Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Chief Okay, good evening everybody. Welcome to the city of Kingston planning board meeting. Uh my name is Suzanne Cahill. I'm planning director for the city of Kingston. Um if you I just have a couple of quick announcements before we begin the meeting. Uh if you do have a cell phone, I'm going to ask that you please put it on silent uh so that it does not interfere with our meeting. And if there is an emergency, uh we ask that you use the stairs and not the elevator. If you need assistance, please call or ask us and we'll help you. uh if there are any conversations that you have amongst yourself that are not with the planning board or involve the topic that we're discussing, I just ask that you please take them out of the room. Uh the chambers is available this evening. Uh the conference room on the other side will have another meeting going on, so please be respectful of that. Uh if you need to use the restrooms, they are out the door through the chambers on the other side of the building. Men's to the left, women's to the right. Um, other than that, um, I want everybody to please be aware that the meeting is being livereamed and it is also being recorded. So, please be respectful of that as well. Uh, with that, I'm going to open the meeting at 6:04 p.m. and turn it over to Chairman Platt to begin the meeting and introduce the planning board members.

Thank you, Suzanne. Greet hello everybody. Um, I'm going to start with uh introductions. Uh, my name is Wayne Platt Jr. We also have members Charles Palco, uh, Vince Archer, Sage Duke, Andrew Harris, and Kyra Rundig. U, we've already been introduced to Suzanne the planning director. We also have assistant planner Kyla D-Day. Matthew Janowski is our assistant corporation council and Alderman Sarah Pasy is the common council liaison to the planning board. Uh item number one is adoption of the October 20th, 2025 planning board meeting minutes. He's had an opportunity to take a look at them. Is there any additions, deletions, questions? All right. So, um Sage and Andrew, you're you guys are in. Okay. Um

yes, Sage. Matthew. No, we have Matthew and Robert. Oh, okay. Yeah. All right. Okay. Um Okay. At this time, we'll make a motion that we adopt approve them. Have a second. Second by Vince Archer. All in favor?

I oppose. Gary. Okay. Moving into public hearings. Uh the first item is item number two is 140-150 and 160 Boulevard. Saline deletion and major waiver of the lands and park ventures corporation section block and lot is 56.40-2-4 and 56.40-2-6 determination transex zone is T3N ward 5 Art Ventures Corporation is the applicant owner. Uh we do have people wishing to speak tonight on this uh if we could keep the the public hearing is going to remain open on this whole project. Tonight we're only discussing the lot line deletion and the major waiver. So if you could keep your comments tonight uh you know focused on that what we're dealing with tonight you know like I said the public hearing will remain open and you will have an opportunity to speak with the site. Okay. So um this one

okay did I pronounce that correctly? Okay, come you want to come up here and and you are from 27 Pettitive Avenue? Yes. So, I like to read what Ellen has presented to the board. Is that all right? This is Ellen Kalco you're talking about. Sure. Okay. Shouldn't put the cough drop in my mouth. I apologize.

I believe we have received the same communication from her. So, this is already part of the record, but you're welcome to speak. I think I wanted everybody to hear.

Okay. Please accept the following communication to be part of the official public hearing of this project. The applicant for this proposed project has submitted several major waiverss in adv advance moving forward with this development. It's quite disturbing that required submissions have not been available for public review. The new code states that there must be all submitted for a site development application and plan to be considered. There appears to be communications missing for review. see September 25th email read from city engineer and other officials. Storm water plans and these are the big storm water plans are still not complete. The developer has not submitted a complete plan to address water pressures that will affect the public health, safety and welfare of the residents that live in the in the immediate area and residents of the proposed development. And this is a serious oversight. Underground infrastructure services and utilities are paramount. Other proposed development has failed to materialize here in this location due to the unavailability of these services. The proposed um project will dramatically change the character of the neighborhood and add stress to faltering infrastructure and traffic issues and ingress. egress to the property is an issue that has not been resolved. This is a safety and welfare issue in that the developer will need to communicate with Kingston School District to a for a proper destination for school age children to be picked up and dropped off once the development is completed. In this other project, is this another project where this board

allows the developer to move forward ahead of required documentation? Therefore, based on numerous omissions, the planning board should table their discussion at this point until all required documentation is submitted for this proposal housing project. And I do read this respectfully to you and Mr. D'Angelo, too. Okay. Thank you. I know you folks were late getting here. Are you wishing to speak tonight on this project? No. Okay.

Oh, you're with Okay. Um, anybody else wishing to speak? Okay. Okay. Yeah. So, as I mentioned um before, the uh the only discussion we're going to have tonight is dealing with the lot line deletion and the major waiver request site plan is going to be taking place at subsequent meetings. Um, so the public hearing will be kept open. Okay. But then for this Yeah. for the site plan.

Okay. Mr. Deandos, how are you? Good, sir. How are you? Good. Um, so the reason why we need a lot deletion is just because if we don't do that when the project moves forward, there's just going to be a bunch of like cumbersome cross easements. And this center parcel is not doesn't even have an SPL number right now. So it will just result in a single tax bill for myself and kind of streamline the whole process. Um just through that way. So we'll have one address.

So just a couple things Joe for any final math. Um and we'll put these into a decision as well. I would presume that um the older dashed lines from the prior layout which never was formally um accepted should be removed from the final subdivision map and just the tax parcels that as they are today and then the the lines to be deleted should be identified. All right. So you remove a lot of the clutter and confusion of what's actually happening on your subdivision map.

Okay. Um, and then also the easements will need to be clearly identified on there. So, but you're going to maintain an easement across the property for the two adjoining for access. Correct. Yes. So, that would that would need to be clearly um identified on the map and we need that easement agreement. Okay. Okay. And we don't have the checklist. It's not the checklist. We didn't have that. Uh there should be windows.

I do have one question. Since the original lot right now is a a nonconforming T3N lodge, that's a large lot within the transct. Why do I need another major waiver for it? The original lot is already capsized from what it said.

If it's nonconforming, it can remain as soon as it must be increasing it. Okay, that's got I have done. Yeah, but So the what conforms to I'm sorry the uh the

so the both the the strategy and transact. Okay. So you have a maximum lot width of 100 ft and a maximum lot depth of 180. Um with combination of the three parcels uh together your lot width now becomes 195 approximately and the depth is approximately would be 240. I think that was my estimate.

Yeah. 2.7. Yeah. So they're they're exceeding. So you can read in your staff notes you have the explanation of the on the waiver uh from the applicant and then we will go through the questions uh that are in the waiver checklist. We can write to the checklist.

This was this is for somebody else. I'll read one and then Okay. The questions.

Ready? Okay. So, the first the first question is the applicant has included a waiver request letter that clearly identifies and describes the waiver being proposed accompanied by plans or other visual representations as applicable. Yes. And these items are all on the portal. Okay. In their letter, the applicant describes in detail why the waiver is needed and how the waiver request is consistent with the intent, design, and compatibility of the transit zone in which the project is located. I'm being ass shaking. You got to speak up.

Um, will granting the waiver contribute to the realization of the overall intent of the transex zone and result in an improved project which will be an effective and durable contribution to the transact zone

to support walkable neighborhoods and/or mixeduse centers. The project emulates the neighborhood context for how far the buildings relate to the sidewalk, how the facade is designed and how the building interacts with the street. That would be not applicable in this case because you are just combining parcels of land. There is no construction proposed. Okay. Uh the project supports a green and resilient future by for example reducing vehicular miles traveled, providing green infrastructure andor street trees and or including high quality usable open space. Again, this is not applicable because it's not a development proposal at this point. The project supports incremental development patterns in its size and density and supports infield development or the reuse of existing buildings.

That one I would say it does that that would be applicable. So yes. Yes. Okay. The project supports the provision of a variety of housing types to support a range of income levels, age groups, and family you units. Again, this is not a site plan. This is just a land combination. So, it's not thatable. Would not be applicable.

The project specifies street design that is walkable andable and will reinforce safe and comfortable environments for all users. Again, I Those are your questions that you generally go over. Are there any other thoughts from board members on the waiver request here? No. No.

Thanks. Um, yeah. with everything else. Are we done? I just got to do seeker. Is there anything else on this? Y. All right. Um, under seeker, this is a type two action. Um, so no further review of the board is required at this time. Um, motion. Uh, you first want to do the waiver. Yeah. to write a finding statement reason.

All right. So, based on the the responses on the checklist, um I make a motion that we um approve the waiver request for item number two. Second. Second. Second by Sage. All in favor? I opposed. That's carry. Um but now you want to make a motion to close the hearing.

Yes. Um again the the public hearing will remain open for the site plan which will be taking place at subsequent meetings. Um but as far as this application tonight, um I make a motion that we close the public hearing on on this lot line and the major way, right? Yes. Second by Charles Palco. All in favor? I post carry.

Okay. So then we have um that the lot line deletion will be approved with the major waiver. The following conditions board policy will be six on six will be signed on the final plat. Uh the signature block um where the chairman will be in place. The owner signature block will be in place and the owner is signing maps prior to the chairman's signature. Uh they will move they will remove all older parcel lines that are not related but subdivided from never filed. The right of way for or right of way for the adjacent lands must be identified on the map and recognized in a separate right of way agreement. A new resultant parcel description will be submitted to staff for review and approval. um five paper copies and one myar copy of the map will be submitted and the map will not become legal until it is filed along with the due date deed at the county clerk's office. Any board policies want to take six.

Just six. Okay. So, with all those items that Sue has just described, I'll make a motion that we approve the lot line deletion for item number two. Have a second. Second by Sage. All in favor? I opposed. Carry. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you. I don't mean to kick that lecture coming.

