really easy to read. The comments are in there. There is easy to read. That's what I said. That's what I said. We're meeting matters. Thank you very much. I find those in attendance at the outset of the meeting that I was going to. It's necessary for me to recruit myself from the next item. So vice chair Dan. Next item of business is the Elm Street. 2243 and 2483. Good evening. If you state your name for the record. My name is Josh Jackson. I'm a partner in timber homes. I'm Shannon McIntyre also a partner in timber homes. So this is a major safe plan review and conditional use. So I'm going to put you under oath. So I'm going to swear or affirm that you know, Don, are you bearing on this as well? Okay. You saw, we swear or affirm that the evidence and testimony you're about to give for the matter under consideration should be the truth. The whole truth is nothing but the truth under the pain and penalties perjury. So why don't we start out just because we're going to get an overview. Mike, if you're ready to give a general overview of the project, try to decide what's going to be easy. It's a little it's a complicated application. So it is major site plan is conditional use. It is currently a vacant lot on Elm Street. It is previously approved last year with three residential units. It has with not subdivided. It continues to be a 9.1 acre lot. And so the proposal that they'll be coming in is going to require conditional use approval for two elements of it, which includes the light industry where actually it's a light manufacturing and outdoor storage for the timber piles. And so that's the two major things. And then the major site plan is because there is a construction of a principal building, then they're now required to go through the major site plan. So that's kind of lays out a little bit of the groundwork. It is in the rural zoning district and it is in the Wrightsville neighborhood. So it is out past the nature center. Okay. If you want to take us in a little bit deeper to this project, introduce us to it. And then we'll start to go through or load out of questions as we go through and start to march through some of right here. Sure. Good. Do you mind if I sit over here a second? Hey, how are you? Just to be clear, the applicants will have their opportunity for that. If you have any comments, feedback, questions, we'll give you an opportunity and there's a microphone for that. Okay. So, as Mike described, this is currently vacant lot. The Vermont tree experts property right here. That's Pearl Street Motors right there. So it's an open meadow with a knoll in the middle of it. North branch of the William Street running at the rear of the property. And we last fall got permission to put three residences back here behind the knolls and we'll be asking for zoning permission for this evening or sketch plan review. I'm not very sure whether to do those all in one or not. It is the creation of a timber framing shop with an office. We're proposed to have a horseshoe driveway here, staging and loading area. These timber panels of which there's office and visitor parking here. There's five spaces shop parking there. So, Mr. Chair, we've already approved part of this already. Right. So we don't need to kick that to the three residential on the back. That's not up. That's not my understanding. We're just simply looking for two conditional uses which we probably dive into first and then the sort of major site plan review because you're seeking to and really focused on the front part of the lot with that. The industry related manufacturing. So when you say you're putting storing covered timber, could you describe what that will look like, what that's going to entail? Yeah. So the nature of our work is that we fabricate timber frame structures, barns, homes, outbuildings, and that involves lots of timber. And so we build piles like that. As you can see, we build a fair number of them. We've made an effort to place them behind the woodworking facility. They are, they need to be and we keep them tidy. They're not tidying the timbers twists and keep them covered with temporary roofs to prevent them from getting stained or excessively sun damaged. And we would propose to screen those. You're also happy with that photograph of that. We're required by virtue of having about 300 feet of perimeter to put in, I think it's 10 trees or 10 trees. So we propose to use fruit trees to meet that requirement. There's a shrub requirement in the ordinance of a shrub for every five feet of building perimeter. And we propose to use a willow fedge here, which is a fence that's made out of wood and willow. So rather than building a fence, we'd like to grow a fence right there. We also have some planting stands here. So we're proposing to screen them both by placing them behind the structure and then by planting in front of them to produce their visual impact, although they themselves look a great deal like a fence. So the wood piles, these are, could maybe just describe how tall are they and how long it's hard to tell from the picture. Well, they vary. Typically, we're building the piles four feet wide and they vary anywhere. A short pile would be eight feet long and a long pile might be 30 feet long. We occasionally work timbers that long. A typical pile is in the 16 to 20 foot length. And generally, those piles, they're usually five to six feet tall. Very occasionally, they're taller than that, but not much. It becomes difficult and dangerous to manage them, and often they're shorter than that. And is the whole pile then moved to a job site? Is that what they're assembled for? Right, exactly. So when we receive timbers, we put them into a pile and we immediately are spacing them out in what we want to have air moving around every timber. So we're spacing them out horizontally and vertically with stickers. And then after we work them, they go into a done pile. And it is the case that we could have four or five frames that we cut over the course of the winter, and none of them are going to go up until the summertime. So thus, we end up putting our amount of timber around us. And then when we like to pile them in such a way that we work with glass and crane out of St. John'sbury, and they'll drive in with their crane truck and trailer, and they'll literally pick up entire piles and put it on either their crane truck or their trailer. So we tend to make that pile very tidy and exactly 4 feet wide. So you can put two piles under that other truck. And so the earlier step where you talk about getting the timber originally, is that stored outside or inside? Same thing. We don't have room to store a whole, suddenly you wouldn't have anywhere to work. So a frame arrives generally in stages and we put those piles around the work area. And then as we're prepared to work, then we bring them in and then they go back out when all the joinery has been cut, in case of a house they've inflated a little. So it's actually sort of two types of piles, just so I understand. You'd have a hard time telling the difference between them. They don't look any, I mean, we have to be just as tidy with them in the beginning, because if the piles are twisted, the timbers are affected by that. So we have to keep those piles level and we space them out in essentially the same way that we receive them as when we store them prior to shipment. And so when do the timber piles come in? Is it seasonal or throughout the year? Oh no, it's all happening all the time. So we've described in our materials that we probably get a timber, on average, a timber delivery maybe once or twice a week. And on average we might deliver a finished frame that tends to happen more in the warmer months. But I would imagine we're delivering. We have a frame growing up once or twice a month. And just so I understand these looks like about 20 stacks that you're proposing around. 