Richard Cromwell.

Jerry Pimentel's here.

Patricia Antonelli.

Yeah.

John Great.

Frederick Huntsbury here.

Paul McGravy.

Kevin Richard.

And Teresa Christmas Stoke.

Here.

Good whole house.

Thank you.

Alright, tonight, following some board business, we'll consider an application for adaptive reuse of the former Cogshaw School building into multifamily residential dwelling units.

Murray and then for those of you who may wish to speak tonight during the public comment period.

Please, if you have not done so already, sign up at the sheet on the corner of the desk over there.

Now, may I have a motion to approve the minutes of our last meeting?

So move.

Second.

Any discussion of the meeting?

Minutes.

Fairly straightforward meeting.

All right.

All in favor?

Any opposed?

Alright, the ayes have it.

I'm going to open the public meeting at this point.

And the public comment period will follow the applicant's presentation.

Mr.

Regan.

Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the planning board.

I'm Peter Regan with the firm of Sayer Regan and Thayer.

Here tonight representing ECM Realty Partners LLC.

This conversion of the COGshell School property to housing.

It's been a goal of the city for many years.

So we're happy to be here tonight to possibly bring that closer to fruition.

As this project will provide 32 units of much needed long-term rent house.

With me tonight, a Connor Melville, principal of BCM, who's available to answer any questions.

Lynn Small of Northeast Engineers, our civil engineer.

Jeff Mones of Two Hand Studios, our architectural designer.

Pamela Rogers, yes, of Verde Studios, our landscape architect, as well as Todd Brayton of Bryant Associates, our traffic engineer.

There are two main components to this project.

The first is the adaptive reuse of the historic Cogshell School Building into 26 residential dwelling units.

20 of those units would be one bedrooms.

All of the units would be deed restricted to long-term rentals for a period of at least 30 years.

In addition, rents on 40% of the units in the school building.

So 11 of the 26 units are restricted to Rhode Island workforce housing rent.

The adaptive reuse conversion of the building is permitted by right.

However, we are seeking one zoning variance for the building, and that's for the addition of third floor dormers that will be added to the east and west wings of the building.

As Jeff Monas will explain, those third floors on the east and west wings.

There are no windows or in order to convert that space into habitable space for each windows and the dormers to buy those.

However, based on the height of the building, those dormers, even though they're 12 and a half feet lower than the overall height of the main roof, those dormers are located above the 30-foot allowable height in the R10 zone.

So we are required, even though we're not increasing the height of the building, we are required to get a height area.

And the intent of those units is to for that to be more of a family housing area.

So the idea is that families with young children who might not find uh living in school building attractive would find living in these uh more responsible residential units more attractive.

Uh there are three vacant lots of about 7500 square feet each owned by the city on Evart Streets.

Uh the plan is to merge those into a single lot, which would then contain uh those three duplexes.

Um, we think those duplexes are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and actually make a nice transition on the large multi-family that you find on Van Zant as you've transitioned down into the rest of the neighborhood.

Um, in terms of zoning relief, that multifamily use requires special use permit in the R10 zone.

In this case, the proposed density is well below the nine units that the zoning code would otherwise allow.

Otherwise, the buildings themselves meet all of the dimensional requirements of the zoning code.

The only thing we're requesting on this component of the project in terms of variance is a variance from the parking design standards.

As will be explained, we're proposing three standard residential driveways for this project and for the duplexes on Ebard Street.

They're more consistent and compatible with the rest of the neighborhood.

That would eliminate that open space for the families who live there, but also increase impervious surface and uh increase drainage issues.

So that's the one uh variance that we're looking for with regard to the houses on Ebard Street.

Uh the plans that we're presenting you tonight uh include all the recommendations of the technical review committee, which unanimously gave this project a favorable recommendation last night, excuse me, last month.

Um, and lastly, while it's not technically part of the application as part of BCM's contract with the city, they've agreed to make improvements to the field that's directly to the west of the school building on Van Zand, as well as park and playground uh that is on Ebart Street.

So when Pam Rogers talks about the landscape plan, she'll talk to you about those improvements as well.

Uh and with that intro, unless there's some preliminary questions, I'm going to turn things over to Lynn Small to have her go over the site plan and the engineering specific.

Jared, if you would please swear in the witnesses.

Here is your right hand, please.

So to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Uh I have no.

Thank you.

Uh then you're a senior civil engineer with military engineers and results.

Yes.

This is copy of your CD.

Yes.

Um, Ms.

Small's been recognized by this word many times as an expert in civil engineering and asked the Chief ESO.

I recognize the same thing and consider them actually.

So we're happy to recognize Miss Ma as an expert on engineering.

Do you please begin just by talking a bit about the existing site conditions?

Uh, sure.

The um site is comprised under existing conditions of four lots.

One of the lots um on the south side, which fronts on Van Zent is occupied by a former school structure.

This property is almost entirely impervious with parking and just the school building itself.

Um the three lots to the back or the north side, which front on Evart Street are currently underdeveloped, with the exception of an asphalt area, which is for parking and basketball, I believe.

Um, that will be demoed as part of the project, but there's no other development on those um existing lots currently.

And is there any currently any storm water infrastructure on the property?

