Regional Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

Yep, so yeah, you can take plan sets, whichever you'd like. If you want the entire packet, I made a few copies. .

I've not been, but I've heard good things about it. It's fun. It's a good little she-she, but Hey. Yeah.

See a thing?

Yeah.

Yeah. Just checking if you . We should probably scooch over a little bit.

All right.

OK, welcome guests.

By the official clock, the time is now 6.30.

And the September 17th, 2026 meeting of the Development Review Board of Winooski is hereby called to order. Development Review Board is a quasi-judicial volunteer resident board that upholds standards and procedures as defined in the Winooski zoning ordinances. These ordinances, officially the United Land Use and Development Regulations, are created by the Winooski Planning Commission and based on the Municipal Development Master Plan, which is also the work of the Planning Commission. We review and make decisions on subdivisions, site plans, conditional uses, variances, and appeals of the zoning administrator's determinations. Our deliberations and votes always take place in closed executive session after testimony has been taken on all applications. The DRB has authority through Vermont state statute and ensures due process, protects the rights of applicants and the rights of the public to participate in proposals for land development within the city of Winooski. Appeals of decisions made by this board are heard by the Vermont Superior Court Environmental Division and ultimately the Vermont Supreme Court. My name is David Weisberger. I'm the chair of the DRB. Erin Guyette is the vice chair. The development review board also consists of Jordan Matt, Ryan Wade, Felipe Hoyos, Riley Livermore, and Chris Whelan are alternates who are not here tonight. Okay, I believe we have two items on the agenda for tonight. Final plan review application for 50 Park Street. and a sketch plan review for 63 West Spring Street. Does anybody want to propose a change to the current agenda? Not hearing any, we'll move forward. Vermont's open meeting law grants an opportunity for public comments at every public meeting. If anyone here has any comments you'd like to make about something that is not on the agenda tonight, now is your opportunity. Is there anybody online?

There are people online, but no one's raised their hand.

OK. Not hearing any, we'll move on. OK, we have, I believe, three previous meeting minutes to approve. I would entertain a motion to accept them. Motion to accept them in bulk. In bulk. Okay. Any discussion? I actually have a question, Ravi. Are the minutes written by AI or assisted by AI?

Not really. I use transcripts. Okay. But I don't use like a printout from AI.

I hope I didn't say what it says here. Oh. David said that the role of the Development Review Board is to interpret the regulations literally and that the Board cannot make exceptions. It doesn't sound, hopefully, exactly what I said.

I can double check that in the transcripts.

Thank you.

Which set was that from?

It's from 610.

OK.

But other than that, I had no objections. Anybody else? Any comments on the?

No.

Nothing glaring like what you found.

OK. Did we have a second on that? Yeah, second. Okay. All in favor of accepting the meeting minutes from all three previous meetings?

Aye.

All opposed? Abstentions? Motion passes. Okay, before we commence with the public hearings on tonight's agenda, we'd like to swear in anyone who would like to speak or make comments on any of the applications under consideration. If you intend to make public comment, please raise your hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that you will tell the truth under the pains and penalties of perjury?

Yes.

Thank you. If you have not signed the sign-in sheet, please do that so we have a record of who attended. At this point, we will open the public meeting for the first item of business, which is the Park Street project. And I have recused myself from this project, so I'm going to turn it over to the vice chair, and I will see you afterwards.

Okay, thank you. All right, this is the public hearing on the final plan review application for 50 Park Street. Typically, we would ask the applicant to come up and talk, present, and then we would open it up to comments. Ravi, do you want to address? Sure.

Sure. Yeah, so the applicant isn't here. And when the applicant isn't here, and also the applicant submitted a continuation request in writing beforehand in the meeting materials. The DRB typically doesn't review applications when the applicant is not here and make any decisions when the applicant isn't here. So based on that, I would recommend that you continue this item to a date and time certain. The next DRB meeting is set for October 15th. So I would recommend that you continue the item to that. Yes.

So basically what happened was the application materials were submitted. It was warned. Because it was warned, because it was on the agenda, we're going forward with it, opening the hearing. But the applicant submitted a request for continuation to the next meeting.

Which means what for those of us that don't know?

It means that the hearing would stay open. We have to vote on it if we're going to allow that. But assuming we do allow that, the hearing stays open to a time certain that we determine now.

And in the meantime, we're letting them do X. What are they doing in the meantime that they are not here?

Nothing.

Nothing.

They're not just stalling?

Who's the applicant here? There's...

um it's basically a continuation as an extension they they want more time to be able to come and present so they're not they're not authorized to do anything yeah no no no we we will vote sorry i i did say we would vote on something we would vote on whether we allow the continuation

Which is just moving it back and forth. So if the DRV chooses to continue the hearing, then...

Hypothetically, on October 15th, CHD, the applicant, would come in, do a presentation, and then the DRV would take testimony and make a determination based on the testimony provided in the application materials in front of them. They're not making any decisions tonight. They can't make any decisions without the applicant present, and they can't close the hearing without the applicant present.

