Good evening everyone I'm going to call this meeting to order of the city of Montpelier Development Review Board my name is Daniel Richardson I service chair for this meeting Monday August 19th 2019 we're beginning at 7 p.m. the other members from my right are Michael Lizorchak Meredith Crandall staff Kate McCarthy Ryan Kane okay the first item of business is approval of the agenda does anybody have any changes to the agenda I'll make a motion to approve the agenda for this evening's meeting okay motion by Kevin do I have a second second second by Ryan all those in favor of approving the agenda is printed please raise your hand have an agenda there are no comments from the chair this evening and then we have the review of the July 22nd minutes myself Kevin Kate Ryan and Claire for in attendance have those who are eligible vote had an opportunity to review the minutes and do they have any changes yes okay I'd like to note a spelling correction in the 29 Franklin Street application it's Mary Ann is listed as to Mary and Persha because listed as two names Mary and Anne it's actually M-A-R-I-A-N-N-E one word okay so we have that corrected done any other changes with with that do I have a motion to approve the July 22nd minutes with the correction noted by Kate Claire makes the motion do I have a second second second by Kevin all those in favor who are eligible to vote please raise your right hand minutes are approved and that brings us to the first item of business which is 11 Baldwin Street 11 Baldwin Ave and that is the Vermont Natural Resources Council I'll be recusing myself from this review okay thank you friend I do have some materials to hand out great why don't we just do you want to hand those out now if you state your name for the record please Brian you were put under oath last time do you understand you're still under oath for the majorist test run great so when we talked last time I think there were some decisions that needed to be made in regards to the parking and I'll just start there because I think that was one of that was really the main issue that we were considering last time do you have any updates which yes um prior meeting I had submitted a site plan that showed parking spaces along the driveway that were in front of the building line which I didn't realize at the time could not count towards parking up towards the total so the board asked me to look at alternatives to reconfigure the parking at that time I had said that I had had identified at least one additional space that could be located adjacent to the driveway that would not be before in front of the building line I also said that I could explore parking off of Terrace Street so what this plan does is it shows six spaces including four down in the current driveway area one within within within an expanded driveway adjacent to the house one an expanded driveway behind the box the garage portion of the building one which that open area next to the porch right in here I would could be a designated handicapped space if necessary and then one in the garage and then we also had initially provided a proposal for three spaces off of Terrace we ran into our then realize that the setback for the side yard was five feet which that would have required pretty much maxing out our frontage on Terrace so we scaled that back to two parking spaces off of Terrace so that would be a total of six spaces five were required is my understanding I did and I apologize for handing this out that tonight's meeting not getting it ahead of time I've been on vacation and dealing with our engineer to get things done so it things did unfortunately come together at the last minute so I appreciate your patience while the and I know you have some questions about the Terrace Street parking I would like the board to consider I would request that the board consider granting us an exemption for one space because of the cost of the Terrace Street parking primarily and I think there will be some discussion about stormwater and whatnot at the last meeting I passed out some materials that documented that our building is located within a thousand feet of two transit store of two transit stops and I also made a commitment that the building would provide interior storage space for bicycles as well as indoor shower facilities for people to bike to work which we do have some of our staff do that on a regular basis we're also prepared to do it a demand management program to provide incentives for folks who live in the Chittenden County area to take the bus so we you know parking is a real issue we understand that we understand on Terrace Street in particular it's parking is a real problem during the legislative session the rest of the year it's actually fairly easy Terrace Street usually fills up but the street immediately across Bailey that runs up to those stone arches that go to the redstone property there's almost always parking available there during the non legislative session months so you know we would be willing to make other accommodations to have satellite parking at the Department of Labor building and take the shuttle in or walk but if you're uncomfortable with that if you don't feel as though we meet the waiver standards you know we would go ahead with the Territory Parking when you say parking at the Department of Labor is that would that be in those public spaces yeah a lot of people park there and take the shuttle to the State House it's pretty common okay members of board had any have any questions about this revised plan yes we would have to dig it out bucket load and put it over the fence I guess one of the one of my unfortunately kind of being at the last minute not being able to talk to the engineer what I'd prefer to do is have it be removable and be able just to shove it into the woods but at this point I'm expecting that we would need to shovel it and another reason that we'd prefer a waiver under the waiver provision well looking at your design is there a particular reason why you wouldn't have sort of that fifth spot in the sort of courtyard area you know behind the building and behind the car space marked standard space yes in the initial plan I had two parallel parking spaces there and I do I actually believe it can accommodate that I'm gonna be really honest with you there's there's the dimensional requirements required under the zoning I understand those and then there's human habits and my bed is we will be parking more cars occasionally than as we do at our office at nine Baldwin right although I think we could configure that fifth space with my concern that I talked to Meredith today was you can only bet stack so many cars under under the regulations they're only allowed to be able to tandem park to you know you can't you can't have a row of three a tandem you can only obstruct one car with one car so you they could have a block of four but you can't have three cars in a line may I make a I know this isn't what's on the application but there is an allowance for the board to approved compact car spaces and there's no definition of what a compact car size space must be so I don't just throwing that out there I know and this because I was away until last night initially you could parallel park a car up against the porch and that and the other car would you would both cars would not be blocking the garage right yes I think I said in the staff report that they need at least one ADA accessible spot and I think we were discussed that that being the one up against the there was a question about where would anti-cap access be and it would be most likely the wing of the building that juts out from the L of the porch that's a sunroom it would either be through a direct there's a door that goes directly out which is the best at grade we had thought about being in and what would be the main door into the building it's not clear now whether or not the interior door openings would allow for handicapped accessibility in there it definitely would off of that sunroom so the desire would be to have it the main entrance be off the porch but it may need to be off the sunroom for ADA in which case I'm not