Okay. Welcome. Moving on to item number three is 21 Bluestone Court subdivision of the lands of SSLI Holdings LLC and creation of a walkable neighborhood plan with a minor waiver for a Dan Street Cetermination section block and lot is 56.88-4-7 88-4-7 transect zone SD-mf large site standards ward one SSLI holdings LLC is the applicant she was for the other okay uh we have Barbara Hill wishing to speak from 203 Lucas Avenue Um here

sure

um

yeah Barberville I live at 203 Avenue just down the Lucas Pike from Flu Court and I did go on and I reviewed the previous comments. Um, I just want to say I'm a former older woman in W one and uh, back when I was older woman, it was two plans ago um, for that property and uh, that was a whole large development. some considerations of the density and also not enough green space that kind of those kinds of questions. I think since then the farm-based code has come in. Um so I did um read my current older woman's comments which were amazing. So thank you current older woman pasty. Um I think she really captured um in detail the concerns I have are you know the parking requirements are I mean the lack of parking requirements. Um I was on the council at the time and that was uh a big discussion in the the new the zoning code. Um, and you know, I read a lot about that and how it helps with um, promoting more housing development. Um, I understand it for certain parts of Kingston, that particular area, there are no sidewalks that go that way. Um, Blue Stone Court to navigate that when there's parking on

either side, cars are parked or trucks. I really don't understand how the fire department thinks there's appropriate egress, you know, in and out. Um, I think there were great pictures taken that were put in with comments. Um, and I'm just concerned. I mean, the traffic um on Lucas, I mean, I'm a bit afraid to walk across the street to my neighbor. Um, and you know, school people walking to school, you know, all the women put um I think they took away a crosswalk. She had to fight to get it back. So, it's not And I drove around there today seeing where could people park if there wasn't enough public on Blue Stone Court going this the smaller streets and it it just doesn't make the it's too dense. Let's just put it that way. simple proud probably hit my time limit. Um, and I agree with all the comments that have been put in. Um, Sandy Peros and Amy Peterson isn't here right now, but she is very concerned about the drainage. Um, and I hope all of that has been looked into with the sewage and all of those other questions that I think were being considered in the past few months. Thanks.

Thank you. Thank you. Well, not to mention your pet. All right, we have Rachel Evans, 203 Lucas Avenue.

Hi everybody. I'm Rachel Evans. I live at 203 Lucas, which is right next to Foresight Park and I I wanted to speak tonight just to basically support what Sarah Paci has put together in the comments. I agree 100%. I also wanted to say that I was surprised to see the the number of units it had increased so dramatically. Um I don't understand that. Um I I think I I just you know it's hard to just echo what other people have said, but on my own behalf I've got to say it is dangerous on Lucas Avenue. It's very dangerous. Cars are coming from out of town. They're it's slowing down from 55 where it's really supposed to be 45 through 35 to 25 by the time they get right to the park. And so up at Blue Stone Court they're still not at 25 miles an hour yet and they're probably more like at 50. It's it's actually terrifying. So also many many of our neighbors walk the the streets of Marilina, Vorhees, Court, all of um those those streets and if cars were parked on one or both sides of those streets, it would be extraordinarily dangerous, not just for the kids when they're trying to get to school, but for for people who who do walk in that neighborhood. So, um, that's probably the the biggest concern I have personally. I do object to the the increase in volume. Um, but I didn't study that to understand the, you know, the nitty-gritty about it. Um,

I I would much prefer to see parking within the that lot for a good portion of the folks who will be living in there. I don't know where they're going to walk to. It's not walkable. I mean, how much Chinese food can you How many times do you need, you know, can you go to stores for everything? It's just a fantasy that it's walkable. I thought it would be walkable from my house. I have to really talk myself into walking up town because it's so much easier to hop in a car and it's far. It's 12 minute walk. So, thank you. Um, please accept the my comments as a very very concerned citizen wanting to retain the the safety in our neighborhood and appreciating also new development. I really do. I want the density. I'm a believer. I've lived in the city. I get it. But it's got to work with what's already there. So, thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else want to speak on uh I can speak. I'm John Earl. I live in 41 Bluestone Court. Um I had submitted comments prior to the June meeting which I think got moved. Uh I had submitted a video outlining my concerns. I don't know if the board had a chance to review that back in June or July, but I made a a print out of that as well. I have several copies that you guys can share. One for myself. Thank you.

So, I think everyone here is concerned with the density and how that affects parking. Um, I know the zone based code doesn't account for parking, but I've outlined uh what the impact will be for us on Blue Stone Court. So, if you look at page one of this document, you'll see um the gray is the road and the pink is the designated parking areas. Um

and this is all available on the link that I had sent in June as well. Um if you go to the second page um you'll see the allocated parking for that um that's available. So there are nine duplexes being proposed along with uh excuse me six duplex buildings along with nine multiplex. Uh that'd be a total of 41 units and up to 68. That doesn't account account for ADUs which are also permitted on these sites. So there could be even more density than uh what we're estimating here. Excuse me. So on page three with uh just the yellow blocks outlining the cars, um that gives us uh 37 off street parking spaces in the lots. And really the lots are so small you can only get uh one car in front of each building on the street except for one area where you can fit three. So you have 18 off streetet parking. So that's 54 total parking spaces for 41 to 68 units. You have two adults per unit. You're going to need at least 94 uh parking spaces for them. So if you go to the next page, you'll see how we envision the impact on Bluestone Court will be. Um so we're deficit of 40 spaces uh based on the density that's being proposed and the orange squares are parking spaces for cars and uh the gaps are really just where driveways are on the existing single family homes. Um so the overflow of 40 spaces would basically turn Blue Stone Court into a parking lot for this new development.

Um, in addition, the road is quite narrow and there are no sidewalks. So, if you have cars parked on either side of the street, there's really not there's one single lane for traffic to travel in either direction. Um, on page five, I've outlined a a alternate density proposal, but we can come back to that. Uh the pages after that have actual photos from when our neighbors have had parties and there's a lot of traffic parked on the street. You will see how narrow uh the additional parking creates and that's what Bluestone Court will eventually be like if we have you know the density that's being proposed in that area. Uh the first page is near the entrance of what Bluestone um place would be and you can see cars parked on either side. We have one lane to travel through. Um further down uh closer to my house, you'll see my neighbors standing there between two rows of parked cars. There's not enough room for a garbage truck. There's not enough room for a fire truck or an ambulance to pass through. And this is in the summer. Imagine if there was a snow emergency. We had snow piled up on the sides of the road. These cars are going to be encroaching even further into the middle of the street. Uh you can see on page eight, there is three vehicles right next to each other. That is the width. You know, these cars are parked uh in the lawns or right next to the lawns. They're they're not, you know, there's no camera trickery here. Uh it also on the next page, you'll see it makes getting in and out of the

existing driveways very difficult when there's that much parking uh being used. And uh just a few more examples. Just you know, you can see there's no sidewalks. Everyone walks down the middle of the street here. And this is a quiet, you know, it's not a parking lot. It's not a busy through street. We all live there because it's quiet culde-sac and not a densely populated. It's not Midtown. We could have all chose to live in Midtown if that's what we wanted. Can I ask a question? Okay. Yes, absolutely.

So, all these residential homes appear to have driveways. Where are all these extra cars coming from? Like, are these This is from a party that they had. Uh, one was from a graduation party. Okay. And so with that opportunity, I went to take photos while there was that much traffic on our street. Our street usually there's no traffic on our street because everyone has enough off streetet parking to accommodate their vehicles. So that was a unique circumstance. This is demonstrating what it would look like with the

with the new development. we would have this kind of parking regularly, okay, because there are not enough parking spaces allocated for the

units that are being proposed. So, if you would like to consider what it would look like at a lower density on page five um by changing the plans from multiplexes and duplex to primarily single family homes on these 50-foot lots and one duplex, which there is one lot that has two separate driveways already planned for it that could hold a duplex. You could have 16 total units on the 15 lots. That would only require 32 parking spaces and no overflow spaces would be required on the Bluestone or across Lucas. And if people have more than one vehicle per adult, there's still a little bit of parking on Bluestone uh place that they're calling it now. So that's our biggest concern is um too much density that's going to because the my other neighbors have already made the point the neighborhood's not walkable. There's no bus stations near us. There's no bus stations on Lucas. There's no sidewalks on Lucas. There's no sidewalks. No one's walking to Hannifford to get groceries. You know, everyone's driving. This is not uh the part of town that people move to and think they can exist without a car. There's no bike lanes. Can't even bike. I have a neighbor that lives on Lucas. It's not here tonight. He bikes a lot and he's constantly harassed by drivers on Lucas for driving his bike legally on the road on the shoulder. And like my other neighbor said, people are zipping up and down Lucas. I cross the street uh two to four times a day taking my kids to and from school and you know

sometimes we have to wait five minutes for traffic to slow down to get across. So I get the intention of the codebase zoning but it shouldn't be applicable for this particular plot. it doesn't fit in with um what they were intending and it should be on the planning board to make the right decision to um you know enforce what's going to be best for the neighborhood and the existing neighbors and uh the character of our current street.

Thank you. Thanks. Here's another copy. Anybody else who shouldn't speak on I'll speak heard me speak and then I'll speak again. Come on up. We got Yeah, we need you up here, please. You just state your name and address for the record, please.

Okay. My name is Marggo Leight. I live on 9 Alazar Avenue in Kingston. So, I'm on the other side of Lucas from where this development is going to be. Um, and we're already a little bit tight for parking where I live. And then there's an elementary school and a middle school one block behind me. So, in the morning, all the kids are trying to get to school. And uh when that over if that overflow parking from over there starts coming across Lucas and parking up on our streets, which it does sometimes when they have events over there, um there's just it's going to be hazardous for all those little kids going to school. That's all I have to say.

