Montpelier Development Review Board - August 3, 2026 [MDRB]

We will uh call this August 3rd meeting of the DRB to order and uh the staff will begin by um reviewing the remote meeting procedures. All righty. So, give me just a second. Share my screen. All right. So, so far Oh, we do have Yep. We do have members of the public. All right. So for anyone viewing tonight's development review board meeting via Orca media, you can participate in the discussion via the Zoom platform using either video or telephone access options. For the full video experience, please type this link into your web browser. Alternatively, you can call into the meeting using this telephone number and when prompted, put in the meeting ID and passcode. If you have problems accessing the meeting, please email me at mcrandlemountpillar-vt.org. I will be monitoring my email throughout the meeting. Um, for those attending via Zoom, turning your video on is optional. For everyone attending remotely, we ask that you please keep your microphone on mute when you're not speaking. This will help reduce background noise. Um, if you do wish to speak about an item on the agenda, um, we ask that you please raise your hand and wait for the chair to call on you before unmuting and then speaking. Um, and please remember to state your, um, name and um, if you live in Melar, your address for the record. Um, this helps both with the meeting minutes as well as to make sure that we can provide copies of any decision related to the relevant application to you afterwards. Um, the Zoom chat function should only be used for troubleshooting or logistics questions. Um, any uh comments or questions about actual items on the agenda need to be made verbally. do. Um, in the event the public is unable to access this meeting tonight, it will need to be continued to a time and place certain. I will now hand the meeting back over to the chair. >> Okay. Thank you, Meredith. Um, so next item would be the approval of the agenda. Um, I think uh traditionally we have uh done the officer elections at the end of the meeting. Um, so would anyone uh prefer to uh make that motion as amended? I move we do the officer elections at the end of the meeting. >> Seconded. >> Um the >> Yeah. All those in favor of the amendment say I. >> I. >> Um and uh so all those in favor of approving the agenda as amended. >> Actually we need a motion in a second. Sorry. >> All right. We have an agenda. Uh do you want to introduce members? >> Yeah. Um so we will start uh by introducing members. Uh starting with Bill on the end here. Um I will note Bill is alternate and uh this is one of the first times in a while we've actually had uh all of our members present and uh so Bill will be a participating but non- voting member this evening. >> Start out. >> Go ahead. John, member, ERB. >> Kevin O'Connell, member. >> Meredith Kandle, staff. >> I'm Rob Goodwin, the staff. Um, the chair. >> Catherine Burgess, vice chair. >> Brian George. Brian Jones, member. >> Alierana, member. >> Alex Helas, member. >> Joe Kieran, member. >> Okay. Wonderful. Um uh so comments for the chair. Um feels like it's been ages since we met, but uh really not that long ago. Um believe our last meeting we had, um one application that was nine Heaton Street. Um the decision on that um well to report out on the deliberative session from the last meeting um the board did uh render a decision on that. um and is uh currently drafting the decision uh and ready for distribution to the applicant and the public. Um anyone have any questions on that? >> That was that was the only application that was had a deliberative session at the July 6th meeting. >> Right. There was another application, right? >> Two others. >> Two others and all right. So we had Granite Shed Lane was also at that meeting and then also the fence on College Street, right? Grand Shood Lane, Fence on College Street and um brain there was a I can't even remember what the third one is right now to be perfectly honest that were decided but this is just reporting on deliberative sessions right so we don't have to worry about that right the second those other two decisions are done lane is still uh in process >> it was the downing street parking >> thank you was And that decision has been uh been issued. >> Yeah. Yep. That was done. 31 colleges done. >> Yeah. >> So, Granite Shedane is the only one outstanding. >> Okay. Um All right. Well, then um any board members have any comments uh before we get started? Well, seeing none, uh we will move into uh the 144 Elm Street application on our uh agenda. Um, an applicant is Vermont Rental Solutions. Um, and who do we have representing the applicant? Uh, here. >> Uh, Lucky Boardman. >> It's just you. Is there anyone else here? >> Just me. >> Okay. Um, who do we have um on the Zoom platform as members of the public that wish to speak on this application? You just introduce yourselves. I think that's just you, Paul. >> Hi, I'm Paul Carneahan, member of the Historic Preservation Commission. >> Okay. Um, so be Lucky uh and Paul on Zoom and uh anyone else in the room planning to speak in this application? Could you Okay. Um, do you tend to provide testimony tonight? Okay. Uh, and Steve, you tot witnesses. We'll do everyone at once. Um, this includes the applicant and any members of the public. All those interested in u providing testimony on this application, would you please raise your right hand to be sworn in as a witness? Uh, okay. You solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth of the pains and penalties of perjury. >> I do. All right. Thank you very much. Um, so, um, Meredith, do you want to just give an overview and then we'll, uh, turn it over to Lucky? >> Yeah. I'm going to keep this. >> I'm just going to ask that you actually make a little bit more sound or the technician. >> Yeah. Well, part of it is the speakers behind the pillar behind you. So, we we'll definitely try and speak up. Could you hear Paul over that? Okay, I can increase the volume of those and make sure one is pointed a little more towards you from our diaphragm. Um, so I'm going to uh just try and keep this brief. It's a fairly big staff report. Um, fairly full application. So um this application is coming before the board um for two main reasons. one, it involves um demolition of a structure that is listed as a contributing historic structure on the National Register as part of Mont Pillar's um downtown historic district. Um and so any demolition of those historic structures as defined in our regulations have to come before the DRB. Um I cannot approve those. Um, and then the second main factor is that surface parking as a primary use on a parcel versus parking to serve other uses on a parcel um is a conditional use in this zoning district. Um, and so again, I can't approve that. Um, as a reminder to board members, this is probably, not even probably, I think this is the first time that the board has evaluated a historic demo application under the historic demo rigs that got modified a few years ago to try and clean them up and create these three different options for um, standards that could be met to approve a demolition of a historic structure within the city. Um, and so I tried to spell those out and those options and the different criteria under each of them um, in the staff report as fairly clearly and and maybe a little bit more than I needed to just because I wanted to point out and make sure you were following along as to how that provision actually works because I don't think you've looked at it before. I think maybe a couple of you were on and the other um decisions about something like this years ago, but we just haven't had one. Um and this building was flood impacted. Um so this is also the first of what may be over the next few years several requests um to demolish, you know, either some or all of a historic structure that's been impacted by flooding. Um we have several other in the city that just nobody has come forward yet to do any major work on them. Um so it's it's a weighty one. I guess couple questions as I yeah just make sure you're there. >> Couple questions as I reviewed this. >> So I I will recall one complete demolition that we it was Home Farm Way. It's the only one in my recent time, but that's different, right? >> Um the garage slash I don't know if there's ever a gas station, but the auto repair place in front of um the former Thresh Tavern building >> for my >> former like Sonoka. That was before you were on the board. >> Yeah. >> Really? >> You weren't here in 2018. >> I was here end of 2018. I got >> Okay. So, it must have been the beginning of 2018. So that was the only Yeah, that was the only full other than five home farmway. Um demo >> the difference because it's in >> I forgot about five home farm way to be honest. >> View district that makes it different than >> uh because it's the different five five home farmway. Yeah, >> it's there's different factors at issue. I mean it's in the historic district so it has an impact or moving it has an impact on the district not just that building itself. >> Okay that's great. Um I think my second question was related to um so we have we have guidance to sort of on technical matters rely on uh the city's experts for instance uh drainage goes to public works or whatnot. Uh who who who would be the city's expert like does this historic preservation commission serve that role? So the historic preservation, so in the zoning regulations, there is no requirement that these applications go through the historic preservation commission. Um because the building is in the design review, it did have to go through the design review committee and the design review regulations actually have a provision specifically about demolition of buildings in the design review district. So they have reviewed it. They have approved the the demo, the design review committee. We do also have the historic preservation commission. The historic preservation commission, one of their charges is to advise other bodies and it is called out including city council, development review board and I think planning commission on historic preservation matters. Um, and so I typically big projects involving historic buildings, I will typically um keep HPC apprised of those. Um, and part of that is also I staff that commission as well because of the links. Um, and so the HPC is sort of your historic in-house historic um, experts, but they don't have a formal role in the permit review. It's not required. >> The board the board could could decide they have a formal role. Maybe >> I mean the board can take their their input as evidence, right? Yeah, >> they they can and they can definitely take their input as evidence. >> Wonderful. Uh so for process forward, I don't see what board members think. I'm into turning it over to the applicant to state their case and then I'd sort of like to hear directly from the historic preservation if they're here to sort of um give us a summary of their findings if that makes sense. Um, okay. So, Lucky, uh, we'll turn it over to you to introduce yourself and, um, sort of, uh, state your, uh, arguments for this application and project. >> All right. Thank you. Uh, my name's Lucky Borman and I'm here representing Vermont Rental Solutions in the demo of 144 Elm Street. Uh, we purchased the property after the flood knowing its extent of damage um for housing development. Um, so that was our intent. um walking through. So, we've had engineers, we've had appraisers, we've had the state out, we've met with the historic preservation, multiples times on site to deem um well, the affordability, the cost, and the just the ability in general to uh preserve any of that building. Um Bob himself came out with one of his um I don't know historic uh people Elliot and um I haven't heard anything back from them as far as the feasibility of it but everybody we've contacted in the last 6 months who would have the ability to uh save a section of the building possibly store it for the construction duration uh deemed not to want to get involved or it wasn't worth the value. Um, what we've established is that if if we did try and save any of the building, we'd be running into about a half a million dollars in additional costs. Um, so we're we're inclined to uh demo it, but if there's a grant or a fund or anything, I was talking to Bob or if there's any way through the future permitting process while we have the time to come up with some money to save that building and add it to the new construction or whatever, we'd be happy to, you know, revisit this, but mainly our goal is to level the lot um clean it up and with act 47, the home act um provide between 40 and 50 new residential housing units. That's the gist. >> Um can I ask a question about the inspection by Elliot Lothrop that's referenced but I guess it hasn't been prepared yet. There's reference to um a rough estimate for the work and availability of capable contractors but that hasn't been forthcoming. Correct. >> I haven't seen anything about it. Um it's all speculation as well. I mean the conversation I had with them is every anybody can put a value on it. You could, I could, anybody in the room could but who will actually do the work and who will hold the liability? Um, the biggest problem is for the construction of it and the amount of construction, you'd have to physically remove the section of building off site during the whole process and somebody would have to be liable to store and hold that and then come and install it back onto the building. You can't half demo something and and build around it. I mean, the efficiency and liability is insane. Um, so there's been a lot of amazing thought to it, but again, until somebody raises their hand, it's all just that. >> Alex, >> we're not considering how many units might go on this property at this hearing. Am I correct? >> Correct. This is this is demo. Uh but it it it may come it could theoretically come into play in the demo decision if you're using the public benefit analysis, >> right? Um so that's why it is still a relevant but then it comes to if you're using that that analysis there may be some other factors for conditions of approval that need to be put in there. Um so but otherwise yeah this does not approve any towards the future other than that interim surface parking use. so that something can be done with there while future plans are developed. >> And those future plans would potentially be relevant to the economic viability standard as well in reference to income producing property >> with what what it is that he they're trying to do with the parcel. >> Okay. >> Just one moment. >> Go ahead, Bill. I think the the economic value and the value to the community is important here in regard to what the future of the owners is at this point that I don't think we are approving just a parking um because right now it's worth $340,000 and uh as it is uh but a parking lot would not be worth more than that I don't think. So I think in some way we are looking at uh the the total picture even though as far as the specifications for how many units uh is is not part of the standards uh I think we are looking at its future value to the the city and the community as part of uh the intent of the owner to do more than just put uh what is it 18 new parking spaces is up there. >> Um, so I think Alex, it's good question. I would just widen it a bit for me. >> Yeah, it's the it's the number that I think can because I don't I was trying to look for where the numbers are because there's various numbers get offered here. Um, and some of them are can be perceived as alarming. Um, and some of them less so. >> Yeah. >> Um, and I I can't find them off hand. >> Sure. Well, I think that, you know, there's a lot to this application and I think with these historic applications, it's really important that we sort of um go in in in sequence um and the staff was laid out, you know, with the you know, the demolition provisions of 3004 first um and their specific criteria, make decisions on that and that will sort of guide where we go from there. Um Lucky, did you get a chance to review the staff report that was distributed? Um, honestly, no. No, I did not. I was trying to do it this evening. Um, >> okay. Well, um, >> it did get you did get the copy. I emailed you on Friday, though. Okay. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Um, so I'm I'm guessing preparing this application, you did get a chance to sort of review the um criteria for demolition that we have to use um in section 3004. >> That's correct, Jim. >> Yeah. Um so maybe you could summarize a little bit or we can go by them one by one. Um just the sort of the provisions that you feel apply to your request here. Um you know is it economic viability, historic integrity, is it a combination of the two? There's a whole list. >> Public benefit. >> Public benefit. Yeah. Um, just you could maybe talk a little bit about your uh sort of thoughts on how 3004 applies to your project. >> Uh, that's a good question. So, I don't 3004. >> So, if you have the staff report open, >> yeah, >> it starts really at the bottom of page seven. So there's a general statement about what the three standards are at the bottom of page seven and it bleeds onto page eight. >> So it continues. >> Yep. And then pages like eight and nine have the three different standards laid out. So there's the historic integrity standard um that starts at the subf. There's economic viability standard specifics at subg and then on page nine is the public benefit standard specifics. So, so as a board we have to decide that um it meets um one or more of the three standards. One, no historic integrity. Two, economic viability standard uh and three, the public benefit uh standard. >> Well, I would definitely say the public benefit and uh economic viability are um are affected by this. I mean, having new housing uh in the city of downtown is in the city of Montlair is what everybody wants. I mean, it's being screamed from the rooftops and here we are. Uh, the opportunity to build anything in in town is limited due to the size of the city and and what's available for lots. I mean, this is the chance to utilize some uh developmental land for for such a thing. >> Okay. And then you talked about the costs um uh associated with uh rehabilitation. Um I'm guessing that is maybe economic viability. >> Yeah. I mean the cost of doing anything with the uh the existing building just takes it out of any financial feasibility. I mean the uh without a grant or some kind of third party funding. It you just can't finance something like that in a project and have affordable housing or workforce housing is what we do. Okay. Um, I think that sets the record clear of what the applicants asking for. Uh, folks want to turn to the historic preservation to kind sort of get their take. Yes. Um, so yeah, I'd like to invite anyone from the Historic Preservation Commission um up to uh speak on this application. So you can sit at the table or at the podium, whichever one you want. Whichever one's more comfortable for you. >> Just introduce yourself and go right ahead. >> I'm sorry. >> Just introduce yourself and >> Bob McCulla. I am the vice chair of the historic preservation commission and I have uh I'm retired from UVM where I was uh a faculty member for 30 years at the historic in the historic preservation program. >> Do you think you could just you maybe summarize what you discussed in the feeling of the board? >> Sure. Um, you have a letter I think that's part of your package and the letter was drafted by the preservation commission and there are really two parts to the origins of the letter. One is the overall broad concern about the uh impending demolition of buildings along uh flood damaged buildings along Elm Street and the effect that that will have on the historic streetscape of uh that part of the city. And it's it's a form of er erosion that will occur in fairly large increments as buildings come down. And the historic preservation commission speaks for the built and cultural environment and uh the commission is concerned about the long-term effects of what will probably be numerous requests for demolition. In this case, uh we have a building that dates from 1875 1880 uh that is an Italian uh residential structure that was modified in the early uh postw World War II era uh with the addition of a church which is intrusive to the building's architectural design and details substantially intrusive. The building's principal historic significance is what it contributes to the streetscape. And if you're like me, you probably are familiar with that building from the view moving north on Elm Street. And the first thing that becomes visible is the church itself, which is again intrusive. But if you walk past the building and then turn around and look back toward the southwest, you get a completely different picture of the building and it's much easier to see how the building contributes to the streetscape. And I think you have any copies or photographs of the of that. And so they were they're on the table, but I'm going to share it up on the screen so that you can see it as well because u >> and so um we've been we've worked with with Mr. Boardman on a number of occasions and have looked at the building and it's the role of the commission to advise the development re review board and to um suggest ways that the development review board might address potential loss of historic resources. One potential way to do that in this case is to salvage the front 12 feet of the building as a facade and meld that part of the building into the design of the affordable housing. And I don't for a minute uh disagree with Mr. board's uh ref emphasis on the need for affordable housing in W Pillar. It's it's an important concern and so the development review board is faced with a choice between trying to figure out ways to salvage some of its historic resources or provide provide more affordable housing. The actual feasibility of preserving the front 12 feet, although it may sound um challenging is actually not that difficult. The foundation beneath that portion of the building is good and the building wouldn't have to be moved. It would be uh that the front portion of the building would be uh simply stabilized and one solution with regard to the foundation would be to uh simply pour concrete into it at a height that would that would address to some extent the concerns about flooding. Um Elliot Lo looked at the building with me and with Mr. Borman and I don't have Elliot's estimates for the costs of doing that. I think Mr. Borman is correct. It will increase the cost of the project and that's another consideration for uh the board. Um but it is one device that is available to try to salvage an element of this building which does contribute to the streetscape of Elm Street. And again, it's the role of the preservation commission to make those uh make the development review board aware of those potential opportunities. Um I think that is a pretty good sum initial summary and you probably have a lot of questions about how we would how this would would take place. Um uh I don't we don't have the hard numbers and that's a bit of a a problem. Um I think the figures that Mr. Borman discussed with me and Mr. and Elliot Loth were in the vicinity of 300,000. I can only guess somewhere between 200 and 300,000. Um but again that's that is an increase to the project costs and that's an important factor to consider. Just to clarify the 200 to 300,000 that number would be how much more it would cost to save the >> I think in addition to the overall project costs. Yes. >> Okay. And Mr. Borman's estimate was 300,000. >> What was that? >> And Mr. Borman's estimate was 300,000 roughly. >> He can provide those specimens better than I can I think. But but somewhere like somewhere in that vicinity. Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Go ahead, Alex. >> So, it's a pretty big branch. >> What does 12 ft mean? Does it mean the front facade and then going back 12 ft? >> Front facade and the 12 ft from the front facade. >> So, it would be like a architectural portico some kind >> in a sense. Um, this isn't an ideal preservation treatment by any means, but it has been used in a number of urban areas, Georgetown, Virginia, and Charleston, South Carolina, where large large projects have been developed, and the cities have felt that preserving the historic streetscape was important. I think that it's probably within the realm of experiment here and we're in a position where the city needs to experiment. How are we going to address this incremental erosion of streetscape along Elm Street? What are the opportunities available? What are the devices available? And uh this is would might be an experiment that would that would tell us how well it works or or uh whether it's it's not uh uh very effective at all. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Y >> um so we have both the minutes from the meeting where um this proposal was discussed and the letter. So I feel like the letter offers additional nuance in that it's more forwardlooking than the notes from the meeting. But could you talk us through I think in the notes for the meeting. >> Just clarify. So I think we have the minutes from the >> design review committee. >> Design review. >> So that's design review committee. So those minutes are provided to explain the vote that's on the recommendation form >> because there's two different entities. >> Okay. >> Um but the Yeah. No, the historic preservation commission minutes aren't in here. This is their letter because that's >> Yeah. >> Okay. I'm sorry I mixed up. >> That's okay. You guys don't usually get minutes from the design review committee. So >> So that might be a question more if we're able to hear more from design review. I did want to say something just for this is broader more a like resource discussion versus a question. >> But um I've heard of a group called Keeping History Above Water. Are you familiar with this? >> Bigly. Anyway, it just could be interesting to look up. They did conferences in Annapolis and Charleston all around strategies for working with flood vulnerable properties in historic districts, >> right? >> And um yeah, I I thought it was interesting to see, you know, it >> I think a lot of their findings were about looking more broadly at at you know what what is history? What does the structure you know how can the structures use or even location evolve over time? >> Yes. uh and I have I have listened to one of the individuals who is in I think involved with that group and the point was that um the incre the problems with flooding in places like Annapolis are just beginning. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And looking you know looking forward Yeah. the flood vulnerability is likely to increase as well. Yeah. Anyway, that's sort of a an aside, but I think it's an interesting um it's interesting to think about other Yeah. cities that are also dealing with this right now. >> Yes. >> So, >> right. >> Yeah. >> I think for me, I think that what you said was very helpful to for context here. So, thank you. >> Kar. >> Okay. Um I think that was very helpful testimony. Any board members have any more questions? I just have one question. This is kind of for Bob and for Lucky. Uh there was this conversation about um uh about funding potentially, right? Uh and I just thought it'd be interesting for the board to understand where that funding might come from, how feasible it is that it could actually be um you know, it could play out and and and maybe be available to help offset these costs. That's a good point and I'm glad you brought it up because I forgot a segment of what I wanted to say and that is that as part of this decision that or as part of this challenge that the city is facing there's the question of funding and this is a larger concern than just the individual project here and um if the city is committed to its historic resources then I think it's important to consider ways to help individual property owners address funding concerns. concerns and u other cities for example have developed um ways of freezing property taxes for a short period in order to encourage property owners to rehabilitate buildings. Um but I think that's an important part of the conversation and h being able to again it's a larger issue. It's not. And the question becomes whether an individual property owner should be burdened with uh an effort which is uh um not a complete preservation effort at the at at maybe unfair expense. Um so yes, I I agree completely. >> Okay. Um sorry Ed, thank you so much. the the um the other piece of my question um was trying to just get a little bit of more of a survey for the board about what the where that money might come from, the grant that might be available through the state entity or something like that. I'm wondering if that conversation came up at all. >> We've talked about it and there aren't a lot of grant programs that would um I think help this situation. The Preservation Trust of Vermont has small grants, but not really for this type of solution. And so that's the the universal challenge. Where do where do we find the money? >> Right. >> Okay. >> Thanks. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. This might be I have a question maybe more for Meredith like when I saw that note in the letter around you know mitigating the hardship is you know a grant is one way to mitigate a hardship which is out of the purview of this board. I think if this process was different, you know, there could be other strategies around you know density bonus or whatever else but that's uh you know that that's not in alignment with the way that the application is judged per the yeah per the regs here. So I just want to ask Meredith if you had any other thoughts there. >> Yeah. No, I mean that's that's part of this conundrum. Yeah. >> Right. is that the board is charged with making this decision based on the regulations that we have. Um that the city's ability to provide any financial assistance is outside of the board's purview. Um and um there just aren't a lot of programs available for this this type of trying to salvage part of the historic structure. Um as Bob said, there's just not a lot available for that. Um there are you know there are times where the city has entered into development agreements to help um and the I can't remember the words but yes freezing your assessment at a certain value usually that's for you know your improvements to an existing building. Um, and this is a little bit a little bit different situation and this again outside of the board's perview or or mine. Um, that's an agreement that is usually managed with the assessor's office and city council and the the developer. Um, so how you know any sort of financial evaluations you make have to be within the scope of what's in the regulations unfortunately and not not necessarily where the money's coming from. which is why making sure you have depending on what which calculus you're using here, which criteria you're looking at, it's making sure you have the data to to back up your decision um for going down the road is my suggestion. Um let's try and try and make sure you have all the info you need to make that follow. >> Go ahead, Bill. We're kind of brainstorming on this. The other thought was if in fact the the future project that's coming out with I'm going to refer to this um if the cost of of um holding as much of the historic facade of the building as possible can be built into how the cost of the future uh property uh and the profitability therefore of the future property looks like and the and where it comes into the board's approval and I I noticed there are several uh offers of conditional uh provisions that you suggested and I think several of those were good that the conditional uh provision would be tying the development of a of the demolition of a the historic property into a parking uh we condition that into a a um the future of this project. Uh and therefore its preservation of the historic value is within the future of the project that is conditional uh under one of the conditions that you suggested in terms of uh uh 30004 uh economic viability and 304 uh public benefit. Looks like it comes under or could come under either or both of those as a proposal to a condition to approve a permit for a parking lot on a property that's worth considerably more um to the owner I think to the city and to the historic value of Montior and even Vermont for that matter. So, if that's a brings it back into the the board's purview, uh I'm just suggesting that as a as a possibility that we when we get to deciding and deliberating on conditions, which I'm just, you know, thinking ahead might have a few in this proposal, that might be one of them. So, just my two cents on it. Well, 30004 refers only to demolition, not to the parking lot aspect, right? >> Correct. >> Yeah. I I think it was just a you can condition the demo on have conditions included there as to what needs to go on the site, >> right? >> In for future permits. like you can say future development after you know in addition to the parking lot next phase has to be within X scope. Um it's not usual. Um it's it's it's a fairly unusual thing for the board in my eight years here, but if that is part of the like if you're going public benefit and you're saying the public benefit is building housing of x number of units or however that's the condition, right? And that that would be in place with whether it's the current applicant going forward or if the property gets sold to the next and the next owner would still have to develop within the scope of the that condition. >> Go ahead. >> Thank you, Mayor. >> Go ahead, Alex. >> Um the report from can't remember which one it was, the one that examined the condition of the building, not the appraisal. Um the engineers report >> the engineers report um talked about the how it's a additive building. Was there any discussion of preserving just the original structure >> which is like order built structures now on the site >> at the commission meeting actually yes there was discussion about that and both Eric Gilbertson and I met with Mr. Borman and looked at the building. And I looked at the foundation and the interior of the building and its addition has been so carved up, so altered that um commission felt that efforts to preserve the entire building would be uh pointless. >> What do you mean by entire building? Because that's the point of >> the historic building. So the one >> the residential structure, not the church. >> I can't hear. >> No, no, more than that because there's five >> the original 1800s. >> Yes. >> The one that on the there's a colorcoded picture >> and it's just the blue part. >> The I'm speaking about the 1880 Italian. >> Okay. >> Frame structure. >> Yeah, that's the one I'm looking at. Okay. So the original late 19th century structure. >> Correct. Right. I'll come back to your question about how you would how we would the 12 feet. Why 12 feet? Elliot Lother and I went into the basement and uh assess the way the building was put together. And there is a structural system that begins about 12 feet back from the front of the building. And at that point it would be possible to remove the rest of the building behind that 12 or 13 ft and stabilize that 12ft structure. and then meld it into the design of a new building. >> Is that a usual practice? It seems very curious. >> It's an unusual It's not as I said it's not ideal but it's the alter the only alternative here is demolition of the entire building. >> Okay. So there is I mean because there was stuff about knob and tube but knob and tube could be replaced that you know there were other other things that deemed it too expensive or not rehabilitatable. We the other there really aren't any other preservation devices available. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. >> I mean this would be a purely aesthetic preservation in terms of the >> aesthetic in the sense that it it salvages what this building contributes to the streetscape, the 19th century streetscape which is a little more than just aesthetics. It's the overall environment, the built environment. Yeah. >> Uh one final question, one final question for for you, Bob. Go ahead. Um and it's simply uh the question of of narrative. Um is there anything that's especially um interesting or historical figures or historical use of this property that kind of that contributes to, you know, it its identity? I'm not aware of any association with individuals or events that give the building added significance. For me, it's principally what it contributes to the streetscape. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Any more questions for Bob? We'll relieve him of the hot seat. >> Thank you. Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Bob. Thank you. Um so to keep things uh moving here but yet uh sort of focused on our flow um last heard from Lucky on uh sort of the three options here. Um he raised public benefit um as sort of the number one and I think that that um is I'm sensing the board is leaning towards like really exploring that um um public benefit standard um as an option here. um staff put out um a few sort ways at which we can ensure that that public benefit standard is met. Um and I think it'd be worth the board sort of discussing uh what our sort of what more information we might need in order to require one of those conditions um or whether we feel we have enough. Um just jump starting that part of the discussion. Uh these are on the bottom of page nine if folks are following along in the staff report. Um we can just go through them one by one if you'd like. Um these are just possible conditions. There's not suggesting that these are required or anything but just to get our um conversation started. Um so one would be requiring the documentation of the historic and architectural elements of the structure prior to its demolition. Um and B uh the second one requiring all other permitting and financing to be in place uh before the demolition could commence in cases where the redevelopment is proposed. Um so if housing is proposed and we feel like that needs to meet the public benefit um we could have a condition um requiring you know financing uh and um and per and permits in place. Um and then um then the last one I think is what we we discussed uh most recently which would include uh the requirement that um you know the the facade gets saved. Um and um we have a note here that the applicant has proposed professional photographic documentation of the building facade um that will be provided to the historic preservation commission. Um and also I believe they have proposed possible salvage of architectural elements of the building um including interpretive signage >> and >> oh and including >> they've in they have uh proposed the including of interpretive signage in the future development and have uh having new the new building design highly compatible with the surrounding historical context. Um, so that would be just be like maybe pictures of the old historic context inside the building for a reminder what it was like >> possibly. Yep. Um, as well as having, you know, their proposal was that the new building would would also have elements of design of that new building reflecting the historic context in the neighborhood. Um that's one of those things that the design review committee will weigh um when any new building gets proposed, but the board could require you know an an elevated aspect if they wanted to of um you know a tip of the hat to the prior building or who knows what. There's there's you there's a lot of options here, right? So the the suggestions there are specific suggestions in the regulations of potential conditions, but the board has a lot of room to play here um on what they think needs to happen. >> Could I just add something? >> Go ahead, Lucky. >> Um it's almost impossible to have the permits and everything in order um before financing. I mean, it's hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars to do this. You got to do like ground impact tests for the weight. You got to do all this architectural engineering and evaluation. I mean, you can't self-fund something like this. And no financial inst institution is going to preemptively fund or lend money in hopes that it's approved for demo one day or it's just virtually impossible. I mean, pretty much I self I selfund this process. get everything in order and present it to the financial institution that I have a project ready and they bite onto it and then they fund the the progress of the project and then we put the permits in. It's months and months and months worth of work. I mean this is what we do for a living and it's I mean just the last building we did in M player was six and a half months of work and permitting and tens of thousands of dollars. I mean you can't I'm not saying you can't but I'm just saying you know you With the short construction terms and the timing and how long everything takes, nobody's going to nobody's going to do that. It's almost impossible. And you can't pre-put in architectural development on a project like this before financing. I mean, it's to even touch the ground. I'm gonna It's a half a million dollars. >> Rob, go ahead, Brian, if I may. Um I think it was maybe the second um potential. I don't remember uh which one it was, but it's okay. Um the the concept here I think is is not is not whether or not the approval is given before the building is demolished. It's it's simply because I understand everything you've said, Mr. Boardman. You're absolutely right. you know, you got to kind of get the ball rolling and keep it rolling. I think that just to explain what was presented there, it was a suggestion that the DRB approved demolition of the building when there was a project that was feasible that was been that had been presented. Is that right? >> I don't think specifically, but uh it was just a suggestion. So, >> right, >> I think the fear is is if there wasn't anything that was feasible, right, and then the building was demolished and sat there for years and years and years, it would be harder to justify, right, why it was deemed necessary to be removed. >> Well, I mean, I don't know what your definition of feasibility is and like what the critique on that is, but I mean, we are actively pursuing this project. We've already put the water in, the sewer in. We've planning all this. I mean, we're at a point now where I mean, if it wasn't for the permitting when we bought this project, not knowing the city went on paper, uh, and the timing it takes, this is not an insult, but the, you know, we would already had housing being under construction. I mean, it's been 8 months. Um, our last project in Northfield, we completed 15 units in 8 months and fully rented them. Um it's just, you know, it's a everything seems to take a long process. Um so we're just trying to figure out, you know, what the plan is really. And I want to be transparent because obviously I want this to be successful. Uh I'm sure everybody does cuz housing is what we do for a living and the city needs housing. I mean, you can't ask for 75 units a year and take two years to permit a project. I mean, you I just don't know what you do with that. >> Well, I think that answered my question and I just I'm saying this to the board and the other question that I asked was for the board as well. It sounds like the project is feasible because you've already begun working on it and >> sounds like um >> yeah, we're in it. I mean, if you >> if construction started tomorrow, I mean, I would the demo I could demo it tomorrow. Like it's we have all our own equipment. We are we are ready. But I mean I I think like I think what I'm hearing from you, Brian, though, is if we're if one of the if the assessment here is largely on public benefit, the public benefit of housing is that housing is much needed in this community. It's also beneficial in terms of the tax role. There many benefits to housing. The benefits would not be there if the site was a parking lot in perpetuity or even if it just became a a single unit, for example. I mean that that's a bit random to say single unit but it's uh there are if we're assessing it for public benefit the the benefit uh would be derived from housing as opposed to uh uh the parking lot site. So >> I think >> I do think the economic viability standard has been raised. I mean, we've been walking around it perhaps, but um looking at the economic viability standard for income producing properties, the two points are that the building site or object cannot be feasibly used or rented at a reasonable rate of return in its present condition or if it is rehabilitated. And I think we understand that in its present condition with