sure whether we would move the main entrance to that door as well that's not my hope but we still haven't done the interior program so I'm not sure if we can fit handicapped accessibility once you get into the building into the rest of the building without doing some real structural changes but if it assuming it was either of those I think was your you're saying that this parallel parking space would be the handicapped space yes the yes definitely whatever space is allowed up in that section is going to be the handicapped section I again do believe that two spaces could parallel park up there and not not both be obstructing the cars in the garage however this plane doesn't show that and can I just make a point of clarification my prior comment for Claire's question so if the parking spaces will be striped painted then you have to have at least one accessible space for this particular project under the 2010 ADA standards so it's it's a little fuzzy as to whether or not one is required but if they striped they have to have an ADA space the building will definitely be meet full ADA requirements and Meredith just as a question of clarification so going back to my earlier question about the stacking if the permit didn't allow but human nature habits led to three cars in that driveway short of us making a permit condition saying I mean we're talking about what minimum they required right doesn't translate into you may not park there unless we make that an affirmative correct there's not there's nothing there's nothing for me to go around and do that that would really be more of like a fire marshal issue in some ways but yeah there's nothing there's nothing that says this this is about the number of like delineated parking spaces or the minimum number of spaces they have to have correct so yeah there's nothing in here that says that they can't have extra cars parked in there right if they fit if they fit yeah I mean it's not as if we would our permit would somehow become restriction on that no it's just what they mean for their minimum yeah see if you know everybody has minis they're gonna fit a whole bunch more vehicles in there than if everybody's pickup trucks because they're just gonna be like well I can fit you know three or four in these two spots or those that bring their RVs to work yeah or their motor cycles we I guess going back to the request for the waiver I'm my preference would be if you were to grant that you would still consider approving the Terra Street parking I'm not giving up on it but the preliminary cost estimates caused me to look for an alternative right okay with the modification from the existing plan that would allow for yeah as presented I I think the rail would be the rail it depends on whether it's it's it could be detached or not and my bet is not because it wouldn't be providing the kind of safeguard that you want on a parking space looking over retaining wall so we have we hand shoveled two of our spaces now on a regular basis we actually bring somebody in to do that so that that is reasonable to think that we can do that there there is not a lot of space so I think that that's an adequate way to go forward so to I think we have to make a decision if we would grant effectively a waiver showing them they've shown four spaces within and if we would be willing so in effectively it would be an alternative that we would approve the two spaces up top but in the alternative if those aren't built we would grant a waiver for one of the five spaces necessary on the representation that the space would be found at Department of Labor or another reasonably alternative parking area so or or biker transit which are the other waiver provisions right I mean I mean we're not actually saying you must park a car at the Department of Labor but that would be part of our finding as to whether you know that was that was a reasonable because if this was on the other side of the State House parking so having somebody parked at Department of Labor might not be as reasonable so with that in mind I think there's a few more areas to cover with these changes first of all this is so you have to Wolf Engineering who designed this these upper parking spaces and they're calling for it looks as if some some change to the grade as well as this retaining wall installed and this fencing system to stop people from driving over the edge of the retaining wall what is the stormwater drainage plan it would it the grade would likely drain back on to terrace it's a negligible amount most of the driveway is up there certainly the uphill side all drain on to terrace there's a storm drain within 50 feet and it would not be an amount of excess storm water that would that would really have any impact on that our reluctance to have it graded towards the downslope is we I don't want it then take all of terrace street stormwater onto the property and create drainage problems on our property we've actually had that happen at nine Baldwin before when the street was redone and we lost our lip and all the sudden our parking lot was eroding away and the city was really great about coming in and fixing that but my concern about having storm having it run towards the downhill is we'll take a lot more than we're generating off of that little area and I think that what our spaces contribution are to terrace street is pretty negligible as well the concern that wouldn't shed to the side either yes our neighboring proper properties yeah so the idea would be to make the grade of this this these upper parking spaces such that it was above terrace street and it would flow back into terrace street any storm water runoff it handled by the city yes city drains the storm water drinks just to just to make sure everybody knows what we're looking at on the August 19th site plan if you look at the terrace street parking area you can see the little notation of the 583 foot elevation and the that's the lower right corner when you're looking at it but that matches up with one of the higher elevations on where that parking area connects to terrace street so they've raised that corner so things will flow back and I noticed that Tom McCartle had an opportunity to review this not this one not this one yeah but yeah because we just all got this now okay that was anything updated on the staff report since the last meeting is in green we reviewed the one that actually had the three right huge you know Kurt was able to review that one Tom was out until today and Curt didn't raise any concerns related to storm water from that even from the previous one exactly yeah so this is even better and then what would be the circulation plan for anyone parking on those upper two spots they would have to back out on the terrace no once they exited the car industry in circulation walk around the block okay so they would walk yeah we know the architect we were working with talked about a stairway down I don't see managing that in the winter is being practical right and since you have a sidewalk connecting this to the to the front of the building people could just walk around the block in a similar manner I would note to the one of the the nearby properties that also has a sort of rear parking lot I think up up Terrace Street yeah there's there's one space and then two spaces very similar configuration for and I forget which Baldwin Avenue property it's there's a sign up there I think it's a seven bald one are up there as well I will say that the grade isn't quite as steep it doesn't drop as far down those so they don't have to have as high a retaining wall as this calls for right but it's also for pedestrian purposes people comparable distance yeah right and they essentially take the same sort of walking path so I believe in your standard for off-site parking is a thousand feet but this technically is an off-site so that wasn't the the next sort of item would be the fact that we're now approving two access points for a lot that's not a corner lot right so this is a similar issue to what we faced not not too long ago with the idea of a second second access point and that requires a finding from us that support the second