24 stacks. Is that the maximum or is that the average? Well, there might be times when there aren't any of those there. More than we would like and we have to use some of our loading area to store some timbers. In part, I'm just trying to flesh out because part of what we have to do with conditional use, just to understand where I'm going with these questions is, we have to understand the nature of the use. And one of the things that we're talking about is storing this wood that we have to make these findings. Does it have an impact on the neighborhood? Does it have an impact on the air? And so part of that is just figuring out what this looks like and flushing it out. So certainly more information is better. And I'm just trying to understand as well, you know, you represent these very neat piles, but is it, you know, are you seeking? So you're saying that if there's more than 24, like this time of year, presumably your piles would be bigger because you've spent all winter preparing them. But you haven't had the opportunity to send them out to the building sites yet. Especially in this weather. So you might have more than 24 and you would put it in the loading area at that point. And that would be your overflow, which would then decrease as the year goes by because of course all these frames would go out to job sites. Yeah, we would tend to have a lot less timber in the middle of the summer than we would right now. Right at this time of the year. We'll start raising the frames we're cutting now. We currently have an operational brochure and we've worked out of my place in Middlesex. And we're pretty full of Middlesex. We have nowhere near this much room. We have eight piles of Middlesex. So we are shipping timber frames down to the middle to the brochure to store them. Which is crazy. Yeah, so it would be the case that in May, let us say, we'd be full of timber. Maybe we'd have piles in our loading area. I hope not. But it's entirely possible. And in August there would be a bunch of those piles might not exist. And it's just like the metal top on it. And then whatever material you use to band it together. That's right. And then some of the wood is oil treated. But is there what kind of runoff is created? Well, not really any. The piles are built. Typically we just built, we use timber off cuts and then cribbing as the base for a pile. We're not building, digging, building foundations. So we're just doing that on the grass and then the metal roof. We don't want any water getting on to our oil timbers. When I say oil timbers, choose to use a product called Heritage Natural Finish on all of our timber frames. So it's basically got these wax, fine turpentine and tonne oil and the other thing. But we're not having that running off. That would be real bad news for us to have our timbers getting wet and any of that finish running off on the grass. So it's falling on the roof of the pile. Okay, just one of the things that looked like from at least the roof, it looked like that would cover largely the pile but it wasn't like an overhang or anything. We intend them to overhang a little bit. So what we've taken to doing, because it's a lot of tin, we now make a small roof that we can just pick up with our forklifts. We build the piles at four feet wide, typically both. Those roofs are shown at six feet wide so that you don't want sunlight hitting the timbers to the extent you can avoid it. There is much about protecting the timbers from sun as they are about protecting them from rain. And so we want those roofs to hang over the ends of the piles by about a foot and the sides of the piles by about a foot is ideal. So the black thing you're seeing is actually six feet five or twenty feet in the case of all of these and not thirty feet in the case of those. And the pile underneath is actually four feet five. This is one of these things where you move it in. You were describing it, that timber comes in at one point in time and then you would bring it into the manufacturing, treat it, cut it. Then you would restack it and then it doesn't get touched until the crane comes and moves it off site. That's the truth. Right now we move them a lot. Why is that? Well, because right now we're trying to stack things more densely in our constrained situations. So we're building five foot wide piles because we don't have good piles but the truck can only handle a fourth of a wide pile. You end up taking apart piles and rebuilding them so they'll fit nicely on the crane truck. I presume that's an expense to you that you'd like to avoid. We'd like to avoid that. And when the wood comes in it's untreated, just raw wood. Mostly eastern white pine have a lot. Sometimes white oak and cherry quite a bit but it's just raw wood so almost all of it coming from Vermont Forest. The bulk of timber is coming from us in West Newbury. Some from our diet hardware. And when it's treated, is there an odor to the wood? The finish that we use smells like, it's got the thinner that's in it, it's citrus thinner so it smells kind of like orange peels. It's quite a nice smell actually. The wood itself finds a lot of mold. Woods have a smell but not a strong smell. There's no way anyone would ever smell any of that. Indeed you'd have to get right up and put your notes on the timbers to smell them. If you came in the shop when we were putting oil on the timbers you'd know we were using some kind of darker heritage. But would we be able to smell it from? Do any of the board members have any questions so far? Any other questions about the wood file that worked that plane that one to death? Let's talk about the light manufacturing. So you're proposing the main shop in front of the loading area. Give me a description about what the shop is going to look like. Hours of operation, noise. Did we saw us pumping out of the place or what's it going to be, what is the impact that it's going to have? So this is what the shop would look like. This is the end of the shop that will be facing away from the road. So there's elevations here, maybe difficult for you to see. This is the elevation facing the road, the western face of the building. The office wing is on the north end of the building and these are giant sliding doors that open to allow us to just drive a loaded timbers right into the shop. We intend to build this with 2x6 framing, dense packed cellulose, 2x10 rafters, dense packed cellulose, energy efficient windows and doors. All these things add up to a tight novel that is very hard to hear or noise from inside the shop. They do fairly well sounding so they really do. We intend to put the dust collection in the shop that we'll dump into a bin right here but the nature of the work is that we're primarily working in green timber and the tools that we use to do that don't generate fine dust the way a cabinet shop is generating fine dust. Because the wood is wet, chain mortisers, the saws that we have have large and few teeth so the dust tends to just fall to the ground as opposed to the real airborne issue. So wherever practical we like to collect that dust right at the source so if someone is using a router we'd like to keep cooking a vacuum right up to that it's got to keep the filter on it. We're doing that to protect ourselves which has the added benefit of keeping our shop clean and eliminating any dust that would make its way into the environment. So I don't anticipate that a person on the road would experience this as an operation but happy is working inside that nice big shop that's where I want to build it and the door that would be open for loading timber is facing the goal. There are no houses anywhere near in that direction so it's... Except the one you're seeking to build. Except the one we're seeking to build and they're quite protected by the goal itself actually. I hope since I might be living in one of them it certainly wouldn't be any worse than my current situation. Which is above the wall tent is a lot front yard. So when you describe the power tools just so I can have a sense are we talking about sort of handheld tools for the most part you're not talking about big sort of industrial saws or... Ultimately we would like to have a stationary table saw, joiner, planer because we make jigs and we make other small items in the course of our work. The bulk of what we do involves actually handheld tools. They're big tools, they're 20 amputees, timber framing tools but they are the other hand tools. They're not enormous, extremely loud, frustrated. As opposed to say like a saw mill or something where you have a large quite noisy saw. Right, or a 10 horse power sheep. And is this air conditioned so that in the summer the doors would stay closed or is the idea to open the doors in the summer? Well it's designed so that we get really good solar gain in the wintertime and then the overhangs are generous enough so that by the time you get to the middle of May the sun doesn't hit those windows. So I don't, we have a guy who's really worried about this. He's quite out of there. He's worried about it and I pointed out to him that in the summertime it's not going to get a lot of solar gain. However the heat system that we propose to install is a semi-insulated space and the way that the reason that is true is that we don't need to keep it at 70 degrees like an office and so what we're intending to do is heat that with mini-split heat pumps which allow the air condition as well as the heat. So if it actually is hot in the summer, which I doubt, then we'll turn on a mini-split heat pump. And what are the hours of operation that you're proposing? Typically we're an eight to five sort of an operation. Sometimes people like to come in a little early but that is our channel worth an hour or so. Can you say a little early? Do we like seven? Yeah. And if there was just because there are, and I'm not sure, are there residences across the street from this property? Jesse is directly, well, your driveway is directly across the street. So if there was a condition, for example, that nothing before seven, nothing after a certain hour in the evening for noise, would that create an issue? Well, I guess what I would prefer is to know that we can't violate some noise requirement at the road. There's definitely people who occasionally want to start their day early because they have kids and they have to take off at two to take off at school or what have you. If they were making noise that was