the building as it stands, it's incompatible with housing construction. And then secondly, denial of the application would deprive the owner of all reasonable use of the property. Um, I do think that we're touching on this if uh assuming that denial of the application to demolish would prevent further development of any sort. And if that's a deprivation of all reasonable use of property beyond potentially a parking lot, I think that's a an interesting and relevant point. um what what's the timeline on construction? And I'm asking this because it seems very clear that you're ready to go and I think that's a positive thing. Um but I think that the question may be floating around to at least in other folks heads on the board and folks uh tuning in as to why there's not a development proposal for the proposed here as well. Uh I think you the first thought was that financing is coming together and maybe even parking lot would be used to generate funds or something to that extent. I don't know that that sounds reasonable but just back to the initial question I'm just wondering um you know what does that general timeline look like because you said you could demolish tomorrow. I I mean, are we going to see an application for this in the next couple of months to formally approve the the project that to you um to quote you is is uh is already on its way. >> Yeah, absolutely. Okay. >> I mean the you know until today I can't say for certain to the bank or any financial investor or anybody that the project is ready to go. So who like where do I go with that? You know, if you say no, then all the energy and all the money and all the preemptive funding just extinguished. So, you can't you we're literally trapped. Um, if this is approved for demo and the demo permits approved, I mean, this project starts immediately. I mean, this is we're working on the Walgreens right now. The day it got approved, we were moving forward. Um, this is what we do. So, if this is approved, the demo will be done in 30 days of the permit and the construction will start immediately. It's got to get engineers and third party people involved, but that starts tomorrow. >> I think Brian, you and I are on the same wavelength on this. I'm pretty sure that I don't think there's any question about the demo ending up with a parking lot and the only question is going to be some some bit of the historic preservation. There's some issue there, I think. But other than that, you know, tearing down the the building and and putting a parking lot in, I think that probably is going to happen. Uh I think you and I the way I think you and I are on is why isn't there a proposal to say what this is going to be? And um that I think I would certainly feel more comfortable uh if I knew that if I was going to do part A and uh and I was planning on doing part B and both A plus B was necessary to fulfill uh 30004 public benefit or even economic value for that matter. It was A and B was necessary from a regular regular standpoint is what the board might approve. Uh I with you I would want to seek both A and B uh as a part of what we approve as opposed to just A and you know maybe B will come at some point maybe a month from now maybe 6 months maybe two years um I think that that uh I wouldn't be as comfortable with that situation as some others might be. Um, so >> I'm following you with your line of thought >> and I'd like to clarify quickly before someone else speaks. Um, thank you, Bill. I um I agree with most of what you said, but I just want to clarify that I think from the developer standpoint. I'm just I want to put this out there to the board. I can understand the logic of wanting to get over this hurdle first, right? And understand that the demolition has been approved and that you have a clean site to work with, right? So I I think it wasn't so much a question of do we need to see A plus B together at the same time. It was really just more of a question that I was going to circle back to Meredith as well and say well we we don't have a zoning application in hand right now to review and that's fine. U Mr. Borman spoke to that point said he's ready to go. Uh I trust that he he seems very excited about the project. I trust that he is ready to go. I was just going to follow you know it up by simply saying for everyone's cont you know for context right what does the timeline look like right between kind of getting an application I mean is this the next meeting is this something we're going to see in six months and it may be irrelevant as well but I just wanted everybody to have a sense of of what that was >> yeah I think board needs to also keep in mind that we were reviewing the application you know that's before us and if there's deficiencies or the amount of information that we have um you know we need to request that information but we can't be uh sort of anticipating uh you know the next phase of this uh go ahead Alex >> I was going to make the same sort of point we've been here before um the regulations allow people to apply for permission to do X which will entail Y but you don't have to specify Y at the time so you're B cannot be a requirement except in so far as we said conditions. Have I got that right, Meredith? >> Yeah. And and here, you know, like I said previously, if the board decides that one of the standards being met to approve demolition of a historic structure is the public benefit standard. And as everybody seems to be discussing, the public benefit here would be housing. the board's approval can have a condition of this is this is okay. We're allowing this in part under the part or all under the public benefit standard, but the public benefit is the anticipated development of a minimum of x number of housing units on this parcel. >> And that could be your condition where it's a minimum of x, right? um so long as future zoning regulations continue to allow it once that application is approved or I mean it's just also a condition of the permit right um conditions of permits can hold even when future zoning regulations change um and I don't see I don't see housing development getting restricted in Montpillar anytime soon um you know right Now, in the design review district, there is no residential density. People can put as many units as they want in as long as it fits all the other standards at issue including the design review. So, um that's a possibility of going forward where here it's a little different than some of the other applications. There is here some consideration of future and how that comes into play. That was part B or your Y. That was my B or your Y. >> Yeah. >> And it's almost if I almost just have to add a few words to uh I forget what condition it is here. >> Just trying to hone in here. We have three criteria. It has to meet one of them, but the board can require make make sure that it meets two of the three. Um, is there any feeling on the board that uh we think this application needs to meet one of two of them or all three of them? >> I think it has it presents minimal evidence for both economic viability standard and public benefit standard. Some of it is conjecture, right? We don't have a a development plan for a structure itself at this time, but we have an intention um towards housing. And then when it comes to economic viability, we don't have the report from Elliot Lothrop explaining what the additional cost of for example trying to preserve the facade would be. Um we don't have like an economic study of the cost per unit. uh what that would com what what would result compared to the market rate with that additional cost like we don't have that I don't imagine we would either um but I think minimally you you could argue for both and I think happily we can all agree that the building does retain historic integrity and that's not under question whatsoever. So, I think it's the other two from my perspective. >> Um, just going to ask one follow-up question. Um, do you think conditioning or to to achieve public benefit, do you think conditioning it on a minimum number of housing units to be built would be reasonable? >> Alex, you're saying no. >> I don't. >> I mean, the numbers that have floated around here go between 22 and 50. >> Yeah. And that's just too big of a gap for any kind of conditioning. Um >> I also don't think it's within >> and I don't think it's within the scope >> to mandate. >> Right. I mean I could see conditioning it on some form of attention to the historical streetscape, but that's a different matter. >> Go ahead, Joe. >> I just wanted to kind of clarify some things in my mind. Currently, this building is being used for what? Nothing. >> Nothing. It's vacant. >> So, even if it was one more unit, there would be some public benefit there, right? >> And on top of that, >> in order for even one unit to go in there, it needs to be a parking lot first, right? Because the building itself is not savable, right? Um, so I mean, that's the economic viability standard right there. You can't save it. It's it's on its it's on its last legs. And in order for anything to be of any benefit there, no matter what it is, it has to be first a parking lot, right? >> Or something visually similar. So that's just my feelings on it. It's not giving us any benefit right now. It could theoretically give us benefit if the site is turned into a parking lot, but it can't in its current condition. >> I actually have one question. Go ahead, Bob. Hold on. >> I I totally agree with Joe on this. And I mean, it has to be a parking lot first. We can't, you know, we could speculate till we're blew in the face, but it's not going to get us past the initial first step. >> We may even need to ask a question about a potential hazard in its current status, right? If the structure is that compromised, uh, >> you know, it can't even be a risk to the public in its current >> current state. So, >> there's nothing in the suggested that. >> Go ahead, Lucky. >> Yeah, they did uh when the church had it and they tried to save it, they did have somebody come through and pull out all the sheetrock and do a bunch of the uh attempt of preventative mold and everything. So, there is it has been um you know, gutted, if you will. Okay. >> Um >> I think it's important that we keep these two things separate. I mean the demolition is separate from the conditional use as a part of >> correct. We have not talked about conditional use. We talked about the demolition. So I've I think this is this application has two distinct parts to it. Um I would be inclined that the public has been sitting here for an hour now. If we open up to public comment but limited to the historic definition, we will the board and we'll get to conditional use. If you could just limit your comments to the um historic definition that will open up for the entire application. Yeah, we could actually open it up to anything. I don't actually I was thinking of that about 30 minutes ago. We can open up to anything. >> They make sure they get their comments. >> Absolutely. Uh so um do you want to just come up to the microphone and uh introduce yourself? >> Either your choice stand or >> sit. >> Um you're both a butters. You can >> come up together. It's fine. >> Okay. >> Um let me say uh Lucky. It's lovely to finally meet you and I'm sorry that I'm only meeting you now. Could you just state your name and address? >> Sorry. I'm Kathleen Keenan. I live at 128 Elm Street. I'm adjacent to the property. >> And I'm Kathleen's partner, Kim Bent, and uh we live at 128 Elm Street. Um yeah, we're um I I've got two very simple questions I would really love to get answered tonight. And before I get to them, I just want to give you the background on where we're coming from. Uh we purchased our house on Elm Street in 91 just in time for the flood of 92. Uh and uh so we got in on the ground floor of that experience. Um and um the uh our house was adjacent to a house that uh is now a parking lot. So, we're uh seems to me talking about um the a parking lot as if it's a future thing. Uh when when Lucky purchased I'm I want to so call you Mr. Boardman, but everybody's calling you Lucky. So, >> because we don't know we've never >> Yeah. What? >> Uh you were saying people are talking about this parking lot as if it's a future thing, but >> but it is a parking lot. And um the fact of the matter is uh that right now it's a parking lot that's well on its way to becoming a junkyard because there's folks working on their cars out there all the time. Uh it's a staging area for the construction that's going on on Elm Street now. And um >> it's not being kept up at all. >> It's not it's not being kept up. I I know several people that um had agreements with the former owner, the Baptists, uh about being able to park there. I've tried to contact Lucky um over the past months uh or year or so uh about the what what the arrangement is there because we're all kind of left in limbo and never never got an answer about what's happening with the parking lot. Uh it was my understanding uh that I uh had from the Baptists again that um they had an agreement with the subsidized housing uh down the street that uh they were uh providing a certain number of parking spaces for those tenants and um as far as I could see that was the case. But before as a condition, well, when they came to us to get, you know, to talk to us initially about getting permission to demolish the house next door and make it make it a parking lot, um we didn't have any objection. We we gave us, you know, it was it was a pretty rundown house. Um and uh but um there was a a verbal agreement that we thought we had with them uh where they would they said, "Well, you know, it's important once you'll we'll provide a space for you in in this uh in this parking lot." >> And there were supposed to be a little bit more safety measures to keep the dirt and the trash >> out of our yard and our property, but that didn't actually happen. So, and that's only gotten worse. Um, >> so, so we never did get a parking space. Um, and then, um, we, you know, participated then, um, moving our our extra vehicle, our second vehicle back and forth in the winter, you know, uh, for years and years. And then COVID happened and the church couldn't meet anyway. And so, they didn't have any, >> so they gave us a parking spot. So they said pretty much said, "Yeah, just use the parking lot whenever you want." Uh so we h developed the habit of parking our van there as did I think several other people in the neighborhood. Uh and then of course the flood happened and again all the bets that were off were doubly off as far as the the parking lot goes. So, um there we are. Uh still trying to find out what is the arrangement with um the owner of the church building and the parking lot. Is there some agreement that the city has uh that um that um did not get transferred with the sale of of the church or or not? Does anybody know? >> Kim, you're talking about the parking lot >> of 144. Yes. Not the parking lot on the