access point and I'll simply note that the two parking spaces are really would be an overflow parking situation and less of a driveway more of just simply a pull-in as opposed to the existing driveway and notwithstanding the fact that this is not a corner lot it is a lot that touches two public streets so it's not an unreasonable use to have this this double access certainly it's lots were divided you'd have two access points if there were two separate lots any other questions or concerns about that okay so I think that is so the idea would be as far as the cars entering and exiting let's start with the sort of upper two lots they they'd pull in and they back out and they'd be relying on the sight lines that they would have up and down terraced street yeah and and there are there are trees and branches within the right-of-way that partially obstruct the view they could be cleared off they're not on this property in the sight line if you see the elevations it climbs up to 590 and that's the last elevation at the intersection of gentlemen road it continues to climb a little bit beyond that I paced off about 130 feet until it starts to drop down the other side there's a crest on terrace and the visibility down Tara Street to Bailey's all the way to the intersection on on Baldwin Street however there will be backing out as well true yeah and that's unobstructed to the Capitol right the other thing I'll say about that line of sight is on Street parking is only allowed on the other side of Baldwin that's we sometimes just backing out of the nine Bailey space on Baldwin that's the biggest obstruction but that won't be the case with this property and then I just simply know for us as a board that you know this this pullout would not be conforming with the distance from intersections required under B 71 because I think it's less than 150 150 feet from an intersection but it is a small neighborhood most of the driveways on the street don't learn on conforming this is just simply a two lot pull in unless the word has any questions or wishes to discuss this further we can move on I'll simply note that that would be something we would have to decide to waive in granting us the let's talk about the retaining wall how would just so I understand how how would the fencing I understand there's a retaining wall that's required to build up to the grade to bring especially the front end of it up from its existing top aligns that look like 574 up to the 583 but beyond that what is the fencing going to look like in this in this parking area is it though the white the white box and how high and what is the driving need behind that when you say white box sorry there's a it looks like a white outline on the site plan C 1.01 like a U shaped white outline around around the parking spaces yes there would be this is an elevation of it the other okay so this basically retaining wall is a precast Lego that fits together and it's there's several options for it looking like naturalized stone and there's several examples of it around town probably one example this that's pretty big is at the new distillery the Caledonia spirits so there would be that same product would have precast posts on either end and the metal black fence would actually slip into the precast post and be set there right and that would be at the at the far end the fence and the posts at the yes and the side okay and and would it be the same height all around yes okay and and what would the purpose of I mean I can understand the fencing on the front but is there's the same same kind of safety concerns on the side yeah I guess I'd look to see if there's any standard regarding that I believe our engineer felt as though because there's enough of a drop-off that it would be prudent to have it on three sides okay I mean obviously one of the concerns that we had the snow load yeah and removal and understanding that obviously we don't want anyone driving off into the forward or to the side if there's enough of a difference in height at the same time boxing this in into a cage you know inhibits your your snow storage okay capacity as well as there are other ways to stop people from driving off you know bollards smaller smaller pieces in which you're fencing that that might give you more flexibility I would be glad to explore that okay well I just wonder if there was an overwhelm you know the engineer had indicated you know this is something that standard that we want that this is your best option I believe his understanding was that the city would expect it okay yeah I think it might be more of a billing inspector issue versus zoning when it comes to the wall right at least the safety aspect versus our height maximums right I mean the retaining wall is appears to be the testimony at least as I understand is the retaining walls driven by the topography yes the wall has to be so high you know I think one of the concerns is that you have this nine-foot high wall and then you have this fence and fence and post system on top of it makes it look a little bit like a turret and you know I don't I don't have a problem we're not you know we're not castle judges but at the same time understanding that there is a certain proclivity in the in the bylaws away from that type of large fencing just to understand if that's a building code issue with I'm not gonna yeah I wonder if bollards you could you could generally do four bollards one in front of each space and one to the side of each which would be adequate I would if that's you know if that's engineerable that would be my preference as well although I have to tell you I feel better about that space once you call to the turret we do have sometimes we're under siege we all are okay and I think we've talked about the ADA space okay and then the the bike storage have you explored where that I think you were indicating at the last meeting that the bike storage was going to be somewhere inside yes yeah so the portion of the building off of the porch really much the area between the garage when you walk into the main part of the building is currently a kitchen a laundry room a pantry it's it's I got a chance to walk through the house that's a sale yeah okay so that's all going to be reconfigured and we are office administrators looking into options for for racks and whatnot but it would be right inside the entryway and there would be a place to the side where probably have you know have space for multiple bikes okay I I mean that that would be great to be a permit condition that we do provide off interior bike storage it's not designed yet right but the fortunate thing is we're at the point that if we go forward with this we're gonna just there's a lot of options well I mean that that's one of the obviously that's one of the things we're gonna rely upon when we we give you the if we give you the waiver of the space and so your representation is that right now the plans are for there to be internal bike storage space in the kitchen sort of laundry area yes so you know I mean that that I don't think I'll let the rest of Ward speak but at least one member has one member I don't think it's necessarily something we have to put into a condition but we understand that the representation is there will be you know secured and sheltered bike storage space based on your representation that right now it's to be located in the kitchen in the existing kitchen laundry area it would be a very reasonable finding right that's I mean I think any representation made is becomes a permit condition so I think by representing that there will have provided that it's it's relevant and messes of finding on which we're basing a conclusion there's a representation that there will be internal bike storage I think that's sufficient for me and I believe you also testified last time that you'll have shower employee or shower facilities for employees great so that's again I don't think it needs to be a separate condition but that's I think an important representation if we're gonna grant a waiver down to four required parking spaces okay so I think those are the major issues that were left on this particular application