So there's no provisions under the current conditions for water quality treatment or storm water mitigation.

Um, so basically all of the rain that runs onto the site runs off the site, um, unless it obviously infiltrates into the grass itself.

And with that, by your data, the biography uh brings to Ebarth Street and the west.

Very almost entirely the site drains northwest.

Um, there's a small portion in the front of the school building that drains towards the roadway, uh, might be about five to eight percent of the site, but the majority of the site drains to the northwest.

And could you please review the proposed plans uh reverse?

Can we get a small building?

Absolutely.

So the proposal that we have for the improvements, basically, we're revising the parking area.

Um we're reducing some of the impervious surface.

We are changing it to a one-way um loop around.

Um the reason for this is because there's a very large tree at the southwest corner of the property that we're trying to preserve.

Um we worked with the tree warden, and Pam can go into more details when she goes to the landscape plan, but because that links to how the parking layout ended up being, I just wanted to mention that is how we ended up with a one-way through.

Um that was one of the primary recommendations coming out of the C C RC process.

Absolutely, yes.

That was they wanted us to see what we could do to preserve that tree just because of how big it is.

Um, and the best approach that we could think of was to try to hold that line.

Um we're redoing um the asphalt and everything, but we are holding that east side, um, so we'll be able to keep the stairs that are on that um connection from the school property to the park that's on the on the left or east, um, west more.

Right.

I don't know why I have to do that every time.

Um but we did maintain when we did the um one-way loop through the site, we did maintain the wider um aisle width where we have parking, so you could technically fit two cars passing.

Um, it's just the actual curb cut and that west um alley, if you will, um where you can drive in.

So all of the um travel areas where you're going to be parking are wide enough um for easy maneuverability, and in terms of the circulation on the side, since it's a long way, um which way ahead of them too.

So we had um initially um proposed that you would enter the site on the west and loop around to the east and exit on the east.

Um the reason this was the way we decided was just because the dumpster was located on the east, so we figured he would drive in and be able to loop around.

Um, it's been brought to our attention that it may be preferred by some of the abutters that we reverse that.

Um, and that is not a problem at all.

Like I said, we have the wide enough aisles for two-way traffic, it's just the curb that's reduced.

Um, so it would just be when the um track removal comes, you may come in the opposite direction.

And just a point on that, we did get a call this afternoon.

Probably see um the virus to the east as if we would reverse the traffic circulation coming in on the looking at the school on the right side of the east entrance and exiting the west entrance.

Um we check with the staff, they have no problem with that.

We check with our engineers, we have no problems so that we consider that to be part of the application.

Uh, in terms of parking and how many spaces are required.

So I I believe we're required to have 26 phases, and we have 41.

Um, that's on the school itself.

For the school property alone.

Correct.

Correct.

And you're providing four EV charging stations as well as by inside school.

Exactly, yes.

Um, did you talked about um the drainage and nothing and what we're doing in terms of storm, kitchen.

So the from the drainage perspective, the site all drains, both of the um properties drain to the northwest.

Um, and we analyze the whole development together um for the stormwater system.

While the school development itself proposes a reduction in the impervious surface, we do want to make sure we provide some water quality treatment.

So we are collecting um the impervious surfaces, and we are going to direct that into an underground um treatment system, which is located in the backyard of three duplex homes, um, that front on Evarts.

That discharge line will then tie into the catch basins that are in Egart Street.

The overall development proposes a reduction in the peak runoff, a reduction in volume, and obviously um water quality treatment where we have none today, yeah.

Correct, public sewer and water.

Um to the uh e-classes on the units.

Absolutely.

So the existing three lots that we have on Eve Art Street are going to be merged um together.

This allows us to better lay outs that we're gonna be proposing on this.

These lots are fairly narrow because they are narrow.

Um and we have three duplex units buildings um that are located closer towards the roadway, um, but more than the front setback.

Um they have rear porches.

Jeff will go into more detail on their designs, but this allows for um a larger backyard in the area um behind the duplex units.

Each building is going to have its own um driveway.

So it'll be like a duplex umit, um, and it's just by default that we have merged a lot that it qualifies as multifamily.

Otherwise, each building has two units in there, and we're treating the parking like you would for a regular duplex.

This decision to make it um three individual driveways was done because we had actually gone through the process of creating a parking area like you would for a multifamily um development, and we ended up with the entire backyard as a parking lot.

Um, just because you have to have a minimum aisle width, your minimum parking spaces, and your exit and entrance has to be a certain size.

Um, and we felt that it would be a better project if we um enhance the green space rather than creating a huge parking lot that technically met the zoning ordinance in that area.

So that is why we have that relief request uh for this application.

The uh questions, we went.

Yes.

So each of the duplex houses contains two units?

Yes, two cats, yep.

So then there's parking for four cars two per unit.

Yes, and they stack and they're gonna go in and out into the street, right?

Yeah, thank you.

You're welcome.

I think that's it.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Uh, you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Uh, you're familiar with the cylinder.

Yes.

It is many times.

Very well.

It changes every time.

Um, as not seeing the tenants, not yet, but we're there.

Um, is the first time you could start with this?

Probably eight years ago.

You're in there.