I motion to continue hearing at the next DRV meeting.

So motion and a second. Any discussion? Hold on just a second. Any discussion from the board? Is it OK to hear from the public? No. If it's particular to this specific? I'm just wondering whether it's now or after we vote. But hold on just a second.

Well, the applicant isn't here to answer any questions. That's okay.

The public doesn't address the applicant. The public addresses the board.

Because it's a question of whether or not we approve that continuation.

I don't know what the question is, and that's why I'm just wondering about procedure.

Procedurally, the hearing doesn't happen until the applicant is here to represent themselves on behalf of the application. So... The hearing just stays until the applicant has presented and provides testimony. So on this application that is open, you typically wouldn't take in any testimony at this point until and unless the applicant is present, even though the testimony is addressed to you.

I don't know what the testimony or question, I think let's hear the question and then we'll vote.

Well, first of all, Can you have them for you?

Can you come on? Can you have him come to the mic?

Yeah, please don't like. Yep, so.

Jeff Myers. So this has been going on for a year, OK? So. Almost a year. So the applicants not here tonight. to just do window meetings and people coming to meetings. Listen, I've been doing this a long time in this city. So if they're not here tonight and they want this project go through, they should have been here. There's a problem there. So that's number one. They should have been here. You took all this away from our families and they're not even here. because it's that easy to get things through city. So second of all, that you board, as a board, I thank you for volunteering and everything, but you're for assistance. There's not one citizen I don't know in that neighborhood that wants this project to go through. Can you repeat that? What are you saying? Not one, maybe two in that neighborhood. I mean, I've got all kinds of problems around the neighborhood that want this mustachioed property to go through. So that's number two. Second of all, I want to know what it's costing the city to build this project. Last meeting we were here, an engineer said he's only paying for the envelope of the property. The envelope of the property, if you guys don't know this, it's wall to wall. Beyond the wall, he's asking the city to pay for it. So that means beyond the outer wall of that building, going in the street, going to everything else, the city's gonna have to pay for it. And they've asked the city to do that. And I haven't gotten a direct answer if they're gonna pay for it.

Who, the city or CHT? Huh? The city or CHT?

City. No, so an envelope of the property is on the wall.

Yes, I know the envelope. The infrastructure you're talking about, the infrastructure for the road and the water maintenance and this and that.

They've asked the city to pay for it. CHT is covering some of that. I don't know the specifics.

No, they did not. No, the last minute said no. They've asked the city to pay for it.

I think these are all good points, but maybe not something that we have the information to discuss tonight.

You know, I'm a taxpayer. Big taxpayer in the city. I need the information. And for them tonight, we put a meeting on, and everybody leaves their families to come here tonight. They come down here and do this, and they're not here? No. I'm sorry. That don't go well. If I wasn't here for a meeting, because my new project, like Nate and everybody else, you guys put it off for another three months. But first of all, the taxpayers should not pay for nothing there. It's going to go through because you guys are going to let it go through. That's near there. But I own a bunch of property around that place, but that's near there. They're not even here tonight? Come on. That's, that's irrespectable.

I'm sorry.

If I wasn't here for a meeting tonight, because I want to build a project like I do on Murski, it gets put off for three months. These guys just get a pass. But I seriously want to know. 100%. It's going to go through. I know you guys. If the city's paying, if it's going to cost the city one dime for that project, in the streets, out of the streets or not. And I want to know that. Because when I do a development and put a sewer system in the streets, I pay and it costs me $15,000. And I want to know. And if we got to pay one dime for that project up there, it's going to go through, we all know that. But if it costs me one dime, we're going to have problems. And I think it's very, very disrespectful of those people not to be here tonight. If I had a design review like Nate tonight, if I had a meeting tonight, I'd be here. But, you know, it's just, it shouldn't be there. I could dwell on all day long. I know a bunch of problems around that. It shouldn't be there outside of character. But I just, but when they're not here tonight, Just the only two things I care about. They're not here tonight. That really bothers me. The other thing is if it's going to cost the city money, we're going to have problems. I guarantee it. I guarantee it. I'm not paying my tax dollars to put that project over there. And you guys should take a better look at what's going on over there. Seriously. Put it over in North Street. The perfect place would be on North Street by the baseball field. Put all the house over there. But I could go out all night, Doug. It just frustrates me to know that nobody wants it over there, and we're just going to pass it through, and they're not even here. I'm sorry. Thanks for your time.

Thanks for your comments.

I was here a few months back when we were going through this. Have there been more meetings? Excuse me.

Sorry, there is not a public meeting.

It is a hearing that is open right now. We have not voted to continue it yet.

It's just a simple question because I was here a few months back when we were doing this. Have there been more meetings since then that I have missed because I have a life? But have there been more meetings or is it from then to now?

I believe it's been from then to now.