disturbing the neighborhood, that would be an issue. But if they're working in the shop and they came up here really from the road, that seems unnecessary to us. We do. The only other thing would be the question of the lighting of the facility. But to ask, this is only to say, between X and X, or someone who is, I just would be opposed. I'm just simply flitting it out. And the only reason I simply wanted to understand as well, and I think it's a legitimate answer to say, you have people that come in early. Obviously, they're incompatible. What we're trying to avoid is incompatible uses, where the buzz sauce starts screaming at six in the morning and the other people across the street trying to keep baby asleep. You know, the bed and down there to tell them. Everybody talks to everybody. This is true, but you know, we have business for this kind of stuff. We'll get through this point. But I think just trying to understand, so this is this is helpful and, you know, the other parts of it too is just trying to understand if somebody's showing up to work early, it sounds like it's different. It's not as if the full manufacturing is going full bore at six in the morning. It's one person who's coming in early to get his or her work done. Teemo really likes to start early. And that's a legitimate point. And I mean, is it something where, you know, in the evening hours, especially in certain times a year, there may have to work later just to meet deadlines. That happens to us. How many people work there? There are now seven people living in Montpelier who would like to be based in this shop. So as we continue to just understand the scale of any potential impact, if there were seven tools running at the exact same moment, that's the maximum. We would not have 10 tools running with seven people. So you've got some really good people. So even that is not a ton of noise from your descriptions of how it operates. I mean, I'd wear a protection if I was in there. Yeah, you definitely need to wear a protection. So do you have your original facility that will keep operating, and this will be a secondary location? Same product for both places? That remains to be seen how we can best. We talk about it all the time. Should Berserker just be the kiosk plan? Should we try to keep both shops doing everything? I don't have a clear answer for that, but yeah, the intention is there are two shops that can support one another. What would you say if you could estimate this? Is the latest that the shop might be running? Well, it's really uncommon for us to be running the shop after six. What wouldn't shock me is sometime in the summer you have a deadline, you have to meet, and you end up working, you think, or you end up loading the weekend, which loading is not a particularly noisy operation. So let's talk about lighting, and some of this is spilling over into the sort of major site plan, but I think that's the other big category, and then what we'll do is we'll jump into some of the specifics in the staff board as well. Could you describe the lighting proposal for the site? Sure. You mean the interior or the exterior? Exterior. Exterior. Less concerned about the interior? Sure. So the exterior lighting is really quite minimal here. What we have are a couple of fully-shielded, use-necked lights over the person doors at the western side, which face the road. And then we have three of those same light fixtures here. There's one of them underneath the entry on the north side. And all of those fixtures are, each of those fixtures is set to 1200 lumens. They're fully-shielded, directed straight down. And in addition to that, we have one floodlight right up here. This is on the end of the building that faces the null, so pointing away from the road, illuminates the loading area that is behind the building. That fixtures 8,000 lumens. And I propose to orient it at a 45-degree angle down. The ordinance states that all floodlights must be oriented 45 degrees or lower. The ordinance also states that all lighting over 2,000 lumens has fully shielded. That would be pointing that floodlight straight down. It would be completely ineffective for us to point that floodlight straight down, which is all in no elimination of in the loading area. I could within the zone. My total lighting here amounts to 1600 lumens per day, but the limit is 50,000. So we're way under the limited lighting. The photometric plan that Greenmont Electrical Supply created for us, I believe you got the copy in here, shows you that the lighting level has dropped to zero well before you reached the road before either of the neighbors. So it would be within our... We would be well within the zoning limits if we were to put a series of telephone poles around a staging area and put giant lights pointing straight down. If you light it up like a baseball, that would be offensive, I think, to our neighbors. This light, no neighbor can see it. It's protected by eaves. It's on the backside of the building. You guys wouldn't be able to see it. The other neighbors that are across on the hill would not be able to see that light fixture. They would see that the ground was illuminated in the staging area. This is one of the points where we're asking the DRV to waive the requirement for that floodlight point straight down because it wouldn't serve the purpose that a lot of light is meant to serve. So I think that's the... We don't have a big exterior lighting impact. That's the one question. I want to address that in a second, but I have just another question I want to lose sight of. Is there any lighting proposed for the signage that you're proposing as well on the front? I suggested that we would have an LED rope light powered by photovoltaics. And that LED rope light would run on the underside of that very low-level illumination. Sure. What would be both the goose neck light and the floodlight? What type of light? You have the actual specifications for the fixtures. It says LED availability. Oh, yeah. So we're required... The building has to meet the stretch code. So I've been in conversation with a fella from Efficiency Vermont. Is that what you're asking about the energy usage of the... No, I'm just asking the type of lighting. Oh, it'd be an LED bulb inside. And the fixture is itself... You can't change the bulbs. It's not like we could take it out and put in some other... In all cases, that fixture... When the bulb burns out, you have to get it fixed. Is the lighting color correct? The specifications are actually highlighted. I don't know the answer to that. I specifically would choose the warmest light I could get. So I like that. Here is a... It's all night sky compliant. One of them, Kevin, had the RAB. This is the floodlight. That she talked about color consistency, color stability and color uniformity. Left-hand column. I see it. Just so I fully understand the floodlight. So this is... This floodlight is... It's not for security. It's not for general use. It's for when you need to illuminate the... The loading area for activity. Right. So it's not a... You wouldn't have it on necessarily every day. No. And this would really serve a particular purpose. Truck comes in to unload or load after the sun goes down. You need this to illuminate that area. Indeed, in the wintertime at about four. You need that. Yeah. To work safely out there. Right. And I'm just trying to understand, because I think what you're saying is that... Sure, you could put a series of light posts out there that would be consistent with the zoning bylaws. But, one, it's an expense you don't wish to incur. And two, it doesn't really serve the purpose that you're proposing. Which is you need to illuminate a specific area for a period of time to perform work. And it's not like the light posts behind the Department of Labor that are there for security, safety, and are constantly on and re-eathing when cars come in and out. It's a work-specific light. Right. Yep, that's right. I would not put that light on a motion detector. These lights are much more of their very low level, but I would want to be able to leave them on for security reasons. That's not a security light. That's a... Oh, we got to unload a trailer to turn on the light. Right. I mean, that's helpful because I think that, you know, because we're... Part of the reason why these zoning bylaws exist and why these lighting requirements exist is to avoid situations where, you know, because it is, it's always cheaper to put a big spotlight to illuminate an area as opposed to light posts. But we've had issues, for example, with the hotel on Norris Field Street that wanted to do that. And, you know, the zoning bylaws don't really contemplate that type of spotlighting because it creates that big impact. But what you're saying is this is facing the back. It's... We've got the illumine chart, but I think what's really distinguishing this is that this is a very work-specific piece of equipment. It's almost as if, you know, part of the tools that you use as opposed to a general lighting concept or fixture. It wouldn't be on a whole lot. Right. I think that's what you're... No, no, I'm just sort of making sure that I understand the concept and if I'm wrong, correct me. But I was like to be right. Any other questions about light, Kate? Yes. On page 3-64 of the new ordinance, which we'll all get into in a moment, class 2 lighting initial output of less than 2,000 lumens. I think there's a caveat about lighting being extinguished after 11 p.m. if the light's more than 50 feet from the nearest building. Am I reading that correctly? So, meaning the spotlight could be on as needed, the way that you've described it, but there would be some sort of timer or a short, you know, turn it off to assure that it's not on after 11 p.m., left on by mistake or something like that. I guess my first question is, is that what the ordinance calls for? We run 3-64. 