Evening, everyone, we'll get this meeting going.

First item.

Call the meeting to order.

First item on the agenda is approval of the minutes.

Are there any addresses to any edits to those minutes?

Commissioner Coop.

Um who is the missing commissioner?

It was me.

Oh, uh, thanks for pointing that out.

Do you want to be recorded?

Were you in the A or the Nay?

Well, the vote was four to threes, and I made the motion, so I assume that I was the A.

Yes, that's right.

I remember okay.

There are any other edits.

Okay.

All right.

So can I have a motion to adopt the minutes with the edit so made by Commissioner Coop to the minutes?

Move by Commissioner Coop.

Seconded by Commissioner Mancini.

Any discussion?

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

All those opposed say nay.

Ayes have it.

Go ahead, Commissioner Lampier.

Um, Mr.

Chairman, I was not at that meeting, so I abstained from voting.

So Commissioner Lampier will be listed as uh abstention on that vote.

Next item on the agenda is night's corner development.

Is the applicant here and wishes to be heard on this extension?

Good evening.

Um president, members of the planning commission, Robert Murray, 21 Garden City Drive in Cranston.

I'm here tonight on behalf of the uh developer applicant uh 333 Main Street LLC.

Um we're here for uh would would be the last statutory extension allowed for the master plan approval that was granted in 2023.

We had an automatic two-year vesting.

Uh last year you granted an extension, uh, one extension until May 2nd.

Uh under Ion General Law 45239, we will be entitled to one additional year.

Um, my the letter that the uh applicants submitted requested consideration for a two-year extension until um uh 2020 until May 2nd, 2027.

The only reason for that is um obviously people are have interest in this project.

Uming has not been great in terms of the economy, construction, tariffs, you name it.

So we uh uh but we're working with a partner right now towards uh bringing this project alive.

Um just in an abundance of caution, I'd ask consideration for a two-year extension of the master plan.

Um there any questions for Mr.

Murray on his extension request.

Okay, does the staff have anything they'd like to state at this point?

The conditions have not changed.

I don't see any reason to not grant this extension.

Okay, all right.

Unless there's anything further, uh motion to grant the extension as requested would be in order at this time.

Commissioner Lampier, Mr.

Chairman, I move to um extend the time frame as requested by the applicant.

Motion made by Commissioner Lampier, seconded by Commissioner Barberi.

Have we got that right?

Okay, any further discussion?

All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye, all those supposed to say nay, ayes have it.

Thank you.

As I indicated for those at home who are watching this, uh prior to the meeting commencing, I had a conversation uh with members of the audience here about the order we would take tonight's agenda.

Due to the amount of people here for various zoning board recommendations and the need to have a ruling on these zoning board recommendations tonight because the zoning board is meeting tomorrow.

We will be taking the zoning board review recommendations first and then following with the rest of our agenda.

So the first item on our agenda is the praised tabernacle application.

Um would you mind, Mr.

Murray?

Do you want to do the LED first?

Or do you want to do the youth center first?

You should proceed with your youth center then.

Um good evening again, Robert Murray for the record 21 Garden City Drive in Cranston.

I'm here tonight on behalf of the Praised Tabernacle Church located at 330 Park Avenue.

Um this first application before you there are two applications.

Uh the first one uh relates to a uh small structure they want to build on their property, and we are going to the zoning board tomorrow night for some minimal uh dimensional relief.

Uh the second application that you have relates to an LED sign.

Um I'm not involved in that.

Um with me this evening, uh first is Pastor David Macquad from Praised Tabernacle.

Uh he's here to answer any questions.

Uh, but primarily you're going to hear from uh William Lavery, um project manager for Casali Engineering.

Uh he is uh his office has done a nice job with a brief um PowerPoint presentation to run through this project.

Uh I understand that you have a long evening, so we're not gonna belabor, but I think a quick preview by Mr.

Lavery would help, and then we'll be happy to answer any questions.

And the pastor is available uh to supplement.

The most important consideration here for members of the public who may be here is uh this is not uh a structure being proposed to increase um the capacity of the church or to uh bring uh more communicants to the to the uh property, uh add to traffic.

Um right now the activities that are planned for the youth center are happening inside the church.

Um this uh church does a lot of wonderful community um projects and uh support for uh many people in the community.

Um right now for the activities involved that we anticipate for this youth center, they're going on in the sanctuary.

That means they have to break it down, they have to put it back together.

Um, and the intent is to construct this facility just so that they can um uh for ease of um program.

Uh we are not taking away any parking spaces.

Uh and like I said, there's just two forms of dimensional relief that Mr.

Lavery will go over, but I just want to underscore this is not to allow for a uh a great expansion of the of the church.

Um they have uh uh they work trying to work with the neighborhood.

Uh I know there's been some communication about uh traffic.

Um this used to be the uh temple, as uh members of the commission may know.

Uh and um they've tried to work with the uh surrounding neighbors and uh streets to uh minimize any inconvenience.

Can you actually have parking?

Check if your mic is on.

Okay.

Am I I'm sorry.

I apologize.

Um, you know, we work with uh members of the church, act as parking uh for as a parking team uh out uh in the property on Sunday mornings, for example, to try and make sure that people are not impacting uh neighbors.

So uh with that said, I'm gonna ask Mr.

Lavery to come up.

Hopefully the mic is working so everybody can hear, and we'll just go through a quick PowerPoint.

Yes, if you can put please.

Good evening, everyone.

Thank you, members of the commission, chairman, Ms.

President.

Um Bill Lavery, uh, project manager with Joe Casali Engineering.

Uh, as attorney Murray said, um, just looking to run through a quick PowerPoint just to uh show the uh the commission the project at hand here.

So uh project location where we are in the world, we got Warwick Avenue, uh Park Avenue, uh Route 10, Route 12, and that's the subject parcel AP4-5 lot 150.

It's just shy of 53,000 square feet, um, completely in the A6 zone.

Um zooming into the property, uh you can see it's completely surrounded by uh uh frontage.

Um the existing uh church building praised tabernacle.

Um it was previously a uh Jewish synagogue before this, so it has a historical of always being a house of worship.

Um we uh showing the A6 zoning setbacks for the parcel.

Um, and what we're proposing here is um uh 3800 uh just shy of 3900 square foot uh building, uh one uh one story with a basement um basement for storage purposes.

Um and it's a as you can see from the architectural plans um done by uh studio uh JBD, that uh it's just one wide open room um for event space um just to be able to get them from using their um the congregation space and putting it in a separate space for them to handle some of the uh the the workings, the youth uh the youth group uh meetings and uh just different more space for them to utilize um the existing services that they already do in the in the church.

Just uh a couple elevations of what the uh youth center is anticipated to look like.

Just uh a couple elevations of what the uh youth center is anticipated to look like, um, some uh windows and uh rolling doors um to to have um some of it open at some uh times of the year.

Um also that you can see the stairway that gets down to the basement for um tables, chairs, anything that they have or need extra storage for.

Uh that is also a rendering of um of what it is anticipated to look like um off of uh off of that side street, Sunshead Boulevard and um back of the uh current uh church.

So tonight we uh we're here for recommendation for a zoning relief.

We've got two stiff uh two uh requests for zoning relief.

We have we're asking Sunset Terrace, uh excuse me, uh 4.06 feet of relief, and that is directly correlated to um uh locating the building in the same plane as the existing building that existing building or currently has um that 4.06 projection into that setback.

Um, and then the second uh zoning criteria that we're looking for is um impervious lot coverage.

Uh so we are for impervious uh lot building coverage.

So we currently are 0.5 uh pre-existing non-convention uh conforming condition, required 30 percent, we're 30.5 percent.

We're looking to increase um to 37.8 percent.

Um, and with that, um we know with the impervious areas um uh basically the building will be uh additional impervious area.

Um we we are uh adding in a underground uh uh infiltration chamber system for drainage um to compensate for any of the in the uh that uh increase in impervious area that it that's proposed building will um will will create.

Um so we we did do soil testing um for the infiltration system.

Um we had 80 foot 84 inch water table sandy soils.

Um that system is currently in DEM for um uh underground discharge permit.

Um you can see from there with the the discharge rates and volumes that we are proposing a reduction um for the the storm water that was in the the impervis area that was created by the uh the building in itself.

So uh that that's a basic overview of what we're asking for again.

The two zoning criteria that we're asking for is that front yard setback and the uh building lock coverage.

Okay, thank you.

Are there any questions?

I'll have a quick question for you.

Yes.

Um, you may not be able to answer it.

You can have somebody else answer it.

Um the application indicates that the act what's going on here is the youth center is going to host the activities that are going on in the church.

Um, and that there's no impact on off-street parking.

I see that you're not taking away any off-street parking, but you don't believe you need additional off-street parking.

You don't believe there'll be additional activities and that are occurring right now at the church.

Uh that the yeah, I can bring up Pastor Dave uh to explain more in depth of what the services are and what is there, but um the uh the understanding is no, there is no increase in parking.

I'll ask you before the Pastor Dave comes up.

Um your stormwater analysis and permit that you'll be granted will be granted by DEM.

Correct.

Okay.

And is all will also be submitted to uh the town engineer, the city engineers.

No, I understand, but it's gonna have to get approved by DEM.

Correct.

All right, okay.

Any subsurface drainage um is requires a permit from DEM.

Okay, thank you.

Good evening, everyone.

My name is David Mockwat.

I'm one of the pastors over at Price Tapanacle.

Uh the primary purpose of the building would be to uh take what goes on on Wednesday nights, which is our youth.

Uh, we also have a regular tenant uh service, but our youth meet uh downstairs, and their uh facility is at best choppy.

It's cut up in a number of different ways.

This building would open the door for us to have them in essence meet uh on that Wednesday night.

So there's really no additional parking.

We're not going to bring in other people.

We're not going to on a Sunday morning uh you know, set chairs up in there and display, you know, so we can display the service over into that building.

So there'd be no other uh parking issues if I can say, or let's put it this way, no additional parking issues.

Plus, we also do functions in there.

We've got maybe four or five functions that we have over the course of the year, where we literally take all of our chairs out of the sanctuary, bring in a number of tables, set up folding chairs, have our function, and then have to set everything back up the next day.

This would eliminate that.

So that is one of the primary purposes.

The other purpose would be to again, if we have a basement there, the storage would be uh is essential for us.

As you know, we've got some containers over there.

We'd like to get rid of those containers that actually would add to our ability to park on our own lot.

I think we lose maybe eight to twelve spaces with those containers.

So again, that would be a plush.

Okay, thank you, sir.

Any further questions to the applicant?

Okay.

Uh Mr.

Murray, is there anyone else you'd like to present on your on your rec on the request?

Um, no, we'd be happy to answer any of the questions.

You know, the only point I want to make with respect to parking.

We uh under our zoning code, the parking is uh based on the number of uh seats in the uh in the church, and uh we are overparked when you use that calculation.

I'm not saying there aren't days when we don't have full parking and people are on the street, but just like many other churches around the city, there are occasions where people park in the uh in uh in the neighborhood, but using the calculation of the zoning code we have because if you look at the bottom of the screen, we own the property across the street.

Um, so it's not just the parking that's affiliated with the church and the new building, they also have parking across the street too.

Thank you, thank you, Mr.

Murray.

Right.

At this time, we'll hear from the staff uh to provide uh an overview of the application and their recommendation, and then we will hear from the public.

All right, so I'll just quickly restate um the relief that's required.

Um, so for maximum law coverage, um, the requirement for this zone, which is A6 is 30%, and the proposal is 37.8 percent, and minimum front setbacks for this zone are 25 feet, and the proposal is 20.94, which means 4.06 feet of relief.

So for the analysis, we looked into consistency with the surrounding area and with the comprehensive plan.

And the proposed building maintains the same front setback as the existing building.

This creates more aesthetic and uniform look to the site.

In addition, uh other nearby zones have much higher maximum lot coverages, and um as was previously stated, the A6 zone is uh intended for single family residential, but historically, this lot has been used for um religious uses, which is a completely different type of calculation.

And in addition, the applicants say that net runoff on the site will not increase as a result of new impervious services.

Staff also found that the following goals, policies, and action items outlined in the comprehensive plan support the approval of this application, including goal ED3 and policy ED4.

And to conclude, we'd like to forward a positive recommendation to the zoning board of review on this application.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Ray.

Is there any questions for our staff, Mr.

Ray, on this on his recommendation and report Mr.

Director Craig?

Just one quick question regarding the front setback.

What is considered the front setback?

Can you bring up the site plan?

Because I thought he put the setbacks on there, and it looks like the buildings either on or approaching the setback.

What's considered the front setback at this location?

Um in this case, it's the frontage on Sunset Terrace.

All streets, otherwise, they would need relief, which they're requesting.

Okay, so the property line is the back of sidewalk as it's presented, it's not behind that.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions for Mr.

Wright?

Okay, seeing none, we will now go to public comment.

So let me explain to the public.

This is on the positive recommendation on the youth center.

I know many of you here to talk about the LED.

That is not right now before us.

We will deal with it in just a few minutes, I assume.

So if you have anything you want to say about the youth center, now's the time to come before us.

And please remember this is a right we make a recommendation.

Um the zoning board has final decision making authority on this matter.

Please state your name and address, and then you can begin.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

Thank you.

My name is Marsha Leyden.

I live at 38 Sunset Terrace.

And uh I come representing the neighbors of uh praise tabernacle within 400 feet radius of their plot.

Um I would recommend, and it is the will of the neighbors that you refuse permission to praise tabernacle uh and uh refuse the variance that they are seeking.

Um they moved into our neighborhood back in 2012.

By that time, we were an established neighborhood, which started at the end of 1930 or 1940s.

I know because my parent, my grandparents signed a deed on December 7th, 1941.

So my family has been there.

We have I have been invested in this since then.

Um my neighbors are too.

We would like you to say no.

I have with me a petition of 41 names.

These neighbors, which are in the 400 feet radius, all said, please ask the planning commission and the zoning commission to disallow this.

Not one person in my neighborhood refused to sign this petition.

Not one.

That's it, that has to tell you something.

We are definitely against the the granting of any variants for the church.

Not because it's a church, of course.

It is because they have come in here and they have really not been a great neighbor.

I would like to say that yes, let us maintain the 25 feet setback and also the size of the building.

According to the A6 recommendations, it should be covering 30 percent of the area.

This particular proposal is 37 point something something.

Now, when they moved into the neighborhood, these recommendations and restrictions were already on the books.

I would think that when you come in here and you want to put up a structure, you would adhere to the strictures that are already provided.

They knew this.

Yeah, they're rolling the dice to see if they can get a bigger building.

And I would respectfully, I think that everybody is in uh possession of this of this petition, which I sent to um Miss Ashman, and also a letter that I wrote.

Um, we would like you to, as I said, um adhere to what is already on the books, and then of course I will speak later a little bit later on uh about the LED sign.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else who'd like to be heard on the youth center uh rec um variants?

Hello, good evening, planning commission.

My name is Bridget Graziano, I live at 191 Wentworth Avenue.

I am the ward one city council member for this area.

Um, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak this evening.

I want to begin by saying that I respect the role of Praised Tabernacle that it plays in our community and recognize the positive intentions behind expanding its facilities.

However, I have serious concerns about the proposal for this development to take on the responsibility for managing stormwater.

Stormwater is not a small or isolated task, it's long-term technically complex responsibility with real consequences for public safety, environmental health, and neighborhood stability.

Um concentrating that responsibility within a single development raises several important questions.

Um, first, um, actually, the engineer you know answered one question about the capacity.

I mean, I don't I haven't seen the full stormwater report, and I understand that DEM will review that, but I think when we're requesting a variance, there needs to be a higher standard, and there needs to be a higher condition.

This property is asking for a variance to have an increase in impervious surface.

I I haven't reviewed the stormwater regulation, I mean report, so I don't know if that's um subsurface infiltration system can handle that capacity.

I understand that there's 84 inches to mean uh estimated seasonal high groundwater, but I don't know how large the system is and whether or not it meets four feet or it gets closer to two feet and needs a mounded system.

So I'm just concerned about the capacity for handling this system.

And this is not something that you just install on the ground and set it and forget it.

Um this is something that you should be reporting annually to um DPW and the planning commission.

I think they should be reporting to you guys annually.

Um, and I think there should be conditions set on this variance.