I do just want to clarify, it probably is not appropriate to take testimony on the development necessarily, but if you've got questions about the process, happy to hear those questions.

And the process being the vote today for continuation.

The vote, the continuation.

So I guess I have a few part question. So for not taking testimony, and this is more about do we continue, is that what we're, so this isn't a testimony, this is discussing whether or not we continue this hearing next month, is that correct? Correct. Okay, so when did the applicant decide that they're not showing up tonight?

That was Tuesday? Yes.

Tuesday, today's Thursday? Correct. Why was there no, like we all showed up. Can you see how disrespectful that is for the applicant to not let us know, hey, I'm not going to be here. You guys can all show up. Waste your time. And they're banging on us not showing up next month. The amount of disrespect, that pisses me off. So they're going to build this big building in our neighborhood, and they don't have the decency to tell us that they're not going to show up or show up when they're scheduled for it. So they clearly don't give a rip about anybody in this community. Like that drives me nuts. And I mean, whether or not this is a testimony or discussion about continuing the hearing, like the disrespect has been blatant throughout. Like months ago when I showed up, the primary issue was the density and the building height. And as I look through these, that has not been addressed. I don't know what they've addressed. I guess they've decreased the unit count maybe. I'm just seeing this for the first time. But the primary issue was the building height. And it is stretching the zoning standards for that zoning district to put in three stories of residential housing amongst ranches, one and a half stories, maybe a couple two-story buildings. And they're going to go up 50 feet. The disrespect is unreal. unreal there's so many reasons why this should be denied and why this whole thing should be thrown out at this point that i really hope you guys stand with your community members and the taxpayers and not for this alleged non-profit that i'm sure they're all getting you know all the people at the top probably have extremely healthy salaries they don't give a rip about this community and if they did they would have shown up tonight thank you thank you for your comments

At this point, my recommendation is not to take any more testimony.

I just want to ask you though, from a procedural standpoint, you said a couple of things that I'm just not sure about. We vote on whether we continue or not. If we don't continue the hearing, then what happens?

The, so procedurally the meeting automatically is continued. The thing is that you could continue it to a date and time certain. So that way the attendees know when that meeting is happening.

Why does it continue automatically?

Because the applicant isn't here.

Why does that matter? Like for us taking an action?

Because the applicant needs to be here in order to hear testimony, to address any questions that you have, to review the record with them, and to potentially hear any decisions that you have.

Why are we voting? No, no, no. No more. Why are we voting then?

To continue at a definite date. To continue to a definite date.

As opposed to an indefinite date. Yes. We can hold them to the 15th.

No, not. Yeah. To a definite date. Yes.

Okay. So you're saying we have no choice but to continue.

You have no choice but to continue it to a date certain. You can pick that date certain, but you have to continue it to a date certain.

All right. Or if you don't want to. I don't follow that reasoning, but, yeah.

Does this board have the authority to define a date certain?

Not with the applicant present, without the applicant.

So if none of us were present, the applicant was present, you guys could essentially vote to approve. That's really crazy. We don't set policy. Sorry, guys. These are the bylaws. Dr. City Council.

Are you sure those are the bylaws?

Are you sure that you're... Let's hold off on any more public comment at this point. I'm trying to ask the zoning administrator who...

Yes.

Yep. So... um okay with that i think we have a motion we have a second we've had some discussion um the motion was to continue the meeting uh or the hearing on october 15th at our next regularly scheduled meeting um all those in favor all right all right passes unanimously October 15th at our next scheduled meeting.

What time? 630. 630.

Can you guys cite where in the bylaws it says that we can't take a vote or that you can't take a vote? Do we have a reference?

We can ask that, yep.

Is there one person?

So, Chairman, so October 15th, if I may, October 15th, the next meeting, if the applicant's not here again, because I know the games, the project should be shut down immediately. They should have been here tonight. We all went on our way. You guys went on your way to come here. We all left our dinner table with our kids. They should have been here. And I know the poise of that people. But if October 15, I'm asking you, if they're not here to answer a question, then the project needs to shut down 100% until they review everything again. They should have been here tonight. They got 30,000 people in their circle.

We can definitely explore the options of what happens if they don't show at the next meeting. I will say, I will say, yeah, that's what I'm saying. We'll explore that. I will say that my reasoning for postponing it for a set date is October 15th is going to be the last DRB meeting before the holidays start, winter starts, and things like that. So, you know, if we leave it open-ended, it could end up being December 15th, January 15th, right? So if we do it, we postpone it one month, we know when it is, every once in a while.

I'd love to hear a reference because Jack's telling me that yes, the vote can proceed. I'm happy to read this whole thing and cite some laws. Unless you guys have a reference to say it can't proceed, I'll read this whole thing.

I'm going to cut this off because the vote has been taken.

We have heard the concern. We are going to follow up on it. Appreciate it.

OK, thank you, Aaron. We're going to move on to the next item on the agenda, discussion of the sketch plan review for 63 West Spring Street. Do we have the applicant here? Please state your names for the record.