does anyone have any other questions is anyone here to be heard on this particular application other than the applicant okay so what's the pleasure of the board and the two options are we can take this under advisement or we could hash it out here and now as to whether obviously there's gonna need to be a written decision because there are a couple of moving pieces here but I'm happy to take the lead of the rest of the rest of the board if you feel comfortable making a motion or if you'd like to move this deliberative session at the end okay and I guess I would lean a little bit towards a deliberate session as well sharing some of those just as a matter of hashing that out some of the details how does the rest of the board feel though sounds good that's fine me I'll take that as a motion from Kevin to take this under close the record take this under advisement and and decide it and deliver a session and I'll take those a second from Ryan to set motion all those in favor please raise your hand oh yes do you have a discounted yes please whether the parking area wasn't sure any of these parking spaces like the first one was going to be striped or delineated anyway to indicate that that number one spaces you first come in was going to be clearly defined parking space I guess I was looking at whether they'd be marked in regard to the standard requirement it's going to be repaved it definitely needs reconstruction and there's some some issues that we need to deal with on a catch base and I had thought about striping and had not planned on striping if the board felt as though that should be striped we would do that well and I should know we don't have we don't require striping necessarily and you know as we discussed earlier striping does trigger other requirements such as the ADA space just for these for zoning purposes unless you have I think it's more than 10 parking spaces there's no requirement that the spaces actually be striped you know I think you could if you decide that you're gonna have an ADA space if you just put you know your label on the building to mark where they're parked I think that would you can talk to the Department of Public Works they have a better understanding of the ADA requirements than I do so my understanding is that when we get the building permit that we may need to deal with the ADA parking space okay any other questions Claire or any other board member a hearing none do we all have the motion in mind take this into deliver a session and close the record all those in favor please raise your right hand all right we'll take this into the session thank you very much thank you thank you Brian next item of business is 29 College Street the applicant is Keith Schumacher if you will introduce yourselves for the record please Keith Schumacher from Montpellier Don Marsh from Liberty Street Montpellier and Grenier Engineering okay please raise your right hand we'll put you under oath do you solemnly swear or affirm that the evidence and testimony you're about to give for the matter under consideration shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth under our pains and penalties of her jury yes yes great so why don't you give us an overview of the proposed project well the idea is that you would like to we would like we would like to create two two bedroom apartments out of the existing property at 29 College Street and we would like to add a driveway on the Kemp Street side and the other thing we're asking for tonight is an entry door on the porch so can I give just a quick little why don't you give an overview as well yeah so really the only reason this is here before the board because this is a two you know gonna be a two family home so that doesn't require DRB approval usually this is a corner parcel so the second driveway wouldn't necessarily require a board approval the main issue is that the second access point is does not meet the minimum spacing requirements and by second access point right the street is so it is I'm trying species anyway it's too close to other driveways there's a driveway directly across the road so that this is where the minimum the minimum spacing requirement is 30 feet and it's 25 feet from the driveway yes according to the applications yes we're talking about yes 5 feet and you know because that part has to come before the DRB the whole application and the entire approval has to come yet for the DRB and I'll know that this is already gone before design review board correct committee as well yeah for the the various seven criteria under that about preservation harmony compatibility yeah but that was strictly for under their purview right correct that was right that they would have gone before the design review committee even if it didn't come here because of the addition of the second entry point into the house so that changed the exterior of the building and added a new door okay there were some other minor issues but they didn't they didn't really care about the driveway Ryan did you have a question I was confused by the 25 feet from the existing drive so sorry new driveway yes to the one three camp drive no no the three camp driveway is I'm just trying to double check my actual numbers here spacing so in this district an access point is supposed to be 30 feet from any other driveway it's actually approximately 25 feet from the one directly across the road okay it's it's five it's five feet too close to the closest other driveway the new chemistry driveway but that 25 feet is the width of the camp right okay and and under the normal standards department public works would much rather have two driveways directly across from each other then kitty corner to get that extra five feet even though zoning has a minimum distance requirement department public works would rather have these two people being able to see each other directly across then trying to merge at a funky angle so so moving this moving this over five feet shifting how the entrances is not preferred by right department of public works is happy with this as long as they can get good sight lines by pairing back landscaping okay and what particular pieces of landscaping so you can see on the August 7th site plan there is a note for underbrush to be cleared where there's a little outline and it's in the note you can see the GMP utility so they would be happy with this amount being pushed back and cut away I am not sure if but you can see that some of this is on the neighbor's property and it's not clear if that's all in the right of way or just on the neighbors property so that was an issue that the applicant needed to try and address why don't we start there the office more than happy to clear the brush and within the right way however the the vegetation to the east on the neighbors property is some of it's in the right away so DPW could remove it if they wished but much of it is outside the right away okay and I was looking do we have a picture of what this brush looks like I mean are we talking about trees are we talking about shrubs there there are two large maples that show up on the site plan but the rest are very thin shrubs they came out as black and white photos to the beginning of the packet immediately after the application forms so the second photograph in there is actually somebody sort of right inside where this driveway would be right it's a little hard to see on these copies what yeah we're just talking about shrubs yes brush are these like are these volunteers or is this a planned landscaping there's this you know when I say volunteers I mean yes the scrub that grows up naturally between boundaries because neither side maintains it as opposed to something that's cultivated and purposely you know privacy hedge of some kind I would say what comes under the volunteer category none of them look like they're planted they're very they're woody veggie woody shrubs I mean they're half inch three quarter inch diameter and so effectively we're you have a sense about obviously everything that's on your property to be cut down and then I'm looking at marriage okay and is there any conversation with the neighbors about drawing this