64 and under which section? Yeah, so this is 3-204H. 3-204H, security lighting, figure 3-21. We're talking about what we call class 2 lighting in zone 1. And then as I read this table, there is a requirement for class 2 lighting for it to be extinguished after 11 p.m. I just want to know if I'm interpreting that correctly. I think this is, I guess what I would say is that this is not a security light. But it's a big floodlight. Class 2 doesn't delineate security lights. It delineates a whole class of lights that includes outdoor security, equipment yards, parking lots, roadways, walkways. Page 14 of our staff report kind of orients us towards the scheme. Yeah, I think the question that would come up on that one and I don't remember a direct conversation that the Planning Commission had on this, but reading it, if you're talking about lights that are on the building, if the light is located more than 50 feet from the nearest building, I don't know if that's referring to lighting that would be, say, out in the middle of a parking lot and away from building. And I was reading that as 50 feet from the nearest neighbor. If it's attached to the building, it may not be. Yeah, I don't know 100% the intent because I don't remember this one coming up. I don't remember in seven years of discussions in my four years where this would have specifically been called out, but I think it may just be that it's referring to those lights that are away from the buildings to get turned off. Thank you, Ben. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions about lighting? If not, what's the pleasure of the board, if I can suggest that we go through the staff report for some of the speak it out of order and suggest that we start with the condition where our discussion has been primarily, just to make sure that we have those covered. And that starts at page 21 of the staff report. We have that staff report. So in the interest of sort of keeping the process moving, there's a number of conditional use standards that are zoning bylaw. Not all of them are implicated by this project. So to the extent that they're not, the staff is indicated and I'll just simply go over those. Briefly, it talks about capacity of community facilities and utilities. This is the application to demonstrate gross development should not cause a disproportionate unreasonable burden on C's ability to provide community facilities and utilities, including the schools, police, fire protection, ambulance, community infrastructure and maintenance, parking, recreation facilities, water supply, sewage disposal, stormwater systems and infrastructure. Now, it does not seem that any of those are implicated by this particular project and will impact schools, police, fire, parks and recreation. The next section is traffic. This is talking about the application to demonstrate gross development will not have an undue adverse impact upon traffic in the area including the volume type of timing of traffic that the traffic generated by proposed development should not have a reasonably disproportionately contribute to reduced level services, that the reasonable measures have been taken to minimize or mitigate the amount of the extra traffic generated by proposed development. So there are some comments from the director of public works concerning the proposed driveway. Have you had an opportunity to review those? Okay. And Don, have you, are you working with the project or are you? Okay. So, I mean, the comments really seem to be about the proposed driveway. They're satisfied that meets the B71 standard. And then they're based on the written description of the internal truck circulation arrangements and representation concerning truck access needs, we believe the proposed horseshoe driveway design with two curb presses both justifiable and appropriate in this case. How much traffic is this project generating on a daily basis? I would say eight trips in the morning where I work and get probably a bit of timber delivery once or twice a week. Once or twice a month or four or something like that. Timber delivery involves, for the most part, at the moment, a large pickup truck that's probably twice into a trailer and then that sort of finished product involves a large crane truck. It looks like a tractor trailer. It's equivalent to a tractor trailer in terms of its size. So, the idea would be for the big trucks to come through at the southern entrance and then come out the northern? Yeah. I think it's the best approach if I were driving a big truck. I'm usually just driving a pickup in the trailer but I would think come in here, load up, and leave. So, any questions from the board? About traffic? Yep. Do you have questions? Yes. Go ahead. When you're moving piles around, I assume that that is entirely, taking place entirely internal to the site. Those vehicles don't exit and come back on. Right. Okay, so that's all inside. The reason I ask is that when I first looked at the anticipated trips each day, both the residential or imagining the residential, but also employees, also deliveries, I thought, wow, there doesn't seem to be really that much opportunity for a lot of conflict between arriving staff, the one or two trips a week and the one or two trips out a month. And so, that was listed in a couple places as a justification for the two curb cuts to avoid conflicts between the residential traffic and the site traffic. It still doesn't seem to me like there's a great conflict between those. Is it more than moving around internal? That is something you want to avoid? And it's really nice if you don't have to make somebody in a large truck back up. At certain times of the year, it's not that big a deal, but you get into the winter when there's snow all around. And all of a sudden, it's not hard to imagine getting that guy stuck. It's not hard to imagine getting him stuck in a bad place. And all of a sudden, the residents can't leave the board. So, that's the thing. So then the last conditional use that we have to consider is the character of the neighborhood standards. This simply says that the application demonstrates that the proposed development shall not have an undue adverse effect upon the character of the neighborhood. I've presented testimony that basically a lot of the activity of the shop is directed towards the back, towards the river, and the knoll, as opposed to Elm Street and the residential areas next door. I'll note that to the north of you is the Curl Street motor, which is a commercial use. And then the south of you is the resource that has parts coming in and out, bucket trucks, so chippers. Could you do some firewood cutting up there too, I think? Is that also a residence there at the Montreal Experts? Yeah, both those are residences. And the base across the street. Any other questions about that? Well, I bring that up simply because establishing the already established uses of the area and how this would fit in with a use that is probably a little more benign, but along this analogy. And I guess I would ask a question related to the use. So this is clearly a manufacturing operation as opposed to a place where people come for classes to learn how to do timber framing or that is a showroom or a build your own, any sort of activity. That is the case for what you're proposing at present. You take classes at home, people? You can. Yeah. You've been spending a lot of time at home. That's true. You should see my house. Thank you. I just make note of that since that would be a different type of use and probably necessitate coming back if you ever changed the way that the site was used and interacted with your customers and potential future customers. We do interact with customers, but not very often. More for sort of consultations. That's what we build. Yeah. Okay. So I don't include it in our trip count because currently I would say that we have a customer that is definitely not even once a week. So it happens, but we're not a retail operation. Thank you for confirming that. Stop if there's anything wrong with retail, but location, location, location. We'd love it if more people got by and we expect that they will, but I still don't think we will have much to bear in our traffic. And you're playing the show room in front. The entire shop is a showroom. I hope that people come and visit it and say, wow, that's beautiful. Would you build us a house? Because the shop is gorgeous. I definitely hope