other side of your house. It's a very shallow. >> Is there >> There is no parking lot on the other side of our house. There is some parking. >> It's just a It's one parking lot. The parking lot used to be a house. >> Got it. >> Was demolished and it to make room for a parking lot. >> Got it. >> Yeah. >> So, >> so that was swapped. >> Yeah. Um, so I'm not aware of any permit conditions related to the demo of the house prior to create that parking lot that would come into play. Um, >> well, >> and I don't know of any I mean there's there's no like as far as I know there's no city agreements about anything like that. It would have been um the church's agreements with other whoever they were. I I I don't have anything about their contracts. that would be something that would have been passed on to to Ly's um to the entity that bought the property which Lucky I'm not aware of any >> I think we're confusing these two lots here you're you're referencing the trash and parking you're referring to the one across your street 144 >> is they live right next to No they're right next to right next door to you >> there's nobody >> Yep. Hold on. I'll show you. I'm gonna pull it up on the map. >> But there's no there's no trash. There's no I don't understand what you're referring to. And >> trash from the people their cars. They you know they >> a pile of tires and car parts there now. Um and uh yeah, >> but this is a a privately owned lot now owned by Mr. >> Right. We're just saying that we've noticed a deterioration. We also had our um our own and it's probably just coincidence, but our own property got vandalized um recently and we've never had any trouble with that before um where they um some somebody just came along and clipped off our our um bodega lights. >> So I understand your >> when we go home, >> you said you got a couple questions. I just want to make sure that we got them answered. Um, I guess you're maybe wanting more information on the type of parking that it's being proposed. >> Yes, that would be great. >> And I'm also um wondering about what protections will be in place for um the the neighbor, right? um in terms of how that it um affects our own property, in terms of lights flashing in our windows, which the church was supposed to put up something that really blocked that and they didn't. Um and you know, we've been living with that and that's fine, but um you know, it was just a that I mean, it seems like eventually we're going to be talking about quite a significant change. Um and I so I wonder what our protections are going to be. And I'm also wondering where how do we um find out about what's going on and when you talk about public good obviously housing is a criminal need right now but I'm also wondering if you can in your consideration of public benefit you also take into consideration the neighborhood um because what is being proposed is going to substantially change our neighborhood And um and again, it's also I'm so glad that Mr. Boardman met with um historic preservation and other groups, but not a knock on our door, not a note, not an anything about what was going to happen. And we've also had um issues with trees. And we've tried to reach out via email to Mr. Boardman and not received any response. and our tree guy is like, "This is really imminent and we need to deal with it in the there's several things." So, I'm just concerned about um how how you know how it's all going to impact us because we and and the neighborhood because Elm Street has gotten ridiculously um busy and um you know, just >> the side the sidewalks are not adequate as it is um for pedestrian safety on Elm Street anymore. And um so yeah, so these are my these are my concerns and I I don't know >> I I'm looking for information on um how neighborhood and and um neighbors factor into the public good and >> what what processes are available for communication. >> Okay. >> I think that yeah I think much of what you said is are requirements for us to consider during our conditional use review. So, I think we get to that meat of that. >> But, um, I think since you brought up parking, there are two sort of questions that >> were flagged in the staff report that are, you know, related. >> I guess one is, you know, the application states that the parking, the proposed parking use will serve existing local uses. Um, Lucky, I don't know if you could maybe expand upon like what that plan might look like. >> Well, currently it's rented by Capstone, so we're not adding any additional parking. So they >> still uh utilize that parking lot as they do. Um we're not I mean the goal is is that's just a stepping stone for the project. So we're not doing anything um special for for parking. I mean it's just keeping as it is. >> By capstone you mean what used to be known as the Barrett block buildings? >> No. No. Capstone. Um they do programs like Head Start and they well they had another name formerly >> they do weatherization work also right >> or for offices. >> So >> I think they take care of the parking but I don't know I don't know how you know how they facilitate that. I'm not in their inner circles, but we we rent to one master lease uh for the parking and they do it for whatever housing development or whatever they do. >> Got it. >> So, we should be talking to caps. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Good to know. >> Good to know. All right. >> One question answer. >> Do you uh >> I'm sorry. >> You you asked said they used to be called something else. Yes, I can. >> Community action. >> Okay. >> In in answer to your other question, anything that's about this property, you will be notified. >> Well, so so if so for future things, right? So you got the notification about this hearing, correct? >> Right. So that's because the the application, the zoning application was for something that required DRB approval. >> So a new build, right? Building a new building on there um would be another thing as long as it wasn't just a single family home or two unit home, right? Anything more than that is going to have to come back before the development review board. Oh, sorry. It's not two anymore. Now it's four. Anyway, right. Lucky is talking about a much bigger building. As long as it's something along those lines, right? It's going to have to come back here and you'll get the same mailed notification under under our rags the way it's set up right now. So, it's construction of those new buildings that triggers major site plan review. It's going to come here and depending, you know, if what the Yep. And so that's that's that's just conceptual, right? >> That hasn't gone through any kind of reviews or anything. That's that's not >> Yeah. >> Right. Lucky put that in because um questions were asked about the future design at the design review committee and the historic preservation commission. So he sent that to me on Friday. So it's just a it it's not part of the analysis, but he wanted to provide that. Um, so with what Locky's talking about, it would be something that would come here, you would get notification about it. >> Okay. >> Um, certain smaller projects that are administrative, you don't get that kind of notice because it doesn't come before the board for a hearing. >> But how do we So my may may I follow up? Um, thank you so much, Mr. Jolie. >> Or I hope I said that even close to correct. Yeah. >> Um I just want to know how we is there um other than trying to converse with Mr. Boardman, which for us, and I'm sure everybody's incredibly busy and gets too much email, has not been successful yet. Um, how do we make sure that construction noise, the demolishment, the the debris from demolition that our property, that our home is protected from that? >> Well, I think >> I would say that largely the conditional use standards >> um require us to address some of that. um not necessarily during construction, right? >> Um >> the long-term use. >> So So don't even think about long-term use. All the board has in their purview right now, right, is the demo, right? >> Whether or not the demo happens, >> correct? >> Um and really the conditional use, which is the parking lot situation. Um I don't remember to be perfectly honest. um all of the demolition standards. I did not write all of them in the staff report cuz there's a bunch. So, give me one second. I'm going to stop share so that that's not dragging. Um if there is something in there about or what's in there cuz that would be because I mean we the building is on the other side of the parking lot. Um I don't know other people can look too while they're at it. Um other board members. Um >> there's a note in there about and so forth. Yeah. Debris to remain on site for more than 14 days has to be screened. I mean stuff isn't supposed to like leave the site. Right. Right. But like like other than as it's you know intended way to be >> right there's not a whole lot of requirements of demo in here when it comes to things like you know dust or noise things like that right? So noise is very much the city's noise ordinance. >> That's where that comes into play. Um, and so that usually limits the hours of operation. Would you agree for something like this? >> Supposed to be at 8 o'clock in the morning. >> I'm not gonna say, but I don't off the top of my head. >> Even the regular I use all the time. So, so that kind of thing, >> there's not a whole lot in the regulations about that. >> Um, and then >> the board's review of conditional use is going to be about the parking, right? future construction of something in the future. That's all going to be separate permit decisions. Bailey, >> well, we just experienced the demolition in the neighborhood. Yes. With Katie's house being taken down across the street. That's that simple. It happens quickly. Um, you know, it's not that's not going to be that disruptive. kind of >> well like you know >> but um we do have a contract with Silven Tree Care to take down a couple of really big ash trees right behind our house in the bank there >> technically >> um and um so we were hoping also to get some sense tonight of a timeline or um a demolition if it should happen so that we would be able to coordinate those projects. Um, yeah. >> So, so what I can tell you is one, don't know if the board's going to make a decision tonight or at a later meeting. In any event, once the board actually makes a verbal decision in a meeting, >> yeah, >> there's a lag while a written decision comes out. The written decision is the formal decision, >> 30-day. >> Well done. And then once the written decision is signed, there's a 30-day appeal period. >> Okay? So, if you're trying to do something really really soon and coordinate to be able to get trucks in through the parking lot, I would maybe get Ly's contact for Capstone, work out that type of situation if that's what you're trying to do separately. There's there's a window. There's it's there's not even a verbal decision doesn't mean that >> you know stuff is is moving forward right away on the site. >> Yeah. Okay. So if your comment is going to build on yours um is not you're concerned about the you know the demolition's going to occur or increase the interaction with your property in some not positive way I'm guarant um are you concerned about how the property will be managed? >> Of course >> when once it is finished and it's just a parking lot. Um, and I guess the question to Mr. Lucky would be, um, is Capstone going to be still managing that or is Lucky going to be managing that or who's going to be managing it such that you don't get vagrants parking in there, you don't get a lot of trash dumped in there, you don't get whatever is going on that it's managed well. Maybe it's the parking lots are permitted, you know, and policed and maybe there's a gate on it or something like that. Are you concerned about how that property for you don't know how long actually because we're not in discussing what's going to happen to that later other than what this may be at some point in the future. Um are you concerned about managing the property once it's essentially a vacant lot that's been paved over? Um are you concerned about that? I don't think it's in these conditions. I don't think it's anywhere in uh what was submitted by Mr. Lucky or or what I think Meredith is condition. Are you concerned about that? >> Um I would probably Yeah. >> No, I don't mean to put you on the spot, but uh >> now that you've brought it up where you were headed, >> yeah. >> Uh then what what are we >> I think we got to Well, yeah, I think >> I mean obviously these are things here. I'm not seeing a specific uh you know question. Uh and we got uh make sure that everyone gets quick comment here. So >> yeah, publicly. Okay. I just >> No, you're going but that's okay. Sorry. >> No, no, no. Thank you. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you very much. >> Um Mr. Mr. Whitaker. >> Steve Whitaker Viller. I'm a little concerned about what's called segmenting. Segmenting a project into little pieces is not sound practice in the planning world. Uh that's what's been tried to do with country club road water and sewer. You know, up up to up the driveway up the road. That's not the housing. It's and this segmenting that limited purview. I keep hearing you got limited purview and yet there's a big five-story project graphic being proposed here and you're saying we can only talk about demolition a building and that's just not true. That's not the way act 250 works. It's not the way this board should work either. You should not segment and and think about little pieces at a time so that you can make more make foreclose options before you understand what the next phase is. That that shouldn't be happening. Um I could not find the historic preservation letter in the packet. Uh is it in the packet? Yeah, it's attached to the uh um uh the design review minutes. >> There's a second there's one big staple piece which is what the application was >> and then >> and then there's design >> which would be very last page of the staff added section. >> All right, I will look for that later then. um a a a major factor of the feasibility of this, you know, moving forward. Uh and that we really need to think about in all of the projects you're reviewing. No high density project like this should be moving forward if it's going to add to the combined sewer overflow. Dumping raw sewage in the river needs to stop now. And we can't stop it until we quit increasing the flow of raw sewage going into the river. I will be asking in the regional P plan review process for service areas that are still contributing to the combined sewer overflow. We've got six combined sewer overflow outlets violations in permitted by conditional use. I don't know the phraseology. Uh this you need to think about in context of district heat. Uh it's been unfeasible to bring district heat up to Elm Street, but if building like this that's proposed for somewhere between 22 and 50 units uh would dramatically change the economics for bringing district heat up Elm Street and we need to think about that in a current district heat running 200,000 a year deficit. So we we can't separate that from this discussion. uh the feasibility analysis of the existing building. I'm only talking about the original 1800's piece. Uh I witnessed the defective feasibility analysis for the Jacob Davis homestead out at Home Farm Road. That was not done with integrity. the there was an option of available piece of land at no cost right across Route Two that could have hosted that building had it been you know rolled over there. Uh people who a family that used to live in that house. So I don't trust the total disregard that the core piece of that building couldn't be moved to another lot and maintain its historic value. Uh traffic I won't go into now. Uh so yeah, I think I've raised a lot of things that merit further information, but the segmenting is the is the fundamental one. You're saying we don't have to we can just decide to demolish a historic building and worry some other day about whether we ever see a permit or whether there's, you know, 20 or 50 units going in there. Um but yes, the noise and debris and all the conditions that the neighbors need to deal with uh should also be addressed even if you were to allow the demolition. But I think you should ask for more information about the possibility of relocating just the core structure, not the add-ons. I I'm not impressed with the idea of taking the 12ft facade and Frankensteining it onto a new five-story behemoth. Uh that seems kind of like what the church did. >> Did you have any comments on the parking conditional use? >> You mean whether a >> I just you seemed like mo much of it was on demolition and I was making sure you uh got my uh rescending the restriction on that. Any comments on the entire application? We're fair game here. Just want to make sure we get confirmed. >> I just think that that if that that we can't be looking at it just in those little pieces. It's the time slice is not the proper planning perspective for a board like this. >> Could I could I answer two things for Stephen? >> Go for it, Lucky. >> Uh Stephen, those are all good questions. Um we did think about the district heat, but we actually we've been leaning towards electrification for everything. So that's what that building would be. It would be all mini splits, air conditioning, and future charging stations if need be. And uh when Elm Street, they're doing all that work right now on the street. So we were able to utilize that and tie in the new water and sewer um for the future building already just last week. Okay. Thank you, Lucky. Um is any other public on the Zoom platform that wishes to speak on this application? Any other public comment uh in the room? >> Okay. Paul's head is said no, so we're good. >> Okay. Um so board members, we've gotten through I think a pretty in-depth discussion on the historic demolition provisions here. Um, we have not yet really talked about the um, parking conditional use um, yet. Um, how do folks want to proceed? >> Keep going. Charge ahead. >> Well, Rob, uh, I I'm wondering if, uh, since maybe there were about three considerations for the demolition scope that maybe we could just kind of try to make a decision on that before moving on to parking. at least a kind of consensus, maybe not a formal vote, but >> what was >> I think there was a lot of um dust, for lack of a better term, that got thrown into the air with all this. And it seems like it boils down to are we voting on keeping the building, uh retaining the first 12 feet of it, or maybe asking Bob a question or two about what it would mean to salvage a certain portion of the building, right? That was part of those provisions. which architectural elements might be worth salvaging. Um, I don't have an opinion on that and that's why I asked for clarification on whether the building had a kind of historic um or maybe a more historically significant story than anyone here was yet aware of. Um, but I think it just kind of comes down to those three things. And if we can discuss that in a short enough amount of time to move on, maybe that maybe maybe that would be more efficient. >> Maybe what you're what you're getting at is that um we seem to have a recommendation from the historic preservation commission and the design review committee to consider um the salvaging of sod a little more and get some more information. Uh, anyone else get that have that same interpretation? >> No, >> it's a question to the board as to whether we should consider asking those questions. Yeah. >> I mean, I think it's I think it's critical that we know what we're voting. >> Yeah. >> And I'm not sure that we all have the same idea of what that is. >> Well, I don't think anyone's proposing a vote. I mean, just trying to get the consensus of where we're at in the in the process. And um I was just flagging a you know an issue that's been recommendations from the historic preservation commission and the um uh design review um about this consideration of the um looking into the facade more. Um and go ahead Meredith >> just can I sort of paraphrase a little bit refocus a little bit. So, and it's going to come out as a question for board members. Do any of the board members have specific pieces of additional information that they don't feel was in the application or has been shared tonight that they feel they still need to be able to make a decision on either whether or not the proposed historic demo meets at least one of the required standards or information that they would need to decide on a condition of approval for the historic demo. Like, is there something missing that either has been discussed, but you don't have the information or some other piece of information that you would need to make that decision where it's something that's going to take some time because that just means, okay, that's one thing that's going to be a to-do on somebody's list. Um, or do you feel like you have enough information to actually make a decision on both the what standard applies that it does meet or none of them are met? Um, andor potential conditions that you think need to apply to the historic demo. Because if there's more information you need, it's either ask it now and see if you can get it or if you can't get it but you still need it. That's something for a future for a continued meeting. The conditional use discussion can still happen tonight to again get to that same place. Do you have enough information to make a decision or do you need more information? >> I have enough information for us. >> Awesome. >> Thank I have enough information. I think we'll have feedback for you. It's like broader feedback for the city around what's useful in these uh you know in terms of the direction that the regs take long term. But yeah, in terms of where we are right now, >> you feel like you have enough information. >> Y >> great. >> I I do as well. >> Okay, that's that's helpful for historic demo. Okay. >> Absolutely. Um, >> and just remember if we do this in deliberative session, you're gonna all have to tell me how you feel about where these different things are met so that the decision can actually get written appropriately. >> Yes. Um, okay. Well, sounding like we maybe should charge ahead and go through the parking conditional use provisions. >> Um, so, >> uh, be, sorry, before you do that, unless you're going to go back and do some of the general 300 standards, you want to do Okay. You're going to go back to like the version control stuff after conditional use. >> Yep. I was going to go to um, I'm good. Thank you. Start on page five of the staff report. >> Oh, I guess where that starts. >> But conditional usees 330. >> If you're talking about conditional use specifically, >> well, we have general standards. Okay. Couple things. >> Yes. Um, so here, um, there's a proposal to have the partial service parking off-site uses while the applicant develops plans for a new building. There'll be 18 parking spaces with the extra room left on the site. Um, so just two questions here. Um, is there enough room um for parking um to be used or for the parking use um to continue during the development of the site? So when you're going to is this ask this seems to be asking like is the parking going to be happening if something gets developed afterwards >> during construction? >> During construction? >> Yeah, it's sort of a during construction thing. Are you and part of this goes to Lucky I think there I want to make sure too the site plans that you gave that had like parking numbers on them all showed the continued parking for the surface parking continuing to be where the existing parking lot is. And so if that was all continuing, would that would that surface parking use continue while you were building a new building or would you end up ending that once you were ready to start building a new building? Because that would ex part of the question is because that would sort of extinguish that surface parking use. Um, and then also just to confirm where exactly the parking is happening, if it is in the existing parking area or were you talking about moving it somewhere else on the parcel? >> No, the contractual obligation we have with Capstone, um, those units would stay after demo until permitting is done. They they only have a lease until it's it's the end of the year, uh, November, December. So after that lease and our permits are completed um which they're already aware of, we will end that agreement uh for the construction period and indefinitely. So right now it's just utilizing that uh through their our contract period and through the permitting time. So the only thing we'd really change would be removing the building and then uh adding the proper materials to fill that site in. Okay. >> So, the conditional use for parking um maybe only applies until um the demolition and grading would begin >> if if I think he said until they start till they have permits in place for the new build. So at at at at at minimum through the contract that's currently in place which is due November or December if there's lucky in my sense if there was a delay in the new build for whatever reason you might theoretically continue those contracts or extend the contracts for the parking if you're not doing work on the site that leaves that o option open for you to have the surface parking use in place. >> Yeah, absolutely. I mean, it's not going to we're not going to extinguish it or the the deal is or the concept is we're not going to extinguish it until construction can begin because there's a holding cost to the property obviously. So that assistant hold >> So if it's approved for February 13th, well that's you know their notices that day. >> Yeah. So, one of the ironies of the situation then is that approving this parking lot as with the idea that it will be replaced by a building is going to result in a net loss of parking off street parking >> on Elm Street. I just >> I mean the theoretically based on what Lucky just said um it >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. We don't have any idea what's coming and we're not voting on that. Right. Right. Right. I know that. >> But um but the the um visuals were maybe including parking as well, but that's beside the point. It sounds like uh this is pretty practical stuff moving forward. You're maintaining a parking lot to gain minor revenue until the point where it makes sense to start a construction project, right? Um so my question to Meredith is simply do you think it's better structured as uh determination of the use is conditioned on the change of use for new construction or is it better to make it subject to the parking lot will cease to be a parking lot when the construction officially starts? Doesn't really matter. You don't the board is just authorizing surface parking as the primary use on the parcel >> at this point >> right >> when lucky or a later owner if that were to happen comes back and says hey I'm now ready to build part of that new build would be the application for a change of use >> however it worked out because there's already some surface parking there for some reason they wanted to keep that surface parking. They ended up deciding they do want to keep some surface parking and then build a building with parking underneath it that serves the new residents, right? You could have both on the parcel now because the conditional use of surface parking has been approved, right? It provides them some options, >> right? They don't have to extinguish the surface parking use necessarily to rebuild. They can, right? They they have the flexibility. >> Okay. No, that's an important distinction. I don't I think it it doesn't um this this this is going to resolve itself in the future. >> Yep. >> Can I ask a stupid maybe stupid question? I maybe didn't understand the nuance of this. What is the reason that conditional use would be necessary now when in fact the area is already being used for parking? Yeah, I guess it's the hypothetical service to the use of the parcel. I'm not sure that. So, the parking lot was the parking lot for the church, >> right? >> They built the parking lot for the church, right? >> Churches have a special status under zoning along with other entities. So that zoning has limited purview over them. I couldn't find that they ever got permission to like use that as surface parking to lease out to somebody else. They were just sharing their parking lot >> for some extra money. Right. It was not a authorized primary surface parking use. >> Mhm. >> Right. So it becomes primary surface parking when the parking is not in service of some other >> of the of the building on the parcel. So this is where the demolition becomes tied to the conditional use because we're saying there's there's >> really no use other than >> there's no other use if the demolition >> and it's it's my being strict about what's happening here and also because >> and lucky this is nothing about you and your feasibility and anything there is absolutely no guarantee that the new build will happen. We currently have a gravel parking lot next to the pavilion building on State Street that is in front of the former Thrush Tavern building that there was a permit permits got issued to build a brand new building there and it just never happened. and the way the permit conditions were were all tied in, they didn't then have to come back and make that a parking lot that actually complies with DVW standards and everything else because of the way things were written. And so it's just a gravel parking lot with concrete barriers and it does not fit in with any other parking. Would that be a logical condition in in this case to >> that would be why that would be why I proposed >> uh a condition of within uh I mean part of it within three years of the board's decision applicant owner or future owners of the subject land shall return to the board to update the