Thank you. Sarah Pasty. Um, see me see me speak before. I'll keep my remarks brief this time. Um, you've heard my neighbors speak. Um, what I want to speak about are basically sort of two things in addition to all the comments that I've submitted. And that's that um, in the last couple of months I've had the chance to to see what happens with traffic on Lucas Avenue. There have been two times when I've seen people walking along Lucas Avenue who had nearly been hit by cars. In one case, it was man a man walking along the street and he was carrying a bag on his arm and because the shoulder is so narrow, the bag was in the roadway and so the car had to go around the person who was on the street. If there had been a car in the other lane coming at him, that person would have been killed or hit if not killed. And then I've seen another situation also where somebody was walking and a car swerved around that person because the the shoulders, which is really the only place you can walk, they are really so narrow there. Um, and so there really is nowhere to walk. And I've said this before and I've said it in my comments, it really is not a walkable neighborhood. Everybody has to drive. There's nothing to walk to. And even if there were sidewalks put in, let's just say 25 years from now they put in sidewalks, there still would be the distance that you would have to walk, which in the winter nobody is going to walk a mile and a half to go to Hamfords to get groceries. And there is no reliable bus service. And there's even less now that we have the change in in UKAT service that's taking people primarily around the county. It's not a Kingston bus service. Um, so the other thing that I that I was thinking about in the last couple of months is that I come here every month and I hear

applicants come and make their presentations and all of them will talk about how the projects they're proposing fit into the context of the existing neighborhood and how they are not going to cause any harm or present any impact to the surrounding neighborhoods. I've heard it with 21 Elizabeth Street. I've heard it with all of the various proposals that have been presented to this board. Now, I have not heard these applicants come up here and talk about how this particular project is going to fit into the existing context and how it's not going to have an impact, which makes me wonder, could it be that their plans they're not saying anything because it doesn't fit into the context and it's going to have an impact. So that's that's a concern to me because there is in the code the statement that all projects need to fit within the context of an ex existing or adjoining neighborhood and that's part of the formbbased code. It doesn't legislate but it allows you to legislate what's appropriate for the context of a particular neighborhood. And I don't think this is. And another thing that I'd like to mention just because it relates to why so many people are showing up is when I first got on the council, Mr. Sansy was kind enough to give me a call and say that he was no longer going to move forward with his apartment complex. But during CO, he had changed his mind about moving forward. It was an expensive complex to put in and instead he was going to put in 15 buildable lots of single family homes. And what did I think the neighbors would think about that? So I went around to the neighbors and I asked them and everybody was very excited. They want to see development, you know, in this area. They want to see more houses. And so I went back and I said to him, people were very excited about it. So what then the reason you're seeing so many people now is that imagine I was surprised when the first presentation before the planning

board was for these multiplexes and duplexes which were not at all like what I had originally been told which seemed like as I said a development that people were very excited about to have come in and another thing I'll say that also just came to mind is if there are you in the map of an example of a walkable neighborhood. It does show detached houses on the outskirts of the particular neighborhood plan, you know, the little illustrations in the book. And I looked at it and it's all attached detached houses with duplexes, you know, that are fitting into a context of a neighborhood. So, if there were detached houses put in, at any point, any of the people who had the detached home could come before the planning board and say, "It's time to put in an ADU, or I'd like to expand." There's no reason they couldn't come back to the planning board and expand. But if you set a regulatory plan that that mentions and mandates essentially multiplexes and duplexes, if somebody wanted to build a single family home, they would have to come back to the planning board to ask for that to so they'd have to come back to the planning board to ask for decreased density as opposed to coming back to the planning board to ask for increased density. So these are the things that are occurring to me as I as I review this in addition to all the other things which I won't bother to go into because I sent in so many pages of material but all of them related to the code which I went back in and I really examined thoroughly so that um I would be knowledgeable about what all of you have to look at when you're making determination. So um thank you for reading all of those. I hope you did read them or will read them. Thank you for listening to the comments of my neighbors and myself. And um

so if there's an immediate danger of people walking along Lucas Avenue now, why is there not an an initiative now by the city government to install sidewalks there? We wait for projects like this to involve to to come about. It's all about and I

and this and this is these walkable neighborhoods is something that the the city has passed. This is the new form-based code and the walkable neighborhoods. I've said it at at past meetings. It's got to start somewhere, right? We got to have and you talk about not the need not to walk down to Hannerford in the middle of winter, which why would you have sidewalks then? you said. So it doesn't mean in a walkable neighborhood you have to walk to the farthest to you know to Hanford. If they could be just mean to walk around the neighborhood to go to Stewarts to go to the park. Well I so why is there

why is there now you know when when we have a development being proposed and I'm not saying I'm for against it. I understand.

I'm just saying we have you know this development is here before us now. Why does it take these types of these things to stir a conversation? And you said 20 years from now we could have sidewalks. We should do it now. We got kids being we talk about kids being crossing the street. And I want I also want to speak to the gentleman down there when the the folks you showed all the cars parked along side of the road. The people of Bluestone Court have created that condition in their own neighborhood and it's something that they're fearing will happen with this development and they created on their own. So, but that's temporary, sir.

It's it's still it's a situation that was created by people in Blue Stone Fort, you know, so for an event, not for living, but we're worried about people getting, you know, emergency vehicles getting in and out. Um these these are all, you know, this is this is worth discussing, you know, especially with the sidewalks you're talking about.

Well, I'm happy to talk to you about sidewalks and I would say that since I've been on the council, I've been talking to the mayor and all of my colleagues about why they're, you know, can there be a sidewalk on Lucas? The challenge is that a sidewalk on Lucas would cost 10 to$20 million. We don't have that kind of money. It's I I've struggled to get $100,000 to put in a 400 foot section of sidewalk on Marilina to keep kids from getting hit as they walk around the corner down to the school district. And I think in the long run, maybe there's a sidewalk study being done right now to look at where sidewalks, both repairing existing ones and putting in new ones, where they can take place and prioritizing them around the city. Now, I know enough about how the city works since I've been on the council now for two years that when determinations are made about where should a sidewalk go in, where should money be spent, and I'm not talking about city taxpayer money because we don't have that kind of money, but I'm talking about the grants that come in from the state like CHIPS money and other money that comes in for sidewalks. There's a list of priorities and the priorities are really where there is the greatest volume of traffic whether it's pedestrian or or cars you know in terms of where money is prioritized in the city compared to other areas of the city there are this is less a priority because when you think about uptown and you think about all the blue stone sidewalks that are crooked and the trip and fall hazards that exist in uptown that's where If we get money, that's where money needs to be spent to make existing sidewalks where a lot of people are walking more safe. There also is a sidewalk going in on Foxhole and other main streets that are commercial areas that also have residential areas next to them. These are places where people can walk to commercial stores. And so it makes sense on streets that have a lot

of heavy traffic to have for them to be the priority instead of a street like Lucas. So yes, as much as I have been advocating for it, I have come to realize that it's not going to happen anytime soon because there are a lot of priorities and I hear about them all the time when I go to public safety committee meetings and people are talking and we hear about people who are tripping and falling and broken sidewalks and you know a lot of other issues that are really dangerous for people. So this in the long run given that this is not really a walkable area of Kingston, it's not a priority. And I will say also that that you know a walkable neighborhood means you know I mean there is the definition that I looked up and it's a mix of housing, civic space, open space, retail and service choices. I'm a complete advocate for housing in areas where those are accessible. For example, as you know when you said you're right, it has to start somewhere and I'm happy to say that it is. You know that it's starting it's starting and you've seen it coming here and we see it coming to the council. It's starting along Schwin Drive. Yeah, it's coming along Shrank Drive. It's going into Frog Alley. There are other places that are close to services that are really appropriate for dense housing. And I will be voting in favor of those projects to happen because it makes sense there. Anyway, I'll shut up now.

All right. So, there's a lot of reference to this not the area around this not being walkable neighborhood. When this is being called a walkable neighborhood, that is the plan itself. That's what they're creating will be the walkable neighborhood is that that's what the that's what the zoning code is referring to. Yeah. Cuz everyone else is talking about the neighborhood around it not being walkable. But we are talking about being put in will be a

walk. Yeah. Right. But I would assume every subdivision is walkable in that sense. So how does this how does what they're proposing differ from a subdivision? To my mind it's a subdivision be called a walkable neighborhood. There are no commercials. There's no corner store. There's really nothing there. It's a subdivision that doesn't even empty onto Lucas Avenue. It's a subdivision that enters into another subdivision that then enters onto Lucas Avenue. So, the possibility for traffic backups and a lot of other things is really is there. You know, we can see it. We can see it coming.

But this is all the development that was encouraged with the formbbased code that the common council approved. Mayor approved. So, um, and then when we have developers wanting to do something, we discourage them from doing it.

I would say again, everything is based on context. I don't think the form-based code mandates that every neighborhood in in Kingston should be able to, you know, be walked. I'm thinking about Wilbur Avenue, Ward Nine. You know, would you would you recommend that there if somebody wanted to come in with a proposal like this in W N where it's not does stipulate that when you have parcels that are over 2 acres in size in the city of Kingston and you're developing them, they have to either be developed as a walkable neighborhood or conservation village plan. when you have two acres or more, unless you have a special district multifamily, which is a multifamily development project. It's not a separate parcels. It's one one um multifamily project.