that that's it. It isn't. I mean, yes, it's a showroom. Your secret's out. Okay. Any other questions about conditional use? So let's jump into the general, the major site plan review. And again, there's a lot of issues. Have you had an opportunity to review? I said that last night on Friday. Okay. So I mean, most of them I think we've answered by our pretty thorough review of additional use. I'm just going to highlight a couple of points, but at any point or feels an issue hasn't been touched. You know, just going under chapter 300, under the general standard, the proposed office use, because this is a rural district office use is not allowed. So one of the conditions that would be potentially put on this project is that the office uses an accessory to the timber frame business so that if for some reason you decided to get into paper pushing instead of timber framing, not being able to use this site in the same way, the office is ancillary to your timber framing or late industry business. Is that wrecked any plans that you have coming down? It doesn't bother me at all. I find it a bizarre rule. Like why would you not want some high-tech offices on the rural part of... I don't feel like I don't understand. Because you want to go downtown. I don't care at all about that. You're not alone in such thoughts. But that's another day. We can revisit that. And certainly if Amazon had answered our bid, we might have been having a different conversation. I suppose I can see that coming. Okay. All right. And then one of the other staff comments is about erosion control. There's a section 3008 that requires you to implement erosion control, particularly because you are close to the river. Is there any problem adopting those erosion control practices if we make those conditional on your permit? Not at all. Speaking to my engineer. Because the project will disturb more than anything, the jurisdiction by name seems like destruction is not one thing. You do the scoring for those. This part of the score is a low risk. So there's a low risk. And then there's more than that. So all of it will be done according to that. So it does not create an anchoring permit. So there's no operational stormwater. So by meeting the state's stormwater permit, you'll have met a lot of people. By meeting the state's stormwater permit, you'll have met city erosion control. And that's consistent with what we found before. Moving forward, and I'm really just hitting the points that have been raised for us. The sign. So if I understand there's one wall mounted sign, there are two freestanding signs. One freestanding sign. So where's the wall mounted sign is going to be on the street facing side? It's right in the middle of here. It's right there. It's 13 feet, two and a half inches from the grade to the top of the sign. The sign is 10 feet wide. It may not be on... Well, I think it is on yours, but the dimensions are... That's what's missing is the dimensions. You have the freestanding sign. We have everything on the freestanding. What we didn't have was the information on how high... It was shown on his drawings, but I didn't have the dimension to know. One foot by... Sorry. It's one foot by 10 feet, coincidentally, exactly the size. Sometimes it works out that way. And is there any illumination that's going to go over that? No. Mike told me that if I wanted to turn it into a piece of stained glass, I could cut a hole in the building and make it a window. And if there was lights on inside, it would have emanated. That would be... Yeah. It sounds pretty expensive, I don't think that would work. You can also... They're not on there right now. I'd have to devise my request, wouldn't I? You would. What do you think? Presume that down the road, that could be done administratively. I don't say anything on the fly anymore. That's probably the best. And so then... Well, I mean, are you talking about... Right now, you've got two goosenecks on the Elm Street side over the doorways. So you would be posing at two over your 10 foot sign? I'd make two, three goosenecks. Only because I love odd numbers. And there's three windows right above it. Triple things look better than double things. What's the pleasure of the word? What's the question? Well, if the applicant wanted to add three goosenecks over his sign... No, we're not. Where was that coming from, New York? We are now deciding to use... I think that's his lighting and brightness then. We'd have to make a finding that it wouldn't impact the lighting. But does the applicant ask for it in a way? Does the applicant allow to ask for it at his juncture? Well, that's my point. I think that's the only reason why there's a question on the floor now. If it had been included in his application, we wouldn't even be reviewing it. Well, that's all I'm trying to do. Jack is avoiding creating an headache for him down the road. But he's probably created his own headache. And this is putting together a plan like this. It's Tylenol. It comes back and sees the city officials to get that done. That's not our job. We'll leave it at that. That's anybody else? And then just to be clear, the timber home, or freestanding sign that you've shown the dimensions on, that's the one where you have the strip available. Conclude no lighting or lighting, or will we add that just to the condition when you get to the condition? What's what you're looking for? We have not heard a request from the applicant that there's a desire for a condition for lighting so that it can be handled administratively. But I don't want to put words in the applicant's mouth. The applicant doesn't know what to say. Should we take five? Or not? No, I mean, this is just, I mean, I may have opened the store inadvertently. I might use different words than Jack here, but I think my sentiments are the same. Let's just let it be. If you should so desire lighting into the plan you're building, it seems that it would be simple and straightforward to come back and talk to Mike and rectify that, and it wouldn't necessarily require the whole red carpet commentary. Minor site plan. Okay. Moving on. The second point is about bicycle parking. The question is should the applicant be required to provide bike lanes on Elm Street? The city's complete street plan doesn't propose bike lanes out this far, but instead requires paved shoulder, which already exists, although not required, the DPW director recommends a developer consider developing association documents, especially for the residential lots to align the operations and maintenance plans for shared facilities. So, Mike, is this point really about internal bike circulation, or is this about Elm Street bike circulations on page 11? So the first one I think is kind of a no-brainer, but just the way the ordinance was worded, there was a requirement that... Well, this is under 3202B, which talks about all development should provide safe and convenient pedestrian access and it talks about public sidewalks, internal walkways, parking area, and alternative transportation. Operation maintenance. So the first part of the comments that I provided was really that there was some reference to having a requirement, just like there's a requirement for sidewalks, there's a clear exception in the rules that say, if there's no sidewalks, you don't have to connect onto the sidewalks, but there isn't that phrasing for the bike lanes, and so theoretically, if the DRB wanted to, they could require bike lanes for the frontage that they have out there. My thought would be it doesn't make any sense. It's not called out in our complete streets plan to put bike lanes out this far, so I certainly wouldn't expect that we would, but they're paved shoulders, it's not a bike lane. No, they're signed bike lanes all the way to Boulder, so I think it's a non-issue. Okay, maybe a non-issue then. Yeah, I've biked there. It's one of the best parts of Elm Street in terms of the nice wide shoulder, so. It has the little bike logos. Oh, so those are just Cheros. Are those considered dedicated bike lanes? I'm not sure, they're not, but. The bike on the shoulder is not a dedicated bike. Okay, that's strange. Who knew? Different definitions of stuff, yeah. It functions as a bike lane, that's what matters. I don't think you need to do anything. Yeah, what Tom was referring to, DPW Director was internally, his concern was that the developer considered developing association documents, especially for the residential lots to outline the operations maintenance of shared facilities like roads, the wealth and septic system. So, at least you worry, and we haven't really talked about it because it's, sorry, permanent. We've got three homes there, but it's one lot, presumably you're building, you're going to build the homes out there. I think the DPW's concern is that normally, when people build homes like this, they're kind of like the out-of-the-court, which is there when people are sub-designed because nobody wants to just buy a house on somebody else's property. They're all slicing the pie. Given that you're going to be sharing a lot of facilities here, roads, I think what DPW is suggesting is that at some point in time, we'll