back I spoke with the neighbor and expressed to her our our desire to have some of these shrubs cut and she expressed to me her desire to not have them cut so so it's a situation without permission she said no how much distance will there be between the proposed driveway on Kemp Street and that particular neighbors driveway down the hill a bit 50 or 60 feet 50 or 60 it's on the other side fear distance on the other side of the house their house okay so I understand that it's more than 50 okay I understand the DPW's recommendation is to trim the shrubs in order to maintain the site line but I'm not incredibly familiar with this site but wonder how necessary I mean this would it functionally be all right if those were not trimmed I usually am very ready to defer to public works recommendations but given the spacing given the low volume of the street I wonder how essential the shrub trimming on the neighbor's property really is can I just step in for a second so just a reminder that before the applicant can actually build this driveway department public works has to issue a construction and access permit and they'll be looking at those site lines again so this is not the end of that question whether or not you approve it okay okay that's that's helpful you know because we are relying upon both photographs maps that are somewhat incomplete as well as our incomplete understanding and this really is a department public works issue where the site lines are something where they can come out and measure and they're going to have a better way of judging this and presumably you can have a more technical conversation with them at that point as opposed to one of the discussions actually we're considering as a condition of the DBW permit would be that the tenants be asked to back in so that it diminishes the impact of that site line it doesn't end it but at least you get you know ways out before that's not a unreasonable expectation it's not an unreasonable expectation but I wonder if it's an enforceable one which is how do we how do we keep people backing in I mean that's a nice thing to ask but I was I was considering and I would absolutely endorse putting a clause in the in the out the lease that would ask the tenants to back into their spots and make it a potential default of the lease if they failed to do so on a real basis you know yes we'd work work with that I just wanted to comment I live around the corner very familiar with this site very often and there's often this side street is used as a parking area for people visiting the college so oftentimes there will be cars parked along that side of the road which I could see may cause difficulty for having to back into the site you'll have a car parked oftentimes they'll be really far apart along here and like basically all along here so I'm not sure that would be well easy to be able to wait your weather may be backing in extremely difficult well question about public works if they determine that the site distance is not adequate can they enforce a training to make it I don't know if they can enforce a trimming on someone who is not the property owner yeah and it's not the right way I I don't think that they can necessarily do that when it's you know if it's not a public access point if we're considering snow and we're considering parking as limitations to ingress and eat grass from the new driveway how much of an issue is the shrubbery if we have these other other things that are eight feet out right from the side of the road I think your what your question is is the right one I don't think this is a deal breaker at least from my perspective well and that's I was really exploring how how far we wanted to go down the idea of putting on a condition like that because you know one we don't want to make more work for the zoning department and to if we do create work it should be meaningful as opposed to Sisyphean yeah right thank you you know and one that one that's gonna make a difference so okay well any other questions about the particular shrubbery or site distance no questions about shrubberies we practice that are we yes just as given I mean I think that's our primary concern I go the other concern obviously is that this driveway faces on to another driveway so while we've heard testimony that the Department of Public Works will favor that configuration I'd like to understand from the applicant if they foresee any other difficulty given that these these two driveways would would essentially face each other as far as any type of traffic or entrance and exit you know stacking up when approaching those driveways or if there's a like greater likelihood of any type of accident given that they'd be both feeding into the exact same point on the road the standard design practice would be have driveways opposite each other anyway okay I mean we're in an urban area we're in a low traffic street I don't see an issue the only the the interesting thing is the opposite side is actually a dual driveway so you have two different residences that would come across I mean that might complicated because you'd have theoretical a bit more traffic than you would but I don't see it as a you know an issue in terms of safety I'd actually you know the idea of backing into the driveway I think it's actually not having that as a condition it just occurred to me because the logical thing people would do is pull into that driveway across the street and then back across the road and use that which if I own that driveway I don't think I'd be particularly happy about people pulling into my driveway to back across the street I mean that would be the sole concern and apart what you're saying essentially is that there really isn't any particular design flaw or feature in that dawn that this is a common practice where driveways will be opposite each other on low low volume roads in dense urban areas like this and it's it's consistent throughout the city right in fact it says it right here in figure three dash one to directly opposite driveways preferred and so really this is so if we go back to the idea of separation distance it's really the fact that this is a small road that's separating us but you know given that in is it is it simply because this this this road is unusually narrow or you know we were talking about is it and Rob I always get this wrong is it the normal standard width of a road is two rod three rod three rod thanks to be forty nine every day well I just I only ask that because you know if I'm getting at given that these this is probably the first time we really sort of full-on have this particular issue with these particular bylaws given that they they say outright we prefer driveways directly opposite each other you know doesn't make sense then that the distance between driveway the 30 feet they're really talking about on the same side I think the interpretation of the spacing is supposed to be horizontal beside each other on our logical issues of not having you know having space but I think the construit is opposite is a misinterpretation yeah I mean it specifically says in the regulations that they mean on both sides of the street for those distances I think it's more of a they're not necessarily being engineers or people who design streets getting involved when they in understanding the design of streets being involved when they set these particular district specific standards you know and they were picking a lot of those numbers by doing surveys of districts and trying to just find a basic average number for current spacing on a lot of these and it just doesn't capture everything and make a lot of sense sometimes well and you know this is just to understand given this is this a meaningful distinction if we're going to say okay this is fine it can be less than 30 feet are we waving something meaningful that might have collateral consequences as opposed to what I'm hearing in a mixture of both Meredith your understanding of the promulgation of the bylaws as well as Don your testimony in regards to the safety features that this is not the situation where we're likely to be facing some unexpected you know issue all