So, I guess my question would be what is the definition? I mean, why is the definition why does the definition not apply? Why would you not put in a mix of, you know, put in a corner store or open space or other things within that development that would make it a walkable neighborhood? The developer, they can they would and in this instance when it's less than 5 acres, um the project sponsor has to choose two building types. Okay? They could have chosen a neighborhood uh business building type. um and put it in the in the project, which might have made more sense actually,

but that that's a decision that they made, not the board. But so the board really can only decide on two types of No, they're required to have two. Okay. Um they could put three. Um but they're mandated to have at least two. So, you couldn't do all detached homes within this project. You can't do all duplexes. There's got to be some mix when it's less than the 5 acres,

right? And I think that's why I proposed in one of one of the things I submitted that there would be sort of eight detached houses and seven duplexes that would create 22 units on 15 lots. So, it's more it's not just single family homes, but the detached houses next to Bluestone Court would be in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood because context according to the form based code is important. And that's that's what we're saying is the context of where it's going to be cited and public safety, you know, like public safety is important, context is important, impacts are important. The code also says that it doesn't want and that's why we have input from all all of the folks that you've just described public safety you know that's one of them there's

it's all part of the input we have to and it's good to have discussion right I'm glad we have discussion um we want to make it the safest best possible project that it could be if it does come to be so um we and I appreciate yeah I appreciate that and I appreciate the efforts of the board and I know what you go because I do come and see you here every month. So, thank you for your deliberations and thank you for listening. Anybody else wishing to speak on that item? Okay, gentlemen. You might want to drag a chair up there with you or whatever. I don't know. Sorry about that.

You can take this one so you don't It's all good. Hi there. Stephan, Sansy and Luke and Torante are here. All right. Um, we have updated plans.

We have updated plans. Yes. So those were uploaded on the 7th mostly incorporating uh feedback from John Schulty's um and our engineer going through making revisions to lots the uh easements and HOA damage areas um several other things details on on the tension pond and and that sort of thing. Um, we updated one sheet today and there might be a couple of other light comments just on example building lots sheet SP 3.1. Um, and there's other folks there's other seats back here if you want to get a better view of what we're talking about.

Sorry. So, this is actually a good plan. What you what we what we've done here, there was a concern obviously with what's going to be left to the uh, you know, to the to the owners to maintain. So per uh city engineer uh suggestion, we created an HOA. So there's going to be there's going to be an HOA responsible for maintenance of the retention pond and then the steeper slope along the back of lots 9 through uh 15 um as well as the area that goes out to Lucas Avenue. So, um, that's all reflected in the latest plan set and then additional drainage details and things like that on SP6 and that required some of the lots to get a little bit smaller which impacted the 50% max lot coverage. So, those tables were updated and adjusted to

So, does anybody understand what Luke was just talking about? So where the the strong water tension pond area is rather than outleting to the adjacent property is now going behind all of the upper lots. Um letting 10 through is it 10 through 15 9 through 15 9 through 15 is a a swale and a pip a piping right and then it connects over there. That's where it's connecting to the No, that's that's like an overflow area there. An overflow there area that will, you know, manage that water as that as that that bond fills up

to let it drain and percolate through the through the earth. Nine shows the adjusted uh HOA areas. that that's been updated since the last set.

Um, have you submitted an application to to the Olster County Health Department yet? Cuz you know they they they they got that requirement. They they become not a good guy. Well, we have not. We've gotten the clearance letter from the DEC. Okay. Um but the health department once we had have had the plan finalized and sort of locked um which I don't expect it to change in terms of the lot sizes locations and all that at this point then we can uh okay that's outside it's on your punch list then yeah okay

have you I would start that process I would initiate the discussion with them now rather than later Okay. It's uh the appropriate time to start talking with them. Yeah, we'll have our engineer um initiate that. And I know I know we've discussed the density before um and it's obviously still on everyone's um minds as you heard in the public comment. Um what are your thoughts in in adding maybe another type of house uh type of building type here um along you know just to provide for a little bit additional variation.

Yeah. I mean we we

we've heard all the comments. Um I think to to just kind of address a few um our intention was originally we went over this several months ago to to do single family home submission right going to the form based code and actually starting to put that plan together we realize we can't so we're going to do walkable neighborhood plan so then we started with duplexes and single family homes and then we get further into it and realize what are the uh acceptable building types. So that's sort of how that evolves. I feel like we've talked enough about that, but just to remind everyone contextually, um, we I I guess apologize if we haven't overstated this enough, but we feel strongly that it does fit the context. We have Miller's Lane, uh, apartment complex adjacent to this parcel, right, which very dense apartment complex. All of the lots down Lucas, um, Browning Terrace, those are 50 foot wide lots for the most part. The only one that's different really is Blue Stone Court. Those are oversized lots across the street from Lucas on all the small streets around Edson and Bailey. Those are all narrow lots. So, our feeling is that it's it actually is a nice transition between the two. It reflects that there's nothing greater than two stories here. So contextually and following the formbbased code um I I don't see how it doesn't fit as far as a third building type. I mean we've we've thought about that as we had to sort of identify and and name which what each one was going to be. You know I mean frankly we don't think a corner store or commercial business makes a lot of sense. Um even if that some may think that that would be helpful. Um, so I mean right now this is what we're proposing. Um, and we we've thought a lot about it. We've discussed it before in these meetings.

Can you put up the one with the driveways? I just talk a little bit to the parking because you did in one of one of the shapes of the driveways. Yeah. SP1 and Santa where the plan that showed them the SP1 shows them. It was right there.

Yeah. So, we agreed on the um off streetet parking. We we are showing required um not just showing not just proposed but required in the deeds that there is a uh there is a driveway long enough to accommodate two vehicles beyond the front plane of the house. So, um, and a couple of them are wrapping actually around the back side. Is that Yeah, just garages.

Uh, lot eight and, uh, lot one has two driveways, two parking areas. And yes, nine does go around with that. So there's 16 driveways then. Uh 15 16. Yeah. Okay. Right. So the the one though I I don't know um I believe we had pointed it out in an earlier comment to you um before the meeting Lou is that the corner lot there lot one

yeah two you're going to have to take one off um each property is only allowed one curb cut so for purposes of the plan I mean obviously that can be modified when actual physical building construction as long as there is a you It can be a note added to the planet. They're representational only, but when physical construction, they might be modified slightly to at a different location.

All right. Um so another thing we that we're thinking about um and we haven't really discussed yet with you but now we'll talk about it is um with the connection to Lucas Avenue um you know in some of the former plans that had been shown as a pedestrian access way. Um, I know you're going to be using that for your construction for your construction entrances.

Um, with the new homeowners association, originally it was taken off as pedestrian access and cycle area. This subdivision because it was part of that end lot was before. It's no longer part of that end lot, but it's now part of the homeowners association covered area. So, we were thinking it's an opportunity now to put that connection, that pedestrian connection back to Lucas. Um, and I want to know your thoughts on that.

Absolutely. We have no problem adding that back in. I think the concern some of the comments we heard was that when it goes So we took it off but we can put that. Okay. I mean since previous project we have a sidewalk there new for the farming complex. We have a lot going. So that's no problem. We're happy to add that back in. Would that sidewalk be maintained by HOA? Correct. Yeah. Maybe it's a good time to discuss what HOA will cover. And I know you can also speak maybe to what you presented to the council at this point.

Yeah. So we actually um we have to go back to council with the latest update to this. Um they obviously wanted us to get further along in this process before they would do anything. And of course ultimately it's up to the city at the end of construction to to agree to take on the the street dedication. But um essentially the HOA is going to be uh it's going to be written into all the deeds. It's going to require regular uh maintenance on the storm structures specifically um per the required timeline and SWIP yearly cleaning out of those uh retention pond and that sort of thing.

Also the it's the very last page. Um I'm sorry. Yeah, this one. Um, also that that strip along the back of 9 through 15 is a bit steeper. So, there's going to be lawn maintenance included in there. Um, and then the entire center meeting which will also have annual cleaning of of any drainage structures. There's some benches and seating areas, the sidewalk which will now carry out uh the Eastbin area to Lucas Avenue. So it's it's lawn maintenance uh snow and uh storm water system management which is all well documented documented in terms of what type of maintenance is required and how often on those structures.

Um so that's essentially the the what the HOA will cover. We're going to um you know if developed we will build the the street and the road in coordination with John proper inspections all the things we've we've discussed a lot about the the road and everything. That way if the city does take the street we know it's up to standards. Of course, the city also reserves the right to not take the street at the end. So

it's not contingent on us. If the city were not to adopt the street, then the whole street would go fall under the board members have any comments or thoughts that you want to ask the applicants? And and that that pedestrian access out there, is that going to be uh beefed up for is that going to be an emergency access there? That'll be it was previously, but

yeah, I think we had like a like a traffic rated PA. Um I I know the chiefs looked at this. I I don't know if I don't think they thought it was necessary. I don't think this time because we had the the amount of right away and traffic flow for fire trucks. It's off the table. Yeah. Now there going around. Okay. Yeah. We have we have room for a ladder side.

So that'll just be restored from the construction stabilized construction entrance entrance after construction restored back to grass with a concrete side block. And are you phasing construction to us or going to be what are you doing with that? Um the the site infrastructure would would pretty much all go up to the point where the road is is complete and all the underground utilities are there before we would develop the first lot. Is it your intention to do the construction to sell the lots and build the

Yes, I think we'll we'll potentially keep a few of the of the lots and the developments um or sell them with a package to build um of course whenever that time comes of all the infrastructure and roadways in we'll assess the market at that time. Okay. narrow falls to get this subdivided all create the lots and eventually we'll get to the portion where we have to talk about the county comments. Are you you're working on

Yeah, we we there's a we could talk more about that. I talked with Sue about that um offline, but there was quite a few comments were kind of not really reflective of the foreignbased code. Um and I we we talked about that briefly that you know um don't know that they actually referenced the foreign base code when they they wrote their response, but yes, we can provide a line by line response to whatever. Yeah, we we'll we'll give you the staff notes when um I know we had talked about the the street lighting and the type of lights and I I can remember seeing um a sample light fixture hole on a like a separate sheet of paper but I'm not seeing them in the plan sets for in the submission.