I don't understand why we're accepting a menial level of stormwater management when we have a parcel that hasn't is requesting increased impervious capacity.

Um these are these are things that we should consider and take accountability for.

There's ongoing inspections, upkeep, costly repairs, who's going to be responsible for this maintaining in the future if this ever changes hands again.

And how do we know what?

I mean, we will know, I guess, at some point from DEM, but how do we know at what level we're managing stormwater?

What are the precipitation rates?

Are we preparing for climate change?

Are we you using NOAA Atlas 14 precipitation rates?

Are we using substandards 6.83 inches for a hundred year storm?

Like, where are we at with this?

I think when we're asking for variants, I think we should take into consideration what they're asking for.

And that includes proper stormwater management.

I also strongly believe that we should be asking them to manage the entire site.

So the city of Cranston has a uh NIPDES permit, national discharge elimination system permit.

And that permit requires the city to manage their MS4 system.

That's their municipal separate stormwater system that requires management of that.

And their site now discharges it has technically illicit discharge that discharges into our MS-4 system.

And so we can't possibly manage everyone's impervious surface.

We just keep adding on and adding on.

And there's no accountability when we add additional impervious surface to our lots.

Who some of it's going into the town right away.

Why should we be responsible for managing all of their stormwater?

So I'm actually asking something above this.

I'm asking planning and I will be asking zoning tomorrow evening to set conditions if they do decide to have a positive recommendation that they manage all the stormwater on site.

I'm asking that they manage it at a higher rate than maybe DEM.

And I think that is only reasonable for our residents.

We have flooded streets, we have filled catch basins.

It costs us more and more money for the city of Cranston to clean out their catch basins annually.

Um, and I don't think it's fair that we have to manage their salt water and their sand into our system.

Um, you know, we have the park across the street, there's a brook across the street.

If you don't know, there are wetlands across the street.

So that's concerning for me with managing stormwater.

If the stormwater system fails, it could potentially impact wetland resources.

So I did draft a letter.

It went it went to the planning board.

You you likely have everything.

But what I'm asking here is for conditions.

You know, I'm I'm urging you to carefully evaluate whether this proposal truly serves a long-term interest of the Edgewood community.

Growth and development are important, but they must be balanced with sustainability, infrastructure, environmental protection, and shared responsibility.

I mean, some of the things I've mentioned, number one, are managing the entire stormwater on site to stay on site and not to go into the towns right away.

Um I did want testing results for the stormwater system and to know exactly where it falls in the system with the details.

I would like the um site plan details for the subsurface infiltration system if it's called tech chambers.

And then I'd like them to add curbing on the existing road to prevent their water from entering into Cranston streets.

I support a traffic study and then talking about um putting together a parking plan if that this is implemented.

Thank you.

Are there any other members of the public like to be heard?

Okay.

Um sorry, Faith Thaybowski, 42 Sunset Terrace.

Um I just wanted to speak on a couple of things that I heard this evening.

Um I have no issue with the youth center itself, but I have a lot of concerns about parking.

Um there's regularly cars parked on both sides of the street on Sunset Terrace, which makes it really, really difficult to back out of our driveways.

With the neighborhood, I I don't necessarily feel that that's been the case.

Um pretty regularly.

I'm never sure if our street is going to be closed for some sort of outdoor festival or if a horse-drawn carriage is going to block me from getting into or out of my driveway at certain times of the year.

And so I would just like some consideration given to the parking before this moves forward.

Thanks.

Any other further public comment on the youth center variants?

Mr.

Lemer, is there anyone online that'd like to make public comment on the youth center variants?

I see no public comment online.

Thank you.

All right.

Mr.

Murray, do you have any response to the uh public comment?

Are there any questions for the commitment from my fellow colleagues to Mr.

Murray, the applicant?

I just have a couple of quick things.

Mr.

Carrero.

Uh Mr.

Murray, they have developed the size for this building, but what did they use to develop that need?

If there was any way to shorten this distance to minimize or eliminate the request for those variances, many of the conversations we're having would seem to be not applicable.

Um I apologize.

Um the architect is not here this evening uh with respect to the setback.

I think there was a uh from an aesthetic point of view, they wanted to match the uh the property line there.

Um the area that this building is going in is is not we're not giving up any parking.

We are um and they designed the youth center based on the needs of the church.

And um obviously we added um to the uh coverage on the lot.

Uh we're slightly over now.

And uh that was a decision that was made before my involvement.

Um the architect working with the pastors of the church determined that this was the appropriate site building for their needs.

Just through the attorney, if they were to eliminate the need for those variances, would they need to be here or go to zoning and just be able to obtain a building permit without any permissions?

Well, the answer to that is no, but the setback variant seems relatively easy to fix the the uh lot coverage would shrink that building to basically not I mean to basically nothing.

Um the answer to that is if they didn't need any relief, they wouldn't need to be here.

But the looking at the plan, it looks like uh there's you know the building would be five square feet if uh um if they wanted to meet the lot coverage um requirements.

Okay.

Any other further questions for Mr.

Murray?

Thank you.

Okay, Mr.

Bright, could you put the recommendation up on the screen?

Any further discussion for my colleagues on this uh variance request.

Um I'll just make a comment before we vote.

Um generally I always appreciate public comment and I take it into account whenever I make a decision.

And here I just want to address a couple of things I heard.

Stormwater.

Um it's my understanding under the law.

We can only require that there's not new net runoff.

And we have heard evidence that they are presented, they're getting a permit from DEM and that their plan will actually result in less net runoff.

So I don't feel comfortable at this point going beyond what I feel I can do legally.

You can address this to the zoning board next tomorrow if you feel that I am errone legally erroneous here on this, but I don't believe we can go beyond that type of requirement on the traffic study.

I have been informed that this is basically taking the youth center, the activities that occur in the church and putting it in a youth center.

I don't see a material change in the traffic that exists there now if all they're doing is taking the activities in the church and putting it in the youth center.

So I'm not sure a traffic study would be warranted under those circumstances.

Third is the issue of parking.

I sympathize with the residents about the parking issue.

I live on a street and down my street is Immaculate Conception Church.

Um I know when to drive by there and when not to drive by there for purposes of traffic.

Um I, of course, on a road that was built in the 1960s, not in the 1930s or 40s.

So there is a material difference.

But I find them in general, I have no problem with having a church in my neighborhood.

And what I understand is that they meet the parking requirements now.

If there are issues with the parking, this is something that could probably be addressed.

You could bring it up to the part to the zoning board who has the power to impose conditions.

We provide recommendations, positive, negative, or no recommendation.

We don't have the power to impose conditions.

Potentially we could recommend a condition.

Um, but based on the evidence I have here, I don't feel comfortable making a recommendation with a condition.

Um, because of the topics that I felt was addressed by the public, and then um I think they have been addressed to my satisfaction on legally.

So, but if you want to go beyond, you'll be able to go to the zoning board.

This is only about the youth center.

Any of my colleagues have anything further they want to say at this time, Commissioner Lampier.

I I just want to um attorney Marcella's um comments uh made me a bit curious.

In order to come down to the 30 percent and not need variance, um how much of that 3800 square feet would need to be removed?

All of it, all of it, because they're already at 30 percent, but that that building lot coverage is partly there to dress stormwater, so they're proposing engineering solutions to compensate for the design.

Yes, I understand that.

I just wanted to know that they are in the presentation already, they're the for building lot coverage, just looking at that one lot, they're already slightly non-conforming.

So they've got zero building, new building.

Any other comments or questions?

I know we got a lot of people here.

Um, the the 30% lot, this is an A6 zone.

Obviously, churches are allowed everywhere, but the 30% lot coverage is really geared toward residential um structures, and that's where they get the 30% from because residential structures wouldn't have that type of drainage.

So just although churches are allowed in residential zones.

Okay, so in commercial sectors, obviously the law coverage is larger, right?

It it can be setbacks of smaller lot coverage is greater, yes, sir.

Okay.

Any other further questions or comments from my colleagues?

Okay, if not, a motion would be in order.

I'll make a motion to accept the positive recommendation of the planning uh staff to go to the zoning board.

Motion positive recommendation made motion for it by corrector Carrera.

Was there a second second by Commissioner Exter?

Is there any further discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed say nay.

Ayes have it.

Okay.

Next, we'll move to the praised tabernacle.

LED message sign.

Is the applicant here and wishes to be heard on this matter?

Um, Mr.

President, uh, as I indicated, uh, I'm not involved in this application.

Just as a courtesy of the commission in the church.

Um there's attorney, attorney Flarity, who I don't believe is here this evening.

Um that be here.

So he will be there tomorrow night.

Uh Pastor Mass Matt Crott will uh can address the issue, and I believe the staff has a handle on the application.

So, Mr.

Murray, is the applicant wishes to be heard, therefore, on this LED request.

Again, thank you for hearing me uh on this matter.

Um just state your name and address.

David Mockwad, pastor, uh place tabernacle, one of the pastors.

Uh the purpose of the sign is in many cases we have it's it's interesting how many people have come into our church, not knowing that it's a church.

We've had people come in and say, what is this place?

Uh and we like to obviously we we want to.

I know it was referred to that we're not good neighbors, that's not ever been our intent.

Um, but this sign is we could use it in a many different ways to, in essence, let people know who we are and what we do and what is going on at the church at different times.

We have if you look at the setback, it's clearly set back.

Uh it was not, it would not in any way, shape, or form.

If you're sitting there at that corner, it will not block your view.

We have again properly set it back, so there's not going to be an issue there.

Uh obviously it'll be seen by people coming down the road.

If you look at the number of eyeballs that come down Park Avenue, there's a tremendous number of people that trans travel that road on a regular basis.

So our goal is in essence to showcase who we are, what we do, and to let those that are going by have the opportunity to know know those things and possibly come and visit the church.

Okay, is there any questions for the pastor?

I'll just ask a quick question, Pastor.

Is there any LED lights in your immediate area right now?

Define immediate.

Uh within 200, 400 feet.

I would not, I don't believe so.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Um, as the applicant staff.

All right, so the proposal is to construct a freestanding sign, um, double-sided LED messages within the corner setback.

All right, and so the uh relief that is requested in this application is um firstly corner visibility.

Um the sign ordinance requires that um signs be 30 feet from the point of an intersection, and this one is 14 or the proposal is 14 feet, um, which would require 16 feet of relief, and also signs are not specifically allowed in our um sign ordinance uh in any zone.

So the actual variance is just to allow a LED sign.

So staff revealed uh reviewed the application in consideration with the compatibility of the general character of the surrounding neighborhood and found that it is out of character beyond uses on the site and the surrounding area.

Um digital LED signage can be visibly visually overwhelming and may create a sense of clutter or sensory sensory overload for passerby drivers.

This can distract from the overall visual aesthetic of an area, even if it is an industrial zone located near the highway.

It's in planning staff's view that LED signage distracts from the overall visual aesthetic of Cranston.

Um the following policies and action items uh pertaining to commercial redevelopment, support the denial of this application, including gold TC1 and policy TC 16.

With that, I would like to forward a negative recommendation on this application to the zoning board of review.

Thank you, Mr.

Ray.

Are there any questions for the staff on their negative recommendation?

Yes, Commissioner Lampier.

Um Mr.

Ray, you you noted that it was seeking relief um for an additional 16 feet.

My question is um if that were allowed, would you consider that a traffic safety issue?

Um I think yeah, that would be a consideration.

And would you be willing to add that to your one of the reasons for your recommendation, your negative recommendation?

Um, Ms.

If you can certainly put it in the motion in your motion rather than having him add it to his report.

Okay.

Any other questions for Mr.

Ray?

Okay, seeing none.

We will now take public comment on the LED sign.

Please come up, state your name and address.

Hi, Marsha Leighton 38 Sunset Terrace.

Um, I am the rest of my neighbors would request that you deny permission to put up the LED light for many reasons.

Um, first of all, um, I don't know if the dimensions were spoken about the sign is going to be 12 feet high.

The sign is going to be 12 feet high.

12 by 4.

And it's going to be right over here, which will be totally visible and out of context with the neighborhood that it's in.

Now not only will this be visually jarring and really ugly in my estimation.

But it will be a distraction.

It's going to be a distraction for motorists.

We have right at that particular intersection across walk, a crosswalk utilized by the elderly in the apartments at 315 par.

They cross that street and rely on the flashing yellow light to stop and flash red, a steady red light.

So many drivers on Park Avenue are used to the flashing yellow light that they don't pay attention.

I have, I have personally seen many people almost getting clipped coming through there.

It is a terrible, terrible area.

It needs a full working light.

And uh the flashing light, as I said, people get used to it.

Now there is another point here that I want to make, and right now I'm nervous, so I'm not thinking straight.

But um just one second.

Uh okay, I I think I've I probably made it.

I'm sorry.

But my concern is for the pedestrians that will be using the crosswalk, and not only the elderly, but the people of the neighborhood.

So I would ask you, this is another distraction.

People are going to be stopping to look to see what is praised tabernacle advertising this week.

So instead of looking at the crosswalk and seeing what this sign, the flashing yellow or the steady red sign is saying, they're going to be reading this LED, which will be on day and night.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Further public comment.

Hi, Faith Thaybowski, 42 Sunset Terrace.

Um, I submitted a letter that I was going to read, but my daughter ate it.

So I'll just briefly summarize.

Um, like my neighbor Marcia, um, very concerned about the crosswalk in the fact that folks are already not looking at that traffic light, but I am most concerned about cars that park along Park Ave between Mill Street and Sunset Terrace.

Um, when cars are parked in the breakdown lane there, it's nearly impossible to see to make a left from Sunset Terrace onto Park Ave.

Um, I'm not sure how they can say that.

Um, the sign wouldn't further impede visibility.

And as I think about my daughter walking to the park or to school and knowing that people already blow through that traffic light and that crosswalk, um, I'm very concerned about people not being able to see her because of the sign and the um large number of cars parked there in the breakdown lane.

Thanks.

Anyone else would like to make public comment on this matter.

Bridget Graziano, 191 Wentworth Avenue.

Um, thank you for giving me an opportunity to offer my opinion.

I am recommending um that the Planning Commission um issue a recommendation, a negative recommendation.

Um I'm here tonight to discuss the potential impact of the LED signage in the Edgewood neighborhood of Cranson, particularly how it will affect the character of this unique area and raises concerns about safety at such a busy intersection.

Edgewood is not a commercial strip or a high intensity quarter.

It's a mixed residential neighborhood defined by tree-lined streets, historic homes, and small locally owned businesses that serve our community.

The character of Edgewood is quiet, walkable, and cohesive.

Its identity depends on balance where modest commercial activity exists alongside residential life without overwhelming it.

Introducing LED signance, especially digital or illuminated signs with changing displays risks disruption of that balance.

Unlike traditional signage, LED signs are inherently tension, attention grabbing.

They introduce brightness, motion, frequent visual changes into an environment that has been historically static and subdued.

This shift may seem minor in isolation, but over time can fundamentally alter how the neighborhood feels, particularly at night.

I have personally seen the effects of the LED signage located outside of Shriners for Roads in the Patuxa, which was illegally installed and will likely come before you.

I welcome staff and board members to visit that site before making any recommendations positive recommendations.

The effects on the community's character and the ease to see day or night, but the effects at night are vast.

Homes have impacts for light encroachment, and the darkness of this overall area makes the signage so much brighter.

The lack of background lights increases the impacts in the evening, night hours, increases light pollution, visual clutter, and distraction that can erode the sense of calm and the residence value that they expect.

Has the commission or any of the boards requested a photometric plan?

Have there been any measurements in foot candles or lumens cast out into this residential area?

The sign isn't comparable to the sign in in the village as my one of my counterparts mentioned.

It's 12 feet tall.

So I'm 5'3.

So think of like two and a half more of me.

It's extremely large and does not meet the character of this area.

I would also like to note that Rogelim's Park is an adjacent area and they have reasonable signage, and they're a zoo and a park that have events all the time, and they have not come before anybody in this city to request that type of signage.

Additionally, people go into that park area.

I don't know how often you all drive through, but they go in there to relax, see the wildlife, have a picnic, have you know, walk their dog or their cat or whoever they decide to bring with them.

This is also, you know, there's a question of precedent.

Allowing LED signage in this one location can make it more difficult to deny similar requests in the future.

Gradually, this could lead to a quarter that feels more commercialized, less residential, changing Edgewood's identity in a way that may not align with long-term planning goals.