And what's the time like?

Um, I mean, it's it's very bad, the current condition.

I mean, most of the west side is collapsing on the interior.

Um, the chimneys have been leaking for since the building was emptied essentially.

Um, so yeah, there's lots of mold growing in there, all the floors have buckled.

The west side, like as you're looking at the screen now, like all of that green, like most of that is sort of collapsing on the interior.

Um there's broken windows, and it's in really bad shape.

We haven't been in the basement in years.

It's not safe to go there.

So is that a celebrating?

Oh, we've seen it off the way.

Yeah, I mean, we we know we've been talking about this for a long time, so every every time we go in there it's it's worse.

Okay.

Um, can you just frequently walk the board through the layout uh and the elevation?

Uh starting with the school level.

Sure.

I mean, uh so everything with the school building happens kind of within the existing footprint, um, kind of similar to what we did in Cranston Calvert, right?

It's it's all kind of small unit driven.

Uh we're kind of taking the approach like a classroom becomes in the uh so we end up with this mix of one and two bedrooms uh throughout the building.

Uh the one bedrooms, you know, range from five to seven hundred-ish square feet, and the two bedrooms are like from seven to twelve hundred, depending on where you are.

Um there'll be some slope ceiling up on the third floor where we get into these kind of flanking roof areas that we're adding these dormers.

Um, but yeah, the windows, like we're not proposing to move or change any window locations, but we will be replacing them all with uh new window units, you know, cleaning up the brick and everything else as we go along.

But the exterior really becomes more of a repair uh scope of work than anything we're adding on.

Um, you guys start on the basement level.

Yep, you can just briefly just walk us through this.

Yeah, so I mean so just like we did in Crestry Calvert, each each unit gets a dedicated storage unit in the in the basement as well.

Uh we find a lot of people bringing their pipes and such and there and just using it for general storage.

Um on the right-hand side where we have the mechanical and leasing office, uh the grade is higher over there, so we have less access to uh windows of daylight uh where we have more access to windows and daylight on the uh western side uh of the lot.

So these are kind of our smaller one bedrooms that that pen wheel around the building.

Uh there's existing uh entries in the rear of the building uh that will remain, uh, and then we will be adding an elevator into the project as well that will serve us all fourth course.

And then you have some common laundry and mechanical space as well.

And yeah, as we stack up, like we said, it's kind of a classroom becomes a unit itself.

So um the building is is really deep, so there are sections of this building that you know are pretty deprived of of light where the old corridors were.

Um so we're building into the corridors, which is some areas, but we're going to have kind of generous open circulation towards the middle of the building, because honestly, we don't have much use for that space anyway, being a kind of devoid of of this light.

Um but yeah, and then you can see you know, smaller one-bedroom units in the 500 square foot range and two bedrooms that hit up towards uh 1200, depending on where you are.

So, next floor.

Yeah, as you go up, same exact layout is as you come up.

Um, you know, bigger circulation in the middle, there's that one one bedroom in the back.

Those egress uh are the existing stair towers uh that we're reusing.

Uh so again we'll we'll clean those those up, but the general circulation of the existing building of banks.

And then on the third floor, so you can see kind of where we've added some of these smaller dormers as you go around.

So uh we have lots of height kind of in the main volume that runs front to back in the middle core of a building.

Um, but there's these these uh sort of um you know attic type spaces on either side of that that have headroom but don't have any light.

So these are the smaller dormers that were introducing to those areas.

And in the addition of those norms, how many units does that allow us to add to the third floor?

Oh, that gets four units.

So without those we'd lose four units instead of floor.

So none of that's like without the dormers, none of those spaces on the east or western use of that there's four levels happen.

Correct.

Yeah, so these are the elevations.

Um we went back and forth with some different dormer configurations, went through the TRC process and some input from the historic planner, and we landed on this kind of smaller dormer approach that would be centered on the window base below.

Um, as Peter mentioned, I mean we're we're underneath the planking ridge lines of the uh lower roof, so we're about six inches lower uh than those existing ridge lines.

Um and then the main peak kind of still goes up and is the way it is, but we're not introducing any dormers in the main gable of the building.

And the dormers itself are about 12 and a half feet lower and middle at all.

Correct.

Yeah, I mean, it's really cleaning up the existing.

Yeah, all the existing main entrances of the building, you know, stay as entrances to do the building itself.

And like we said, we're you know, there's there's you know newer windows that have been put in there now, but we're going to go back to more of a double hung with the transit approach for the existing window openings.

But we'll be reusing and repairing all of the existing sills and stone trim that that exists there now.

And in terms of the entrances that we mentioned on the rear of the building that's gonna be kind of accessible entrances uh adjacent where the elevator was, and you'll be able to come in, you know, through that that lower portion of the building and access the elevator and get it everywhere you need to be.

Um any questions from Mr.

Monez with regard to the school building for the food.

Uh yeah.

One question here.

I guess if you go to the view that shows the duplexes, also there was some pictures that show the duplexes.

That was I know the duplex is the drive, one of the driveways is actually on the western side.

Yeah, we sent updated gatherings.

And didn't but was there a question there is like I figured it was an update.

Were there any discussions of trade-offs there relative to putting it on one side versus the other?