Okay. the well means almost checked and I thought we had I mean your lighting levels and your intensity it's it's cited there what it is but there was a a drawing of it there was yeah okay that might have got might have slipped off at some point um didn't want to make sure that it is matching it was somewhat matching what's right good and I I couldn't understand the chart if they start starts with pole number eight and I was curious why that's because blue stone I think those might have been counted for some reason

I I don't I don't know exactly why but I do remember seeing that spec and okay fact that it's not here yet number 821 yeah and I couldn't figure out why that number was So, any thoughts? Andrew, comments, thoughts? So, the code doesn't require any parking. Um, no, it doesn't.

Yeah. So, lot there's lots of comments about the issues of parking going out to other streets, but I mean, this is parking on city streets, legal parking. I mean, if if there are streets where you can't get a car down, if there's parking on both sides, does the city need to look at only allowing parking on one side of that street? Have to go through the council to legislate. Yes. But is that the problem of these developers? That's in my mind if if that needs to happen. Well, this is a these streets are one way. Yeah. Yeah. I'm just saying if if it's causing if right

if there's a street next to this that can accommodate that. I I don't think that's this development's problem. That's for the city to look at and say should you have parking on both sides of the street. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. between the two schools there. I grew up in Kingston. Used to ride my bike to Bailey, cut through the parking lot of the of the temple or the dog there from Millers. It's always been I mean since as long as you could you could shake your head, but it was I don't have any record of many children being hit by a car riding a bike over in that neighborhood.

Have you? Do you have the record? I mean, I think there was somebody hit on Lucas long before I took took office. I think what you're saying of safety and all this, but where is that coming from? What that's coming from is people who lived in that neighborhood for decades. We're going to have a comment. Yes. I think it's tough because you have a housing crisis in Kingston. We have to have a place to put

people that want to live here and that people that already live here need a place to go. I think that it's tough because it's going to change what we're used to even more. But I I I applaud the efforts to suggest and have a plan that has part included because they're not even required to do that by the form base code. I think that a lot of the time we talk about the this particular topic of parking, it goes back to decisions that are made by our common council to make amendments to the form-based code. And a lot of times it comes to this place where we have developers that are spending a ton of money rewriting projects, adapting to all different types of feedback. And then we have this like, you know, I think for every single person that lives in every corner of the city fears more cars cuz we don't even know where to put our own. And we also don't even know what to do with guests if we host a holiday. God forbid. I think it's a common thing. Um, but we have to start somewhere. And I just think that if there's checks and balances in place and if we say, okay, if these are individual lots that are going to be sold and then developed per, you know, person or owner, the suggested, you know, area for having a driveway that would accommodate two cars, let's say, um, what is the process? Does that does the process of development continue to come back to the planning board as each project lays out or is this an approval for your the entirety and it's just a go? Yes, an approval for

just the lots and then each lot goes through the building department unless it's four or more. Yes. Changes it. But so if there is if there's um in the plan like an area showing a parking a driveway, what is the concern that that wouldn't be the case? Well, there have no into it. They have to have a drive, right? So, and then the potential for how many individuals would be living on a on a in an area or in a on a lot,

but you have to glorify the lot, right? So, you know, I think that the best that we can do is to be be realistic about, you know, how many cars that this is going to give an influx to to the neighborhood. But I also think that there is a plan where they're not even required to have one. So I I I see a lot of effort there which is we've seen projects that have like none. I mean they're just not even required to but I think that that's irresponsible and I appreciate there's at least some effort.

Well yeah we appreciate that because initially it was like okay there's no parking required and then it was discussed and it's like well can we try it? How do we make sure they get buil bill built? It won't require them you know. So, I mean, that is that's the effort to try to do what we can with the space we have um without building half the lot into a parking lot. We're being realistic about the people that are going to live there. They're not going to not probably need a car, you know? I mean, I our goal is to get lots created and not worry about it after it's

I didn't say that. That's it. Vince, Vince, any comment? No. No comment. Sage. I mean, remind me again. I feel like we discussed this the last time. If they were to sell these off one by one and not subdivide it in the way that they're doing, they basically would never come in front of us. If I'm They're mainly here because of the road. That's really what it boils down to is to create the road and to create the subdivision. The subdivision and the walkable neighborhood plan are required planning agreements. Yes.

But at the end of the day, it's going to come down to the building. I mean, we're going to do as much as we can. Worst case scenario, this is what it could look like, but you're going to create 15 plan gets put onto the zoning map and each parcel is identified as how it will be developed. So each parcel will be on the zoning map and it will say this is a duplex. This is a small multiplex. They will have the option to come in front of us to they only want to do a single they want to change the building.

It has to come back to the planning board because the walkable neighborhood plan will change. So that would come back to the planning board. If they just want to if somebody wants to just build the duplex, they can go just to the building department and build the duplex. Right. Right. If they want to build a duplex on a multi on a on a they'd have to come back to the planning board to get if it's not on that designated. So if it's on a if it's on a small multipl we're here with the two building types. Originally we thought it was just any building type on the lot. It's it's much more of a prescriptive sort of uh

and there's no way within the form based code that you can just say within a walkable neighborhood they can pick one of these three types to build on any of these lots within this walkable neighborhood has to be designated. Yes.

Yeah. I mean there's in the code there is a table that tells you exactly the makeup of the walk neighborhood or the conservation village plan depending on what you're doing. And in this particular instance, the route that they chose, they used the T3 zoning and they because they're under five, they only had have two building types. So, but other ones have, you know, 40% of will be this 50% of and they actually create separate transexs within the within the neighborhood because they have a larger space to do. So, it gets a little bit more complicated with larger tracks of land,

right? Chuck, any thoughts? Well, no. Okay.

I think historically the the planning board has been the lightning rod for a lot of controversial projects. you know, that's that's our our job is to sit through um all of the the public comment. Um and we work with the developers to try to to make the safest best development possible. Um that's an allowed use. Um and you know, I I've I've said my piece with you know, over over the last several meetings with this. The one thing I think that, you know, stands out for me is that the developers have taken steps to alleviate um that they don't need to have parking, but they've taken steps to alleviate, you know, that concern. It may not make everybody happy. Um but again, they've taken steps to to try to make this the best project I think possible. Um I that's that's my comments. We're not making a decision tonight on this right now. There's stuff that needs to be done.

Yeah. Um, is it possible to ask them a question at this time? Um, I don't want to get into a back and for Well, I'd like the whole board to hear those. I'm just curious what uh in the code is compelling you to do. duplexes and multiplexes questions for we could talk to that I want to we we've talked

yeah we've talked about this is this is what I didn't want to get understand there was a whole discussion on that and how we got there and why we chose those right talk with some two neighbors first of all. Okay. So, um

we're inclined to I'm inclined to um close the public hearing on this. Um any discussion on that? Okay. Also, was that good? All right. So, at this time, I'll make a motion that we close the public hearing on item number three. I'll second. Second by Sage New. All in favor? I opposed. Carry. Like I said, there's still some more things to take care of, right?

Yeah. Very small, you know, staff notes, things like that that we're addressing. So, we'll be we're going to try to get out for December, which is early, right? That's was going to hold up quick. It's the the meeting is December 8th. It's the second Monday instead of third Monday because of the holidays. And uh so the deadline for submissions is next week. Yeah. Um title. Understood. If there are some some staff notes that come from, you know, like later this week or whatever, we want to really try to get those incorporated.

Yeah, we'll get we'll get you current set. You might have extra hand. So I'm going to make a motion to table item number three. Second by Vince Archer. All in favor? I opposed. Gary. Thanks. Not sharing. Okay, moving to old business.

Item number four is 25 alley. It's a site plan for a mixed residential development and some commercial workspace and major waiver for alternative building type. Section block and lot is 48.314-1-12. Secret determination transnc Kingston LLC is the applicant owner. Hello. State your name for the record again. Alexander the name. And I think I believe Hey everyone. Yeah.

Sorry. I have the flu and my sister's getting married in four days. So, I don't want to be the uh the object of scorn in 20 years getting everyone sick at our wedding. So, I'm I'm hanging out at home. Unlikely excuse. Congratulations.

Um so, we we submitted we submitted some of the answers to the to the comments from the board. Um we're still uh we're still waiting for more information uh conversation between the the city engineer and and civil engineeries and we hope some for the next the next meeting. So apologies if not this is not a complete set of answers but we try to get the ball rolling. Um so aside from from the plans then we also submitted our major application major waiver application um for a new apology which we call the rowhouse court and uh um yeah so so as the board knows last month um we initiated the the lead agency um initiation so that circulation process has begun um in the 30 days is not over yet for that circulation. So, we won't be doing any decisions tonight. But what they wanted to do was to bring to the board their major waiver application which is uh proposing the new building type and they're calling it a rowhouse court. kind of combining the cottage court concept with the rowhouse building u which are two building types that are currently in the warm-based code. Um so we want to really focus on that. Um I hope that you've had a chance to take a look at the staff notes before the CV. Um and we've had we've presented some questions and some thoughts um with respect to it but also you know so that you could familiarize yourself and look at you know look at what the um allowable building types are um in this

area of Kingston of town um and look at what is being proposed by the developer um and come up with um any thoughts or comments. and feedback to them respect to the and if me just a very quick background story of why we came with the with this new um we obviously we we we started to uh design uh the site plan with this idea of creating a space

space that had interior streets and and plazas and and squares uh to create a walkable area within within the neighborh within the the lot itself and also a space that was not just for the people living in there but that had some uh commercial spaces to invite people from the neighborhood actually walking and really activated this space. uh we started looking at what uh that meant. We're just using uh the existing uh technologies and and there were a lot of uh a lot of uh uh minor waiverss that we had to apply for in order to to make that work mostly because all of these technologies ask for a private space in the back the welcome house and the blacks etc. And on the other hand, we wanted to instead not create a private space in the back of each individual building, but rather distribute a new public space in the front shared to create more of a community within that these small. So that's the whole idea behind behind proposing waiver about possibility. We know it's something that the code uh tries to promote. So so that's the idea of bringing it to the board. Do you have this this

was the previous submission, right? This one or still

um I'm just I'm confused. The the difference the type of building we're proposing is this is that was from last the last month's submission, right? Yeah. the project is still the same. Okay.