need a homeowner association as to how he's going to pay for repayment. We have every intention of generating that. I don't think it's necessary for this permit. It doesn't strike me as, I mean, I think that's something that's going to necessarily follow. I'm not sure we have the authority. Well, I mean, I think there is, we could require as far as, like, circulating, I mean, obviously not the homeowner, not the larger homeowner association, but certainly for circulation and some flow of traffic, for instance, like we would now. We could make a condition, work it out, but I don't see that as needed anymore. I have no desire to add that. There's the lighting question, which we've already talked about. The only other question, the one other question, two other questions, the fencing. So if you turn page 18, whether fencing is going to be required here, and this comes under outdoor storage, this comes under the section 3205, outdoor seating display or storage. It says outdoor storage, the keeping of any materials, goods, equipment, unregistered vehicles or other items, not for sale in any ungrouped areas for more than 24 hours, may be allowed as accessory use, in accordance with following one, site plan shows location and boundaries of the outdoor storage area. Two, the outdoor storage areas shall not be located within acquired setbacks. Three, except in eastern gateway districts, outdoor storage area shall not be located between the principal building and the street, unless approved by the DRV. And four, outdoor storage areas shall be fenced in and screened from view from the street and surrounding properties. So you very testified that you're planning on screening the front of these storage areas, correct? With the sort of living willow fence, which, just to make sure I understand, do you're talking about a fence where you build like a sort of mesh, like wire netting, if the willows would grow up in between and then sort of become a little wall or are you just talking about planting a wall of willow willows? Basically planting a wall of willows who drive some stakes in, as I understand it, to train those. It's a hedge, really. We call it a long one, because it comes in and specializes in their deer proof, once they to sort of age. So I think this is up to our discretion as to whether we require any fencing beyond what's been proposed. I don't think we need to. Okay. One of the other comments was that the DRV should require the submission of an energy certificate prior to accuracy in condition of approval if you're already seated. I believe we have to do that to get a building permit. Thank you. That's it. Any other questions? Those to the major site plan. There's a couple of proposed conditions and I just want to go through them with the board. Let's talk about the office, because they're not allowed as a primary use in the rural district and only allowed as accessory use. What's the board's pleasure as far as making this just simply a condition that if the primary industrial use ceases, so would the officers. I don't think we have to have this condition because that's what the ordinance says. When we have to have this condition, the ordinance prohibits it. We sometimes specify conditions related to soil erosion, even though the ordinance specifies that as well. This isn't soil erosion. I know, but I'm saying that that's an analogous example where we put something in the conditions that is in the ordinance that is supposed to be done anyway. First, I'm with here to watch this view of this. So we can shape it more as a finding. Just simply that we find it to be an accessory use as opposed to making it a condition with the idea that if there comes to some point down the road where the zoning bylaws change, he's not hamstrung with a condition that, yes, is somehow give up an office use of his primary use changes where it's allowable otherwise under the violence. The applicant shall follow the erosion control practices. I think that's already been addressed and that doesn't seem to be an issue. We tend to make those conditions as well. The applicant shall provide the necessary information. The landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy condition. Dead or dying plants shall be replaced within one break season with a comparable plant in terms of type, form, size, maturity, etc. of at least the minimum size requirements specified in figure 3-20. That's part of our normal language as to especially given that you're having this edge that is going to provide a major screening component. So that if there are problems, it doesn't prove salt tolerant, it doesn't prove deer tolerant. You would replace that. The applicant shall revise lighting That's the issue about the lighting of spotlight, but it's floodlight. What's the pleasure of the work? We had a long discussion about that. I'm satisfied that the applicant has described the use of the spotlight. I don't think it should be fully shielded. It also adds that it's the rear of the building. It's not going to affect the highway nor should it affect the location. In other words, I think it's important to specify that because going forward with the new warden is we don't want to give the impression that a spotlight of this intensity is okay in all localities. Clearly would not be. I agree with this reasoning and these arguments and I would ask Mike where our authority is to do this. Is it within the waiver provision? Is it that broad? The waiver provision isn't that broad. And as we're going through this slide, we've obviously been flagging issues where giving more discretion to the board gives you guys more flexibility to make individual decisions. Certainly one of those areas where the discretion makes a lot of sense. It certainly is looking at the whole the overall total light output, the light other light fixtures. That's only on during specific times. There isn't a specific out for the DRB but we have notes to that effect. Okay. Okay. And there was another comment that the potential condition of the app and she'll address any design concerns outlined in the Department of Public Work Director's comments regarding the sight lines and access permit with the city. And that's just simply the B71 standard to make sure that their sight lines would address those with the DWW before you start to construction. And that would happen at a very good moment. And the other is another boilerplate that any future enlargement alterations or change of views would require permit to be applied for. And if you want more, you can come back if you have to. Yeah. What's the pleasure of the board? Public? Public? Sorry. I'm sorry. You're sitting here at the table. Does anyone have any comments that they wish to address the board? So if you could just state your name and could you go to the microphone please? I would be affected probably by light but I just want to touch on the purpose of the role of this one. The role of this one is mainly a large land which is the role of the residents of the forestry and other natural interface groups and it's not specific to what I would take to accommodate the purpose of this one is to maintain low density self-sufficiency and role character but what's the role of protecting farm land for our land and I don't want to jump to the right chair. The rightful, this neighborhood comes in northern portion of the city terminus which is the third fragment of this land. The following conservation sub-sufficiency and what's the role of protecting our forestry and conservation for the following recreation is to locate any new residential quality farm land that you notice on the pictures I brought in based on what you can see in the south side. Basically that whole wide between that road is building a drainage well south facing just west of the three homeside. You can see this drainage is right through the left side where the three homeside goes down towards the precious resources of the river none of the houses are long on the east facing overlooking homeside you can see the ravine over the right section of it and actually that looks out over the flood plain where the houses actually slope that last door to the river based on the background actually slopes down around about two feet thick piece of ice on that flood plain so that is the corner of the river I don't think the river takes a turn very important to have all fields lower part of that field just below the house can I say like literally about two foot thick of ice you got south view of the next picture homeside location sort of a little bit closer towards the river and back down again towards the east kind of view of the next picture southwest view of the homeside and the flood plain will be down to your background on the left side right is the part of the hill there you got the beam going all the way down below there was watering regularly since I've seen the property on the picture they show you just a view from the road you can see right there the access of the road they're cutting into this lot actually you can't squeeze the hill on the right on the left from my side I can see that the back of the hill it's the north end opposite of