Yeah, there was there was a discussion about the proximity of that particular driveway to the existing frost walk on Eagle Street.

Okay, so you moved it away.

Since the move to the east side of that building to make sure that there's no uh inside what didn't have the cross up there, and Todd Brady firecraft engineer and address that, but that was the reason for that change.

You'll see the duplex plans and then the site plan don't updated about the rendering is kind of.

Thank you.

Quick question.

Um I didn't see any drawings related to air conditioning equipment.

Are there condensers here that are going to be used for ACs or um there will be condensers?

Um we probably locate those in the rear roofs.

Um again we haven't really dove in the mechanical, but you know, we can do roofbounding condensers, um, um, well that would you think that would impact the height again?

Uh um it'd be underneath those flanking ridge lines.

There's smaller units, you know, it's all electrical units now that we're doing it on these.

So did that come up at all in the meeting last month, the the technical meeting?

No, it did not.

Did not okay.

It's a good question.

Okay.

It might be helpful to see a rendering with the equipment.

Just so to get some of it.

Just an idea.

Okay.

Only because in the past what's happened is all of a sudden the equipment is on top, right?

And it it all of a sudden it becomes now an impact on the height of the of the structure.

So we just want to understand that.

Yeah.

And I think, you know, if if we go through this and uh that might be something that gets addressed.

Um at the this is for preliminary review that that might be something, a detail that is addressed, and we can bring a plan out to the administration with regard to uh.

Thank you.

Yeah, anything now would be the question.

Yeah.

Um can we move on to the setup?

So this is the front and rear elevations of the duplexes.

So the way these are set up is the first floor is its own self-contained uh two-bedroom unit, and then the second and third floor is kind of combined to make um a larger unit.

Uh we have a uh 10 foot by 10 foot deck on the back of each of these at the second floor.

Uh that was reduced to combined the new uh zoning regulations for second floor decks.

Um but that's really the only exterior space.

There's a small sort of covered patio area underneath that uh for the first floor units.

So those are sort of the two dedicated you know exterior spaces, and then they have access to your rear yard.

Um but the front entrance there is kind of the main entrance to both units, so I can go in that door on the stairwell that takes you right up to the uh second floor, or you can you know take your door and be right into the roof space, first of all.

They're pretty traditional, you know, reports that up, like cables, smaller dormers on the third floor um for underneath the height limits.

We're gonna ask you for any relief on these.

Um, the very very basic layout.

Um and then the the layout of the building, and particularly the dormers, that was rebellized as far as the DRC process and discussions with programming.

Yeah, it's 34 dormers, and a little bit, reduce the size those overall and the heights, the exterior walls.

Um yeah, because the bedrooms kind of front front to back, so they have access to the just in the gating lens, um, and uh, really have a uh sort of at front if possible.

So reduce the size of the sort of set.

Um, questions.

Yep, question.

Can you show that the plan that I saw online?

We didn't show the first and the second floor layouts.

Oh no.

It wasn't in the document that was online.

That's the third floor from when we updated.

Do you have a new label?

I think they were in the original.

There were two files.

But layouts, I think.

One was the third floor.

Another file with the other floors.

Okay.

More thirty-first.

That was the five buttons of the change.

Yeah, the first.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Version one.

There you go.

Um so yeah, you can see the front the front entry on the street there coming in off the cover court.

Then an open living area with a kitchen in the front.

Bathroom in the middle, two bedrooms, and the decks and we can.

Yeah, the deck was bigger because you know, since we've been doing this for so long when we've changed so it made the deck bigger.

So the covered area in the back is much smaller.

And then you have the second floor.

Um so this is a revised as well.

Uh with the new movement.

So we put the two bedrooms up on the third floor, and there's just kind of an office and play room.

On this second level, much smaller.

Um, and then we have a smaller deck up back as well.

But same idea, you come up, you come into an open sort of kitchen dining area, living is focused on the back.

We basically you can see where the closet is going now.

We've sort of reduced the name size to just be more of an office and playroom size and make the living room a little bit bigger.

And then as you go up to the third floor, you've got the two bedrooms and five closet and bath and then the soft chair.

And these dormers, this footprint got reduced uh based on that last third, and then based on the thank you.

Any other questions?

Okay.

Um, raise your right hand.

You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

I do.

I said a copy of this product, see me.

Thank you.

Not anything.

Uh, you're you're a landscape architect, your business was learning design.