So basic when you under the farm-based code within each transct um there are prescribed building types in in the code itself, it now has the architectural um characteristics um and elements of buildings and building forms and building types that you have to conform with. And so they as as Alessandre was just saying, they looked at all of the building types allowed and they knew the type of project that they were trying to create in this small space um that they have. And if they were looking at putting using multiple building types the way the code prescribes it now, they were ending up with a multitude of waiverss and and their project was just getting more complicated in terms of not performing. And so there is an opportunity in the code that you can present um to the city um to the planning board specifically under a major waiver request for a new building type which is can be a unique building type and it is for this project alone. It is for this location only. Um, and if it's something that the council sees that, you know, there's an opportunity to apply it in other areas of Kingston, then the council or planning board can do a zoning amendment, but this will only be for this property. So, as a major waiver um request, they they're presenting their building form and how it's going to work on their site. Um then that's how we've evaluated

and just the major waiver creates that new building type. Correct. Okay. Right. Right. Is it still with the same intention as it was originally with it being focused on the Dutch type architecture and all that stuff basis of the design theory that they're looking at.

Yeah. Absolutely. the the design nothing has changed in terms of the layout's design. We haven't updated the renderings. Uh you can see the elevations and the plan on on the submission. Um but yes, we wanted to pack all this this major w before renderings development but nothing really has changed since we presented this. So, Kyus has on the screen up there a portion of the code which shows you the different transexs across the top of the table and the building types and obviously for the different transexs only certain building types are allowable within those um kind of what we were just talking about before like in the T3N you see small multiflex neighborhood business um those are the building types that that last project could choose from as are allowed. You can't just choose anything. You only choose what's allowed within the certain transct. Yep. Besides a historical reference to the settlers being Dutch, is there something about this style of housing that is intended for like accommodating a maximum capacity of units or a certain amount of homes or is it more style?

Uh, we have a maximum capacity. Uh uh do you mind going back to the previous?

Yeah, there was uh so we have we don't really have a maximum or currently what we're proposing how we want to go to amendment to this. Uh we don't have a maximum number of of units per building but there's a maximum height of of three story per per individual unit and again these are all units that share wall physically. Um so the ros style uh so there is a way see skyscraper or anything like that still within within the density and outside of of the neighborhood um but doing something

and this is not something that's intended for like this project isn't intended to be um directed for like like affordable housing or anything like that. This is just this is home. This is straightforward.

This is a straightforward project. They but because of the number of units they are subject to the affordable housing requirement also under the code and that based on that's the sliding scale based on the number of units in the project you you know 7 to 19 you have 10% affordable once you get from 20 to I think I don't forget the number 40 there's a workforce component built in and as you go higher higher in number of units of affordability and workforce housing increases,

right? They're still subject to that and they're they're aware of that will be deep restricted covenants that will ultimately be entered into.

Okay. Um so but right now we're really looking at just a couple things you know that I had thought of is where it's the um where the building front door onto the public street or onto a shared courtyard. One thing I want to see is I want to see the language modified so that it's a building that sits on a street on a public street. I wanted to have the front facing facade to the street. We don't want to have the back of a building on the street. So things like that and and particularly here with Frog Alley, you don't want you you want that to be a nice walkable street, you don't want it to be the back side of the building. This gives the option. So you don't want that option in this um

yeah,

you know, in the language there. So that's one thing. You know, the other thing is to just think about, you know, and look at like the type of frontages, you know, they're selling that the stoop, the dorer front and the fork court are the type of building frontages and they're all described in the code as well. So, do you think those are all appropriate with this development or do you think others should be added or do you think some should be removed? That's where you kind of like you're getting into really the design of what this is and what options you feel are important. We're talking building height one to three stories. Do you think that that is that's good? 102. Do you think it should be higher? That's what you need to flush out and and discuss. Did you dabble with any um design that of the types of buildings that are allowed by forbased coding? Did you?

Yes. So if if we were to try to to fit what already exists in here, uh we will end up with with the multillex multiflex rather uh uh row houses and and they work. These are these are like the three topologies that we can fit in here and we fit the most requirement with the exception again most part of the setback from from the real. So so you have a plan B we have we have we have a plan B where we we apply for several minor waiverss and uh so this is just a way to fit these basically three different types all in one.

Yeah I really hope that this is also precedent for for other similar development. So we hope that we have like a wave or something something like that we we think of the value in it. So it's not just find easier path here broadly this section might take even longer than than the miners but it's really created something that that is applicable to to other development and you've had discussions with uh the fire chief about his his concerns. Where are you with that?

We're we're in good shape. Uh there's already been a conversation with the fire chief with with our civil engineer. We're just waiting for the civil engineer site plan showing the exactly the correct dimension of all the laneways and the access for the fire traffic specification for the for the hing and uh and uh a new hydrant that has been retested. Did you have to move anything around these distractions on the We didn't have to move anything substantially. We just push the wall a little bit are building by inches.

So, a couple of the things too that we noted in our notes um from you guys is some of the some of the building types have specific building widths and depths. Now, we're not proposing anything. We are knowing that there's a minimum square footage of a footprint for a structure um but no maximum. So it's the question is do you feel that there should be a width a maximum minimum width or depth of a building? Um we only we're only considering these things specifically because this could get used elsewhere because they're basically telling us what they're doing

and then we want to assign this is just for this project now. Could it be adopted for other right potential sites? Yes. So that's why it's could really think it through. There's no way. We'll do this building type for this one. You like it'll look at these requirements for other ones. He has to make another building type.

Okay. I think that it has I think the building type is you know on brand and Kingston because of what I mean it's undeniable it might be different than what we've seen but at least there's an intention there I think that maybe because of the neighborhood the height I mean it would I would have to see and imagine like you know how when we looked at the height variations when we were at the project for the um senior home and we were there. We were looking at the variations of like what it would block or what it would cast shadows over. We had the same thing in Midtown with that development. There would have to be a lot of like digging into that for height. But as far as like the style of the pump, I mean, it does it does appear modern, but at the same time too, if it's following a design that has some sort of reference to the culture of the roots of the city, I mean, I think that that's, you know, something to consider. they don't even

maybe put a description more of that philosophy kind of thing. I don't know. Maybe that's a way to Yeah, I think that's what you're getting at. Yeah, I think that people if I think that if people understand that instead of that that is important if that is what stands out as important to me it that may be important to other you know constituents that that that is the reason why it looks this way because in the past too we've seen a lot of modern suggestions for very older neighborhoods and it just doesn't look right. Well, things might not seem like it that's like a perfect piece, but if you are bringing in something like you're contextualizing something based on something that really does exist that you're just not used to seeing it that way, then at least that has a little bit more

substance. Do you do you understand what she's kind of getting at in terms of maybe bringing a little bit more of um the background of the design theory into the description a little bit? Maybe speaking to, you know, reflective of the surrounding context of the neighborhood and the the historical Dutch the word. It just seems more specific. I know what you get. Yeah. Yeah, you did a good job of verbalizing that at the first meeting. You just needed paper. Is that what you're looking for? Well, it's got it would go the description section. Yeah. Of the of the type of the building type

to think I intentionally put it out, but I'll go for that. And and and just I want to say also like the requirements that we have in here. uh we we we assume and maybe maybe it's incorrect that we're still uh we're still uh under all the requirements of the T5N slots the ones still like a maximum 10 million square foot per building the maximum height etc. So all of them still apply. Yes. Thank you for pointing that out. Like three and a half stories and they're limiting this to three. So

okay. Now you talked about footprint. There's a minimum that is required but not a maximum. Maybe that well that's that is their proposal, right? 350 foot minimum building footprint and no maximum. Okay. And the maximum is 10,000 for for the zoning. I mean, to me, this doesn't look obtrusive. Um, and you know, they've been working with the fire department for emergency access, tweaking things around, you know, they couldn't put something big there and whatever. So, I mean, I think that

phase of this is also going into the details of all this and we've seen projects really, you know, become even more refined. Yeah. I mean I think I think it's going to so like if you look at the courtyard style building type it you know it has you know courtyard width courtyard depth courtyard area 50 square ft per unit minimum. So that's that is the courtyard building. Um you know so there there are other you know building types maybe to look at that are similar

to see if there are aspects of those that you want to be have brought into this as well. I mean here they do have you know they do show width of a courtyard length of a courtyard. Um they do have that in here. It's so the thing you know is to look at how others are are kind of established and then you know do you have any thoughts for this one I mean the fact that they're including a courtyard in here um I think

Mhm. And it's going to I think it's going to draw people in there in a minute and people are going to be curious about what's going on like the the cottage core, right? Yeah. You know, I mean I mean it definitely and there'll be things going on in here community and Yeah. I mean there's some commercial spaces here that's that's going to have it's going to invite people in. Yes. So that's cottage court which is another building type which is similar only that's more that's more residential detached. Got a lot of safety features too if you have no you know

and you're just you're just making note of this just there's other options not necessarily that you're opposed to this. Oh no you're just we encourage that to actually look at a new building appropriate for this site. Absolutely. If we want to make any of this more specific. Yeah. So, or or modification. I mean, you know, like I said, there's

and you know, if with this design with other developments that may pop up in the city, they may they may look to this as being something successful. Hey, let's uh do something in, you know, similar, you know, with a project on another location in Kingston. So that's our hope. Yeah.