right any other questions on the driveway itself given that we do have to take a look at the remainder of the application because it has come under our purview I'll just simply note that the design review board or committee has approved the aesthetic changes the only two other changes apart from the driveway are the the entrance porch stair which is going to be located at the rear corner of the building the steering the rear corner I think was already there isn't it that's there oh I'm sorry that's okay that's all that's existing sorry it's just that just the center of lights okay so that's that's it apart from the driveway we had considered as an alternative mr. Joyce's original plan to add stairs back between 29 and 31 right college and I'd hope that we would be allowed to have that as an alternative what's what I'm looking at this is the new rear stair which talks about the rendering of the new steel stairways yes I mean that's what you're proposing to add we would like I express that on the idea that we would like to have a second alternative yeah an option an option if I'm reading the diagram correctly you illustrated a rendering of a new steel stairway that's going up to 31 college a cryly building and you're saying that you would use a similar steel stairway designed to get up to the second story portion this is to this is just to 29 college but what I'm saying oh so oh this stairway would be up to this shared patio on crawly okay that was a little hard to right right now yeah so you will share the concrete walkway right okay the concrete walkways on this property yeah yeah just to clarify when we discussed this when the subdivision was approved the board approved the subdivision of 29 and 31 college Street with a privacy fence being built here and then my interest is that as part of the purchase and sale agreement you ask them not to put that privacy fence up here is that right that's right yeah so is that that a condition of the self division it was it was no it was just one of the things that they said they were it's it was an option it was an option it was something that could be waived by the buyer which he did yeah okay so just so I'm clear design review committee review this proposed metal staircase I wasn't the design review committee review when you were there when you were presenting on the lights yeah okay no I just because I I I wasn't there for that part no understaffed that one that wasn't me and I just didn't see any particular I mean they don't usually do findings apart from checking off boxes on the criteria but I wanted to make sure because that obviously has more of an aesthetic impact than it's going to have as a normally look out for design review purposes I mean the stair that we design is going to blend and comport with the existing architecture you hear about that so the stair would just link in to the walkway that's actually shown on the site plan right so it wouldn't it would and since it's an open metal walkway it's not going to change the coverage requirements or anything along those lines right I just wanted to be clear what we're what reviewing approving and approving and so there's not necessarily a plan put in that stairway you just would like the option that you go forward or we would like the option because of the concept of the parking area camp and the idea that the tenant need to access their apartment we'd like to make it easy for so we think that that would be one way to make it easy but we don't necessarily know if it would be best because there's other entrances into the building but it would come through the basement yeah I'm looking I'm looking here and that's actually where I was going with my next question which is right now as if this driveway was built I'm looking at the one of the pictures that shows the back of the building and there's a looks like there's a basement door yes that walks out because at ground level but otherwise there's no other access to the building from that side of the property is that correct so if anyone if basement door wasn't their point of access it have to go around on the sidewalk which there's sidewalks around this and they walk to the front staircase go to the front porch and either go in the one of the two doors depending on where their apartment was and the existing door is going to service the second floor apartment and the new the new door is going to service the first floor apartment is that that's right all right and so the idea of building the staircase would simply to be a second entrance to the first floor a sort of back door a back door in a way of not having to go in through the cellar or the basement is is it possible to get into that back door if you walk around the property go up the existing driveway and through that patio is there access to that walkway or doesn't sit above yeah I can see in the back but I'm wondering in the front from the Kemp Avenue side around the building to the college if you and you could walk in essentially walk around the entire building to the other side of the building right and get into your apartment from possible from the back there I just want to make sure I understood that so if you came up college street up the driveway you could go in that back door right you have to walk through the you'd have to walk through this landscape area right to get to the back you're going to hear you yes right yes you have to walk through this landscape shrub area to access the back door yes what what looks like a path on the 7th drying is a drip line yeah no that that photograph clarifies it a bit more that it's actually more of a rain garden it looks like you either have to walk on the crushed gravel right next to the house or circle around on the college property okay if they were seeking for the stairway structure that has been reviewed by the design review mm-hmm would they have to put that the approved administratively or they have to come to the DRB to build that stair structure this is the this is part of this application so they can get approval for the whole the whole thing and then if they don't build the stair within the next two years three years if they get an extension then they have to come back okay I was under the impression that the application was for the driveway well the the part the reason it's here is because of the driveway yes but if not for the driveway this stair would be approved administratively yeah it's not for the driveway the whole thing would be approved administratively there's nothing you know once we got the stormwater clarification from DBW they signed off on the stormwater and we're okay with the access point we would have just dealt with it and then I don't think we need to necessarily delve into the particular features of the door that's being proposed unless somebody has questions about it DRC is approved that right and unlike before where we would sit in review of DRC decisions we no longer have that direct review right yeah is there anyone in the audience to be heard on this application if you'll step up the microphone and please state your name directly across from the proposed driveway so our driveway we share we have a divided driver there's plants but dr. Kellogg my neighbor and I exit and enter on that side of the street we don't have a sidewalk on our side the sidewalk is across the street that's the sidewalk that everyone uses to get out of the neighborhood when the kids go to school or whatever that's the side so my my one comment that I want to make on this is that there has been mentioned already that it that side of the street is used daily by actually staff in the college to park there and other people and so if you're gonna put a driveway in there as a neighbor somebody across the street I prefer than if you're gonna approve that then not to allow parking because you can't you see people come up the hill from there's a lot of cars that turn in and out of there and a lot of people use the back because of the the steepness of College Street there's actually a little more traffic they might imagine because people come around the back with larger vehicles and things like that so in