Yes, could you please um just walk the board through the landscape of the leave crazy um the so um the intention for around the renovated school um a big emphasis was made as Lynn mentioned was to save that large oak tree in that corner um which is you know a pretty extensive large tree so we wanted to be very careful um and working with Scott Wheeler to make sure that that was saved um all of the other trees that are along that uh vanzant have been saved as well um most of the um planting there is just enhancement to the existing building there isn't much landscaping there now so it just enhance it um and then along the back side most of it is um there isn't any room for planting over there with the um handicap spaces but there were tree trees added on the west side along the property line that separate the field um from the school um we also at one point did remove the concrete stairs that made that connection but they were put back in so I could see you know on this plan that you know we'll have to adjust the trees a little bit to make that work but um you know that's the intention for around the school maintaining that slope coming to the stool and down the field maintaining that slope similar drainage pattern but improving the uh field so we have a pretty extensive um spec um sheet on the plan which calls for that whole field uh playing field to be renovated um so it will drain better um also adding an irrigation system so you know we well maintained um and did you just spend a minute talking about screening us to the melon on the east side of the school building between the parking area and the neighborhood yeah so there really isn't any room for any planting along that side but there will be an eight foot board fence installed um pretty much to max the existing on that side and that board fence will wrap around um to the north side as well so there'll be um sufficient screen so um as you go north um to where the lots are you know um there's some three trees added along there um that's because there's there's a few trees being taken out so we're proposing to add two new trees for every tree that's removed um there's some abervitae um because we won't be able to sufficiently screen along that east side um there's some mature abervitae you know uh proposed for over there um then as you go around you know the west side of the duplexes um there'll be another eight foot board fence which separates the duplexes from the um uh sidewalk and playground and then also some columnar trees um over there so um we're also proposing um to expand the playground by 20 feet to the south and add planting to enhance it all the way around the playground um at Scott's suggestion all the equipment I mean all the equipment will be replaced in the playground and the uh surface will be regraded only sufficient you know, a similar playground surface will be added because right now it's very anti-bedged not very walkable.

Um the only playground equipment that'll remain are um a couple of swings.

All the benches will be replaced, the sidewalk will be improved.

Um so it'll be ADA accessible.

Um there'll be uh five benches added and uh three pick and then there'll also be some planting, right now.

Another improvement um along Everett and also um in the front of Van Zen is um all that chain link fence will be repaired and be flat.

I think that includes everything.

Question about the field.

Is that uh I've heard I've read I think a couple different things.

Is the slope going to be maintained or is that going to be flattened or evened out?

The field that's behind the playground uh on the south heading toward yes for advanced end.

So I think you know the at the suggestion of sort of you know the people who repair the playground, I'm sure there will be a slope to it, but it'll be a little bit more flat.

Okay.

So and there's a swale along that west side which will stay.

Okay, the is part of the renovation of the basketball courts going away.

Is there some has there been discussion about moving it over or just eliminate it all together?

There was um two years ago now.

Um we had some meetings, preliminary meetings with neighbors on this project.

Um one of the things that we was loud and clear was we want basketball court gone and basketball.

So that was I think that was the staff and uh it's one of the takeaways from that process.

So that's that's why we've not.

And what was the neighbors' concern?

Um, they can probably get just to do something here, but but I I think just just in terms of the use of the park by the the neighbors and community around it.

They prefer the open space uh rather than having that sort of surface.

Does that doesn't really make sense?

Especially if you you're now turning that into an active field where right now it's a passive field.

We deal with this in the south end of the city a lot.

Um, so Kevin, help me understand what you mean by an active or in a passive field.

So the plan as is showed in some of the other renderings was the design of a uh uh soccer field outline or a football field outline with um uh irrigation and drainage added so that it could be used and from what I understood it was going to be able to be programmed, uh along with some of the other parks where we could have Thompson come and use it as a practice field and such.

Am I correct?

Yes, okay.

So that's what you mean by active, correct?

And right now it's just it's basically a field.

Correct.

Yeah, open space.

Yeah, so it but it would not be lighted.

Sorry.

It was not be a lit field.

No, I don't believe there's no plan for that.

No, right now, I like the basketball court.

In a little bit of basketball court.

They agreed to expand the playground 20 feet.

Okay.

And I think we actually had a at one point we had a version of the plan that had a half board there, and even that got the big ones and yeah, I think people didn't want pickleball.

I think that was that was the issue from what I from what I've heard.

Uh people didn't want pickleball fields added there, I think is what the what I had heard, but that's fine.

Yeah, I I didn't we had never suggested pickleball.

I don't know if and yeah, I can understand that, but you know how sometimes these things I walk I wrote down.

Okay.

She's not done.

You switch up through the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

I do.

Thank you.

You just want to state your name for the record, please.

They were very they were very adamant about not having that uh to the point where it's uh yelling and uh some animation at the meeting.

Okay.

So the main point is that redesigns have been done in response to community engagement.

Exactly.

And as well as very uh detailed communications and meetings with you know our landscape architect and then I have a question.

What's this new surface of the playground?

Right now it is uh bark mulch that tends to flow downhill once there's a rainstorm.

Sure, we're taking guidance from Scott Wheeler, soon to be, I believe, another person in his position, and we've agreed on the actual thought.

Yeah, so right now it's like a playground bark, and it'll be similar to that, but we'll surface underneath it'll be like moved.

So it's not right now, it's just very uneven.

And we'll it'll be a permeable area.

Yes.

Point of clarification on the drawing itself relative to the trees.

You've got some trees labeled as existing to remain, existing and existing to be removed.

Um is existing mean it's staying?

If it just has just because it's the cherry tree, for example, right in front of the building.

The cherry tree is staying.

Okay, so but that that's just labeled existing versus the oak tree is labeled existing to remain.

So any tree you see on there now is remaining.

Any tree that was removed is is not there any longer.

It's simply a distant tree.