I've actually requested this information from the city assessor.

And just to let you know, because this is the way I did it, ward one, so I just did 02905, has 28 exempt parcels.

That's nine churches with 28 parcels.

All of those could come before you and request an LED sign.

And to go even further, I requested it for the entire city.

In the entire city, there's 900 exempt parcels that are related to religious exemptions who also could come before you and ask for this very signage in all different types of neighborhood.

If this waiver is granted in a quiet historical neighborhood, what would be the reason for not granting other similar waiver requests?

Um, is this the type of neighborhood we want to be designing?

I personally have trouble when businesses have flashing decorative windows with lighting.

Specifically, just even Park Avenue intersection distracts me every single time I drive down it.

And that's just the businesses that have like the little flashing lights.

Um, equally important is the is the issue of traffic safety.

Near the area of Park Avenue, adjacent to Praised Tabernacle Church, already exists challenges, specifically at the intersections of Community Drive, Sunset Terrace, and Mill Street, where they intersect with Park Avenue.

There's a documented pattern of accidents.

In 2023, there were five accidents.

In 2024, it increased to seven accidents.

In 2026, there were 11 accidents.

And these numbers are actual data pulled from our city.

Has the traffic engineer been asked to weigh in on this?

Is there any type of study being completed?

This upward trend is absolutely concerning.

It shows that this is not a static issue, but one that be already be worsening.

These intersections require driver attention, quick decision making, and awareness of sound surrounding traffic, pedestrians, and turning and turning movements.

Introducing LED signage into the area raises legitimate concerns.

Digital signs are designed to draw the eye, and studies have shown that driver distraction, even momentarily can increase the likelihood of accidents at a location with an existing increasing pattern of collisions, adding another potential of distraction that could exacerbate an already sensitive situation.

This is especially concerning in a neighborhood setting where there's pedestrians, cyclists, and family mixed in with daily traffic.

The margin of error is smaller, and the consequences of distraction can be more severe.

This area is also home to Parkview Middle School where buses drop off at Dells even from private Providence public private public schools, sorry, Providence private schools where kids are walking from 1.30 to 3.30 or longer.

I am sure there are many more, and I'm just touching upon that one bus stop in Park View.

Um additionally, we have school games specifically.

There was one tonight that I was at right before I came here, where there's kids, parents, and families with increasing traffic, pedestrian activity, which gives me pause for adding an LED sign that creates distracted drivers.

To be clear, this is an argument.

This is not an argument against all signage or any local or religious institutions and businesses communicating with the public.

It's about stay scale, context, and appropriateness.

Traditional, non-illuminated or softly lit signage can meet communication needs while preserving the neighborhood character and minimizing safety risk.

Additionally, in 2026, the mo the social media platform is huge, and it's hard to make an argument that this type of signage is required or needed.

Well, I commend Praise Tabernacle for being part of our community and making it better for children, family, and other parts of the community.

I would ask them to maintain a good neighbor status.

As in the signage is not what the community wants to see.

Changing their small neighborhood.

If there are no impacts from these signs, these would not be prohibited at all in zoning districts.

Decisions like this may be incremental, but they shape the long-term trajectory of our communities and will change our community and not for the better.

Please consider issuing a negative recommendation and maintaining the character of our Edgewood section of Cranston.

Thank you.

Okay.

Next any further public comment.

Okay.

Is there anyone online that would like to make a public comment on the LED sign?

Housing works all right.

Please proceed.

Housing works.

All right.

Hi, it's Annette Bourne from Rhode Island from 51 Community Drive.

I'm sorry, when I join Zoom, it joins through my work.

Anyway, Annette Bourne, 51 Community Drive.

Um, I greatly appreciate both my neighbors and council member Graciano's remarks.

Um the strip of Park Av uh that is being discussed right now is really um challenging.

Uh our neighborhoods are really constricted by the back end being Patuxet River and our front end, our only exit out of our neighborhood is Park Ave.

It already makes the left turns, particularly coming out of our neighborhood, going toward Praised Tabernacle very challenging.

I hope that you have all received the technical report that was written by Jonathan Stevens.

Um he mentions the light pollution that I fear would be uh very detrimental both to the park and particularly to the older residents of 315 Park Gav.

Thank you for mentioning the crosswalk.

I hadn't even thought about that.

That's in itself a danger.

And then in terms of children in that area, Ocean State Kids Club is also just down the street.

Um, this whole discussion regarding the sign has made me really think that I would like to actually ask the tabernacle if they want to be a good neighborhood, a good neighbor, to please maybe consider or maybe the city should require a police detail there on Sundays during their services because their parking overflows not just their additional parking lot, but our streets in general and the on-street parking that is park Av.

I don't believe that's a breakdown lane that's allowed on street parking, which makes the left-hand turn even more impossible.

So I would really ask the uh plan commission to support the staff's recommendation for a negative recommendation going to zoning.

Thank you.

Mr.

Lemers, does anyone else like to make public comment online on the LED sign variance request?

I see no other public comment.

Thank you, Mr.

Lima.

Is the applicant at this point would like to respond to any of the public comment he has heard.

Okay.

All right.

Um, Mr.

Ray, you have the recommendation up.

Are there any other questions for the staff on this matter?

Okay.

We can now proceed to discussion before we go to a motion.

Any discussion.

I'll just uh state.

Um I usually don't have strong opinions on signs because I think I can ignore them.

I don't like buying things, and um that's how I ignore signs, but uh blinking signs at night, glow in the dark signs at night.

I know is annoying.

And I've voted, I've never voted for one that has not already, if there's an LED sign out already there in the neighborhood.

What generally has happened historically is that the commission votes against these, makes negative recommendations on LED signs, then the zoning board sometimes votes for them.

Okay, so your battle your battle will be tomorrow on that.

But my point on this is there is no LED signs in this area, and on top of it, it's a residential area.

This is an A6.

Um personally, glow in the dark, blinking signs don't belong in residential neighborhoods, period.

Um actually, I would even go so further is that in the staff recommendation report, we should be citing goal LU-6, which is to protect and stabilize existing residential neighborhoods because nothing can I don't think there's a lot of people that want to live in a neighborhood with a blinking glow in the dark um nighttime sign uh out their bedroom window.

Um so but I would I'll just see what my commissioner, my fellow commissioners want to say because I'd I'd add that point as well.

Commissioner Coop.

President, just very quickly, I'm gonna get on my soapbox because there were several city council members here, although I don't see them at the moment.

Uh the reason we talk about this, I think so often is because the city council has never passed an ordinance that addresses LED signs, and if they would do that and give us some guidance, it would I think make it a lot easier for the residents, for the businesses, for the planning commission, and hopefully the zoning board.

So please, city council, give us some guidelines on what you think about LED signs.

Okay.

Any other further discussion?

Okay.

Seeing none, or some type of motion be in order at this time.

Commissioner Lampier.

I would move that we accept the staff's negative recommendation with the following amendment.

After surrounding neighborhood, I would add it is not compatible with the general character of the surrounding neighborhood and does not would not protect and preserve the existing neighborhood.

Period.

Okay.

And one additional the application would negatively impact pedestrian and vehicular traffic safety.

Okay.

And then pick up staff, therefore recommends.

Uh understand the amendment.

Yes.

Okay.

All right.

Is there a second to Commissioner Lampier's rec um amendment?

I mean, recommendation motion, excuse me, motion as amended.

Commissioner Mancini seconds it.

Is there any further discussion on this?

Okay.

Vote time.

All those in favor of a negative recommendation, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed say nay.

Okay, it's unanimous eyes.

Have it.

I'll move to the next item on our ZBR agenda, which is the Dalio Marcado and Roosevelt Associates application and street fontaine av.

Okay, is the applicant here wishes to be heard on Dalio, Micardo, and Roosevelt Associates.

I do not see the applicant here.

Uh, will the staff make their presentation?

All right, so the applicant has applied to the board for permission to leave an existing two-family dwelling on an undersized lot, which is 3,200 square feet previously merged by zoning at 3 Fountain Avenue, and to construct a new single family dwelling on an undersized lot.

Previously merged by zoning.

So the relief requested is for setbacks and lot size.

And minimum lot size relief for both parcels.

And this was a table of statistics that were requested by the commission.

So we reviewed this application for compatibility with the general character of the surrounding neighborhood and found that it is out of character.

Shows that small lots are typical in this neighborhood.

The area was originally platted with six 1,600 square foot lots for the residential side streets, which enable the neighborhood to have a range of lot sizes on each street.

As seen in the historic zoning map below, single and two family residences on 3,002 square foot lots are in the vicinity.

So the proposed subdivided lots would not stand out as unique.

6,000 square foot minimum lot size zoning was adopted in 1966, causing many of the existing buildings to be non-conforming with zoning.

This mismatch between historic density and lot size and current zoning is sizable.

We found that following goals, policies, and action items outlined in the comprehensive plan pertaining to residential redevelopment support the approval of this application.

Goal H4 promote a housing opportunity for a wide range of household types and income levels.

Found that current zoning does not match historical development patterns in Laurel Hill, and non-compliance with zoning does not necessarily indicate that the project is not is not consistent with the comprehensive plan.

In addition, policy H4 and policy H9.

But we concluded that the proposal is not compatible with the general neighbor character of the neighborhood and does not and but it does support the goals and policies of comprehensive plan.

Thank you, Mr.

Ray.

Are there any questions from Mr.

Ray from the commissioners?

Mr.

Ray, just a couple of quick questions.

I will be supporting your recommendation by just one couple of facts.

What is the density that would be uh resulting if this was actually approved?

Um about 20 units breaker.

Yeah, I had a calculation about 20.42.

So about almost double.

Right, Mr.

Ray.

Uh yeah.

Okay.

All right.

Any other questions for Mr.

Ray?

Just one quick question.

Did do we require an MLC or or proof that taxes are paid or current with these applications?

Yeah, it's part of the checklist.

I only asked that because one of the applicants is Roosevelt Associates R I GP, which usually to me is usually a tax title holder.

Um, but they didn't maybe it's the assessor um didn't catch up with a redemption of a tax tax title, but they do have an MLC um in the file.

I believe so, yes.

Okay, all right, thanks.

Okay.

Any questions for Mr.

Ray?

Okay.

We'll go to public comment then.

Is there anyone here that wishes to be heard on the uh Fontaine Ave application?

See none.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Go.

I'm sorry.

Hi, uh, my name is Marie Monte, and I live at 25 Fountain Avenue, which is one house away from this piece of property.

Um I don't see how they could put a house on that small lot.

They are using that parcel right now for parking for the two-family house that's there now, and it's just going to make too much of um traggested area for us.

So I'm just representing some of my other neighbors, and we are against this.

Thank you.

Anyone else here?

Wants to be heard on this.

Good.

Mr.

Leemers there anyone online that wants to be heard on Fountain F.

There is no public comment online.

Okay.

Any final questions from Mr.

Ray before we proceed?

I see none.

Just make a comment that I will be voting to support the negative recommendation.

This is clearly too much density for this area, and we heard even public comment to the effect that that place is used for parking that will not be adequate parking.

So anything further?

Okay.

That'll be a time for motions.

Commissioner Lampier.

I move that we accept staff's negative recommendation.

Is there a second to Commissioner Lamper?

Seconded by Commissioner Barberi.

Any further discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Say it's unanimous I have it.

Negative recommendation.

Next is the uh Richie application for 66 Clements Street, I believe.

Is the applicant here and wishes to be heard?

Uh good evening, council members.

Uh attorney Dane Ardente for the record on behalf of the applicant.

Uh zero and sixty-six Hyman Street.

Uh, this is our request, uh, or excuse me, our request tomorrow for the zoning board, uh, which is before you tonight, uh, for permission and relief to uh leave a currently existing two-family dwelling on an undersized lot uh with reduced setbacks and to construct a single family dwelling on an undersized lot that will be administratively subdivided uh pursuant to the uh lot reader organs with reduced frontage uh previously merged by zoning.

Um this is a somewhat straightforward application.

I'm happy to entertain any questions, but essentially what we're looking for is to uh obtain uh relief from the minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet, uh the proposed uh size of 5268 square feet.

Uh for the minimum lot size, I believe for the second lot, it's eight thousand eight thousand required for two family, and we're proposing twenty-six twenty-four, and we're requesting relief uh uh variants from the merger provision provision.

Okay, there are any questions for the applicant.

Just so I understand the um there's right now a two-family building on this lot.

That's correct, yep.

Right, and so you want to add a house to the approximately what is this 10,000 square feet?

10,500 altogether.

Okay.

Uh right.

If there are any questions from any more, okay.

Mr.

Ray, could you make your rec uh presentation?

All right, so as previously stated, um the application is to leave an existing two-family dwelling on an undersized lot and to construct a new single family dwelling also on an undersized lot.

So this is in a B1 zone, which um has a 6,000 square foot minimum lot size for single family dwellings, and um the proposed or the lot where the um proposed single family will be uh is five thousand two hundred and sixty-eight square feet, and where the two family currently is um eight thousand well, eight thousand square feet is required for a two-family, and the lot is five thousand three hundred and seventy-six square feet, and they are currently merged, um, which requires a variance from the substandard lots of record and mer and lot mergers provision.

Some additional statistics.

So the app the applicant is requesting to build a new single family dwelling in a B1 zone thorn, and the neighborhood median lot size in the Ford and B1 zone is 5,000 square feet.

The subject lots, which are 5,268 square feet and 5,375 square feet, fit the general size of lots in this area.

Planning staff also conducted a lot size analysis of the surrounding area, and the median's uh lot size in the 200 foot radius is 5,570.5 square feet.

And this also means that they are not automatically exempt from the merger provision, but it shows that they are pretty compatible with the neighborhood and the way that the area was originally platted.

And as highlighted in this image, um the whole block is full except for that one lot.

Staff found that the following goals, policies, and action items outlined in the comprehensive plan, support the approval of this application.

Goal H2, policy H3, and policy H5.

And policy H6.

And with that, we'd like to forward a positive recommendation on the application to the zoning board of review.

Thank you, Mr.

Ray.

Are there any questions for Mr.

Wright?

Mr.

Ray, just so I again go through this.

I numbers matter to me when I do density calculations.

You had on the page is 1227, is what this would result in.

And the existing area is 10.18.

That's correct, right?

Uh all right.

And the FLUM is actually 10.89 for this area, right?

Okay, thank you.

Any questions from Mr.

Ray?

First, uh, is there any public comment on this application?

I see none in the room.

Mr.

Wright.

Any online?

I'm excuse, Mr.

Ray, Mr.

Lima.

There is no public comment online.

Okay, thank you.

Any final questions for the applicant?

All right.

I see none.

Okay.

All right.

Uh let's see, discussion.

Anyone have anything they want to say?

I'll just say I will not be supporting a positive recommendation here.

My colleagues would know this well about me.

Is that this exceeds not only the density of the FU F L UM, but exceeds the density of the existing neighborhood by one full unit?

Um, density has its problems, and I believe that it is contrary to the comprehensive plan, which basically says under LU 18, we are to maintain the existing density of the neighborhood, and this exceeds that and exceeds the FE1.

So I will not be supporting a positive recommendation here.

Okay.

All right.

Anything else from anybody else before we have motions?

Okay.

Go ahead.

Motion to accept the positive recommendation.

Motion to accept positive recommendation made by Director Carrero.

Is there a second director correro's recommendation?

Second by Commissioner Coop.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor of having a positive recommendation signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Okay.

All those in favor, all those opposed say nay.

Nay.

Okay.

So I believe I it's a four-three.

And I believe the three in the negative are Commissioner Exter, myself, Commissioner Lampier.

Those in the positive are Commissioner Barberi, Director Carrero, Commissioner Mancini, uh, Commissioner Coop.

Okay.

All right.

That's it for you.

Okay.

Next is Rose Marley, which is about a sign, but non-LED side.

529 Reservoir F.

Is the applicant here and wishes to be heard on this matter.

Uh, just very quickly, Mr.

President, thank you very much.

Uh the staff has recommended uh positive recommendation for your consideration.

Um this is um this is a former heritage liquor store of 529 Retro Avenue.

Uh new owner has changed the name of it to the Rhode Island Wine and Spirits, and um is seeking permission to install two wall signs uh on the east and south elevation.

Those each of those signs, including the anchors, comprise about 106 square feet.