Nate DeGias.

Say that again?

And Greg Dixon, civil engineer with Krebs and Lansing. Welcome.

Tell us, you're here for a sketch plan review on a planned unit development at 63 West Spring Street. Please introduce us to the project and tell us what you want to do.

Greg can jump in. Yeah, we have a nice little project here. It's two separate two-story four-unit buildings on West Spring Street. A nice mix of one-bedroom, two-bedroom, three-bedroom units with one parking space per unit. Some green space and nice front porch on the building. So we think it fits well in the community, kind of balances out the right size for the community, and kind of meets that category of different size housing that people are looking for. Yeah, it's right off, two blocks off Main Street, right next to Our Lady Providence, so it's a nice spot, walkable, the different things, and should be a great place for some new homes.

So I believe there was an existing building that's been demolished already?

Yes, yep.

Yep. Yeah, we surveyed it right before it was demolished, so the existing conditions plan shows it right prior to demolition.

And you had a separate permit for that demolition, and there was no, it wasn't a historic building or anything?

Correct, yeah. The house wasn't very safe in its current condition, so we just decided it made the most sense to take it down right then.

Okay, anything else as far as background information?

I don't think so. Happy to answer any questions and appreciate your time.

Okay. Is the second building intended to be, it doesn't look quite like a copy of the first. Is it the same plan or is that, that one just wasn't provided yet? Kind of like a mirror. It's just flipped.

The only difference would be it doesn't have the front porch. Right, because that's facing the back. It'll have like a little outdoor, there'll be access to the back, a little outdoor space back there. Yeah.

yeah that was one of my concerns is access to the back building from the street for pedestrians yeah so is the intent for for people to walk down that um

Access aisle to get to the sidewalk between the 2 buildings.

Yeah, I think that's the intent. I mean, it's so we show a 15 foot wide drive. I don't know if it necessarily needs to be quite that wide. So I think. And there's also a little bit of a green space between the drive and the building. So. i mean we can look at that more closely to see if we can better define the pedestrian way there but i think there's plenty of room it's just more of a matter of is it on the pavement is it separate um we think we can definitely look at that yeah that is a bit of a concern just because of parking with some of the bigger units because it is half three three bottom correct right which is awesome

right but like parking in that neighborhood gets extremely tight when there's you know services or when i at the so there is going to be yeah not everyone getting home is going to be arriving in a car parking right at the building so yeah yep no absolutely and i think um we can check with john spittle as well but we may be able to reduce that 15 feet a little bit and then

dedicate some more to the pedestrian way.

Either that or make it look more like a sidewalk but still be mountable for the fire department if they need it to be.

Right, that's the other concern is emergency access because that street is brought down to one direction part of the day. But this is just sketch plan review. I see you have us. I want to take what they call it one. Sorry.

Yeah. You have snow storage along the side, but then a large portion in the back on that community space. But I think those are parking spaces in front of it.

Yeah.

Yeah. So how do you see that working? Those people have to move their cars for the plow.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Appreciate that you've put a welcoming front on the front building. We've seen some projects recently that don't do that. Did both of the units or both of the buildings have ramps? Or just the front ones? They do, yeah. But they do.

And could you point out the temporary bike storage?

We have enough percentage coverage that we'd probably squeeze it in kind of close to where that sidewalk comes in between the parking spaces.

It's right in the impervious coverage?

It's not included in the impervious coverage, but we have enough to be able to put in a 7x7. We're currently well under the 65% lock coverage right now, so flexibility. I imagine it would be kind of placed on the other side of that little piece of sidewalk that goes up to connect, kind of opposite the trash area.

Ravi, is the 15% increase in lot coverage is dependent only on half of the units being two bedrooms and not on any affordability criteria?

Half the units have to be three bedrooms. And yeah, there's no affordability requirement. That's correct.

More questions from the board. I have a question about the light wells into the basement. Both buildings would have that. They seem like large windows.

That's one piece that's a little bit in flux because we're working with the fire safety folks on whether this building is going to be sprinkled or not, and it looks like it probably will. So most likely we won't have full egress light wells like this shows. So on the next round, we'll have that redrawn, and we'll have probably a two-foot tall window that'll just go to grade.

Yeah. These would have had to have ladders or something out.

Yeah, they were meant to be egress-style windows. But we can make sure that's addressed on the next round.

Okay.

But you're also petitioning to waive preliminary review, is that?

Yes.

Yeah, so there might not be a next round?

There would be a next round for final.

Yeah, yeah.

So it seems like from your analysis, Ravi, it's well under the density, the allowable density for a planned unit development on an 11,000 square foot lot? Yes.

Well, it's 58.8% impervious, right? Yes. Yeah. 60% is the max? 65. 65, OK.

I was referring more to the number of units.

Oh, right, right.

Or the number of buildings. Okay. Any other questions before we bring the public up for comments and question?