So if we let's say that we set the the building height for this to 3.5 maximum. Would that then need to be brought down if it were in a different like a a zone that would not allow for that height? or would it this building height because that would be a maximum. So if you were like if you ran another that said your your building height max is two and a half and that would be your Oh, okay. Yeah. Okay. It would be 1 to 3.5. Okay. Right. Yeah.

Yeah. Our understanding is first is is the is the trans sector. I mean, could we could we put a building height up to 3.5 just to see what someone wants to do? If they decide to do this somewhere that they they can go that high or I guess they could go that high here. But yeah, I mean they this is this is what they this is what they'reating and and yeah, so you're you're making the final decision. So if you think it should be adjusted absolutely

to go higher. I think an extra half story if someone wanted to try to do something with this and have an extra half story and that won't have the waiver. The extra This is the waiver. The building type is a waiver. No, that includes the height too, right? You're

I'm just I'm just talking about setting the the maximum height for this building type. If someone were to use this for another project, they could say, "I'm doing a row uh a rowhouse court that is three from five stories and still have a video alternative." Well, the alternative would just be the there are only applications asking for it, right? Um, I think they just wouldn't be able to use this type even if they were in, let's say, they were in the same zone that allows 3.5, but they want to use this building type and this building type only allows three.

Well, the only way they could you someone could take and use this building type in another location would be to request a major waiver. Yeah. Okay. or the council would have to look at the code and look at putting it in the code as this is only for right now this is only for the all right so we should talk about that after and we did like in in our letter we proposed

if if the if the city was to apply this on a broader scale we proposed D5N for N and the SDW areas translates as potential candidates for this old

not going to prove too late but no but I think what they they wanted to present it they wanted to initiate this discussion are there any really any significant concerns or comments that think you want to exchange or to make note of I have question like if you go green street or uh or any of the streets rock alley off of uh North Front Street across the street cuz the building height the building types on North Front Street doesn't look like these doesn't look like this design

um on North Front Street or Green or any of the other street north front. I'm trying to think of the trans. A lot of that is a T5MS. Oh, that's north which probably goes would allow a higher structure. This is T5. There is a bank there that's quite high, right? Bank across the street corner of North Front. Northr. Yeah. Yeah. You're just talking that they look more like storefront uh main street type

just because this design you were basing it on a Dutch style design that correct and characteristics of some of the other buildings don't look like that. That was just my the inner business or this other buildings in the area.

I mean, do you think that this proposal is rather remote from the Green Street side of Northfront that it wouldn't have to reflect what that looks like over there? I mean, I I'm just That's what I'm asking. I don't know. I don't know. It's just that was just a thing that I was just thinking about. Does it look like the buildings in the surrounding area? That is only my concern.

Well, I mean in the immediate area there's really it's like a hodge podge anyway. I mean goodyear garage dealer bank. Well, the building is still there. I go back to the last conversation we had too. I hate to bring it up again, but at least with this project, which is very different than the one that we talked about before,

these are, you know, I I appreciate you presenting and coming up with something. You know, it's it's it's a starting place. It's it it's good. It's optimistic. These guys are certain that the people that want to move here don't have cars or don't need to have cars to live here. It's just a different setting. It is. So, it's tough. And they put some thought into, you know, reflecting Dutch heritage and how things look over. I mean, I've never been to Holland, but I mean, how things appear there,

right? and knowing that we have time like we have so many other projects that we've seen where it started and to see where it got to and the input from the board and working with developers like this. We've seen some really amazing things happen. Yeah. And if the king ever breaks down the same uh do you mind putting in the the the drawing the one who submitted? Yes.

The last one. I mean I think that this particular side of North Front is drastically different than the other side of Yeah. So that's Yeah. This is the the the the street front, right? Um and and we indicated here um these are this is based on on the code requirements. So both the regularity of the pattern of the of the windows, the height of the of each of each each floor, the stoation from from the from the street level. Uh we have we don't want this to be a shopping mall. We have two commercial areas, but

it looks we want to bring some traffic, but we're also aware that it's kind of like drive. So it's not it's not going to be a lot of uh traffic continue until we develop more that that way. uh but we do have the store fund uh that meets again all requirements of the of the li work. So, so all that is contextual and it is meeting the standards defined in the in the code shown. We hope

so what they're probably looking for is I mean are you are they is headed in the right direction with this building type? Do you have any concerns um with what they're presenting? It I think we can refine some of the language a little bit. We'll get you our comments. Okay. Um but I think then overall we're happy with it. Yeah. Great to hear that. We'll refine the language and we'll wait for your comments and and submit.

I know you heard the last the end of the last discussion. The next meeting is December 8th, which is somewhat right around the corner. And then the due date is next week. Are you anticipating meeting submissions for the December meeting or are we looking at pulling a complete package together for January? Well, definitely we'll have to get the major waiver uh if you can for next month. So any comment including the letter? The waiver probably would come with the final approval. It gets all done. It wouldn't be one final decision. Okay. Yeah.

Uh yes, we hope to submit the we get the utilities drawings and more drawings from the from the city engineer which will include also fire safety and uh then end of next week, doesn't Yeah, it's Yeah, it's what the 26. It's not next week. There's probably Yes, the day before Thanksgiving. Okay. Yeah. Wednesday. You still with us, Kobe? I'm with you guys. Do you have anything you you want to say, Kobe?

Nothing beyond what's been added. I think our uh our intention here has been to follow the context of the neighborhood even if it's not stylistically identical to some of the other buildings in the city region. That that's been the intention. And I think with the building types that that we're proposing here, it's as Aleandre said, we're sort of taking what is already existing elsewhere in the code and streamlining it for this. And I I personally I no surprise here love the the what we're proposing and and think that it's a really good model that that I'd love to see other people use throughout the city. Um and it's it's funny earlier today I I was sharing plans around with some folks in in the region and they said, you know, we really like this this plan set. It's in a different jurisdiction. Um we'd love to adopt that here. And so, uh, I, you know, the hope here is that this waiver can set the, um, the foundation for, you know, not only our project, but hopefully others like it, and we can talk more about questions of aesthetics and and what the buildings are are going to look like. Um but specific to to the plan itself um you know our intention is to to be as considerate as we can to to our surroundings and to all the work that's been done in in the code so far.

Sure. Yeah. Thank you. All right. All right. Anybody else on the board any other questions? Just for the board's reminder too that the next time once once we have a more complete package that we'll be scheduling the public hearing on this. Okay. Right. So this final make a motion we table item number four. Andrew with a second. All in favor? I oppose. Carry. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thanks guys. See you soon. Five. I'll catch you.

Okay. Item number five. We're in wavers now. 106 Down Street. Major waiver request to install a 6T fence height along the property line where 4T is maximum. That's under section 4054 I.1 lowerase A. lot right there. Um, section block of lot 48.333-9-10. Transex T4 and Ward for Barbara Matthews is the applicant. Shavenen, did I pronounce that right? LLC is the owner.

Shenfright. Okay. You must be Miss Matthews. I am. Welcome. Thank you. We have an illust. We have a picture behind you here. of your It's already up, right? It's up. Yes. It's on the side, right? And so we built it and then Okay. The neighbor diagonally across got approved for Yeah. a fence which is actually looks higher, but Okay. They should

there in the past. Yes, there was. And there was a 6T fence there in the past. It was 6 ft. Yeah. And we took it down because it was not in good shape. And then we started getting all kinds of trash. And I had shopping carts in the backyard. And somebody left their baby carriage there. and tires. So, we wanted to close it off again and allow the people to have some practicing. So, that was our invention.

I know it's true with like the historical stuff, but if it existed before at a certain height, is that different than some? Doesn't matter. Well, it was removed for a couple of years a couple years. Yeah. It's removed at all. Like let's say someone want to repair their six foot repair is different. You can take down one panel at a time. Oh, you can't take down the whole thing. You have to repair it. You have to keep repairing your way to keep it grandfathered. Well, we did end up.

Anybody have any questions? Yeah, we're going to go through just a day. Yeah. Um, do you want to go over that checklist or something? I should have brought a bottle of water today, but I didn't. Well, my car wasn't gonna be reading any resolutions or or anything like that. I'm gonna make my bottle of water cold.

Um, all right. We have the checklist uh for uh the waiver request. Um, the applicant has included a waiver request letter that clearly identifies and describes the waiver being proposed accompanied by plans or other visual representations as applicable. They have that as she's she's submitting that to you. Yeah. Would you look at your Yes. But I just want to make sure you're okay with it. That's a yes.

Not even I want you to read it. Um in their letter, the applicant describes in detail why the waiver is needed and how the waiver request is consistent with the intent, design, and compatibility of the transct zone in which the project is located. thinking yes. Will granting the waiver contribute to the realization of the overall intent of the transex zone and result in an improved project which will be an attractive and durable contribution to the transex zone? Yes. Yes. Yes.

To support walkable neighborhoods andor mixed use centers. The project emulates the neighborhood context for how far the buildings relate to the sidewalk, how the facade is designed, and how the building interacts with the street. I mean, does this uh say yes. Yeah, that was I'm thinking a part there. Yes, the project supports a green and resilient future by for example reducing vehicular miles traveled, providing green infrastructure indoor street trees and or including high quality usable open space. Is that an under there?

The project supports incremental development patterns and size and density and supports infill development for the reuse of existing buildings. NA N A The project supports the provision of a variety of housing types to support a range of income levels, age groups, and family units. NA. And the project specifies street design that is walkable and bikable and will reinforce safe and comfortable environments for all users. And as I say, yes, that's a yes. Yeah, I say.