Um in the C4 commercial zone, you're only allowed a total of 30 square feet, which discussed many times is probably not realistic, but um, so we're seeking relief from the zoning board to install those two signs on the recently redone entire facade of the building.

Uh, I just want to note um on page four of the staff report that it invertly says the applicant proposes two freestanding signs in the paragraph.

You may want to just correct that for the if it's it's two wall signs.

You're happy to answer any questions.

Any questions from Mr.

Murray?

Director Career.

Just I just want to say a couple of things.

I I know they're requesting only the building signs, but this is one of the most egregious LED signs that we have in the city of Cranston right now that's out there because they run movies.

They're supposed to have static signs, changing no greater than 30 within every 30 seconds, the one they have out there.

So based on what they currently have on that site, I cannot have a positive recommendation for this.

Okay.

Commissioner Barbera.

I I just want to add that I was on the zoning board when we talked about that sign, and that sign was never supposed to have any kind of running shows or movies at that time.

We're not supposed to do that, and they ignored that.

And so I'm hesitant in voting to anything approval right now based on what they've already done uh to the city and ignored what they did back in zoning while there was movies in the LED sign.

Where's this solicitor?

I think we need the solicitor.

I I know you're going to have something to say.

I I I want to want I want to, I'm just gonna say I'd like to have the solicitor here.

That's fine.

So we could, you know, say if he should have heard that, and then you can respond that we have this whole conversation.

Do you see what I'm saying, Ms.

Yeah, sure.

Yeah.

Is it Mr.

Murray?

Is it the same owner?

You said it's under new ownership.

This is the this we are now two owners away from the application of Mr.

Barberi the first.

Is the message board still operating as described by my fellow commissioners?

It is.

It's and it's referenced in the staff report.

Um there any other commissioner Mancini?

And as I always say, I have a 17-year-old boy that's driving, and I don't want him distracted by these LED signs that are constantly changing in the city of Cranston or the surrounding area.

I'd be happy to comment if you want me to wait for this.

Yeah, um, is there any other questions or comments for Mr.

Murray?

Well okay.

Uh go ahead, Mr.

Murray.

No, I I just want to say I hear you.

Um that's an enforcement issue.

Uh, and I would invite the planning commission to direct the planning staff to speak to the zoning official about that.

Um what's that sign is that before you this evening, you're only asked to make a recommendation on the wall sign.

It should be based on the merits of the application.

Is the wall sign that's a uh that's proposed here proportional and acceptable for the various frontage that they're seeking.

If you want to punish the applicant, you know, do it through the enforcement vehicle.

I don't think it should be, you know, if if Mr.

Correro has strong films, but he does want to support the recommendation, that's fine.

But it should it should be based on the merits of the application before you here, not a sidecar issue, which you know I'd be happy to speak to the applicant about tomorrow.

Uh, but it's really an enforcement issue.

Commissioner Lamfair.

I would um as he walks back into the room, defer to our solicitor.

But let me say that I think generally when an applicant comes before us, if they have outstanding violations, which this has not been adjudicated to be one as yet, um, or comes with what I would call in the legal term unclean hands.

Um that we may tell them no, come back when you have writed that situation.

Um we talking about the blinking sign at this location.

Yes, yeah.

Um first question, I guess for Bob and I can certainly um do the research at the zoning board was if there was any conditions of approval on that sign when it was approved.

That I I don't know.

Um however, if the applicant is here requesting um relief on the property, certainly cance it is signage, you certainly can add additional conditions for all signage on the property if you wish, or recommendation.

So it would be a we could in your opinion make a recommendation, and as part of the recommendation, whether it be positive or negative, whatever it is, but uh condition of something on the LED, the existing signs there.

Absolutely, because it's it's it it involves signage on the property.

Um they're asking for additional signage relief, which relates to that first signage, but um it would be an enforcement issue if they already have conditions on that like we have on all the other signs that was, but if they don't have conditions, certainly the zoning board um can't add those, which I'll have to again, I'll have to check tomorrow.

Director Ashman.

The original sign permit does have conditions that there should be no motion, they are in violation and have it consistently been in violation.

I was a little confused by this application being just for the wall sign, and on the wall sign itself, I just want to comment that because the 30 square foot sign faces two different directions, you never see all 60 feet at the same time.

So visually what they're asking for in this variance request, I think is reasonable, but this request came to us without any mention of the electronic sign that's that's also on the property.

My question to you is if it's a new owner, why is that do they not have to apply for a variance?

No, no, the the variance runs with the property.

So the new owner would not have to.

It is in my opinion, the worst sign in the city of Cranston, but by far.

I don't even notice it.

I I know because you don't buy anything, Steve.

So you could condition it, condition this approval on removing the violating sign?

Well, it's there's no we we'd have to go to superior.

We it would be an enforcement issue if if there's a condition.

So this they are two separate issues.

However, if there's already condition on that first sign, then I'll um certainly at the recommendation of this board.

Um, I can have the building official do sign.

It is truly the worst sign.

But if you just focus on the the sign shown here on the the corner of the building where they're showing it on the street facing corner and the north facing corner, uh that is what's the subject of the recommendation right now.

Correct.

Commissioner Lampier.

Um to the solicitor through the chair.

Can we um if we were to recommend approval, could we suggest a condition that says no sign, new sign may be erected until such time that the existing LED sign conforms with the conditions of I would say no.

No, because there's been no you know, there's no outstanding violation right now.

Okay.

Any other questions for Mr.

Murray?

Okay.

Can I just say oh sure, Mr.

Murray?

Yeah, just so the right, I mean just a change anything.

I mean I I didn't have to submit this application.

I was brought on afterward.

So I just but you're here now, Bob.

And uh since it can be easily discoverable, yes, I represented the applicant for the LED sign.

So I I don't want anyone to leave here tonight thinking that I wasn't involved, I was involved.

Um I'm at the other end of Reservoir Avenue and I don't travel that portion very often, so I'm not aware of what this mancene sites, but I will I can assure you before 6:30 tomorrow night, I will have a discussion with the applicant.

Okay, that'll be for zoning board.

Um Mr.

Ray, could you provide your uh staff recommendation analysis and recommendation?

All right, so a lot of things have been covered already.

So I just want to reiterate that um in this memo and this recommendation, I only considered um these wall signs.

Um I did not consider the existing freestanding sign.

So the variance is for total sign area, which does factor in the existing sign and for maximum area of wall signs.

So we review this on consideration of compatibility and found that it does not impose undue nuisances and it's not of character.

And we also found that signs should be appropriate for the scale of the site and the building that they are advertising.

The building is very large, um, uh which requires larger signage, um, especially considering what um director Ashman said um about the different directions.

And the proposed signs are similar in size to the existing signage.

In addition, the total sign area relief is minimal, and the applicant only exceeds the requirement by 25 square feet.

The following goals and policies outline the comprehensive plan, support the approval of this application.

Goal ED2, policy ED 15, and policy ED 24.

And I would like to forward a positive recommendation to zoning board of review.

Thank you, Mr.

Ray.

Is there any questions for Mr.

Ray?

Okay, seeing none.

Public comment.

Is there anyone here like make public comment on the sign application?

We will have a discussion.

If you want if you want to come make public comment, just come pink public comment and state your name and address.

Uh Katie King, 1389 Hope Road, Hope Road Island.

I just don't understand why there's been no enforcement when it's been clear that it's been going on for some time.

So rather than have him come in with a brand new request, when we know that this is already an issue and they they have not been, you know.

I just it doesn't hear it.

You have to you have to if you want to speak of that's it.

Okay.

All right.

Is there anyone else who'd like to make public comment in the room?

Okay, Mr.

Lemer, is there anyone online that would like make public comment on this application?

There is no public comment online.

All right.

Um, Mr.

Murray, you have anything else you'd like to add?

Okay.

Okay.

This is now um any last questions for Mr.

Ray.

Um, I just have a question for Mr.

Solitor.

Um at one point, Solicitor Marcel, you said we could put a condition on the recommendation, but then when Commissioner Lamphier asked about a particular recommend condition, you said that was not possible.

Yeah, so the the conditions I was talking about was if there were no conditions on the original approval, could you condition could you add a condition regarding change rate of the normal things that we do?

Her request was to make it a condition to stop changing the sign at as a you have to stop changing the sign unless I misunderstood.

And and you don't get to put up your new sign until you stop running the movie theater on your old sign.

Yeah, go ahead.

I maybe I misunderstood the question.

No, that was that was close, and maybe I misstated it.

But my condition was that they not be allowed to construct the new sign until such time as the conditions of their LED sign approval were complied with.

Whatever those conditions were the problem with that is for a day for an hour.

Uh in other words, they uh if if you want to well, the the once the sign went up, there would be no enforcement, there would be no way to take the sign down after that.

So I I I would you you can do whatever you want.

I don't think the zoning board would do something like that, but you certainly could re certainly could ask them to do that, but I would recommend against it because again, the length of compliance you you're not specifying the length of compliance.

So are you saying that the building official has to go there and look at the sign?

It's in compliance for five minutes, then he can issue the building permit, and then tomorrow when they get the CO, they can go back.

In other words, that that's the that's the practical aspect of that.

That's the reality of the situation.

Um, I I think that um I I share the frustration about when any authorized body issues an approval with conditions, and the um applicant does not comply with those conditions, and I agree we can't have someone riding by every single day and checking every single day.

There's always the hope that someone who gets an approval is going to make their best effort to comply with the conditions of that approval, but none of us can wave the wand and make that happen, unfortunately.

Right.

Um go ahead, Mr.

Commissioner.

I I don't feel comfortable recommending approval hearing that the last sign that was approved is not being operated properly, but we're not an enforcement body.

We're we're decision-making body.

We don't have the enforcement authority.

Um the zoning board is a lot closer to the enforcement.

The zoning official controls the enforcement arm.

So I I share the reluctance to grant a positive recommendation, but I also understand the reality that we should vote on this on the merits and not assume a violation that we're not responsible for enforcing or proving.

I mean, municipal court is the place to go for the violation.

Any other comments?

If there's a way to simplify this, I I think it's now been brought to light.

Any conditions we have to worry about, I don't think is something we need, and I think I kind of echo what the Vice President Coop said.

We we need to evaluate this on the merit of what it is.

We've had enough discussion relative to what's not supposed to be there, and then I think we can take the appropriate action to see that we have it corrected without having to put any conditions on this and move forward with this application as presented.

Okay.

Any other comments before we uh make motions?

Commissioner Lampier.

I I would just say that on a legal basis, I would agree that I don't have a legal basis to say no.

Um I don't feel comfortable about that.

Okay.

All right.

I think we've talked about this enough.

Now it's time for motions.

Motions are in order, positive or negative.

I'll make a motion that we accept the positive recommendation, and I will take and trust the word that Mr.

Murray said that he will have a discussion with the current property owner going forward.

Okay.

I understand that's not part of your motion.

Is there a second to Director Correro's motion?

Seconded by Commissioner Exter.

Any further discussion.

Okay.

All those in favor of a positive recommendation indicate by saying aye.

All those opposed say nay.

Nay.

All right.

So let's um I have to hear.

Who are the nays?

It was you and me.

Everybody else was paying.

Yay.

Okay.

So it was a five-two.

Nay for Barberi, nay for Bryas, yay for everyone else.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh right.

I think that dealt with ZBR now.

And now we can go to Lake Street Villa.

President, I guess I have to recuse myself once again on this matter.

Thank you, Commissioner Mancini.

Please enter the audience.

To uh set the um set the table.

This was heard approximately two months ago.

Um a motion to approve deadlocked on a 3-3.

The commission then voted unanimously to require the applicant to provide further information.

Um I think it was basically a member commissioner Lamford can remind me of something of uh the engineering plans and also some sort of storm water management.

Uh Commission uh solicitor Marcel, I assume Commissioner Coop has reviewed the video.

I was uh he did relay that, but if you could put that on the record, um yes, I did watch the video of that.

Okay.

So at this point, uh we will ask the applicant to come forward and just basically state, you know, make his presentation if he has anything to talk about the new things uh that he put forward, and then we will take public comment.

I will ask that the public keep their not to repeat themselves from last time and just bring up new points or address the new thing, the new materials that the applicant came to us because we've all heard that what you said before.

Okay, please state your name and address, sir.

Uh City Davies to uh 289 North Main Street, progress for down zero to nine zero three.

Okay.

Do you have anything you'd like to present or just want to be here to be available for questions?

Just want to be here.

I just listen to what bias is.

Okay.

Um I'll try to keep this.

My questions are going to be as simple as possible.

You can just say you agree, you disagree, you don't know.

What I saw of your plans is that it's going to be a family and ADU in this new building.

Correct.

Okay.

Before it was just the family, now it's a family and ADU, right?

Yes.

Okay.

It's a basically a three-story building.

No, so uh symptom, just ADU, symphony on top.

Okay.

I think there's like five bedrooms in the building.

Is that microphones?

If you have the plans, you should just put them up.

Um I can pull up the building plans here.

Okay.

Actually, what I probably could do is to make this easier.

I may just have asked questions of the staff.

And then, you know, if you think you hear something, I I the staff says that you don't agree, would you can come up and say something?

Is that a little bit better?

That looks perfect.

Okay, thank you very much.

Is there any questions for the applicant before we get to the staff recommendation?

Just not public comment yet.

You I promise you, you will have public comment.

Okay.

All right.

All right.

Uh staff, could you make your uh I'll just ask a couple of questions here.

It looks like it's five bedrooms, is that right?

That is correct.

And the driveway looks like it fits about two cars.

It's like 14.

What is it?

Like, I think I looked at the driveway, the plans for the driveway, and it would fit two cars.

Which would be sufficient for the proposed use.

Right.

No, I just wanted to like clarify.

Correct.

And on the storm plan, storm management plan, it's a proposed 1200 foot drainage.

Like it the drainage takes care of 1200 feet.

That's what I recall from the plan.

Like just go up there a little bit.

Like it says impervious the impervious surface is a total of 1450.

Right.

Right.

And then it has like the the six, the two eight by twelve.

Um, what do they call those things?

Swells.

Swills.

I thought they handled a total I get there.

It is 1200 square foot tree, right?

That's what it says.

That's what it says.

That's your understanding as well.

Okay.

Okay.

So what I see there is the impervious exceeds the that.

Okay.

Um, since the applicants already mean his presentation, you can start with yours when you're ready.

President, if I may, yep.

Um it does mention here specifically that the vegetated swale um is going to take care of the 1200, like you said.

And then just to mention, there also is an additional mechanism being used around the border of the property line.

I'm on the border.

Okay.

Yes.

All right.

So when you're ready, Miss Valcourt, you can make your presentation.

Okay.

Okay, we are looking at 33 to 35 Lake Street, where their proposal is to reconfigure the three existing lots, which total 9600 square feet into two 4800 square foot lots to in order to um keep the two family and propose an additional single family dwelling.

Here are the three lots, an aerial view, zoning, and future land use map.

I have included the 200 foot um property abutter map as well as the 400 foot.

I can zoom into this if needed as we move forward, but this is the existing conditions and the proposed, and then I included um the sliding scale um chart, which helps us staff analyze in terms of um substandard lots of record.

And what is noted here specifically is that the only relief necessary on this application is regarding lot area.

If the variance is approved to allow two 4800 square foot lots, all of the corresponding setbacks will be conformed conforming under this provision.

In terms of the consistency with the comprehensive plan, the proposal mirrors the existing uses, density, and character of the development in the spectacle neighborhood and is therefore consistent with the comp 2024 comprehensive plan, specifically mentioning goals land use six and policy land use 18.

It is generally consistent with the future land use map designation as the proposed subdivision is 2.75 units per acre above the limit set by the future land use map.

However, the proposal does not push the 200, 400 nor the neighborhood density over the future land use density.

Consistency with the surrounding area.

Again, the development pattern in spectacle neighborhood and this proposal are both inconsistent with the zone's minimum lot size, which does mean that this proposal is consistent with the surrounding uses and density.

The median lot size of this neighborhood is 4500 square feet, and the proposal is larger than that, being 4800 square feet within the 200 foot radius.

25% of these lots.

And that corresponds to the numbers that are on this slide here.

We can definitely circle back to this if we want because this is new information that was not in the staff memo.

As we know, the conditions of the continuance in February were that the applicant submit a stormwater management plan, which shall manage the stormwater generated from additional impervious surfaces on the subject property, which is parcel B.