I did have a quick procedural question. Are all PUDs required to have a stamped survey by a licensed land surveyor? Yes. So we'll need that prior to final? Yes. see is that fence uh existing and to remain all the way around or is that new fence kind of a hodgepodge of existing fences out there we're hoping to work with the property owners to kind of hopefully just make one fence but right now the fence that we're showing on there as proposed is about six inches inside of our property line is the intention so That'll be our new fence, and hopefully we can work with them to make that the fence.

I assume some neighbors will be here. Have you reached out to any of the neighbors or spoken to any of them?

We've met with Our Lady Providence. That's all we've met with so far. They seem to be excited about the project and didn't have too many direct concerns that we heard. Okay.

Any more board questions at this time? We can always bring them back up for another round. Okay, thank you. I'll ask you to remain here while we take some comment from the public.

Do you want to stay up or go?

No, go back down and then we'll bring you up if there's any questions to answer. Thank you. Oh, sorry, that was confusing, yeah. Stay here, but go away. Okay, I invite the public to come up. Please state your name and where you live, if it's pertinent.

We live next door.

On the left. On the left of this drawing.

I'm Liana Reed and this is Andrew Burke. I guess I'm a little concerned about parking. parking situation is really tight on the street, as you mentioned, and there seems to be only four spaces, or six spaces, I guess, one for each apartment?

Well, there's eight total apartments and seven parking spaces on the map.

I think there's nine. It looks like there's two at the back of the driveway. Those are the ones I was asking about, about the snow storage at the very end of the driveway.

In front of the snow storage, there's two more? Yep, so that's nine total. Those are parking spaces? Yep. Okay.

So nine total. And I just know that the one thing we've seen recently in the last, I would say like six to 12 months, are people who are not employees of Our Lady of Providence parking in that parking lot. and who's in the in there in the our lady of providence parking lot just like a heads up on that um we're not we don't live there obviously but it does get really tight um and so i don't know if there's room for any more parking um but that is a big issue on our street in general um there's no street parking on that side of the street at all at all and all the parking spots on the other side of the street are

built up essentially constantly.

And one is a specialized handicapped spot.

Four.

And then my other question is about the fence. I didn't quite hear what you said about the fence. The fence that exists currently is twofold on our side. There is a chain link fence and then there is a wooden fence that goes inside of the chain link fence on our side of the property. It only extends 75% of our property. And so I'm curious if additional fencing will be added. The last property abutted our property by eight inches. I think that new measurement is new for new buildings. That has to be a bigger distance. So I'm curious what the fence will look like. And if you want to talk to us about that, what that process would look like.

Yeah, well, we'll bring them back up and ask them to talk about that more, but I will encourage you to talk to them outside of this meeting as well and come to an arrangement.

Do you have any other questions?

No, just that nine parking spaces for 18 bedrooms seems insufficient, but...

We appreciate the mix of housing and the aesthetic windows. I'm appreciative of the fact that it looks like the houses on the street. And we know what that previous building looked like. So I appreciate that. I think the parking issue is going to be an issue regardless of where you are in Chittenden County.

Ravi, is it fair to say that a lot of the parking, like what Winooski can require, is controlled by state statute? Yes. So it's in state statute that the city can't require more than a space. Talk to your state legislators.

They don't really listen to us. I guess then... I don't know, it fluctuates, this is just for anyone, but it fluctuates within a week. And we live next to the Catholic Church, and so there are no spots on Sunday. So there's just a lot of, and I don't know what that means in terms of how you're thinking about building and renting or however this building is gonna get put out to the public, but it's a tough, I think it's tough, and when it gets up in Burlington, I'm not quite sure there's a solution here, but I just wanted to bring that up.

How many units is your building, and how many parking spaces? It's a single family residence. And how many parking spaces do you have in your driveway?

We have more cars than we would like in our driveway right now.

There's three cars.

We don't have an issue. We are thinking about the rest of the people that aren't here on our street.

And the way just the structure of the neighborhood works is that there's church on the weekends, school in the mornings during the week, and an entertaining and lively volleyball association that has opened up across the street from us that is active in the afternoons and evenings. So there's... just a lot of demand, but not pay.

And there is, like, while the street isn't closed, the ambulance does pull up right outside of Our Lady of Providence, which does block the street. But that is a, like...

coming and going. Probably nightly occurrence.

Yeah, it's a fun night neighborhood.

There's stuff going on in the neighborhood, so more parking would be appreciated by the other stand position boards.

And that's like Erin was saying. A safe session. Well, yeah, because it's the home background. It's one spot per unit. But definitely the developer wants to hear the realities of the neighborhood to make units that are as attractive as possible.

I mean, the last house that lived there did have like six cars. So, you know, to each their own, I guess. Jim, anything else you want to say? Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Anybody else like to come up and ask questions or make comments, please? Let us know your name, where you live. Thank you.