the same if they're going down instead of dropping down they turn there and so there is I mean I don't know I don't have a state but I'm assuming there's more traffic they might imagine and and they're cyclists to turn there because they rather than drop down they go around the neighborhood so if you have cars there in the winter it it gets very very narrow actually which also brings me to the last point that I want to make this and I Keith and I actually had discussed I asked about the snow removal because the space is very narrow the end of the driveway the proposed driveway is the new dorms for the college so unless the snow is going to be removed and taken away there's really no place to put the snow did you see the most recent plan so they've shortened the driveway part so this is all snow storage I have an extra I can give you see the department of public works had that same concern and so they made them shorten the driveway well it's the property drops down into the if you if you go there and see the site you'll notice that the proposed driveway actually drops in down to the basement of the dorms so I mean unless they're gonna do some major work on that it's it's gonna snow it's gonna be it's way the college actually has their air units and everything right there so I mean I think that that's not that's an issue for them to deal with what I really am concerned about is to make sure that when it's done is it's safer one and I know that I have problems sometimes just reversing or even getting out of the property because people park you know perhaps early sometimes in the winter the snow the ice builds up so it gets even narrower there so I mean I would rather see it with no parking on that side of the street at least heading towards the corner that way there's enough width there for for the even this the town's you know vehicles and everybody else to turn and be able to see as you come around so I know my my neighbors have other concerns you know but I mean I think the safety is above all and the fact that you know there's there's a little traffic on that churns there so right let's really it thanks okay thank you yeah I'm just no further one if you look at this photograph and at least the way the driveway is now set to end before the house it looks like there may be a flat area but certainly that's something that at the college and Mr. Schumacher would have to work out if if he was dumping snow that was causing greater water flow on to the college's property which isn't necessarily under a purview let me ask Meredith when DPW creates a new driveway do they put any type of parking on either side of the driveway I honestly have no idea I mean there's there's places that there's there's some distance right I mean there's a requirement I think people stay a certain distance away like five feet or yeah yeah well it's not enforced if it is yeah no I'm thinking yellow curbing or even just like to the extent that there are parking spaces I know on on where they're delineated they will often have you know they'll end short of the driveway creating enough space between the driveway and the last-part car to allow for people to come out in and out safely I think that's more in commercial applications where they they yell right paint the curb to to keep people you know intersections are major commercial things but I don't see it on yeah no I don't see the yellow very street is it yeah oh sure it was mentioned actually you mentioned that in fact this idea of reversing in I can see because people already do this come in there and go into my driveway I really would prefer not because it's gonna encourage people to go into my driveway that's the only way if people are gonna be parked in front they're gonna have to turn to my driveway to reverse in there and I know the doctor and myself do not want that and we'd have a we'd have a problem right I see that as a non starter for that exact reason and I think that's in true you know that's intrusive on to you your property and then setting it up for that kind of situation so you know that's a good way to start a fight between the neighbors in the city okay any other questions or concerns from the board so you know to a certain extent I think the the issue of parking on the street ultimately becomes a city council issue and becomes a city you know the Department of Public Works I know they make recommendations based on safety traffic counts you know if you look at page six number 14 large C little high four camp as needed that must be one or three right I don't think that's actually four yeah I may have I may have put in the wrong I just mean okay I just mean the Kemp Avenue adjacent to this property that we're talking about I may have put in the wrong street number okay so we're looking at the staff report where it says melting snow is a major stormwater source of concern for DTP which we've talked about and then the proposed site plan indicates a swale between the new driveway parking area and the adjacent for Kemp which would essentially be the neighboring property as as needed but that's that's really for prevent water runoff so we don't plan to do that so you're not planning to do the swale anymore at all so and this is you've worked some alternatives for the stormwater out with Department of Public Works yes okay that was that was the last thing that if we have a shallow slope the driveway in order to meet the street is going to be down approximately two feet and so then we'll do a slight grade up to the back lawn and a depression there for snow storage and infiltration which is their preference they were not concerned about the fact that the driveway will grade toward Kemp and the runoff of the driveway itself will come down the north side of Kemp to a catch patient that's about 70 feet down the road okay thank you Don that's that's helpful not so you're not asking for nor are we granting up a proposed swale as part of the construction so I think that is all what's the pleasure of the board question of the board members understand that there's going to be the curb cut and access permit and DPW will revisit the sight lines would that be the appropriate place to consider the distance between the last parked car and the opening to the driveway because I don't feel like I have enough engineering technical knowledge to say well you should paint the curb eight feet of yellow in order to address the concern well no authority either so never but I do wonder in in the interest of addressing the neighbors concern is that going to be looked at again I what I don't know the DPW ordinance I can't answer that question okay I haven't I haven't been here long enough to know the zoning regulations this current zoning regulations the 2011 zoning regulations and the DPW I can't believe as much as I can as quick as I can so as far as directing a next step would do DPW accept comments on those types of permits and would that be an avenue for any neighbors to to make the same suggestion as they've made here just to be heard trying to figure out how do we get this into the conversation so my understanding is this is that yes they would take comments they would take feedback and you know the DPW is driven by you know the B71 standards the normal engineering you know the requirements they would look at the traffic count on the road ultimately however any decision to restrict parking is a city council issue that they would have to vote on but they would get recommendations from the department public works for such a decision and the only example I can think of off the top of my head that why I think this as opposed to knowing it is if you go East State Street about halfway in front of the blue building next to Vita building they have a no parking and I'm not quite sure why that is but I do remember city council voting on that decision to make it a no parking area and I can't remember if it was for safety or for some other reason but I think that's ultimately where this would have to go you know we couldn't change the parking even if we decided to and nor are we charged with necessarily you know reviewing the parking situation apart