And additionally, that the applicant shall submit documentation to satisfy checklist items D1 and D20, which I wrote out below.

Just um highlighting the motion of the continuance with these um conditions in February, and then I kind of circled and highlighted where these um conditions were met within the submitted submission materials.

So checklist item D1 is satisfied through the uh pervious and impervious calculations here, as well as um noteing the use that is proposed.

Um, the shed that is proposed to be removed is also on the plan.

So I know we were kind of trying to make sure all of the conditions were on the proposed conditions plan, and they are, and they are also stamped by the engineer, um, which I circled in this slide here.

Then I am noting the stormwater management plan, which was submitted, and staff therefore recommends a positive approval for for this application in that parcel A with the existing two-family house be granted zoning relief to have a lot size of 4800 and parcel B zoning relief to have a single family structure on a lot 4800 square feet.

Thank you, uh Ms.

Velcorp.

I apologize.

Recommend recommended conditions of approval on the next slide.

Okay.

Okay.

Are there um any questions for Ms.

Valcorp?

Okay.

Thank you for the slide with the documentation uh about the lot size and the rest of it.

Um see any questions for my colleagues from Ms.

Valcourt.

If not, we will go to public comment.

All right.

Now's the time for public comment.

Uh on the Lake Street proposal.

Good evening.

My name is Michelle Comar.

I'm not a notice abutter.

I live in Warwick, 80 Audubon Road.

My husband and I have been friends of two of notice debutters, Ralph Bosey and Paula Bosey.

We've been friends for years.

Um, Ralph just got out of the hospital this afternoon, and he asked his wife or I to read his comments in the record.

I drew the short straw.

So I'll be fast.

I'm not going to enter any opinions myself.

I'll answer any questions about previous submissions and what I see on the plan, but I'm just going to read his comments to make him happy.

He does have two, he submitted comments back in January, I believe.

I hope everyone had received a copy.

And there's two things he wanted to bring out of concern.

One is that flume density exceeds what is allowable.

It is with the two lots, it becomes 13.64 units per acre, where in the flume it is 10.89 units per acre.

So this is not consistent with the comprehensive plan.

The other issue he wants to remind you of his lot is directly next door at lot 1477, I believe.

And his lot is at a higher elevation, and he is concerned about any cuts, excavation on this property that might undermine loosen these huge trees that are along the property line and on his property.

And the question really wasn't answered about if retaining wall was necessary and the builder was going to build it.

So I'll go into reading the new comments if you don't mind.

And I'll be brief.

There are eight comments, and I'll just stick to the script.

These were submitted this afternoon to uh Director Ashman.

Thank you so much.

Um, do all the planning members have a copy or electronic copy?

Thank you so much.

All right.

Um good evening, Council President, Commission President, and Commission members, Director Ashwood, Ms.

Balcourt.

Uh thank you for allowing him to make these comments today.

Um the applicant has made significant changes and additions to the application materials, and he offers the following comments in opposition to the application.

And we thank you for allowing the public to speak on at this go-around.

The application should be denied for the following reasons.

And these are additional reasons to those who already submitted it back in February 3rd.

Um, and they specifically address the new submission, which is the house plans that were submitted with the stormwater control design.

Number one, the proposed residential dwelling is three stories high, and the maximum building height is not shown on the submitted house plans.

The applicant has now provided information on the plans, whether the house height is not greater than 35 feet as required by zoning.

Building height relief is not included in the application, nor in the public notice.

Number two, the proposed three-story dwelling is not in character with the majority of other homes in the area, which are not three stories.

Mr.

Bosey mentioned to me when I asked him this question.

He recalls one in the area of being three stories.

That's it.

Number three, the submitted application was for a single family house on 4,800 square foot lot.

The relief requested for smaller lot size than required by zoning.

The applicant submitted house plans show a dwelling that has appearance as a duplex under the guise of an ADU.

The submitted house plan showed two separated entrance exits in the front of the proposed house.

The proposed house plan showed three bedrooms on the second floor, and the third floor has two bedrooms.

Both the first and third floors each show a laundry room and a full kitchen, separate facilities for each floor.

The proposed house plan shows the proposed house plan shows two separate living units as would happen in a duplex.

The application for lot 1478 is for a single family house.

Number four, there is not enough proposed on-site parking for a five-bedroom house.

Only a proposed 10 feet by 40 feet driveway is shown on the plants.

Number five, the proposed house does not meet required front and rear building setbacks because the two landings on the front of the house and the bulkhead at the rear of the house extend beyond the building setbacks.

And these are already reduced building setbacks for a substandard lot of record.

No zoning relief for these setbacks was in the application, nor requested in the public notice.

Number six, the stormwater management design does not include the 10 feet by 40 feet new driveway, nor the impervious surface of the two landings on the front of the house, nor the bulkhead.

These are all impervious areas.

It assumes that the house gutters will be installed with front to back, sufficient downward slope, the total running length of 42 feet along the house, each one to the two downspouts at the rear corners of the building.

It assumes that the two 40 foot long gutters will be a sufficient capacity to convey all the roof runoff and not overflow before entering the two rear downspouts.

It also assumes the downspouts are sized to accommodate all roof runoff and not overflow downspouts or gutters.

How were the gutters and downspouts sized?

And to accommodate what design intensity of rainfall storm.

These are not addressed in the application.

Number seven, the applicant's engineer has not provided stormwater control design calculations other than a table for sizing a vegetated swale.

There are no groundwater depth or percolation tests for the two proposed eight-inch deep vegetated swell swales that are to be provided to ensure stormwater will be retained or infiltrated into the proposed swales and not overflow the proposed swales.

There are no proposed contours, site grading to show direction of overland flow on the plans, showing the proposed stormwater management on the showing the proposed stormwater management plan.

There is no safety fencing proposed around each of the eight foot by 12 foot, and that's the bottom size of the swales.

The surface size is larger with the slope of these vegetated swales.

There's no safety fencing proposed.

Number eight, the proposed units per acre have not been re-evaluated by the applicant nor the planning department for determination of consistency with the future land use map plume.

So he respectfully requests that the planning commission deny this application, and he thanks you for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Oh, you just just come to the microphone.

My name is Paula Bosey of 49 Lakes.

You can just have some pictures to submit about the elevations in the water.

Okay.

Just uh hand them out and we'll take a look at it.

Um, Miss Bosey, do you um want those back for the hearing tomorrow night?

Do you have to this is not this is not zoning board recommendation?

This is UDR.

Oh, UDR.

Okay.

Yeah, so correct.

Yeah.

Are there any other public comment to be heard on this matter?

Okay.

All right.

I know all of you spoke last time.

All right.

Is uh Mr.

Leemers anyone online that would like to be heard on this matter?

The Lake Street.

There is no public comment online.

Okay.

Does the applicant wish to respond in any way to the public comment?

It's not staff.

That's the recommendation, correct?

Correct.

Okay.

So all right.

Um let me see.

Hold on, just want to take a look at the picture.

If there's a moment, um, I'm wondering if I would be able to respond to public.

Sure.

Okay, for starters, I just wanted to address the um statewide regulations for stormwater permit or for storm stormwater regulation.

Um to meet stormwater requirements for single family residential projects.

Uh the first step, there's five steps here, but the applicable one that I wanted to raise right now is that step one says to determine surface area of new rooftop and driveway areas.

Um which I'm saying in relation to the bulkhead and the patio, which was not included in um impervious calculation.

Um so what was submitted did properly address the surf the roof area as well as the driveway area.

I just think it it's worth noting that uh as was pointed out, no relief was sought for other set for setbacks or for height, and approving this would grant no relief for setbacks or height, they're not part of the request um Mr.

Marcelo Um I one of the issues I have and to be consistent is we had an application two or three months ago on Narragansett Boulevard regarding the creation of a new lot that is a substandard lot, and it was my legal opinion at that time that when a new lot is created and it's substandard, you do not get the benefit of the sliding scale.

So to be consistent, I would um continue with that legal opinion, and to add to that matter was not appealed by Miss Mara Salvador.

However, the ability to take a sliding scale on a new lot is in the new bill sponsored by rep craven 8004 to allow that, but that is not law yet.

So I'm confident in my legal opinion up until then bill, maybe up until two months from now.

But this application is before you now.

So the applicant, because it's a creation of a new lot, not an unmerger.

Yeah, that they would not get the benefit of the sliding scale for setbacks.

Okay, and again, I'm confident I'm right because they're changing the law.

Right.

Okay.

Um Mr.

Marcel, the Mr.

Bosey wants to make public comment again.

Is it gonna be brief?

Usually we don't do this out of order.

Come on up, just be brief.

The whole purpose state your name and your address and then start talking.

Oh, my name is Ralph Bosey, 319 Shawman Avenue Warwick Road Island.

Okay, I'm a butting owner of the property.

The whole benefit uh the whole purpose of this board is not about building the house and not building hours for public safety watching.

That's the main objective of this project.

Everybody in the neighborhood are completely upset because they have no control not knowing even the not knowing before that area of being flooded flooded.

So the flooding problem is the main concern more so than the study.

All these people that came last time, some today are considering them about water conditions, water.

We're not talking much of the talking feet.

You saw a picture of five flux rescue when take people out of people there, motors and everything.

Maybe it's a problem of getting or no the water that is the funder's high in the street.

That is a severe severe problem.

That area was so the decision has to be made on the conditions of a particular area for Lake Street bill of the condition of that water and street debate from the bulk of the house.

There's no way an 8 by 10 cement bucket is going to control what was supposed to be submitted last month.

Details, elevation to everything by showing the three-story of family and a half plus with five cars is not the issue.

It's the water condition of five more people of the situation of the water problem in that area when you make your decision.

Thank you, Mr.

Bosey.

Any uh okay, that's enough public comment.

Does the applicant want to respond to Mr.

Bosey?

The applicant does not want to respond.

Staff want to say anything further, Mr.

Bosey.

That um all I can say is that the sizing of the vegetated soil is compliant to the regulations set by state law.

Okay.

All right.

Any questions for the staff?

Commissioner Lampier.

Um thank you for clarifying some of those things.

Um, just a couple of others.

Does the application indicate the height of the structure?

And can you just confirm?

And I believe you've mentioned this before, um, because this was raised in Mr.

Bose's comments.

Um, he stated there is not enough parking for a five-bedroom.

Um, but can you explain why there is?

Okay, so um, this is a single family home with an ADU being proposed, a single family home requires one parking space, and an ADU requires one parking space.

The single family home consists of three bedrooms, and the ADU consists of two bedrooms.

Thank you.

I think sometimes that's confusing to all of us because we look at how many bedrooms there are, and we just assume that there should be more parking, but that is not what our ordinance requires as it now stands.

Um is there with respect to the um the house itself, the discussion about how it looks more like a duplex than an ADU based on the plans that were submitted to you.

Um, did you did you review that to be satisfied that it meets the statute on an ADU?

Yes, I did.

The ADU that is being proposed is 1,050 square feet, a two-bedroom ADU is capped at either 60 percent of the single family total area or 1200 um square feet, whichever is less, and um the 1200 square feet is less than 60 percent of the single family home, and regardless, um the ADU being proposed is less than that 1200.

So, all that to say, yes, this ADU is compliant under state law, which we follow.

Um also to um respond to the kind of typology of the building.

I think this is a design that we just don't commonly see because we much less often see new homes with ADUs.

We are often more often seeing existing homes um trying to retrofit an ADU into an existing space, so it's not common that we would see um uh the ADU, I think, being proposed on the third floor this time, which is yeah, it's not common, but um that's why it might appear to be more of a two-family situation, but it is not a two-family because it the ADU is restricted in size, because it meets the statutory definition of a single family house with an allowable ADU.

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

Um, and and have there been on those plans any signature of an engineer to calculate the the um adequacy of the proposed swales, the contours, the site grading.

Yes, I did circle, uh I did call it out um in the presentation, which I can go back to.

Um, and what I'm referencing is there were proposed plans submitted, um, a stormwater management plan and house plans all stamped by uh registered engineer, including the um calculations for the two 40-foot gutters, yes.

Thank you very much.

Any other questions for Ms.

Valcourt?

We already had public comments, sir.

Okay, okay.

Any other questions from Ms.

Velcoir?

Okay.

Discussion.

All right, I'll just start discussing.

Uh I'm not going to be supporting this.

I say this uh like I said last time.

This is not about the applicants, it's never about who's a before me, it's about the facts.

The proposed density is 1364.

That's three units higher than the future land use uh map density, and about five units higher than the current density of that neighborhood.

To me, it's a clearly inconsistent wooden LU-6 and LU-18.

It's just very clear to me.

And I actually, before I go vote on these things, I sometimes go to the neighborhood.

There are no three-story buildings there, except I think one within two or four hundred feet.

This is out of character for the area.

And when you look at it also, 25% of the lot, 75% of the lots are greater than the lots being proposed here.

And if you add issues about the height, isn't listed here on the plan, and then Mr.

Marcella's issues about the sliding scale, there are a lot of problems with this project.

And then we get into the storm water issue.

The reason we have these density numbers and acreage issues is not because somebody was bored in 1966 and said, you know, why can't I just make up some numbers and just make it difficult?

It came from the comprehensive plan in 1961, and it was about small lots, building on small lots creates lots of density issues, lack of parking, lack of oh, wait a minute.

Okay, there was nobody we already, Mr.

Lima, we already did public comment online, correct?

I asked about that.

Okay, I'm just I'm sorry, it's it's almost nine o'clock when we have it out of break.

So back in the 1960s, they did this because it was a issue becoming the city about lack of parking, lack of yardage for to handle the stormwater and the and the traffic issues.

That's why they made these requirements.

And I don't think they did that willy-nilly.

And so when you're messing with that, you got to have a good reason for me.

And what I hear with the storm here, and this is not the reason why I'm voting against this proposal.

I'm voting against it because of the density of the comprehensive plan and that.

But the stormwater evidence we got presented to us is a really a significant problem there.

And the gentleman has made a plan that attempts to address it.

I'm not sure it completely addresses it because the impervious surface is greater than the how much the drainage is going to be handled by the 1200 feet versus the 1450 for the impervious.

But more importantly to me is all this stormwater problem we had over the years, it's a combination of what I seen historically.

It's developers want to build, there's a demand for housing, and then public officials either don't know there's a problem or don't care.

I know there's a problem there, and I do care.

And for me, when there's a problem, I don't want to make the problem worse.

Making the problem worse means adding more people to an area that already has a flooding problem.

I don't understand the logic of that.

That's a general policy thing.

But for me, I'm not voting for this.

It's inconsistent with the future land use map, it's inconsistent with the general character of the area, it's inconsistent with the density of the existing neighborhood.

So I'm not gonna be supporting it.

Thank you.

Okay, anyone else has any comments before we make motions?

Commissioner Lampier.

I just um with regard to the density, um, I would like to also say that it does increase the density, and we often will say that that increase is negligible, but the increase in density over time, um, we continue to improve to approve negligible increases in density, and then we use that increased number as the baseline the next time a proposal comes before us in the same neighborhood.

So over time, we are increasing the density of neighborhoods over what they should be.

Um, and one other comment that I I just wish to make with regard to um one of the requirements is that the hardship from which the applicant seeks relief is due to the unique characteristics of the subject land or structure and not the general characteristics of the surrounding area.

Um and one of the pieces of information that was provided was by um the applicant was that the location of the two-family home off center on the lot suggests an intention to add a second house at a future time.

And I know that was used um as a basis in one of our other matters that is coming up, and I I just want to take issue with that because if someone has a piece, a larger piece of property and they choose to site a home on that property off to one side.

There are many intentions for that.

Perhaps someone wants a large yard, perhaps they want a big area for their children to play.

Maybe one day they want to put a swimming pool in, or maybe they just don't like the neighbor on that side and they want to be as far away from them as possible.

But to say that the reason is that there was an intention at some point to put another house on that property, I don't think I think is is not correct.

It may be a potential reason.

I would agree with you on that, but there are many reasons, so I don't find that as an adequate basis.

Um to support that.

Thank you, Commissioner Lampier, Commissioner Coop.

Mr.

President, I I need to um talk about density a little bit because you and I often have different points of view on density.

But as I look at the memo, it it says to me that the 200 foot radius, 400 foot radius, and neighborhood density, even with this development would still be below the future land use map.