screening for the parking lot in compliance with the design review and landscaping and screening standards applicable at the time of application. And that's a one way or another, you're either coming back because you've gotten new permit to build and you're putting in appropriate screening and all those other things or if it's still just a parking lot, we're going to make you put in more screening than we authorized here, right? If they're proposing to build a new building, making them put a whole bunch of screening and plantings between that potential building site and the road doesn't make a lot of sense. But if it's still going to just be in three years it's still a parking lot, you you better come back and it you better figure it out and do something better, right? That's why I put that in here at the end of the staff report because I don't want to see what's happening right now in front of the thresh again. Um, all right. Just want to make sure we don't miss anything here. Um so we've finished general standards. Um staff report talks about histo demolition and whatnot. Um and the next area lagged is erosion control which Meredith pointed out us not to forget. Um I had a question if someone could point me to it. Um, I just don't know that I'm looking at like the site plan that's referenced in here. >> Uh, we got the addendum, which is like the parking um lot um ground floor plan. >> Hold on. I've got to zoom in on some stuff with my understanding and then of course you can definitely >> get Ly's input. Um, so give me a second before I share screen. I don't get make everybody nauseous and lucky. Correct me if anything of my my understanding here is wrong because there was a lot of documents and I've reviewed things multiple times as I was working with your staff to help put this together. So, this is the existing site plan with all this pink. The current building. Okay, this is the whole current building. There's some green space here up front. This is all like grally parking lot, the sort of blue and gray dots. Um, and there's some also some sort of hardscapy stuff around here. It's that the front is kind of a mix of paths and um green space. Then the second one of these like plot plans shows basically the proposal is just hardscape everywhere that the the the building was as well as all the existing, right? and it's going to get filled in where the building was and and all be kind of level to the existing grade if you filled in the basement space. Um, and in general terms, they're showing some plantings here along the edge. a few a different site plan has more detail on the plantings to provide some level of screening um between where the building was and this new space or the uh next building to the north. So then they have a different one that's based on it that's shown on a survey. Um, and so you it shows where says there's some existing screening versus potential shrubs to be planted. And it's showing where all the existing parking is. And I assume and and lucky it sound like you clarified this, the area that's going to be used for parking is going to stay the same. So it's you're still going to use these spaces for the parking. It's just that this whole area, these buildings are going to be demolished and brought to grade. >> Correct. >> And so my my thing about the erosion control is that if these are brought to grade and then it's just sort of grally hardscape that's not really dealing with potential like runoff from that if we're talking about the erosion control or even just dust. And it's also I don't I don't know what kind of fill you're using. That would be um because you're going to need to be able to put in new foundation supports, things like that. Um my question was whether or not this should all at least be seated as a erosion control matter. So there is another similar site plan um using the same survey as the base um and so that has these arrows on it which is showing really the storm water flow and it has some elevation data on it. That's what those numbers are. Those are the um one foot elevation lines. It's just doesn't come out very clear. Is that a proposed or existing catch basin there in the >> it's existing so everything's just going to drain exactly where it is. I mean 90% of the roof drains there already. So the impervious surface will stay the same. It's just now, you know, driveway plant mix. >> So that's the proposal is this will all be hardcape just sort of like gravel surface. Um and so the water will continue. So it's it's kind of a mishmash. I'll I'll agree of a existing and proposed kind of shown together. Um >> yeah, >> you sort of have to look at the four different ones together to get a sense of what's happening. >> Yeah. Yeah. So uh are you showing proposed grades on this? >> Those are uh existing grades now. >> Okay. >> So then we'd be matching that grade the grades across going to the catch basin. >> So this application isn't proposing any grading. It's just demolition and >> well and filling in of the basement. >> Filling in the basement. >> Right. Otherwise you have a big hole. So, no changes to the existing grades outside of the um building footprint. >> That's correct. >> Okay. >> Can I ask a question? >> Yeah. >> Lucky, what do you think of uh Meredith's suggestion of using uh seating the footprint? I mean, it would just change the material we have to put down and then it would change the maintenance. I mean, now we'd have to have somebody, you know, mow it and and work with it and it would be the same runoff per se because it's all sloped. Um, I don't think it's going to change much personally. Um, but I mean, if that's the condition, then that's what you'll get. >> Am I wrong? Doesn't it change it to >> perable? If I if if you've got a surface there that things can grow in um and it becomes grassed over or even just like you know crazy wild flowersowers or something um even if it's just for a season um it does become considered more of a permeable surface um because you're going to have more water infiltration there than if it's like a packed gravel. But will that >> go will that affect the next permit that I'm changing the previous impervious surface to pvious and then back to impervious >> um >> in the typical in the typical way of things it would um you know if the the parcel is really really large so unless you're talking about subdividing which we haven't tked at all if if the parcel itself is staying the same, that's not going to change like your coverage max or anything like that. But yes, it would mean that when you do your new build, um it would count as probably changing from permeable to impermeable. Um and so depending on the size, you know, and where everything falls, it might trigger a storm water plan. Um, the board has some leeway to decide like or even just say as long as the application comes back within x number of years, we'll still consider all of that area to be impervious because it hasn't had time to have root systems work their way down X or Y, you could put that condition on and a time limit. But if it then stays, you know, if something something happens and nothing happens on this parcel for 5 years, at that point it's impermeable. You have a lot of stuff growing there, right? >> How about >> or pvious, not impermeable? Sorry. Right. >> Could we reverse it and say that if nothing happens in one year, we change it to grass and seed just so we're not doing because I mean I am ready to move forward so I just don't want to. >> Yeah. it the re this came up for me more in erosion control, right? And to make sure stuff doesn't wash away. So that's that's all that's but it's it's I mean the board has options here. >> You you guys have you guys have a lot more play on this one in some ways than I think >> I don't think anybody was suggest you put in a lawn. >> No. No. Just seeding it with you know Yeah. What we weren't thinking lawn you would have to mow. I just have two questions for you, Meredith, and they're both, you know, the next uh they're both related. Um the first one is if it was just filled with gravel or something. >> Mhm. >> Right now, can we call it a permeable surface? >> It's it's an impermeable surface. If it's filled right now, it's impervious, right? Building on it >> like crushed stone like that you might use to back fill, you know, a building or something. It's highly permeable. But that's just the part A and the part B was simply based on its new use as a parking lot. Are there any other considerations that you know of screening or some kind of silt or erosion control along that edge between the adjacent property and the parking lot that you know that we have to that we can that we can kind of approve with the thumbs up like let's >> Yeah, I mean you could definitely require um you know especially during within you standard erosion control practices are going to apply. And that includes putting down silk fencing downstream while they're waiting for either compaction of whatever they're using for the fill. Um, you know, in step to prevent a whole bunch of sediment from ending up in those catch basins like those requirements apply base level. Um, this just hasn't triggered a formal erosion control plan, right? They aren't doing enough to to trigger that. Um, so >> you know if Lucky is saying yes, I agree, then we it could be a finding effect of yes, they've agreed to apply the standard erosion control practices. Um, it's just that one of those typically is seating of disturbed areas within a certain period. You know, that's typically a standard practice. This situation is a little funky. And this is why I can't just say here's here's what to do. >> And and maybe there's not enough precedent for filling it with crush stone or something. >> Well, if you look at that plan, it is showing silt fence. So that is >> right. Yeah, you've got silt fence in here in in places already. >> Yeah. I just want to be clear. I think Rob's understanding where I'm going. I'm trying to present a solution. >> No. Well, I think that the solution here is I think we got enough information to sort of through the mechanisms of whether we feel like we need public works to, you know, weigh in it's in some fashion, you know, here. Um, and then we've got, you know, the plans with some silt fence proposed. I think we've got enough to sort of, uh, ensure compliance through our lang wording of conditions. That makes sense. Um, okay. So, storm water management. Um, I'm seeing no real changes other than Well, maybe Yeah, the building might change the direction uh a little bit, but not really. >> You mean removing the building? >> Removing the building may um >> it just because it won't flow off in the other direction as much based on the roof pushing it. >> Yeah, I think that one's fine. Um, and I think that that ties into our previous conversation here um about um temporary measures and addressing how long maybe hardcape or grass or what what triggers what. Um uh so that will move us on to storm water management. Good. And so we're saying that um we will maybe have to find a creative way to address the impervious coverage issue >> question not issue >> potentially. >> Um >> it's if if you require that it be grasped over. The question is how does that affect future development? >> Right. Um okay. Um, so I mean the conditional use for parking I think um as Lucky testified to um it's not really changing much from its current use. Um I think also testified there's no plans to make this like a a public uh you know metered uh you know parking lot either which I think is is important for our valuation. Um, any board members have any concerns or questions around um, vehicle access and circulation? >> Nope. >> No. >> Um, so Lucky, you're not you're not planning on changing location or the dimensions of the curb cut? >> Uh, no. We looked at it when we were doing the street work and it's sufficient and functioning. >> Great. Um, so no changes um there. Um, you got a snow storage plan? >> Uh, yeah. I mean, I'll have 10,000 square feet of more area. Um, so it'll just go there, >> right? They're not required to have a certain number of spaces, so you can cover up as many as needed, I guess. Yeah. What a what a luxury many don't have. Um, so we currently have 18 parking spaces. Um, like as discussed, you don't have any needs or plans to change that number. >> That's correct. It's currently under a contractual lease and then we won't require that through construction. And are is there current um currently designated um ADA spots as shown on your um exhibit submitted with the ground floor plan or is that a different layout? >> Uh no, it's just all existing. So they don't go into anything and they're all a light grade. So I'd imagine that could cough off a couple ADA spots if requested but we don't manage the lots or parking. >> Okay. >> Um parking spaces, bicycle and pedestrian access. Not seeing any in any uh notes here to uh flag our in-house experts. It's pretty straightforward. >> Okay. >> Um, landscaping and screening. Um, this one might take a little bit. Um, because there is a suggested staff condition related to screening, I believe. Um, is there any additional screening or additional trees that are proposing not to be cut as part of this demolition? >> So, Lucky, since you didn't read the staff report, um the I noted in the staff report that we've got I think it maybe it's these triangles. There's a couple of trees on either side of the um current maybe it's not the triangles. There's a couple of trees on either side of the curb cut right now in the front. They just aren't shown here on the site plan. So, I didn't know if you were retaining those large trees. Um, the proposal is to plant a, you know, pretty thick shrub hedge here to the on the northernish side. Um, >> I mean, >> I wasn't sure if you were going to keep the ashes or if you were going to need to take those down. I don't know what their condition is. Yeah, at this time we weren't going to do anything beyond the demo soap fence and those shrubs. I mean, if those trees exist and there's no need to take them down, I don't see why I would. Um, they I don't I can't recall them being problematic or unsafe. So, or wasn't going to. >> Okay. Okay. Um, would you be opposed to a condition that those stay as part of the plan to meet the landscaping and screening requirements? >> Stay as part while this is just a parking lot. >> Yeah. >> Members, I'm just posing the question. That was a question to Lucky, right? That was a question to Lucky. So >> Oh, sorry. I didn't Sorry. Uh, yeah. No, I love it. I'll stay. >> Great. Okay. So, what that means is if in between um, you know, if there's a delay in you proposing future development and the what is it? The three ashes along this property line or the two big trees out front, if they just die, you'll have to replace them. >> Okay. outdoor lighting. No changes there. Um, so finally the conditional least standards Um so first provision capacity of community facilities