How does that to street design? It it's well it's with the users sidewalk. I would say yes. To me that's part of the street design. Yes. Everybody agrees with the Yes. A safe and comfortable environment. Yeah. That's says though we'll let walkable and will just pick out a few. Yeah. Yeah. I'm fine with I'm fine with NAS. Okay. So, it looks like it qualifies for a waiver in that. Um, at this time,

I will make a motion that we approve the major RAM. Yeah, you have to see this. I know. All right. So, under secret, this is a type two action. So, no further review of the board required to think maybe that bold type because sometime I missed that. That's a small paragraph. Um, all right. Um, at this time, we'll make a motion that we approve the major waiver request uh for item number five. Second speech. All departure with a second. All in favor? I. All in favor? I

Okay. Carry it. Okay. Thank you. What's that? Thank you very much. Okay. Y seat here under advisory. Item number six is 18-30 Eastern Riley Street site plan to convert construct addition for Leo Municipal Firehouse. The section blocked lot is 56.26-6-48.100 secret determination transfer.

Hi. Hi. I'm Justin. from city staff and engineering department and uh we are presenting our uh construction project uh to the planning board um for the means of uh properly building and executing uh construction project also that's also under review by the planning department has been uh I'm sorry the uh the building safety we're going to pull a building permit uh very soon and so We're um trying to do everything right and we'll take any suggestions we can get now or as we go along.

So this is a advisory um review. It's not requiring not mandatory but um we're still looking at it um and offering any thoughts or comments on site plan itself. And I don't know how many of the board members have had a chance to look at the drawing sets that have been posted. Um, if you have any questions, you're all familiar with the location. They have uh gone through an extensive review with the uh common council for the funding which is all secured now. um as well as uh the secret determination was done u by the common council and also um so there is a lot of internal um modifications that are going to be done to this particular structure to accommodate the new uses. The chief is here also. Um if you have any questions um the current facility which is right across the street, it'll remain um as a firehouse. Um but the uh current structure will be primarily the dispatch function and the ambulance function. The new firehouse will accommodate the equipment, the larger truck equipment. Um it will also house uh the um suites for the firefighters. Um so their kitchen area, their lounge area, their bedroom area, locker rooms. Uh there's some training facilities there. Um as well as I think maybe workout equipment or some I don't know. Is there anything like that in there? No.

No. Okay. Um there's extra storage in this building um and the reader that um will be used for the um boat and the trailer. Anything else? Uh you got the uh boats trailers. Hopefully when we redo the back side we'll make the door bigger where our small house will fit in that time. So there is um if you recall a couple months ago they were here for um the subdivision lot line revision.

A year ago. Okay. A year ago did the lot line revision. Yeah. So if you just maybe just kind of point out the internal space. Um, Central Hudson still occupies a portion of the building and they're they're going to retain that. It's a separate building. This is the Jansen F substation is is attached. So, they're staying where they project. Yeah, that's a separate lot and a separate building um that is attached to the one that we are working on.

Um, yeah, new new apparatus bays, uh, storage. KFD is looking for storage. Got lots of it. Um kitchen and ready room like a lounge area. Uh this is the training room here. Uh which is also going to serve as the emergency operation center in Langod City uh emergency operation master plan. Uh bathrooms um laundry uh chief maybe the deputy chief's office.

Yep. uh locker rooms. Uh sorry, this is the this is the locker room. This is the these are the showers. What do I do? This is the bunk. It doesn't have the beds in it here on this plan that we're looking at, but this is the bunk room. Uh having a separate stall makes it a a genderneutral facility. Um it'll even be also net zero with the we will uh we are waiting still designed. So, they aren't in the plans, but the u the solar array will be on two roofs. Um on the main apparatus bay and on the secondary bay, we'll have an array on the roof. And we've already designed in the geothermal. So, there will be wells in the apron up here that will serve the heating and cooling for the building. And it's expected to bring the operating costs uh to next to nothing really. I mean, potentially, I've not done this kind of stuff before, but potentially even uh giving back energy to the grid. We'll see how it goes, but the numbers bring it pretty close to zero. So, um that's going to be favorable for for everyone. Uh but namely for the KFD, this is a big deal for them to be able to expand out of the old central station and uh get the stuff that they need in a location that they need and um you know, we just made every effort to keep the cost down as we go along. and that has its own challenges and uh you know we're willing to work with everybody to to try to get uh what is best suited for the neighborhood.

Want to just talk a little bit about the physical alterations to the building. Um it's totally good at the inside. I mean the walls will stay up but every all the electrics will all come out. All the building that's in everything comes down. Um, is there any sort of maintenance agreement that you have to have with Central Hudson if you're sharing a like the buildings are attached so you sharing a wall? We're sharing a wall. Yeah. So, firewalls. Uh, in fact, the Jansen substation was the original building from what I can tell. And so, this one was built onto it.

Okay. So it is physically a standalone structure by itself. The Jensen A um it is connected at this time by one doorway uh which we will remove.

Um all the interconnectivity. This this building used to be central Hudson. It used to have um transformers and stuff and um working on vehicles and all this other stuff. Um all that's been all the connection to that building has been removed. Uh so no there's not any need for any agreement. Um not nothing formal. Um we've had the ownership of the building for well just a few months now. Uh but we've had agreement to be able to do our studies and stuff in there. There isn't much interaction from that side. Which timeline?

We would like to advertise bid next month uh if possible. We have a feas we have a project labor agreement study uh that is due back to us next week that will tell us about labor and about how we do that. Um most likely we will just go forward with that. um in which case I think we will have all of our ducks in a row to um advertise the bid probably by the second week of December and then uh sometime in January we expect to have an award and then uh we're projecting March to March uh 26 uh 14 months of substantial completion should make it March, April, May of uh 2027.

So it's one thing just to note um is that obviously this is the central fire station primary station for the city services. The two others one is on uptown Frog Alley across from the project we just reviewed and um one is downtown. And I had spoken with the chief about will this creating this new facility change of uh the manning of those other stations or anything and he said no that's everything is staying the way it is. I think that's important to understand as well. The overhead doors do they do they allow any light in from those? Is that

that's just the drawing of an overhead door. That's not the actual whatever that's going to be. All right. Good. Okay. Light in or no light in. It looks you want you want light in. You want Yeah. We I want all to know that we're there or not. Yeah. Yeah. You know, I hate to refer to you know what they do. That's good design of the of the overhead door at all main station there. Is that something you're thinking about for this? Like that type of design? I'd love to have that. Is it? Yeah. Okay. All right. Or something maybe that mirrors or not mirrors but

they mirror across the street. We you know that's why the building was designed the way that the design was paperless is it doesn't mirror both across the street and it mirror the city wall. Okay. So there's a lot of thought put into that. The apron is uh wide enough. The apron is where the two fire trucks are sitting on right now. It's wide enough that when we have training, which is every day, when the end stations come in, they can park the apparatus on the apron in front of the apparatus in the firehouse. And that'll leave the road wide open and only the only piece of equipment that would be out on the road would actually be a ladder truck and that would be alongside the original central station, which would be your lower left hand corner. Yeah.

On Jansen Avenue. That's where that would sit. All the parking for the firefighters on that side of the street. They will park their personal cars to the left hand side of the building in the parking lot. They're there on the street and the firefighter, EMTs, paramedics on this side of the street, the original building. They'll park behind firehouse. We're going to do right now. So, we are not we are actually taking cars off the street. Cars off the street, but parking us. So, the only thing you have out front there is my car during the day and the chief's car there. helmet in the borders. They're moving on building something where they are. You're going to bring the truck one back down.

No, truck one will not fit into the the new design there. But what will fit into the new design here is a 75 ft ladder truck. So all these four four story fivetory buildings that are have been built or been proposed to be built the 75 footer in close to it will reach the roof. But um that is your future down the road for future growth. actually will be one bay. Well, nothing in the bay. That was a good question. I mean, I'm upset. I didn't think of it. I remember going on that building with my grandfather hostel.

I was shooting and chewing in high school. You took a horse and buggy there, didn't you? Yeah. No, that was a cross. My my greatgrandfather worked there too. So yeah, nothing bad. Okay. All right. Um Yeah. Yeah. I mean looks good. You have to make a decision unless there's anything you want. Yeah. No. And going forward. Yeah.

Keep in the loop. Um we'll get more like we'll share the solar um don't know if there's any more decision to make about it but um certainly we'll just keep the communication open. Uh there was a question about green space. We've already tried to address that a little more. have no drawing to share for that at this time. But uh you know we are trying to incorporate some of the complete street um concepts into this corridor right here. And we've already come up with two to three smaller areas where we could potentially have going to be snow. uh we could potentially have something that is uh permeable and green. Um so we're already working on it. Uh the lighting in this rendering is not shown, but we are removing the the lamp post uh here and in the rear and not replacing them. And it's we believe it's adequate to have uh the wall-mounted um pack lights on the side of the building. This side we could potentially do DPW even if we wanted more light coming down from both sides, but also the parking area in the back. We just do wall mounted lighting that would replace it.

All right. So they won't be parking on here. This is probably KFD maybe. Um yeah, we have enough parking through an easement in the um parking lot, the hospital parking lot that we will be able to discourage parking along Jansen, which would have pedestrian traffic in front of the bays. So, they'll be able to park over in the it's 13 12 or 13 spots that'll be shared and the same six that we have been using, we now own those. Um, so there'll be uh a lot more parking for them to be able to enter the building from the parking lot.

It'll definitely improve the street intersection things there

and and also the other comment was the uh right now we're just running the data and the communication wires overhead from the central building, the existing to the new one. This is just we just do these as a shoestring budget until somebody says something. Um so if you prefer it to be underground um you know we can try to do that. We hadn't had a lot of push back on that one yet. So we will also try to incorporate um an underground conduit that goes under under all the way underneath the street. Any questions from the great

you have any other no with a motion to let her second. All in favor? I motion carry.