That means it's gonna be and a tree, and and they to be preserved was maybe for extra emphasis for that.

Yes, because uh I think in the original it was removed, and so I think there was emphasis put on the road.

Thank you.

So this this remains a city property, and yeah, it's gonna be improved um by the bye and then the city is going to maintain it, maintain it and operate it.

The fields up on Banzan also is subject to a conservation easement and trusts, so they'll be somewhat involved in that process.

But this remains city property, but technically it's not part of the application, but it is something that contractually we agreed to do as part of purchase of the property.

So I just wanted to make it clear what was gonna be happening with this as part of the overall structure.

I just have one question about the uh the the front on the e bars side with the where the duplexes are.

Um I see there's a nice fence and then maybe some vegetation in the pictures here.

Is there room for a sidewalk to go there in front of those duplexes so that if the people or the kids that live in those uh don't have to walk in the road or across the street and then cross back to go into the park?

Just to piggyback on that, but that particular part of evars does not have a sidewalk, correct?

Right.

Yeah, on that side.

So people end up walking in the middle of the street now, yeah.

So it would be an appropriate.

It would be an opportunity to improve an existing situation.

So I know I think Scott Wheeler did mention in terms of the people that are living in the duplexes suggested a gate and the fence so that they would have access to the playground and the park via the backyard, those properties.

That's shown, but that was one of the suggestions this guy had a uh ERC meeting.

So there would be there would be two trees added to the front of those properties as well, is that correct?

Okay, uh I just picture a nice ADA compliance sidewalk there in front with maybe some of those uh trees, the the flowering pear, I think is what they're called that that we have throughout the neighborhoods.

Um we try to keep with what's existing there and what's existing are red and maples okay there.

Yeah, that yeah, so yeah, we try to keep with what they don't grow too big, right?

So they're not gonna obstruct sidewalks or anything like that.

There'd be something that could be planted there.

So there's a fence all along the park there, so there would be walkway adjacent to the crosswalk coming into maybe you'll find a crosswall, kind of the walkway coming into the park from the crosswalk area.

Yep.

So um you see this this sidewalk and goes out, but there's nowhere except where it entrances that whole parts and stalls on the sidewalk, but it's not accurate.

There will be a reparable minute in the.

But no changes to the existing what we just saw on the Google maps.

Correct.

So the side of the road.

Where the condos would be going.

Or not the condo duplexes would be going.

Yes.

There will be no change to the actual side of the road where there is not a sidewalk currently.

Correct.

Correct.

But there will be there's the sidewalk on the north side of the street, and then there'll be an walkway.

Um with ADA accessibility coming from that crosswalk into the I have a question, if I may.

Uh about the backyards uh the backyard of the duplexes.

I noticed that there's no division in the backyard.

Am I to assume then then dogs aren't going to be allowed here or anything like that, because there would be no privacy amongst them in the backyard.

We c we currently don't allow pets in the properties.

That was my question.

So with no divisions, that means people have no it's a common common yard for everybody.

Alright, thank you.

And I think there's been one of the things early on in this process of leaving snow.

Obviously, there's no particular access, one of all the traffic related to the school building remaining on base.

I think we just crack this one.

It's just one.

Okay.

And usually there was no fact of the blowing from Danzam on the school in the band's hand.

No, I said I what I said um that the traffic.

Uh going into the school building stays on vans and is no connection vehicular between vans and e-hawts.

Right.

Through the properties.

Yeah.

What's what's the philosophy about no pets?

We want to get everything on the switch.

On new buildings, we traditionally do not allow pets for due to damage and whatnot.

They come in in a later stage of a building's rentability rental life.

Just for common purpose.

Okay.

And in this case, as was mentioned, because we've got a common backyard, um, unless you got a pet that it's going to be strictly housebound, it doesn't include it doesn't need the so that you had your own separate fence.

And all service dogs are acceptable, obviously.

Or service animals.

The field, however, behind the parking behind the playground the that that is city property and there are dogs visit that field and I imagine that will continue button property it's entirely up to the city regarding this one private background thanks for thank you thank you that's the S-hod break uh Jerry could you swear in the witness please yep you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do uh Mr.

Braden you're a professional engineer federalizing traffic engineering uh with Ryan Associates yes I am seeing yes it is consent please um this brain has recognized but I just don't recommend that say as a text room traffic in the RMUS that we need to I I will so recognize you thank you sir um you prepared a traffic when you didn't have it now yes I did but first um describe the steps if you should have to cannot let's go yeah so uh we we start by reviewing the plans uh for the development um determine exactly what is compassed in that um in the development we review uh do a field review so we look at the roads in the area in this case band avenue and eBart street um we do uh traffic data collection uh so here we did counts at the the nearest intersection to the east which is Banzett Avenue Malbourne Road and Summer Street uh we did those counts uh in the AMP period the PM peak period and the Saturday midday midday peak period um we also collected uh traffic data buy ins and speeds on bands and avenue and e Bart Street over a 24 hour period um uh for both of those roads and uh could you uh please just walk forward to uh your analysis and the financing yes uh so based on on the development as proposed um which consists of 26 dwelling units in the in the cock shell school and the six uh duplex units uh the first thing we looked at look at is uh how much traffic would be generated by those units we use the ITE trip generation manual uh so based on that uh using a multifamily housing land use code for the apartment units and single family attached housing for the duplex units um in total um from all 32 units in the AM there would be four entering vehicles and ten exiting vehicles in the PM peak hour there would be eleven entering vehicles and six exiting vehicles the Saturday peak hour there would be seven entering vehicles and eight exiting vehicles so we we did this traffic study back in late march late February early March uh which obviously in Newport traffic volumes are not at their peak so we got data from uh Roadland Department of transportation then we expanded those counts to more of a uh simulate a summer condition so then using the traffic counts that we collected the trip generation that we we generated we did capacity analysis um of that intersection I mentioned uh bands and avenue malbone summer for all the peak periods we also looked at the proposed driveways on bands at Avenue and um and this is again for the A and peak hour, B and peak hour and Saturday midday peak hour.