My name is Judy Lance, and I live on Roland Court, if you know where that is. With minimizing the setbacks, when do they address landscaping and exterior lighting issues?

That's in our purview. We can talk about it. It's in our purview to decide what's required.

Maybe not.

Robbie's frowning at me.

Yes, it is in your purview. You can actually set additional landscaping screening standards.

It's very hard to see on the plans because it's small, but is there anything about landscaping in these plans at this point? You talked about the fence.

It doesn't appear there's any landscaping information, but we will bring them back up and ask them.

It sure doesn't look like there's much room. You've got 18 bedrooms. and nine parking spaces, that's not enough. I mean, come on, let's be realistic about it. And from what these other folks have said, sounds like there's not much parking available on the street from what's in use already. So I see that's gonna be an issue. And where the snow stacking is gonna be, is that in the five foot setback or is it in the separate space from the five foot setback?

It does appear on the side to be in the setback. It's an allowed use for...

It is?

You can pile snow.

So if you've got any landscaping in there, forget about the landscaping. It's going to be trashed.

It looks like the adjacent property is a parking lot.

Yeah, on that side.

And I believe, we can ask the applicant when they come back, I believe previously, well, now it's an empty lot, but that there was nothing there that was driveway all the way up to the fence, but I could be wrong about that.

That driveway was there. Is that what you're saying? I'm having a hard time.

I think there was a driveway on that side, yeah. We'll have them come up and discuss that. I think you're right.

So does the paved driveway, Is that included when you calculate lot coverage? Yes. So what they're saying is, is it 58%?

Yes. So they're saying that the pavement, all the pavement, so driveways, porches, sidewalks, and the building footprints equal 58% of the lot.

So that means 42% of the lot is not covered, right?

Right. Yes.

Does it really look like that? It looks like there isn't much that isn't covered.

Sometimes it's hard to tell from a first glance. That's why we rely on this engineer, a certified engineer. So he's done the calculations. He's counted the area that's remaining.

My initial concern was that You're going to have families there, hopefully, and there isn't much space outside for kids to play or families to gather together and do much of anything. That was a concern too. Parking I'm concerned about. what the landscaping is going to be, what they're going to try to do for any landscaping. I mean, hopefully in the front where that porch is, they'll have some landscaping there a little in the front. And exterior lighting. The exterior lighting is not going to matter on the side where the Our Lady of Providence parking lot is, I don't imagine. But on the other side and in the back where there are other dwellings nearby, right? In the back are there dwellings?

There's a tree and a fence line. A bunch of trees, there's a bunch of spruces, and there's a tall fence that's above. In the back? In the back.

Okay, okay. Well, but on the left side, as we're looking at it here, if there are houses on the left side, and so those people are not going to want spotlights shining in their backyards or whatever. So I think exterior lighting should be discussed anyway, so you know what they're going to do, and that they show what they're going to do.

Lighting is part of the final review.

And just to be extremely clear, you're concerned over lighting is more on the light pollution side than is on inadequate lighting. Correct.

Correct. Yeah. And I think we have regulations that it has to be down directed and can't be any more than a certain height. So we just need to be sure that everybody knows that, what the rules are. Okay. um yeah i think this is it looks to me like it's pretty much maxing out what you could put on this site and i think that's going to be a tough road to hoe for the families that live there you know and the parking thing that's definitely going to be an issue because we know you know you got two bedrooms you got two cars Okay, thank you.

Like I mentioned at the beginning, the Planning Commission sets the rules for us. So if you feel that way, I would suggest you go to them, because a developer will tend to max out to the rules. So if you feel like the rules are too lenient or too strict or whatever, I suggest you go and tell that to the Planning Commission and suggest they reduce the coverages.

Well, I remember several years ago there was a survey done. I don't know if the city did it or if Chittenden County Regional Planning did it. rental properties in Winooski and how many cars there were per unit, and that's when we reduced the requirements. Even at that time I thought this isn't realistic, but I think now it's even worse. I mean, my street, there's one house, There are four bedrooms in that house, although we think maybe they're using more rooms for bedrooms. It's not a family situation, it's a bunch of adults who rent the house. Sometimes there are 12 cars, 12 cars, and my street is one block long. They're nice people, but it's too many cars. All right, thank you.

I agree with that. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate your comments. Please. Too many cars.

Hi.

Hello.

How are you tonight?

Very well, how are you?