Yeah.

So the density for this parcel would increase.

But the way I read this, and maybe the staff can correct me.

For the neighborhood within 200 feet within 400 feet, it's all lower than the future land use map.

So the increase in density doesn't extend beyond this lot.

Is that a fair way of putting that?

Well, the um the increase of density does extend beyond the lot, but I guess negligibly or not enough to push the density above the future lands.

Correct.

My other point is I don't think it's I don't think it's a fair analogy to equate density with stormwater runoff and flooding issues.

Density, as you pointed out, is a concept that was created in the 1960s.

I don't know the date, but I suspect we did not start talking about or thinking about stormwater until well after the 1960s.

Uh Director Freya can help me with when we started controlling stormwater and requiring developers to control stormwater that came along much later, I would say.

Much later than the 60s, yes.

I did watch the video of the first meeting, the first discussion on this, and and the director pointed out something I'm very well aware of that flooding in this neighborhood is not the result of anyone with not only the result of anyone within the 200 foot or 400 foot radius.

It comes from the area all the way up to Gladstone School.

It's at the bottom of a hill.

Water runs down that hill from quite a quite a large area.

I know the uh the state DEM is starting to do some runoff enforcement for properties all around all the way down Cranston Street.

So I understand the neighbors, I understand the frustration.

Even if there is any excess runoff from this property, it's a literal drop in the bucket to what's happening in the neighborhood.

That neighborhood has to be addressed by the city, by the state.

Those are flooding issues that are way beyond this parcel.

And while I understand the frustration, I think there needs to be some degree of fairness to a property owner to a developer to be able to use their property in a way that really does not increase the density of the neighborhood and is not going to exacerbate my opinion, a problem that's been there for years now and has been in the making for decades.

Thank you, Commissioner Coop.

Uh, just a quick response.

If you look at the 1961 comprehensive plan, they talk about aggravating shortages of yard space.

Now, I would agree that that's subject to interpretation, but aggravating shortages of yard space, that has less yard space you have, more impervious surface you have.

So that's why I brought up the stormwater issue.

Okay.

Second, I agree with Commissioner Lampier's interpretation of the creeping density problem, which is you say let's not look, yeah.

This parcel has higher density than the neighborhood and the flum, but as long as the surrounding neighborhood stays below the flop, or uh or or that it's we shouldn't look at that parcel.

We just look at the impacting overall neighborhood.

Eventually you get creeping, and it just keeps increasing and increasing and increasing.

And I don't think that's the way it should be looked at.

That's just a matter of interpretation.

So I just wanted to respond to your points.

Um else before we have motions.

There will be two motions here, either to approve or reject, but it has to be one on granting zoning relief and the other on uh approving the subdivision.

Is that correct, solicitor?

Correct.

If the zoning passes, then you go to the subdivision if the zoning motion doesn't pass.

Yeah, you don't need to obviously the the um subdivision becomes moved.

Okay.

So motion time people can uh make the motions they want.

Could you put the staff recommendations up?

Uh staff.

I'll make a motion to accept the approval of the unified development review by the planning staff.

The zoning relief, correct?

So yeah, so the motion would be to grant the zoning relief as um noted by the planning staff.

Okay.

Motion made by Director Crayers a second, second by Commissioner Coop.

Any further discussion?

Seeing none.

All those in favor of granting the relief, signify by saying aye.

All those opposed say nay.

So we have a three-three.

The motion fails.

Correct.

So I don't think the counter motion would persuade one of you to go the opposite direction.

Correct.

So the application what it's this is the period has been suspended.

The statutory suspension period was suspended by the applicant.

Correct.

So could we continue it to next month?

And at that point, potentially the com the mayor has appointed another commissioner.

Could you?

I mean, it's a theoretical possibility.

And then that person would have to watch the videos.

I've been doing this a long time, but I and the reason I'm hesitating is because that person was not the difference is that person was not appointed at the time the application began, as opposed to someone just not being here.

Okay.

Uh my only concern is solicitor, is you know, you have a 3-3 vote, which means the you know it fails.

It fails, and the suspension period has been waived.

The statutory I'm using the word suspension period.

I apologize.

That's a utility term.

The statutory timer review has been waived for the applicant.

So this could handle this, could go on indefinitely.

No, no, the application fails.

The application fails.

Correct.

Okay.

So do we need to do anything else other than it was a three-three and the motion did not pass?

Correct.

And therefore the zoning did not pass and the application fails.

There's no other motions we need to make.

No.

Okay.

That's it.

And the motion fails.

Therefore, the application is hereby denied because it did not receive majority vote of approval.

Correct.

Okay.

That's it.

All right.

Thank you very much.

I would like to ask my colleagues, would you like to take a five minute break so I can go to the bathroom?

Thank you very much.

Yes, I've said it to a couple of the I spoke to Mrs.

R, I saw Mr.

Seipel at the snack machine.

So I just want to get everyone in the room.

Say we'll stop at around ten.

As we see time is approximately nine ten.

It is ex I do not see us completing the rest of the applications that we have before us today and getting to Vaughn Lane until maybe right close to ten o'clock.

As I indicated earlier at the beginning of the meeting, we were going to probably end the meeting at about 10 uh at the latest 11.

I don't my I feel personally, and I think my colleagues would as well, that we want to end the meeting at about 10 o'clock and start Von Lane fresh so that we hear from the applicant and have public comment of that nature.

Um we've been thinking about when to continue the meeting to um obviously our next meeting is May 5th.

Um it's unclear to me how much of an agenda we have.

We do have lots of things.

We have the comprehensive plan um that evening, but what we could probably do the problem with trying to set a date so everyone understands is the budget is being submitted on April 15th.

Once the budget is submitted on April 15th, this room becomes preoccupied with budget hearings from about the end of April to the beginning of May.

So it's challenging to set a special meeting date for this room until we know what the budget schedule is yet.

And we do not know what the budget schedule is yet.

Um so what I was hoping is that my colleagues would agree that we would continue this to the May 5th, the next meeting, which I believe is May 5th.

We'll get there.

If we need to continue it then to a special meeting, like the next week in May, we can do that, but that's would probably be the best way.

I just don't know.

I can schedule something in April until I know what city council's schedule is, and we just don't.

So I want to hear from the applicant and the abutters attorney, are you okay with having this go to May 5th at this point?

Um like I said, we'll take we'll take the May fifth date if that's what you have to offer so we can continue to a date certain.

Correct.

Um, like I said, we've asked the chairman or or we asked the board to maybe consider a special meeting for this if possible if the schedule allows.

Um but right now we'll take what we can get, and that would be a date certain to May fifth with the hope that maybe we have special dates.

I think we'll have a special meeting commissioner.

Yeah, uh one thing which we may or may not, again, given the budget hearings in the room and all that as we continue it to May 5th, have it a priority on the agenda, which would be old business, so it would be the first on the agenda.

Yeah, and then if we didn't if uh wherever we were at the end of that meeting, yeah, we could then schedule a special meeting, a special meeting because the room would be freeze up, obviously.

And that's what I would concur with as well.

I guess even in the circumstance where you'd know a date the week after we could continue at May 5th to the week after and try to let the group know that it's going to be continued to that date.

What our question is we would continue to May 5th, and then we would figure out the date.

Even when we get to that May 5th meeting, we already have a date for our special meeting in May.

Okay.

Is that okay with the abutters attorney as well?

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um as my colleagues okay with continues to May 5th, and then potentially having another special meeting in May.

Yeah, and then and we'll also have um our new, hopefully our new um member too.

Yes, the tiebreaker.

Well, it would be no the tie creator.

It'll become the tie creator.

Um, anyway.

So if unless I somebody wants to make a motion to continue the Vaughn Lane matter to May 5th at this time, we can thank you, Commissioner Coop.

Is there a second to continue this seconded by Commissioner Exter.

Any further discussion?

I just want to do this at the outset so everyone can go home.

I know it's a long ride to Fiskville.

So in the dark, too.

Um, anyway, any anything else?

All right, all those in favor of continuous to May 5th, next meeting.

Please signify by saying aye.

All those opposed say nay.

Ayes have it.

We'll see you next month.

Best wishes to all.

Leave quietly.

That would be really good.

All right.

Next on our agenda is Narragansett Boulevard Condos.

Is the applicant here and wish to make their presentation?

No vote will be taken.

Just listening.

Well, there's less pressure on my back right now because people aren't staring at me.

Um again, Robert Murray for uh for the applicant.

Uh, this is a pre-application.

It's the beginning of an exciting project that ultimately will end up here with the commission as a major land development.

Uh most likely uh a unified development submission.

Um we merely tonight want to introduce this concept to you as the beginning of a dialogue on this.

Um of the uh design professionals did meet with a couple of department heads uh uh last week.

Um not there, but um uh tonight what we have is this a short PowerPoint presentation for this property on Narragansett Boulevard.

Uh for those old enough.

Well, it's next door to Johnston of Wales.

Um, but uh I'm old enough to remember when the colonial Hilton Inn was the hotel there.

Uh so um this is next to that.

Um I do have Bill Lavery from Casali Engineering, who's gonna run through the PowerPoint.

Uh Julie Partlett is our uh from our architecture firm ZDS who does exceptional work.

Uh Dustin Slocum is here representing the uh the developer.

So uh what you're gonna see tonight is interesting, uh property that is zoned properly, B2 zone.

Um the number of dwelling units proposed when you see the plan, you say, wow, that's a lot of units.

I write, we're probably entitled to 24, but we're not looking for 24.

Um this process will have to go forward with CRMC and GEM and many others, but uh at some point we will come back to you with a master plan submission.

Hopefully, not on the same night as one lane.

Uh and we will um take whatever we hear tonight.

Uh and I understand you're seeing this for the first time, so I I get it.

And uh, but um there is on the unified development side, there's very little relief.

Um there's more questions we have that we need to resolve with the building officials only for Mr.

Peckle, which may impact the relief.

Um, because I as Bill will go through this, we have an interesting piece of property here.

So with that, I'm gonna ask Bill Lafrey to come up and work with you and go through the project.

Uh Julie uh from ZDS doesn't have a specific presentation.

She may comment on some of uh Bill's PowerPoint, but uh again, we don't want to prolong this, even though crushes off, but we'll uh try and get through this as quickly as possible.

Thank you.

Good evening again, Mr.

President, members of the commission.

Uh Bill Lavery, uh project manager at Joe Caselli Engineering.

Uh, just a quick PowerPoint to convey um what we're currently proposing here.

Um project is located um uh right off Narragansett Bay.

So we have Broad Street, uh Norward Avenue, and uh Narragansett Boulevard, and that's our parcel.

Um it's made up of multiple parcels, AP2 lots uh 680s, 1966, 2949, and 3368, um, about 2.16 acres.

So zooming in, that's what the parcel looks like.

Um and uh we have also uh right of ways at the uh south of the uh parcel, Pierce Place, which takes uh access off of uh uh Narragansett Boulevard and takes you down to the marina.

Um and uh the property is accessed off this right-of-way.

We also have a very small um five-foot right-of-way um off of Narragansett Boulevard towards the northern uh frontage of the property um providing access.

We uh we also know that we have uh mean high water along the seawall with the coastal feature with the CRMC.

Um we have encumbrances with the 125 foot CRMC buffer, um, accessory setback, primary structure setbacks, and jurisdictional area um associated with the CRMC regulations.

Um we also have a flood zone velocity, so a velocity uh zone uh elevation 17 that runs through the parcel as well.

Um we also beat two with the as a uh educational institutional zone uh for the parcel.

And um our proposal starts with abandoning all of the interior lines to make that one um just over two acre parcel.

Um this is what um uh attorney uh Murray was alluding to with the building setbacks.

We um we had some initial uh conversations at the TRC with Stan Peichel regarding um kind of just confirming with him how he sees the setbacks working on this parcel.

Coming when we get to that conclusion, we'll have some more feedback and knowing if um any uh dimensional variances are required are necessary for the project.

Uh part of the project does um propose uh raising the existing um building that's there.

That's a storage building mainly for the marina.

Um the marina is owned by the same um uh ownership group that owns this um current parcel as well.

Um the existing dwelling that's on the property is also proposed to be raised.

So we look at this density and um utilizing the uh B2 zone density with the um multifamily use.

Um we when we break it down, we get uh a by rate allowance of a 24 units, um, and we are proposing 19 on this parcel.

And that is an overlay of the proposed um development multifamily housing um staggered through the the development accessed off uh Narragansett Boulevard, looped through for the front um western line of units, and also accessed off that Pierce Street right-of-way, Pierce Street right away.

Also proposed a pool house pavilion and a pool at the end towards the marina side.

And looking at parking, we know two spaces are proposed per unit.

Um, we need uh 38 per code.

We're proposing 52, and that's encompassed within the garages and driveways throughout the development.

Um, lastly, I thought it was important to convey the grade difference here.

Um it's very uh as pitched from Narragansett Boulevard right down to um the marina parking lot.

Um, and uh we propose to stagger these buildings with that slope.

That's why you'll see the top um western portion of the site is accessed off that ring road, and then as you come down the slope, you'll access the next two rows of units uh in between at that grade level.

Um, we're cognizant of the velocity zone, and we know that that last strip of um of dwelling units will have to be uh constructed per FEMA regulations.

Um garages will be at the bottom of this last run of units with um no utilities and everything with it outside of all that that flood area.

Lastly, I just want to say that we did um during the TRC talk, but the fire marshal worked out um how they uh they the areas that they may want to see for um fire access and in um different maybe uh positioning some fire apparatus areas with some maybe grass paved or some pavers so that there's uh ample um emergency access to the project.

And with that, I'm gonna hand it over to uh architect Julie Bartlett just to go over the uh style of the units.

Good evening, uh members of court, Mr.

President.

My name is Julie Bartlett, Julie Bartlett.

Thank you.

Uh architect with ZDS.

fire access and in in um different maybe uh positioning some fire apparatus areas with some maybe grass paved or some pavers so that there's uh ample um emergency access to the project and with that i'm gonna hand it over to uh uh architect julie bartlett just to go over the uh style of the units good evening uh members of board mr president my name is julie bartlett thank you uh architect with ZDS um so just walking through we have four different types of condo structures on the property I'll start moving from the uh west on Narragansett Boulevard you'll drive through is a very light gray and we have five A units they're all three story um three bedroom with the first level you can see sort of in the pink it's the garage access uh driveway and then garage access and primary um entry and uh we've done some quick studies of plans we have not yet articulated the architecture so we don't have that to share with you yet but assuming um we'll be back here in a month or two we'll have that to to share with you then um but this sort of describes a garage in some sort of finished basement on the first floor the second floor would be your primary living space living kitchen dining and the top floor would be your three bedrooms the next row has um three similar units they're just flipped because the driveway is now on the opposite side so again very similar style unit you'll just have a different approach to the orientation of your entry point because it'll be facing east and those are on the top part of the plan.

Part of the reason once you saw the section is also to allow for views from each of these structures out to the ocean so we wanted to be sure we weren't putting a three story structure in front of a three story structure and having limited views for those um buyers of these units.

So again this is the same same sort of concept the following four units on that um middle row here are our B units these are two story three bedroom units and so they on the ground floor have a single car garage and sort of your living space and then on the upper floor would be three uh bedrooms as well again with the upper floor having the ability to look over that last row the last row we have seven C style units these are in the flood plains so as um as Bill was saying the ground floor would be um made with FEMA required either breakaway walls or they would be on piers or quote unquote stilts um nothing that would be uh everything that's sort of sacrificial so to speak and then all of your primary living space utilities etc would all be on an upper floor as a flat style sort of units um and I can sort of go back to this section just to sort of describe that once more so you can sort of see here how we have the three story on the left the two story in the middle and then the um the single story with a occupiable sort of open air potentially garage or breakaway walls all the way closest in order to get the um unit level above the floodplain so I'm gonna turn it back over to Bill.