And based on this analysis, the level of service at the the intersection, the existing intersection and the two proposed driveway intersections on Banzon Avenue will be a level of service of A or B.

So they will operate very well there'd be no no impacts to um and just from could you explain the significance of the land level B or other levels?

Yeah, so level of service.

I can actually come out.

So it's it's a qualitative measure, which describes the operative operational conditions of traffic in this case based on delay, which is seconds for a vehicle or for the intersections.

So level of service A would be the most favorable conditions.

Level service F would be the least favorable.

And again, these intersections are levels of A or B.

So we also looked at site distance at all of the driveways, both Van Zan and Ebar Street.

On Vanzan Avenue, based on the 85th percentile speeds of 30 miles per hour that were collected, the site distance required is 200 feet, and that is exceeded at both of the driveways.

On Evar Street, the 85th percentile speed was 24 miles per hour.

Site distance required for that speed with 25 mile hour to line speed is 155 feet, and again, all three driveways, the site distances met.

We obtained crash data from the Newport Police Department for a period from January 1st, 2021 through March 1st, 2026, so a little over five years.

And there were a total of three crashes within the study area of the site.

Two of the crashes occurred at the intersection of Banzon Avenue, Malbone Road, and Summer Street, one of which involves a vehicle striking the park vehicle, and there was also one crash at the intersection of Banson Avenue and Hall Avenue, which again was a crash with the parked vehicle.

There were no reporting crashes on Banzon Avenue between Hall Avenue and Malbourne Road, and there were no reported crashes on Ebar Street between Hall Avenue and Melbourne Road.

So we also looked at at the site circulation for both parts of the development, and the proposed site safely accommodates the traffic that will enter and exit the site.

A bicycle rack will be provided that will provide access from Van Zant to uh to put bicycles, and as mentioned earlier, there probably also will be uh storage in the basement for bicycles.

Uh on Ivar Street, so there currently are our seven driveways on the south side and nine driveways on the north side of Bivar Street between Malbone Road and Hall Avenue.

And again, based on the crashing that we received from the Newport Police Department, there were no crashes on this section of road, including any any driveways.

Well the traffic counts that would take in the Bar Street show that there's uh approximately 260 cars per day, so it's very low volume.

Um the trip duration for the six UPlex units would be 22 entering vehicles and 22 exiting vehicles during the course of an entire day.

Uh so again, a low low number of trips.

The 85th percentile speed, as I mentioned, was 24 miles per hour, which is actually the speed limit's not posted, but it's I assume it's 25 miles an hour, so it's actually slightly below that.

Uh site distances, as I mentioned, were um exceeded.

Uh so based on this is not expected to cause any safety or capacity issues uh with these driveways on Ebark Street.

And it was mentioned earlier tonight, uh the original site plan has uh one of the blue bus driveways on the west side of the westernmost building, and that is since then uh moved to the other side of that.

Yes, that's right.

Yeah, it's uh yeah, so it's not specifically our analysis, but it's looking at it.

We reviewed after that change was made.

Uh so the crosswalk based on uh recommendation from the TRC, we'll keep the crosswalk where it is, and with the driveway.

The driveway will be sufficiently uh sufficient distance from from the crosswalk.

So, in your opinion, based on your review and your analysis, uh, will this project as presently proposed free any hazards in this statements?

No, all the questions I have to put in.

Anyone else?

No further questions.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Um, last other system.

Okay.

So I tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

I do.

Thank you.

Um I know Mr.

State Expert.

I'm happy to recognize Mr.

Wool again as a real estate expert.

Mr.

Who, you provided a uh report, was submitted on the other material for the application.

I did.

It's um you're familiar with this application of the subject property.

So I think area.

Yes.

Um, also familiar with the standards, but we have I am the analyze this project uh for compliance with those standards.

Oh, yeah.

Uh, please walk the board through.

Um, that analysis of the analysis of the sure.

Uh you know, the typical study that we review all the materials that have been submitted, um, examine the site.

Um, I had done the original appraisal for the city on the building, so I was very familiar with the building itself, uh, and of course what is being proposed.

Um the amount of relief that's being requested, I don't really see to be um a large amount.

The I I sort of broke it down looking at the special use or the variance rather for the existing school building, um, is really just to add the dormers in sets by Jeff Ponies.

Um, it it allows that third floor to be used.