I'm well. Kate Coffey, I live on Mainstow Street. I live next to City Lofts, one of these developer buildings. I think that people are right to be concerned about the parking and how that impacts the street. Unfortunately, yeah, I understand that is. not something set by this board. You know, the lack of community space also is, you know, if you maximize the space for buildings, you minimize the space for community space, and then that spills over onto neighbors' properties, like on Manseau Street. um i can clarify that concern can i clarify um you said spillover yeah so if they're i i live next to a property that doesn't have any community space and so my yard gets used for dog training sessions my driveway gets used for you know changing out vehicle things because there aren't enough spots it becomes like a community property, unfortunately, and there's no one to go back to about that. Unfortunately, but I do want to make sure that the setbacks are have been verified, especially the sidewalk setbacks after what's happened. Well, Franklin Street. In terms of the design itself, I wonder about, and I'm just wondering out loud, I appreciate the ADA walkway and the ramp up to the unit. And if I'm reading this right, if I Oh, it's trash. I'm sort of wondering about, in general, universal design where everyone can use the ramp, and so maybe there could just be one ramp instead of the stairs and ramp. Probably not under your purview either. And about the, this is more about what your group goes back and looks at in terms of regulations. And it actually has to do with the other project that we're not, it has to do with this as well. I think that the state of Vermont statutes, for lack of a better word, trump the ADA, and when there are four units in a building, the state fire marshal requires that one unit in a building in a four unit multi unit building is adaptable and visitable. And this actually, this floor plan for one of the lower units does look like it is that, but I would like to know if that is something that you guys consider and if that is something that got you know, if you couldn't see it in this project, if it was asked in terms of Previous projects or in general other projects like say the armory building I think that's all I have for you.

Yeah, I can answer that question in general We don't we don't do the building code review The state will review these the fire the fire division of fire safety will review these like any other Multifamily building interesting. This is under their purview to review the vermont access rules yeah, and so in in

they are responsible for reviewing it, but I just thought that because some of the comments that I read on some of the previous reviews that you guys did talk about the ADA and aisle width for parking spaces. We can say whatever we want.

We're quasi-judicial, so sometimes we do, but sometimes it's not within our scope. Especially for a sketch plan, we can make all kinds of comments, suggestions.

So it's the designer's responsibility to know the codes and to design to the codes, and then it is the fire marshal and or building inspector to verify not that supports. Thank you.

You're welcome. Thanks for your comments. Any other public comments before we bring the applicants back up? Anybody online? Their hand raised. eager to make a comment. No. I'd ask the applicant and his consultant to come back up. Okay, I think you heard the concerns about parking. To me it appears pretty tight here as far as adding any more. I wonder if you just want to talk about your philosophy or thoughts on parking here?

Yeah, I mean we looked at so many different ways to orient the buildings on the site. And one of the challenging things about, well, at least in my opinion, with the code is that these, the code is kind of requiring this to be two separate buildings. If we took these buildings and just literally combined them, put them together, just kind of slid the building in the back to the front, I think we'd have more room for the parking to flow a little better in the back. We'd probably have a little bit more community space. Code doesn't allow that, so that's kind of why we end up with two buildings like this. But that's something food for thought, that flexibility with that may help. I mean, it makes the site more efficient. It might make the building look a little bigger, but it makes the site more efficient and maybe produces a little bit more community space or parking space.

Can you explain that a little more to us? I mean, is that because the number of units in a single building is not enough for the... What you wanted to put on here?

Well, I'm just saying, like, for this site, around eight units is what we needed to get to make the numbers work, to make the project make sense. So if we were to combine these two buildings and basically still get the exact same unit layouts, the same unit counts, it would allow more flexibility. No, I understand that. But what is it in the code?

I think you get a maximum of six. Six. Maximum of six units per building. So that's why you couldn't do it in one building.

Yeah. And it's four, I think, without the incentive. But yeah, six with it. So that would help. The other thing, just to point out, we definitely didn't maximize this. We definitely could have gone to the three stories. We could have tried to do six units per building. I think here, you know, seeing what transpired on Franklin Street and just trying to put something that, you know, balanced the community scale a little bit more, we just decided that that was kind of a good in-between. And it makes it more efficient from a cost standpoint. The cost of build right now is extremely expensive. So this seemed like a reasonable balanced approach. And we could have, I think we could have done maybe as few as six spaces, something like that with the incentives of parking six or seven. So we put a few more in. I mean, parking is always, it's literally the number one challenge as everyone here knows. everyone that spoke up knows. But I feel comfortable that given all the challenges of development and new housing, it's a good balance to get a reasonable project across the finish line and to get enough parking where the project works. But also, yes, we know you're never going to have too much parking, that's for sure. We probably had 30, 40 different sketches that we put together, and I think this made the most sense to us.

As far as the fence, I'm happy to hear more of your thoughts, but I'd like to suggest that you guys exchange numbers and talk about it and then come back to us with potentially something that's agreeable to both sides. Absolutely. Because it seems like there are ways to have double fences all the way around.

I shared my email address, and if for some reason it didn't work or something, Revy has my contact info. We're happy to work with you folks on the fence. And I think what we show is a six-foot stockade fence. So if, yeah, we can talk. To finish the line. Or potentially replace it. I mean, we can just, we can work through what makes the most sense for everybody.