from you know any sort of larger sort of nebulous question that we're faced with I guess I'm trying to make a distinction between parking zones and what should and shouldn't be parking zones in the city and zoning and safe safety or public works standards that may impinge onto a little bit of curve I feel like there's a gray area there that may or may not actually require city council approval but in any event I think my my question is answered in terms of how how that remark would be shared in the permitting process would be to speak with DPW so well and I guess that's all we can do on an informal level to I think Meredith has heard the concerns not only of the witnesses and but the board's concerns about this and communicate that with DPW given that her office is directly across the hall from them so while it's not a formal recommendation that certainly does carry in fact it may be more effective than a formal recommendation because it's hard to say no to somebody face-to-face I mean I will note too just looking at the picture that's on the front of the staff reporter appears there's a sign which is typical for no parking between that sign in the corner and just judging the distance between kind of approximating between the proposed driveway and that sign you know at most there's space for one car kind of up camp towards college from the proposed driveway maybe maybe practically there's not space for one car to legally park there anyway for what that's worth not that it's worth anything given that don't have any control over this to begin with an observation an observation any other observations okay what's the board's pleasure do we want to take this under advisement into deliberative session or do we wish to make a motion and decided here and now I won't just simply say we can easily move this into deliberative session since we're already going into one but I also don't think that this is a very difficult application either so I will entertain a motion and as chair I can't make it so that's the proper rules of order limitation Mr. Chair I would move approval of the request to install a second driveway at 29 College Street it's less than the generally allowed distance from nearby Driveways as presented in the application dated 7-eleven-19 and supporting materials with the amendment to the stormwater plans and there's amendment to the stormwater plans is not requiring a swell okay well that was listed on the plan as needed anyway so it was not a requirement good point there right there way ahead of us that's all right that is all right sorry Kate that's okay and I think we have a consent a can I'll stop there that's okay so we take I still need the cut sheets for the lights oh it was said it was for the board's consideration I didn't know it was a requirement okay it's with the conditions that the applicant will please provide the zoning administrative cut sheets for new external lights as recommended by the design review committee prior to permit issuance they've been able to bring them by today that okay the motion by Kate second second with the just a question before formalize that but with the communication with DPW regarding the parking issues we don't have anything in the ordinance to specifically guide us in that area but do we want to say something to the effect that communicating with DPW on that parking issue I don't know is that would be a condition I mean we can state that this way we can state in the written decision that this was discussed that could be that could be adequate from my perspective and yes yes okay so that's my that's my second okay any discussion the only question I have we need to enlarge the approval for the design yes you do for the design you elements as well as the back staircase no because that's the the rate I'm sorry yeah so it's it's well too yeah it modified with the design review elements right so I'll give that a try in addition to granting the request for decreased access spacing the motion is to also approve the design review committee's recommendation for the door design at the front of the building facing College Street and also to approve the proposed staircase design as an option between 31 and 29 College Streets as presented in the lighting as approved by the design review committee subject to provision of cups cut seats to marry okay so amended motion by Kate we accept that amended motion as your second yes any further discussion hearing none all those in favor of the motion please raise your right hand all right we have approval thank you very much thank you that is the last application of the evening the other business electing a chair why do we need to elect a chair because you're supposed to do this once a year annual annual this is once a year in August you're supposed to do this so somebody needs to make a motion to nominate I would like to make the motion to nominate Dan should you be willing to accept that responsibility for another year that would be my motion I would second that motion all those in any further discussion observations all those in favor please raise your right hand and I think we need to we need to nominate a vice-chair yeah I mean it would be an annual thing where you did to chair and vice-chair we did it together accept I would second that motion by Ralph second by Kevin any further discussions hearing none all those in favor of Kate as vice-chair very good the only other item of public business remaining is to announce our next meeting which is Tuesday September 3rd 2019 that would be the day after Labor Day so mark your calendar accordingly I will I will be back in session I will be away that week so if we have any alternates this is it do we have an update as to how the process of getting new board members well so Michael is now a full member and has taken the empty full seat so we have two alternate oh no one alternate vacancy one full debt right yours you're an alternate so we have one full time and one alternate open and as far as I know we have no applications for either okay so spread the word beat the bushes anyone out there in TV land who wishes to join the fun in person that's right this is an opportunity yeah I would highly encourage our TV audience to look into this as a warning opportunity you may get to discuss shrubberies is a particularly important part of this job so yes so welcome Michael from time I don't think we've acknowledged that yet welcome to the full board not that you are less remember before our first act I'll probably also miss September okay that's good to know given that we are down that with a two or five okay well we still have form so the next meeting is on the third yep Tuesday the third all right but given that we are five if anyone else is thinking that they might not be able to make it just notify us as soon as possible so we can make adjustments accordingly all right with that I believe we've already had a motion to move into a deliberative session following this and we'll go off the record do we want to make yes we'll do that and then we'll adjourn after the deliberative session no I think we adjourn before we close the closing the public meeting okay sorry I'll make a motion to adjourn the public meeting and move into the deliberative session on the 11 11 Baldwin application motion by Ryan do I have a second second second like Evan all those in favor please raise your right hand we are adjourned


This study proposes a novel fabric myoelectric armband in a hybrid serial classifier, HSC, algorithm to reduce the electrode shift problem associated with surface electromyogram pattern recognition, EMGPR. The armband is designed to minimize the electrode shift problem by reducing the number of electrodes used. Additionally, the HSC algorithm is developed to eliminate the need for retraining over multiple days. This algorithm uses only the first days EMG data to achieve high classification accuracy on subsequent days. The results show that the proposed armband and HSC algorithm can be used together to provide reliable and accurate EMGPR for long-term use. This article was authored by Hui Wang, Ping Gao Huang, Qing Han Su, and others.