Yeah just just to thank you Julie just in closing we we we're here tonight for pre-app um we know that we have to come back for master plan um CRMC you know vehicle water sewer water fire all those permits and preliminary plan so there's there's a lot more to go but we just want initial feedback um before we get to those next steps okay any questions for the app for the presenters commissioner lampier thank you thank you for presenting that that was very informational and there was a lot of good um good information in there to get a sense of the project yeah so the ring road here it's kind of hard to see with the TV but off of uh Narragansett Boulevard there's gonna be a uh 24 foot road that comes down in in kind of like a horseshoe down to Pierce uh place so Pierce Place is a right of way but the the it runs through the center of the property line between the two parcels so there's pavement on either side of the property line it kind of by the property line kind of bifurcates the pavement so that's uh uh you know uh a full access road that gets down to the marina um but it's shared by the the parcels in that and that uh southern side so that that's gonna stay in place be improved we make sure that you know it's conforms with fire fire safety um at least 20 feet but to probably 22 feet um the minimum that we'd go um and then the internal road that's um between these two rows of of houses I think we have that at set at 22 feet wide too plus you have the the the driveway so we don't anticipate having parking or wanting to put parking on those roadways because of the the the tightness of them and obviously it's important on a site like this and where it's located to minimize the impervious surfaces as much as possible.

And obviously it's important on a site like this and where it's located to minimize the impervious surfaces as much as possible.

Um, and that's why we we we did talk with the fire department at the TRC to see what we could do creatively to in knowing that we also share ownership with the marina to have some staging areas for trucks, should they want you know be uh appropriate uh locations for that thank you.

Um in addition to the piers um place right of way and the the area above that is wider to get in from Narragansett Boulevard, would you also be using Rushton Street, which is the street above?

No, we don't anticipate to that right of way, even though there is a frontage there, um that right of way is very very uh tight, and it's also a dramatic grade change going from the elevation, say 40 down with about a 20 foot grade change from Rushton Drive, is it drive?

I can't yes, so from Rushdon drive down to say the A2 units.

Yes, it's about a there's a there's a retaining wall that that that flanks the top of the property line, so it's a it's a pretty significant uh grade change.

So we wouldn't propose um having an access there.

So you don't anticipate any traffic on Russian?

No, no, we want to keep everything to the existing um roadways that are there.

The three-story, what what height would you be proposing?

So we we're uh in working with uh with uh Julie, the the we have to go through and analyze all of the different structures with the height because the building heights are the average grade of where they are.

Um, but we'd like to stay within you know, obviously the zoning is possible.

And is the um is the marina contemplated to be part of this development, or is it going to be completely separate?

Completely separate.

The only the only time I really bring up merging marina services would be for fire access, the fifth because it because it is uh uh an area where travel and traffic can go and traverse parking area.

And how would people access that area the the marina side?

Yeah, um, I think there's it's it it'll be walkable.

Um I don't know if you want to add to our condo owners act accessing the marina or other others because there are there's another access point further north on the plan that you can't see on this plan that's actually there's another access point up north off of Armington, off of Armington, okay.

Thank you.

And the only other thing I would say is that um if Mr.

Murray is agreeable, it might be a good site visit for us to do because I don't think you get any sense of that property from looking at the looking at the pictures, but definitely a unique parcel.

Um I heard the request would we would be open to a site visit, certainly.

Um we'll have to coordinate that with the staff uh public notice, open meetings, etc.

But we'll we won't take a bus, Bob, we promise.

Well, but come in by both though.

I've been to the site and I've taken photos for my own benefit, and I still get confused when we talk about the site.

So uh that would be that would not be a problem, but we'll uh it just for sense of the commission, would that be preferable perhaps before you see a master plan?

Well, I I think you need an application pending before we can have a site view.

Okay, but um yeah, I just I think it makes more sense actually to have master plan than have site view because then I know what I'm looking for and what I'm looking at.

Do you see what I'm saying?

Right now I see boats.

So we'd file and arrange for a site visit before an actual master plan here.

Yes.

So just for my question.

So Stan's gonna determine what's what's the frontage and where you need the setbacks, is that what's initially what Santa's gonna do?

Correct.

So we we we gotta we're gonna send it, we're gonna talk with the CERC look at the survey and look at the development, and that's when we get that determination, then we'll formalize any relief, any minor setback relief, and put that into the master plan.

And um the the building you're knocking down is for boat storage usage, et cetera.

Will the elimination of that affect any parking, anything like that on the marina?

So for in other words, create relief where where no relief is known.

No, not at all.

It's it's it's proposed to be demo demo.

All right.

And and any just because I I won't tell you how I know, but um any um environmental issues there to your knowledge, or was any um phase ones or anything done?

I haven't because this was purchased, you know, obviously from Johnson Wales.

Yes.

So I we are not me personally, don't have knowledge of that, but I'm sure if you have phase ones done on this property, yeah.

So that'll be something that we'll obviously look at just because it's going it's going to residential.

So that was my only stuff have to be in you know clean before that.

Commissioner Lampier.

Just um, what's the the chronology with CRMC?

And do you do you have um parallel tracks with the applications or do you go to them first?

Well, the next thing uh we wanted to get the feedback from um the planning commission, and then our next um stop really is gonna be uh a meeting with CRMC.

Um I I know the the ownership group has worked extensively with them on the marina, so we are going to meet with them about this project and even probably file a up limited determination with them to just get their official feedback and comments.

Um we'll probably have that information when we file the master plan, and we can present that information to you at the master plan.

But then the the state permits, um, you know, that'll be at the preliminary stage when we actually get that.

Director Carrero.

First of all, what are we doing with stormwater management on here?

I didn't see any detention, I didn't see any underground proposed.

Yeah, at this time we we we we're not really showing much, but we know obviously we're gonna have to do stormwater management.

There's a lot of pavement out there now.

Um, but you know, we'll use this new development as an opportunity to make it better.

Um, obviously a lot of landscaped areas, but we'll probably be introducing underground storage and rain gardens and higher retention, all that all that good stuff that goes with the CRMC permits and as well.

What about guest parking?

I know you said you had excessive parking spaces, but it's kind of difficult to see where they would actually park without actually being in the road.

Yeah, we'll um we'll work on that.

That's a that's a fair comment.

We'll look at CA if we can put some visitor spaces or maybe um designate some of the units with some visitor spaces with the adjacent to the driveways.

Everything within there's gonna be a private road, so there's no city jurisdiction over anything.

I believe that's what we propose, but well, all private.

And Pierce Place, it's a private right-of-way because that is the driveway access down to or one of the access points to the marina, and that's why you need an easement through that, and that is going to be used by the development.

Yeah, that easement's in place right now, so that yeah, that that easement is shared beyond or it runs through our parcel, uh, but it's shared with all those other entities.

So will you need approval from all those other entities to increase the burden if you're gonna use the house access?

All those questions, but obviously have that.

That's the master.

Okay.

And my final would be I know you mentioned utilizing some of the arena, the marina area for fire.

Is that gonna have to be secured as a as an easement of some sort?

Because what happens, I know they're the same owners today, but if they sold off the marina tomorrow, then not gonna have that access for fire.

Yeah, uh, I mean, that was just a uh a quick discussion we had at the TRC.

Um, if we can make it everything contained on our site, um, great, we'll do that.

One of the suggestions that we discussed at the TRC was having a staging area maybe adjacent to that pavilion that looks like a patio, but it's designated as if they need to get the truck, they can come through the marina and park to make access to that to those other units in the back.

But yeah, fair point that we want to make sure we preserve the that that access in the future.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions for the presenters?

Just a couple quick things.

First of all, thank you for following our zoning rules with density and with parking spaces.

It just saves me so much time and asking a lot of questions.

I really appreciated that.

Um just two little two parts.

Three bedrooms.

Are you thinking like this is gonna be for families or young professionals?

Any idea?

Or you don't have an idea.

Either answer is fine.

We don't have exactly an idea, not anticipating young families, more like young professionals or seasoned professionals that are correct.

So that's sort of what we're anticipating.

Okay.

So and the question I'll also ask is this part, which is usually when I see a multifamily project of more than 10 units.

I always ask the question is there any possibility of having an affordable housing/slash government subsidized uh component to this?

You can just want to know if it's possible.

If it's not possible, um, just curious.

That's not in the PowerPoint tonight.

I understand.

So it's not on the PowerPoint means it's not feasible.

So anything's possible.

Um, but this is not uh we're not doing this as a comprehensive commit.

That's correct.

We are uh we're future going to be market rate to kind of meetings and uh there's no proposed affordable component.

Okay, I understand the answer.

I had to ask, as you know, that's part of what I do it when it goes over 10 units in the multifamily.

Well, let's hope everybody remembers you already asked the question, so we're here next time you want to ask it.

I want to ask it again.

It was said it would be some member of the public last.

It is not uh for a variety of reasons.

This would not um geared towards that.

Understood.

Okay.

That's not where we are.

That's understood.

Okay.

Any other questions for the uh presenters?

Oh, you want to talk to you want to talk about affordable housing some more?

No, I okay.

I she doesn't need me, but uh I know you generally allow public comment.

I know the councilwoman from the city here, so I don't know if she has any comments.

I didn't want you to I'm gonna don't worry.

I'm gonna ask public comment if anybody wants to talk about these condos.

Yeah, okay, okay.

Oh, wait a minute, Director Core has another question.

Just one other thing.

We were talking about affordable.

How affordable are these going to be potentially very affordable for certain income brackets.

My question is it like a 500,000 dollar unit?

Are we talking million dollar units, 750s, million two?

Um that's not my area of expertise, but there isn't a lot of property along Narragansett Bay that you could look out and see the water.

So location, location, location.

It would be marketed accordingly.

They're gonna be very nice units.

Okay.

Other questions?

All right, I'd like to open it up.

We usually we don't we don't have to do this, but is there anyone here from the public that would like to comment on the condo project?

State your name and address.

Um I I actually did not plan on commenting on this, but since I plan review for a living, I figured I would just take a stab at it.

So I just wanted to let the planning commission know what a VE zone is and how important it is.

This is this is a flood zone, and so this is a coastal high hazard area flood zone with an annual chance of flooding and the um additional hazards from the storm with our waves that could be three feet or higher.

And V E means that it's actually the BFE place flood elevation is actually mapped compared to like a V zone, and then inland would be an A or an AE zone.

Um, so A and V zones are not mapped with BFE and uh V E zones and AE zones R.

Um, and this area I'm I'm significantly concerned about the Edgewood area um with climate change.

Um we're seeing more intense storms, and I find it very, and I'll put it lightly interesting that there's a pool house and a pool in the VE zone.

Um there's an existing building that I would hope that would be removed and done in managed retreat in the state of Massachusetts.

We are currently um proposing to do managed retreats.

We are trying to move people out of the flood zones, not into the flood zones.

So um the pool is not gonna be put on pilings or piers.

I've seen some interesting things over my site review.

Um, but the this is pretty interesting in the flood zone.

Um, so two units alone will have to will have mandatory flood insurance um because they are in this zone.

Um, so automatic flood insurance, which exceeds you know, can be very high monthly.

I guess if you're buying a two million dollar house, you may not care.

Um, but for me, it's a huge concern.

They don't have room for compensatory flood storage.

They probably will be pushed to be put on pilings or piers for all of these units.

Um, I don't, I'm not super well versed, but I will make myself super well versed for everybody here at the next meeting.

Um, on the regulatory authority.

Um, my regulatory authority would not allow this.

Um, and so I'd be really surprised if this was something that um the state of Rhode Island was gonna allow, but maybe things are different here, and I'll just say that I'm not thrilled about seeing uh unnecessary item like a pool and a pool pavilion in the flood zone.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there any other public comment on the condos?

Okay.

Mr.

Leam, is there anyone online that wants to talk about condos?

There is no public comment online.

Okay.

All right.

Well, thank you very much, Mr.

Murray.

I don't think there's any other questions for the applicant.

All right, we'll see you as this moves forward.

All right.

Next on the agenda is Auburn Plateau.

This is the uh Norfolk Street, I believe.

Is the applicant here and wishes to be heard on Auburn Plateau?

Just yeah, make sure it's on.

I can't hear you right now.

There we go.

Hear me now.

Again, attorney Dane Ardente for the record, representing the applicants on this uh 40 north 40 Norfolk Street, uh plat nine, uh lot 227.

This is presented to the commission as a minor land development application uh under unified development review, uh, because there are a few items of zoning relief that are are gonna be needed.

This is another uh case of a uh there's some dispute on the merger of the lot, but it will be a subdivision of an existing uh single lot into two lots uh where we're keeping one of the Dane.

Yes, uh can I stop you?

Um we're gonna um Mr.

Exeter just realized that he's gonna have to re-cuse himself, so I just want to cut it on the record.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Exter.

You can proceed.

Okay.

Uh this application, uh, as previously stated is going to divide the uh current single uh lot into two separate lots, uh parcel A, which is going to be the lot with the single thing uh single family home that's pre-existing at the moment, uh, and lot B, which is gonna propose a new single family home, uh three bedroom, roughly around uh 1400 square feet, but I'll let our uh land surveyor surveyor speak to that.

Um the zoning relief that we're requesting on this, and that's required would be for minimum lot size.

Each of the lots is going to propose 4,000 square feet, where 6,000 is required, so it would be uh 2,000 feet of relief square feet of relief, excuse me.

Uh minimum lot width and frontage, uh 60 feet is required, and we're going uh we're proposing 40 feet and uh relief from uh I believe there's an uh relief request that was in the staff report for the existing deck on the parcel A property of uh 4.5 feet on side lot where five feet is required.

Uh so we would be requesting a six-inch variance on that as well.

Um we have here tonight our uh engineer Pat Miller, uh, who I'll introduce now.

I would just uh ask that the board accept him uh as an expert witness in his field if they're satisfied with his credentials after uh inquiring with him as to such good evening.

Uh my name is actually Harry Miller.

Um I'm with Alpha Associates Land Surveyors, um professional land surveyor.

Um you'd like to qualify me.

Usually do is uh since this is Biden, we um we should vote on qualifying him because this is the zoning part of the underfind development.

Does he ever do you have you presented a resume?

Usually I usually I like to have a resume before I qualify somebody.

If you don't, then maybe you could just or you could have um just speak to his qualifications licenses.

We call that wad there.

Uh Mr.

Miller, what current licenses do you hold that would uh qualify this slide?

I I hold a Rhode Island professional land surveyor license.

And how long have you held that license?

Uh since 1999.

Uh and have you ever testified in front of uh I have including this one.

Okay.

All right, are we satisfied that he qualifies as an expert?

If that's the case, please make a motion to qualify the gentleman as an expert.

Make a motion to qualify made by Commissioner Director Correro, second by Commissioner Mancini.

Any discussion?

Seeing none.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed say nay.

Okay, go ahead, Mr.

Expert.

Um, so we have a as explained, we have an 8,000 square foot existing parcel, which is made up of two record lots of 4,000 square feet each.

Uh we're in a B1 zone, which requires 60 feet of frontage, uh, 6,000 square feet.

We're proposing to put the 8,000 square feet into two 4,000 square feet with uh with 40 feet of frontage as opposed to 60 feet of frontage.

Um we have an existing single family house as mentioned.

Um there's a there's a side entrance with a small deck that would require a slight variance.

Uh we're proposing a 750 square foot uh single family house on the vacant lot with associated uh drainage sewer water driveway.

Any questions for their the expert witness on the application?

Okay.

Um any questions in general for the applicant?

I'll just ask a quick question for the attorney, real simple.

Um, just this is a curiosity question.

Uh the project narrative you have here estimated population of the project would be two adults and one child.

Um, how difficult was it for you to come up with that estimate?

I don't I'm not sure I understand the question.

You weren't at the last meeting we had.

No.

I don't I would say that this probably wasn't that difficult that you could come up with that estimate of just two kids and you know a kid and a two adults at a house, right?

I suppose that's true.

Okay, all right.

I just wanted to know that.

Thank you.

All right.

Um let's see.

Um, any other questions for the applicant?

None.

All right, is there anyone here would like make public comment on Norfolk Street?

See none.

Mr.

Leem, is there anyone online who'd like to make comments on Norfolk Street?

There is no public comment online.

All right, thank you.

I forgot to do this.

Could the staff present uh Ms.

Valcourt?

Could you make your presentation?

Yes.

Owner and applicant, Rhode Island Custom Builders LLC at 40 Norfolk Street.

Proposal to subdivide one existing lot into two at 48 40,000 uh 4,000 square foot lots with 40 feet of frontage.

Here is the aerial view.

Zoning and future land use.

This is the compilation plan that was originally submitted under um the minor subdivision process as an oversized lot subdivision, which was later pointed out that um two lots were excluded, which are being used as residential lots, and that is why they are here today for a zoning variance.