Okay, great. Exterior lighting, I assume for the final or preliminary and final, you will have a photometric plan showing there's no light spilling out. The board would like to see a photometric plan.

yeah i mean for you would be required to provide a lighting plan a photometric plan in the next step yeah i mean just in general terms i agree with the person who was speaking that the majority of the light that's needed is probably going to be more directed towards the east side of the property because those are where all the egresses into the building are so

And then my last comment, I'd like to encourage you to think about ways maybe to move those ramps closer, maybe eliminate the stairs. I don't know if that's a possibility. Think about that to get a wider side yard there for more community space. It looks like now... The access to the stairs really is through a parking space.

So that's not really realistic. So we already discussed possibly removing the stairs. So I think we can continue to look into that. The reason the ramp is where it is is actually because there's a six foot curb ramp that is actually making up half a foot of elevation for us then be able to get to the ramp to then make up the rest of the elevation because the finished floor sits quite a bit higher than the area around it. So that unfortunately I think we might be stuck at that position. I can definitely take a second look. But that's the reason for that sort of six foot section of sidewalk there is basically it's a curb ramp, a six inch curb ramp.

Yeah, I mean, just just to point out, it's hard to tell with all the lines and the utilities, but there is it probably what? Well, the 14 feet between the ramps and the fence. So if not more, definitely a little bit of a green belt there for something hard to planters or just just long.

Yeah, I believe the that side of the building is about eight feet off the property line. And then I think there's about four or five feet from there to the ramp. So I think you're looking at 12-ish feet of yard there. And then after hearing the concerns about landscaping, too, and also maybe a way to kind of better illustrate this, we can definitely provide a plan where we kind of shut off all the utilities and grind it. It'll be an engineered version of a landscaping plan, so it won't be the most beautiful thing in the world, but it'll at least have colorful, showing what would be grass and what would be pavement to kind of better illustrate to everybody what is and what is not.

Are there any trees currently? No.

and is it correct that the current driveway went the previous driveway went all the way to the fence it was gravel maybe or it went uh it didn't go all the way back but there was a little garage there it says paved but it was a little space in here is it not in the packet we could yeah greg has one right here if you want to see this

Okay, so there is a little chain link fence on a little green belt 90 I think it was just a fourth maybe a four-foot chain link fence something like that wasn't a very substantial pretty much and it wasn't very well secured So it was an existing paved driveway the condition of said paved driveway was not the best but That was, there was a little bit of green space in between their parking lot and that, but not the, what we're proposing will be more. Right, so there was a tree there.

This tree in the front, maybe it's gone since this Google. Yeah, it fell.

Prior to demolition, there were, I think there was one tree in the front and one large tree in the back.

Okay. Definitely consider putting one back on the property.

Yeah, definitely will. No. Yeah, I'm sure we can get a couple of trees in there somewhere.

Okay, great. More board questions? And you are asking us to, for a combined preliminary final review?

I'd like to, yeah. Yeah, we'd like to give that a try.

Okay. All right. In the absence of any other questions, then I will thank you and can vote to close this hearing, okay? Let's go to the hearing. Oh, the hearing. We don't have to do anything.

Great. Thank you for your time. Thanks, gentlemen. Thank you to everybody who came.

Where's my agenda? City updates. City updates. Ravi, any city updates?

Yeah, so Planning Commission is in the drafting phase of the comprehensive plan. Surveys are up and live. Go tell your friends to fill out the surveys on the city website about the comprehensive plan. Comprehensive plan is the city's long-range plan, so we're thinking about what does the city want in 20, 30, 40, 50 years. What is that gonna look like? So yeah, you'll hear more about it. Next week, Planning Commission's gonna talk about the land use section of the comprehensive plan. We talked a little bit about this during their last meeting last week, looking at the future land use map from the Regional Planning Commission, and they'll talk a little bit more about that and about future land uses in the city with the goals and objectives. It's the main one. I'm aware there's a council meeting next week. Agenda and materials will be out by the end of the day tomorrow. Yeah, that's all I can think of. Oh, I think, I know that there's a ribbon cutting for Main Street. I don't remember what day that is.

It's like next Wednesday. September 30th.

September 30th. Thank you, Brian. So, yeah, come out.

How's the parking garage coming along?

Smoothly. Work in progress. So with the hotel housing project, I know that's progressing. And I know that both code enforcement and I have issued certificates of fitness and occupancy, respectively, to the top two floors of housing. So you may see people going in and out who are actually now living there in the housing. But the hotel is still in progress.

Okay. Any other business? Do we have applications for next month other than the continued project?

Not at the moment.

I don't think so.

Yeah, at this rate, I don't think we'll have enough time to do a full robust review and have anything ready for you by then. So I think it's just going to be the one for October.

Are you expecting additional materials on the project?

Yes. So as you notice, there is no staff report. So that will be revised and provided to you ahead of next month's meeting.

Okay. Anything else? Anybody? Nothing comes to mind. Okay. We'll move into executive session, discuss the sketch plan.

I motion to adjourn the meeting. Any seconds? Second.

All in favor? Aye. Okay.