the stone you can see the lay of land actually you can have that circular driveway that you can picture all the logs and stuff affecting the drainage on this area again to a view on the next picture you can see very high slope that would be on this part of the mountain out there you can see the water running from the river back all the way up to where the home side is where the plane is you can look on that white section you can almost see the states posted out there across all that field before there it's quite plain two people actually it took out you can see where it kind of looks like a semi-circle there you can see a little picture where it's closer to the river where I can't even see on the left side all of that is close up to a little pump of a piece of brush all that was taken out just this last fall right after you've heard this program and this is a delicate piece of land we're looking at the new regulations you applied this was applied for by the commercial venture by a company to build three homes with zoning chains since then now instead of going to what you hear there is a requirement in there specifically states it only states this in the rightful section 8 district and the eastern rural district are the only two districts where it actually talks about let me go up to that eastern rural district and I'll just cut down a few sentences this underdeveloped land remains in large part marshaled those land development should discourage fragmentation of this land following conservation sub-relation principle the cluster development while protecting large strats of open space for conservation, forest reforming, recreation use only says that district and in the rightful district somehow now we're making a channel approval of three homesite that's pushed way back in right off the flood which I think contradicts what we should be working towards in development now we're looking to piggyback that in because apparently with my group informed me of it is that because they didn't split this into three lots yet but I don't know, I think I find that confusing because we refer to lots of hiking we refer to it in a staff recorder you refer to the figure of 213 the rural district and the national standards in there it explains what a lot is a lot is a two acre minimum a front 220 feet minimum and the coverage 20% back these are things Mike really needs to do when he's trying to see if he puts the utility on the property so we are referring to lots even though technically he's not subsidizing we've now let a builder investor come in who has actually he just testified earlier he doesn't even know that he's going to live here he has a commercial venture with three homes that could be rentals, sales they can sell these at any time but yet, he's a void you have a four lot subdivision you're required to do the conservation subdivision you know, design principles you know four you're supposed to do it in any industry but you also have these two districts, East and North right, North and North specifically have this written into the new regulations that this is what we should be looking at this is what we're doing to protect the land and you saw this lot you saw the erosion it's an issue we can't get back we can't pull back around we can't have timber framing I want to work out two authors we'll be able to probably know Jack Sovan Jack Sovan wrote a few books timber framing a big figure he had Florence as a kid this isn't a factor of that but a factor of developers and developing we have the two largest rural districts that if we had developers coming in and taking this approach undermining the regulations we have because you got lucky and you got three lives and how can you pour I don't think it's the city's results to provide a free you know, lock to somebody to put the locks and everything else effecturing the rural as a commercial venture I mean, if you come down you head North from downtown on Pillar and you head north of Elm Street Elm Street nearest business south of it's over a mile away that's not educational Turtle Island CCD Nature Center these are all written in there educational things that we want in our community timber framing and our employees very few people has a lot of traffic, a lot of logs all this stuff effects car you know water quality possibly on land any impact on is incredible I've been doing a lot of research into the conservation design principles and I think we're pretty liberal here more relaxed I said in some parts of the country conservation design principles are most areas are to protect the 70% of the buildable land they don't have split planes they don't have other stuff besides the premise that what it was originally we had cluster cluster developed which basically was very it was just simple to say here we got three houses on this lot three houses on the lot conserving to 25% of the land in terms of the total it's more about primary secondary and the primary is to protect the waterways floodplains, wetlands stuff like that the idea is that cluster development doesn't become an avenue to overdevelop some of this about it is to require that when you're applying work conservation services design you also have to apply the conventionalism because as we know we have a two acre minimum with a 120 foot minimum this lot is 690 feet broken we have to have four lives maxed at 172 feet that's in a perfect level 172 feet you can you couldn't do on this regulation you're very different sorry I don't mean to cut you off I just wanted to maybe focus just because we have a limited jurisdiction as a board as a development review board to make sure that I understand your comments and I don't want to get all the words in your mouth but your concern is that the proposed industrial use is inconsistent with the district very much and then part of the problem and we discussed this earlier is that the three lot it's not sorry the three lot the three buildings that are permitted in the back so we're not I understand that but we're looking for something back and now on to something what I just wanted to understand the context because it's obvious that you understand we can't obviously take back I understand that but now that we're looking for even more on top of that look at what it is there's no commercial businesses in the area that don't have a house attached to a saleable house business together businesses that have from what you're talking about you've got a lot of people who have businesses on the road most of you I don't I don't know I'm not saying most of you are not sure it's inside it's kind of in the building here we have a totally different a commercial business where it's going to be a lot of outside work a lot of women are alive and a lot of this infrastructure which a lot they talk about the conservation some of this is inside instead you have to count the extras you have to count all the imprint here because that land is now not even right so these are all the important things that we should be having now before it's too late I mean these are important issues but the fact that it's a big commercial property without attached to a home is it out of character? yes thank you for your testimony I appreciate that you're thinking about cumulative impacts that's what I'm hearing what's the sum total of that how do we think about that and its compatibility so I guess with that in mind I have two questions I'll put you on the spot again Mike if I can one I believe there is a provision for when uses are mixed on a single parcel I just flipped through my staff report and couldn't quite find it but could you refresh our memory on how it's regarded current zoning when you put different mixes of things on a parcel okay so that is in it's talked about up specifically find it so on page 4 the staff report letter D at the top so the way these are both approved residential units which are three units and the proposed non-residential square footage of 5280 are less than the individual density limits for the combined density so there's a provision in 3002 point D3 where you basically talk about how you would factor these so usually what you would do is because it's one unit per two acres you would simply they've got three units that's six acres so then you now have three point one acres left which you could then calculate the floor area ratio which comes out to 13,500 so they could have 13,500 square feet non-residential floor area okay and they're proposing 5280 so from just it's a very kind of an objective standard and they meet the objective standard okay so what I'm seeing about that is that it tries to govern that part of our new bylaw is trying to govern the the coverage and the amount of building on a site what it does not necessarily factor in is the intensity of use because for example if you had 5,000 square feet of remote storage warehouse that was never accessed that would have one intensity if you had party barn that would have a different intensity that's where the the conditional use considerations come into play is that if this were going to be allowed simply based on that provision we wouldn't bother having hearing we would just approve it the