Um proposed conditions is to subdivide the two lot of this oversized lot.

Um they're seeking this relief from the 4,000 square thousand square foot lot as well as the frontage.

And um currently the existing deck is 4.5 feet away from the property line where it should be five feet.

This proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan 2024 plan in alignment with goal land use six and policy land use 18 as well.

Being console is consistent with the future land use designation as the proposal proposed use and density are within the plum designation.

Oops.

The development pattern of the Auburn neighborhood, as well as this proposal are inconsistent with the zoning ordinance, which means that this proposal is consistent with the existing uses and density of the surrounding area.

The median lot size of this zone in Auburn is 5,000 square feet.

4,000 is being proposed within a 200 foot radius.

49% of the lots are equal or smaller than proposed.

Here are some statistics that were requested, which we can go back to if needed.

Staff recommends approval of this unified development review of the subdivision for parcel A to allow the existing single family house be granted zoning relief to have a 4,000 square foot lot where 6,000 square feet is required, as well as if I may add the 40 feet of frontage where 60 feet is required, and parcel B similarly to allow a single family structure on a 4,000 square foot lot and a 40-foot um frontage with the recommended conditions of approval are the curb restoration and the payment of the impact fee.

Thank you, Ms.

Valcor.

Does anyone have questions for the staff, Ms.

Falcourt on this matter?

Okay, I see none.

I assume nobody in the public wants to comment on this after hearing the staff recommendation.

Okay.

All right.

Uh at this point, um, is there any discussion with my colleagues on this?

Okay.

Is this a UDR?

We have to make two motions.

Uh, one to grant zoning relief, and the other is to um grant um allow the subdivision, approve the subdivision.

I'll just make a quick comment.

I'll be voting for this.

The reason is as follows.

The proposed density of the project is 10.89.

That is consistent with the FLUM.

It is less than the current density in the 200 foot radius of 12.03.

Um, I think it's important to look at the project density because if we looked at the resulting density of the neighborhood, it'd be 12.15 and it actually would exceed the L F L UM.

So the proposed density of the project meets the FLUM, it's less than the neighborhood that currently exists.

So I think it works.

That's why that's how I do the that's how I do this.

Anyway, that's my uh two cents.

Anyone else have any comments?

Okay.

If not, motion time would be appropriate.

The first one being on zoning relief.

Commissioner Coop has made a motion to grant zoning relief based on the staff recommendation.

Is there a second second by Commissioner Carrero?

Any further discussion?

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those say nay.

Nay by Commissioner Lampier, the remainder in the affirmative.

We will now move to the subdivision.

Uh could you uh let's see, is that the subdivision or could you move to the I apologize?

I don't have two slides.

Oh boy.

Okay, so we're going to just do approve subdivision consistent with staff recommendation, correct, solicitor?

Uh he has here.

Um approve.

Um you make positive findings on this um the six required subdivision criteria based upon staff recommendations.

Okay, all right.

So you heard so moved by Commissioner Coop.

Is there a second second by Commissioner Carrero?

Any further discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed say nay.

Nay on Commissioner Lamphier, rest in the affirmative.

Okay, that's it.

Congratulations.

Uh we have one less thing on the agenda that we have to adjudicate.

It's five of ten.

Is the Cipriano Plat?

Is the applicant here and wishes to be heard on the Cipriano Plat.

My name is Trudy Cipriano.

I have property at 118 Newwork Avenue in Cranston.

Could you could you speak a little closer to the microphone?

Because I heard your name was was it again?

Trudy Cipriano.

Okay.

Um, I'm the owner of 118 Warwick Avenue.

I mean Warwick Avenue in Cranston.

And um, thank you for the opportunity tonight.

I had this to read to you, but it's so late.

I sent everything, I did everything I was supposed to do.

Okay, it would be just um a good thing for Preenson to have me have the lot separated and build on it.

It'll keep money in Cranston taxes in Cranston, and it does suit the area.

And I'm gonna end it with that.

Okay.

If you have a question, I'll add to that.

Okay.

Um there any questions for Miss Cipriano?

Uh Commissioner Lampier.

Good evening, Ms.

Cipriano.

Um, the home that currently exists um is indicated that it is a two-family, correct?

And is that first floor and second floor?

Yes.

Okay.

And there's also a unit in the basement.

There's also a unit in the basement.

So it is a three-family.

Yeah.

Is it um registered as a three family with the assessor's office?

No.

But if I didn't, if I had to have the person move out, I can do that.

Housing is so hard to come by for people.

I raised that.

I don't I don't know.

Um, in the uh comments, the letters that were submitted um to the planning commission in advance and were posted on the website.

Um, there was an indication by a neighbor that it was a three-family home, and she indicated why she knew that it was in fact a three-family home.

And um, I asked that question because I think it's relevant to um what we're deciding to see.

That was my only question for you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Lampier.

Any more questions for Ms.

Cipriano?

Um we use as you know, we received public comment on this application.

There were discussions about how the lot is used as essentially a quasi parking lot almost like it's not quasi parking lot.

It's a lot of the parking um for your current two family, really three family is in this open the space that you want to build in.

Um the picture here showing all these cars all over the place.

Is this generally what it is?

It's a lot, it's it's used that way because it was able to be used that way.

The tenant and the and the people using that are the people living in that building, right?

Oh, okay.

Yeah, there's only three cars.

Oh, okay.

But I'm seeing like I'm saying on this side and the other side, it looks like yeah, on both sides.

See what white picket fence is?

Yeah, that's my whole uh okay.

And this is to the right is my house.

And this is what you this picture is typical, you would say.

Like this is what it kind of is usually, this amount of cars in that area.

Um I don't have a question.

Don't worry about it then.

Okay.

Um is there any other questions for Ms.

Cipriano?

Okay.

Thank you, Miss Cipriano.

Would the staff like to make its presentation?

Then we'll do public comment.

I know you've been waiting uh a long time this evening.

Sure.

This proposal is to subdivide a parcel into two lots, leaving the two-family structure on one lot and permitting a single family to be constructed on the other lot.

Um the lot is to be accessed from Warwick Avenue.

I quickly showed the aerial photograph of showing the location of the lot.

Um Henry Street comes right into Warwick Avenue in front of that lot, and here's the photograph of the Warwick Avenue side of the lot.

In terms of zoning, it's A6.

Um, there are a couple different zones across the streets, B B1, but you can see there's a large patch of A6, and the future land use map is is mostly consistent with that.

The one change I that's called out in the flume for this area is the neighborhood commercial area and multifamily up to the north on on Ferncrest that's um in this neighborhood.

This is the compilation plan submitted by the applicant.

There are 35 tax lots within 200 feet.

Uh 22 are greater than the 4,750 square feet that are proposed, and 13 are less.

Um, in terms of units per acre, um the neighborhoods at 6.68 units per acre.

The 200 foot radius is at 9.68 units per acre, and the subject lot is proposed uh would end up at 13.76 units per acre.

This is calculated with this being at two family because that is the legal use on record with the city of Cranston.

Um the dimensions of the relief it sought are are shown here.

I think one of the things about this that I do want to point out is this was a little bit of a surprise.

If we go back to the compilation plan, um RGIS shows this whole row of seven houses plotted at 5,000 square feet.

If they had in fact been 5,000 square feet, we wouldn't be here today because they they'd meet the test for unmerger.

But the landscape survey came back and said, Oh, this upon surveying the lots, none of the lots on that side of the street are 5,000 square feet.

They're less than what are shown in RGIS, and that's why we're we're here today.

We're looking for that five feet of relief in terms of by being five feet smaller in one dimension.

They um they're under the under the median size for the neighborhood.

Um this is something that we asked the applicant to show.

Um they've showed the the parking, they showed where the parking would be for the existing house and for the proposed house, and it does conform to uh the requirements again, assuming parcel two is a two-family, because that's what we have it in, and then he's showing the locations for storm water, and that those conform with our regulations.

Uh, not gonna even go through the analysis because of the the late hour.

Uh, but the again to summarize this the recommendation um is to approve, and these are the dimensional variances of for the 4,750 square foot parcels.

Okay, thank you, uh Director Ashman.

Are there any questions for Director Ashman?

Commissioner Lampier.

I apologize in advance.

I think I asked you this once this evening, but it's so late I can't remember the answer.

Um a three-family home requires how many parking spaces by ordinance?

Six.

And does the plan for that property that has the two slash three family house on it accommodate six?

No.

It hasn't we have has not been shown to accommodate six cars.

Thank you, Commissioner Lampier.

Any other questions for Ms.

Director Ashman?

Okay.

We will now go to public comment.

Anyone here would like to make public comment on the Cipriano Plat.

Christina at the 37 Henry Street.

Um, good evening.

I'm here tonight to express our concerns about the Cipriano plat proposal, and I am representing other people who have written to you from our street.

Um, my concerns primarily surround the lack of parking, especially for the two-family existing home, which we now is uh three family.

That will certainly be an issue after the property is subdivided and new houses built.

According to the plans, there'll be one single lane driveway.

If I'm reading the plans correctly, 12 feet wide by 20 feet long.

That's for this two three really feet three family house.

Um I I did some research, and to have two cars comfortably, one in front of the other, you need 10 to 12 feet wide, which this is and 36 to 40 feet length.

Um, some there are a couple of these cars that park there that are SUVs too.

Um so this doesn't even comfortably fit two cars, much less enough enough cars for three-family house.

Um how not to mention if it's single driveway, that's challenging enough for one single family unit to jockey cars around.

How are different families and different units possibly going to jockey cars around in with his room for two cars and is actually three families living there, and it's a single with dryway.

Um keep in mind uh uh War Gav is very busy street.

There is never any parking allowed in Warcav, uh day or night.

So street parking even during the day is not an option.

Um the natural outcome will be to park on Henry Street because we are the only sidewalk side street really anywhere near there.

Ferncrest is a little further away.

Possibility that could be parked on two for this home, but most likely, you know, that's a little further away.

There is no other side street around except directly across the street, Henry Street.

Um, I'm a resident of Henry Street.

Our street is a small narrow dead end.

Our only way in and out is Warwick Avenue, which is very busy, as you know.

We already have a lot of cars in our street.

We have at least four multifamilies in our house.

We have um single families that have five and six bedrooms, some of them.

Um so we already have a lot of cars on our street day and night.

Um so we're kind of already really tight.

Uh, when the snow on the ground, a storm, it just shrinks the street even more, it's even more narrow.

Um, this will significantly affect our ability to get in and out of the street.

Uh, when you're trying to turn in from Waragav, if there's cars on both sides at the top of the street, you're like a sit and duck as people are flying up behind you heading north on uh War Gav, you're trying to navigate to get in the street.

Someone could be coming up the other way, there's not enough room, but two cars moving if there's cars on both sides parked.

Um also visitors to either of these houses uh will see Austria as most convenient logical place to park.

Crossing Waragav as a pedestrian at this spot is extremely dangerous, especially at night.

There's no crosswalk, there's no lighting.

And motorists love to race each other.

They'd be the first one in that merged lane.

Um it's only barely a block from the busy instrument at park and work out.

So if these tenants are crossing there, it is extremely dangerous.

And I don't know if any of them have kids, but that would be even worse.

Um these parking concerns are not unfounded, as we have had more than one resident from other multi-family homes.

Not this one, so far, but other multi-family homes on Warcav, use our street as a regular parking spot, both day and overnight in the past.

So we do have a history of that happening with some of the other multi-families.

Um it's not just a concern.

I'm just kind of fabricating.

Um the lot is simply too too small to accommodate the new house plus two driveways that will provide adequate parking for both homes.

There is a reason why the city has requirements in place, the minimum lot size per new house and frontage requirements.

Why do we even have these requirements if a variance is granted whenever these minimum standards don't fit the developer's plan?

Please don't take this lightly and vote no on the Cipriano proposal.

Thank you.

Are there any other individuals here in the room that would like to make public comment on the Cipriano plat?

Mr.

Lemer, is there anyone online that would like to okay?

Ashley.

Okay, please state your name and address.

I am Ashley Denver.

Um I live at 114 Warwick Avenue.

So it's literally right next door to the intended um new house.

Uh we would just like to second what was said that there is not enough room for a house and a driveway.

Um within those driveways, there would not be enough room to house all of those cars.

Um living here for the past uh 10 years, I have seen upwards of at least three to five cars in their law every every day.

Um there are kids that live there, so yes, crossing the street for them would be incredibly hazardous.

It is not a good road to be crossing without a crosswalk.

Um, and I agree that parking on either Ferncrest or Henry would be the alternative options, and neither of those is ideal.

Um, it's also just that it would be very, very close to our house.

Um, we only have our small driveway in between our house and the lot next door, um, which would make it kind of a hazard, especially if there were something such as a fire, we would it would be very easy for flames to leap between houses.

Um, and it's just uh as I feel just not a very good use of the land.

It should stay as it is.

Thank you.

Mr.

Lemers, does anyone else like to make public comment?

There is no other public comment online.

Okay, thank you.

Would the applicant like to respond to any of the public comment at this time?

The only thing I have to say is there are never more than three cars there.

That's all they have is three cars.

And second of all, if this lot was 5,000 square feet, which I thought it was the whole time until I had it surveyed.

I probably wouldn't even be here.

It would probably just been okay.

But I don't know what else.

Thank you for your time.

Okay.

Any other questions for Ms.

Cipriano?

Okay.

Any questions for the staff?

I think Ms.

Cipriano go to discussion.

Anyone have anything to say at this point?

All right, I'll just make my comment.

I'll be voting no on this.

Um the density of this, the future land use map is 7.26 for this area.

Within 200 feet, it's 9.68.

And this density for the proposed area is 13.76.

To me, this is clearly above the neighborhood and the future land use map.

In addition, we have heard testimony from the applicant herself about it being a actually three-unit uh facility, not a two-unit facility.

The parking is clearly inadequate right now for a three-unit facility by our zoning rules.

I feel that it would be, I'll put it this way.

No, like I said this earlier.

I look at the facts, I have my principles and views.

The applicant, him or herself does not affect my judgment.

It would be wrong for us to approve this, knowing that is a three unit facility there, I think.

Um the public comment was made.

I read it, it's and I looked at the photo.

It does not, I'm not sure it has adequate parking now, certainly not by our zoning rules if it's three units.

So I'll be voting no on this.

And um, thank you for your attention.

So there are two motions here.

One is for granting zoning relief and one is for subdivision.

approve this knowing that is a three unit facility there I think um the public comment was made I read it it's and I looked at the photo it does not I'm not sure it has adequate parking now certainly not by our zoning rules if it's three units so I'll be voting no on this and um thank you for your attention so um there are two motions here one is for granting zoning relief and one is for subdivision I don't know if I need to say this but I'll say it anyway um if it's you you have the fact that it's a three family on record there that the applicant would need a waiver or uh variance from parking in order for you to grant this and that waiver or variance was not requested so um wouldn't the correct thing to just then you're saying is potentially deny well I'll leave that up to you but I again um the you could not approve it as the application is submitted because they haven't asked for the appropriate relief given the fact that we now know it's a three family so a denial would um be well I don't want to say I I don't have to vote to you heard from the solicitor anybody want make motions approve or disapprove would how wants to do it is there a possibility should we maybe request a continuance so that she can do a little more homework I'm not voting for a continuance okay when someone comes in and they have a three family unit commissioner lampier um please correct me if this is not adequate but I would move um that we deny um the matter before us because we have evidence on the record that the property is a three family home and we do not have um the ability to grant a variance for parking for that purpose so we cannot consider what is before us that that would be adequate okay that's Commissioner Lamphier's motion anyone want to second it second by Commissioner Mancini.

Any further discussion I would add density but I'm I'm okay with that no as well anyway okay um all those in favor signify by saying aye all those of uh opposed say nay the ayes have it it's a unanimous denial right thank you very much all of you for sticking it around commissioner excuse me director ashman is the we have last on our agenda is the planning director's report uh we did not get a I don't remember getting a document did you pass one out no I did not I have no major updates at this time okay so hopefully in May we can do something on the comp plan and um the housing element and stuff like that okay anything anyone have any questions for the director at this time all right then what would it be appropriate as a motion to adjourn unless anyone has something to say the motion to adjourn motion to adjourn made by director Carrero seconded by Commissioner Coop.

All those in favor signify by saying aye all those opposed say nay ayes have it I'll see you next month