and utilities. Um parking is a use um I don't see any issue board member see any issue. No. >> Um traffic um I think we found that um the existing use is not really changing. Um so um any board members see issue there. We'll continue on to 3004 character of the neighborhood. Um we've already determined um not really um changing I guess Um any issues from board members of flag with that? This would be the place where if we had concerns about a scenario in which for some reason the current plans don't work out, we might want conditions for screening, right? Or to make it more of a neighborhood amenity. >> Yeah, you could. That might be some This would be one place to do that. Yeah. where if it was if it continues to be just a surface parking use in x amount of time, then they may need to, you know, you could say they'd need to come back for a re-evaluation of effects on, you know, the neighborhood. And um that sounds nice. We could have make it a park. But it's up to the boards. >> Although the mandate is to maximize the perception of open space. Um we're on that path. We're going to be giddy with consent very soon. Give me with consent. >> It's 9:15. Just trying to charge ahead here. You know, board likes to get this housing projects uh done even though it's not a housing project, but um anyway, um I think that's it. Did we miss anything? I don't think so. Try to hit all the uh points here. Yeah, >> they still in the parking >> uh >> on the open it up to anything. >> Oh, yes. I just uh had it out here on um it was uh oh jeez well page 17 actually uh up at the top uh small uh number two said is not clear which oh some of those words signal attention to me. Uh it is not unclear if additional parking spaces may be designated for applicant's use related to future development of the parcel. So a couple things raised my attention. It is not clear and it isn't uh at all um and does this uh application have to provide such um will be designated for applicant's use related to future development of the parcel. Can you explain maybe Meredith why you wrote that in there and how um uh Lucky will respond to it or how the the group should respond to that for me? Thanks. >> Yeah. So, I think it comes down to like if you look at this the site plan that I've pulled up here. If you look at the site plan I've pulled up on the screen, um right, we have the 18 numbered spots here in the existing parking lot, which is the existing parking lot is what Lucky is planning to use for this surface parking use as he's testified during the hearing tonight. So, that becomes a representation of fact. Um, that's that's sort of binds him to that's what he's using. That's what he's using this for the surface parking. Um, and there are at least a couple of other spaces in this lot. And so my my throwing that question out there was trying to find the full scope of what is this surface parking? Um, is it going to be continuing to be used while he's building the new building? and he already answered that that his plan is once he has the permits in place for a future building on the site, he's going to need the whole to have the whole site accessible to dig things up and reorganize and resite and build the new building. And so he is not intending to continue having this surface parking lot, right? But either way, it doesn't matter. He is bound to basically this site plan unless he comes to either me or you for a revision to the site plan of how the parking places spaces fit in. If he decides, oop, I'm just going to build within this footprint where the old building was for some reason, right? He decides that's all he's going to do and he's going to keep these parking spaces as a service parking use. He has that option, >> right? The 18. He has the option to to continue doing this >> and and build and build >> given the option to increase the number of parks. >> No, no, >> no, >> no. He's got a parking lot here, right? If he decides to using 18 spaces for the surface parking use. >> Yeah, >> that's how many he can use for the surface parking use to serve other prop other uses off the property. Okay, that's what he's coming here for. If he then decides to build just in this footprint, he can do say he everything fell apart. He sells the bu the property. Okay. Somebody else can come and say I just want to build a four unit building here. That's all I have money for. Four dwelling units here. Unless the board conditions something and says you have to build x number of units. Somebody else could come in, build four here, use these two parking spaces for those and like build a carport, right? Or underground first level parking and and it's not. Anyway, my my question here is moot. The the thing in the staff report at this point is moot because Lucky addressed it. >> Let me be great. I thought we were restricting the parking lot to 18 spaces unless there is additional structures built on that property that require additional parking. >> If you so if you put that >> 18 space period >> we're not limiting it there is >> it's you can decide to >> by another additional structure. So Lucky has said he's using 18 spaces for the surface parking. That is a representation of fact that goes to if he suddenly was starting to expand it and and and lease out >> 25, that's a violation of the surface parking permit. Okay, >> that's that's what I'm saying. But >> we're not limiting going forward him coming back and making some other change of use unless you decide you're going to. >> He can come for additional permits in the future is my point. >> I see. Okay. >> So if my question was >> never mind >> in the staff report is the surface this site plan shows at least 20 parking spaces. 18 of them are numbered. He's represented in the application. He wants to be able to have 18 spaces for for a primary surface parking use where other people use those. >> Yeah. >> Good. >> But there was a conflict between that and what the site plan showed. That's why the questions in here. >> Yeah. There's conflict otherwise too. But I think we'll let that one run. Um so I think I understand better. Thank you. >> Wonderful. >> All right. Board members feel like they have enough information on all the items discussed. to move forward. >> Yes. >> Um I do think the conditions on this may be a bit uh complex and need some discussion but um so I think a deliberative session might be more efficient. Um how do folks feel? >> That's good. and and finish out the meeting and then close the meeting and have deliberate discussion on the hearing. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Close the public hearing and um um >> take it up >> take it up at the end of the meeting >> session. >> Yeah. So moved. >> Yes. have to repeat >> the motion before a second and before a vote. Okay. >> We have to do that in two motions to close the hearing or just >> we it's a motion to the way you just described it. >> Motion is to close the hearing and take up uh the deliberations on this application at the end of this meeting. >> Yes. >> That was No, that was moved by Joe. We have moved by Joe. >> Second by Bill. >> All right. >> You uh No, you >> Bill. Second. >> No, no, we're Katherine showed up. >> Yeah. >> So, your alternatively, >> I heard a second by Kevin. >> You've been part of the discussion. >> Kevin, Kevin, how do you vote? >> Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, Kevin votes yes. >> Catherine, >> yes. >> Brian, >> yes. >> Yes. >> Alex, >> yes. >> Joe, Rob, the chair votes yes. That is >> seven. >> Yeah. Seven to nothing. >> Wow. >> Seven votes. >> Five. That's >> okay. >> Okay. Wonderful. Um, so we have the minutes from Go ahead. >> Yeah. minutes and annual election of officers before we can close the meeting. >> Um, hold on. Am I done here? >> Sorry. >> Uh, yes, Lucky, you can >> I want to be done, too. I want to be done, too. >> All right. >> Um, and, uh, there will be a written decision at some point, but you you can touch base with me tomorrow. I can at least tell you if they voted, which it sounds like they're going to. >> Okay. Well, thank everybody for their time and energy on this. >> Yeah. Lucky. Have a good evening. That's important. >> Thank you, Bob. >> All right, we do have to do these one by one. Minutes from 62926. >> Yep. Minutes from June 29. They should be in your packets. >> Yep, they are. >> I'll make a motion. >> Um, we have a motion by Kevin, second by Katherine. All those in favor say I. the minutes from July 6th. >> Move to approve. >> Motion by Alex. >> Second. >> Brian, you were not there. >> It's okay. >> All right. >> You don't read them. Yeah, if you read them in type of >> Alex and um second by Brian. Um those in favor say I. I. >> All right. Wonderful. On to the next order of business which um we moved number five down to B number nine. Um so which is the annual election of officers, the chair and the vice chair. >> We're still in open session. Correct. >> We are still in open session and we will be until the end of this meeting item. stick the ground know who's volunteering. >> All right. So, uh who is who is who is volunteering? Uh we'll we'll start with uh >> what's a better way to start with the chair or the vice chair. >> Well, what are you had said previously what you were willing to do, but I don't know if everybody here heard that before. >> No, I just But as far as >> I would start with the chair. >> Start with chair. Okay. >> I think we should make this something that somebody wants to do. >> Yeah. different uh I mean who who would like to be chair >> or who is willing to be chair >> you guys are pretty >> remember you me as a bit of a back stop take time >> I would say >> you're relinquishing your your position as chair I I I'd be happy to um >> uh let someone else have an opportunity >> um I think you're doing great and um and to um I would also be happy to uh to fill the role as the vice chair uh happily uh and uh I think it's uh it's very important for the longevity of the board that we we do try and rotate the positions around for diversity. >> Agreed. >> Um and um so um yeah, that's that's my suggestion. >> And I'll note too, just given you're willing to be vice chair, I wasn't planning to put myself forward again because you probably noticed that in virtual a lot. My husband has to travel all the time and um I don't really love uh or I I have been willing to chair when Rob's out virtually, but it's not ideal. It's better for the chair to be here in person, though. >> Yeah. Nobody. >> Yeah. No, my position is paid. >> Sorry. I take this as a job. At least to get $50 a day. >> And I don't live in I don't live in Montillar. >> I don't live in Montillar. >> Um, >> so does anyone else feel like they have the the capacity to? >> Well, you you indicated that you may not love the idea, but you don't hate it. >> Very recalcitrantly open to considering it with extensive handholding. I um think that well for one Meredith will keep you on the toes. >> That's true. That's extremely reassuring. >> Uh regardless of I'm willing to be a uh a very active uh you know vice chair and uh help out >> that's what we need >> preparations and maybe continue our initiative to diversify the workload at meetings and and whatnot. um group and um yeah, whatever whatever initiatives the uh the chair wishes to push forward, I will be at your back and call. >> I want to say too, Alva, you've only been on the board a short time, but you've been so thorough and always come so prepared to the meetings and I I think you do an amazing job as chair if you're willing to do it. >> I mean, considering that I'm even hesitant to like put forward a motion, it's a bit of a leap, >> but >> as chair, you don't have to put forward any motions. >> That's a good point. Well, I'm just moving along. Uh I nominate uh Alva to be the chair for the next year. >> I'll second the nomination. Do you have to accept the nomin? >> Usually we we ask for yes an acceptance of the nomination before the vote just to confirm. With the conditions of epic handholding uh and just general support on record, I accept the nomination. >> Congrats. >> My wife will be so happy. >> Uh so there needs to be a vote. >> All right. So, um, should we do we have we need a roll call vote? No. Yes. >> I >> All those in favor of electing Alvivera as chair until August 2027 say I >> I >> congratulations. >> Thank you. >> I also nominate Rob to be the vice chair. >> I accept. In your last official act as chair, >> call the vote. >> Call the role. >> Call the role. Yeah. >> Actually, actually that raises an interesting point. Shouldn't the existing chair remain as chair for the open application >> for deliberative session? He'll still be chair for that for the discussion because he chaired the hearing. So, he'll still sign that decision. >> Okay. Right. >> Yeah. Yep. That's one reason we made sure that >> we didn't suddenly switch chairs just before a new >> Okay. So, >> application. >> Um, yeah. >> One more decision. >> So, Kevin, how do you vote? >> Or or unanimous. >> Uh, you didn't do a roll call for the >> chair. So, you can >> Funny things happen. It's >> Joe called a roll. I Someone called a roll. >> No. Vote. Vote. vote. >> Call the vote. >> All those in favor of electing Rob as the vice chair until August 2027 say I. >> I. >> Thank you all. >> Yahoo. >> Wonderful. >> I with gratitude for your service in the role as chairman. >> Thank you very much. >> Uh >> thank you for stepping up. >> Yeah. Motion to conclude the No, >> hold on. Hold on. Hold on. No, no, no. you're doing fine except that I just want to make clear and on the record when everybody else can hear too in the public that I do not have an application for August 17th. So unless for some reason you all want to have an organizational meeting, there is no meeting August 17th. I will know by the end of this week if I have any applications for the first meeting in September, which is actually the Tuesday after Labor Day. Um, but the deadline for those is this Friday. >> So, what what's the date? What's the date? Will you know on August 17th? >> Or do you already know? No applications? >> No, I just Yeah, I would have had to send out the the public hearing notices on that to last week, last Tuesday. So, there's there's nothing for August 17th. So, there's no meeting. Um so the because the first Monday in September is the 7th which is Labor Day. The next meeting will be September 8th. >> Tuesday September 8th already >> and I will be out of town. >> Okay. >> All right. So motion to conclude the public hearing and move to deliberative session. Can we please? >> Absolutely. >> Yes, please. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. So, sorry. Joe moved. >> Who second it? I'll second. Okay. >> All right. Um, any discussion on the motion? Kevin suggested a fivem minute break in between. Um, which we can do. Um, >> u Yeah, >> nothing. >> Kevin, any vote? >> Yes. >> Catherine? >> Yes. >> Ryan? Yes. >> Yes. >> Alleg Joe >> Rob chair votes yes. That's unanimous.