point is that the intensity of that use does make a difference which is why we have a conditional use hearing to review whether light manufacturing is it compatible in light manufacturing may be compatible and manufacturing would not be compatible there's a different definition and different expectation of the impact so that was one question well and I noticed at least as far as that for the rural district light manufacturing is conditional use manufacturing or heavy manufacturing is just not allowed it's overdrive that line okay so the other thing I hear you talking about Tom river corridors river meander the space rivers need to be healthy and avoiding putting human hazards in the space of a river's natural movement over time thinking in hundreds of years here even if something bad just happened this winter so I'm looking at not our city natural resources map but the map provided by the applicant and I see that the I'm not going to talk about the houses because we can't we're not looking at that right now but the building being proposed appears to be outside of the the flood way 50 foot river setback and the it looks like the river corridor is on here too and it is outside of that so I kind of wondered about that too when the project is being proposed because that is such lovely flood plain here as I'm riding my bike along the third flat part of Elm Street but it is out of the river corridor the new part of the development so I guess I note that as a factor in how it's being it's it's closer than what's there now but as far as the river corridor itself which is that's the meanderville right it's closer than what wasn't there before I hear you there but it improves my ease my degree of comfort with the building to know that it's outside the map river corridor still perspective as someone who thinks about this a lot too yeah certainly there's one consideration I think we brought up about the conservation in the subdivision and that's something I somewhat politically discussed earlier which is as this is currently proposed it's one lot it's one big lot and certainly if the owner of this lot wanted to subdivide it creates different lots you can face with the questions that you're you're posing right now you know one thing about this project that is just the feature of it is that it keeps this large large lot intact it doesn't seem to break it apart and make it series or small and in some ways the uses that are being proposed do raise questions as to how it would be broken up I would say that it couldn't but it would certainly address the issues that you're talking about because what they're citing is a lot of development fairly close and interrelated to each other and just looking at the site plan a lot of the river corridor is being preserved and undisturbed and so the question will then become if they stop to break it up exactly what you're raising we see the future of this lot beyond just simply the uses that they're proposing to put in you know really what we've looked at is towards the front towards Elm Street the most usable section of this lot but I would note that there would be raised or valid questions but they would be raised if it was ever an attempt to divide this up being served over a larger area in addition to some sort of people it certainly doesn't seem right that somebody could hold on to technically at three months and they're saying that they have and be holding that as they're applying for a report maybe if you fell into a conservation subdivision principle then you wouldn't even be allowed to subdivision is a different beast altogether and this is part of where I was going with that is that when you're talking subdivision you're talking a completely different piece you're talking about creating independent stands out and so by creating or uses three houses in this business getting around the conservation easement is this some sort of loophole possibly but I'll tell you what I've been on the road for ten years these guys have been on longer they can tell you that I've never seen the drill quite this way with the multiple uses it's not normal and so the question is beyond this particular lot of use I don't think so and so then the question becomes well for this specific use is there something that's newly proposed use that's somehow pushing it over the top or raising that issue beyond knowing that down the line future owners say I don't want to own all this houses are a lot of business houses are not a business you're raising questions actually you have this driveway and now become the common part of the development of this movement on to the driveway and now the houses who wants to be driving into the business that's that's that fine line that we have in zoning which is part of it is that we want to regulate and we want to make sure that uses conform with the general pattern but at the same time we want to have flexibility and the old legal saw is so because of the derogation of private property rights so we do want to regulate but we also want to have owners have that flexibility so if they want to do something eventually we would think that the value is there who would want a business next to a home but if there's a market for it and somebody wants to put their money behind it it's their property to do it on I think what our concerns are and raised a lot of them are looking at the larger overall picture that are guided by the zoning bylaws so for example think like like light manufacturing this was an actual manufacturing heavier manufacturing these are defined bylaws but the fact is that light manufacturing is the planning commission as is allowed even notwithstanding all the language where it talks about keeping open and conservation land and keeping this area dedicated to forestry and farming which generally does you know, dominate this area but at the same time the bylaws allow for this kind of development and so as a DRP we're charged with enforcing bylaws choosing but I think these are all bylaw concerns is there anything else to do I guess that pretty much covers it well thank you very much thank you you have well I just came because I I'm sorry and just state your name so that the record reflects that I'm Jesse Pussard I live in this white 320m street very close I came because I wanted to see what was going on and what the building looked like what potential sound impacts resources overall it sounds really good I do hear some of the concerns open land is important it's in living there on that slope on the other side it's amazing wildlife is there just everything very protected that hill the animals feel very safe there they all come down through that area and drink from the river and pretty much have to listen that's the area where they come through sound was a concern that I had sound tends to travel up we do hear the road from there quite well so had these visions of hills and stuff so I wanted to hear how that would be mitigated it sounds like that's all the good reason to pose any major impacts so the climate is pretty well made out thank you very much any other questions from the board where I was starting to go and I apologize I didn't mean to cut anyone off in public comment if you want to take this under advisement we want to take public vote on this now given the amount of material I think it could have been a written decision but I'll entertain a motion let's just talk for a second before a motion there could be good reasons to take under advisement with the ordinance as there was it is for us to be the most thoughtful about the possibility but I'm open to coordinating the election depending on what the other members do if we went into session on this could we deliver a decision tonight could we do that tonight you would take a vote I mean a normal practice and I think this is what Kevin's giving him that he makes sense which is thus far we've been really thoughtful about I've only been commenting on one which was much simpler than this in some respects but given the newness of these violence it seems to make sense to draft a written decision for example one of the things where we're talking about the office we're not the consensus was generally a way of making it a condition but certainly the findings that would support that this is an excess reuse and defining and making it clear that is so I mean that would tend to be the thinking about this as a written decision certainly some of the comments that we want to be I think thoughtful about at one point especially given proximity to a river border I think we want to be very specific about any type of arrangement in both reserves I feel like that and so simply having some generic reference I mean I'm not saying of the R or R it's just those things we recommend towards a written decision as opposed to a war don't chair up you're happy to make a motion to close the part of the hearing for evidence delivery by Jack by Kevin any further deliberation all those in favor please raise your hand we are going to move into a deliberated session so thank you all for coming I appreciate everyone's participation and thoughtful yeah we'll take a free break thank you all thank you