They're architecturally very much in harmony with the building itself and not going to create any problems in the neighborhood, but when you look at it, the hardship is obviously the fact that the building exists, it already exists at a height that exceeds the 30 feet.

Um, so you have to, if you're going to expand the use of the property properly, uh you're going to exceed if you're building these uh dormers on the third floor.

So I don't I it certainly is hardship, it's not one that was created, it's been the height of the building has been all along.

I don't see the uh dormers impacting the neighborhood characteristics at all, not going to be any real impact, and I think it's in minimum relief.

Um, so I think that that is really very straightforward, and I don't see that much of a problem with it.

I went over to the special use firm that was needed on the three lots 225, 226, and 227 that are being requested to merge.

Um, it it clearly we I you know really examined all the facets comparing, merging and not merging.

It clearly makes more sense in the overall project to merge these three lots.

Um, they're going to be held for rentals for an extended period of time.

It's all part of the major package of conversion of the building and reuse property.

So I think that it it clearly makes a lot of sense to do or request a special use permit and put the three duplexes on there because we know the density um for uh the size of that lot if they're combined, would actually uh allow for nine units if so requested.

So this is really, I don't even see it as a very uh dense use of the property when you combine them.

Uh I reviewed the standards that have the 1701 parking and loading standards.

There are uh A through K.

I looked at each of these, most of these have been addressed by other experts, they've gone through TRC.

Um, so I think that uh it meets that standard without any problem.

Performance standards 1796020.

Um in this case, the one thing that I really saw was about the parking, whether single and two-family dwellings should have two spaces for each dwelling unit, which is being uh provided.

So I see that as being uh conforming.

Uh 1710030, the development standards, um, the size of these units is definitely in harmony with that provision.

Uh, for new construction and alterations exceeding 50 percent minimum, two bicycle spaces, there's certainly room for that.

Uh, for new construction and alterations exceeding 50 percent of any building dimension provisions of sidewalks connecting uh there are sidewalks connecting the parking area there is, and there will be a side bicycle and scooter parking within 200 feet.

Uh there's no net increase in stormwater that was already uh testified to by Lynn Small.

Uh, the proposed lighting is dark sky, that goes without saying that would be done.

And for new construction, the parking lots would be located in the rear or side yard.

These will be in the side yard.

So I see all the standards for the special use permit being met to combine and merge the lots.

There is the additional dimensional relief that's being requested, which is to back the cars into the roadway.

Uh, again, the hardship uh that I see exists because of the unique characteristics of the lot.

There, there is really no good way to do this.

You could, I suppose you could move the buildings back, that would interfere with some of the runoff.

Um you can't if you're if you were going to pave the whole backyard, it certainly wouldn't be in harmony with the with the neighborhood.

And I think it's just the physical constraints, as was as was stated in the staff report, the physical constraints of the lot and the project, I think, form the hardship.

Um, certainly again, these lots have been in their size and configuration for an extended period, so I don't see that.

Um it's not a hardship, in other words, it's not a hardship of the uh prior action of the uh petitioner.

The granting of the reuse variants will not alter the general character.

Um, so I looked at this and I realized that we're merging the lots, but I wanted a relative uh barometer when I went looking to compare the rest of the neighborhood.

So what I did was I I sort of kept the 7500 square feet of each of these lots improved with a single duplex, that again those duplexes meet all the other dimensional requirements of the lot, even for what would be three individual lots, but uh in terms of um the when I look at the neighborhood, I find that of the 22 lots that are shaded yellow that are on either side of Egard Street.

Um, the lot sizes, only five lots are actually larger than each of the individual lots that are there now.

Of the 22, 17 are smaller, the smaller range from 1800 square feet to 7,000, and the five that are larger range from 8,100 to 15, but the average of all 22 lots is actually 7,000 square feet.

So the average of all the lots in the neighborhood are already smaller than each of what are the existing individual lots, but in addition to that, five of the 22 are two to four unit properties.

So you already have about 18% of the neighborhood is already a small multifamily up to four units.

So I find that really the proportionality of each of these small buildings, the duplexes look very much like the traditional Newport cottage.

And I and I just find them thrilled in when I look at all of the standards, I mean all of the goals of the comprehensive land use plan and housing, constructing new units, meeting birds' needs, complement historic architecture or Billets, taking care of land used to provide balanced city of residential employment use is consistent with the character environmental resources vision of the community.

They'll show encourage upgrading, beautification, revitalization, environmentally appropriate use.

And the field, so I think that uh it's certainly in terms of the open space uh also meets comprehensive land use goals.

So I I think that considering the fact that most of the properties in the neighborhood already back into the street, uh very few of them have enough room to turn around on site.

This is typically going to be very harmonious with the streetscape, it'll be harmonious with the usage that are found on the on the throughout the Evart Street neighborhood.

So I think that uh denying it would be more than a mirror question.

No, any questions for Mr.

Fool.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh that's all we have.

Testimony, just would like to reserve the right to just sum up once the comment period.

All right, very good.

Uh then I'd like to open the public comment period.

Whoever is first on the list, please approach the stand and introduce yourself.

If you could just limit yourself to a couple of minutes, introduce yourself, your name, and your address.

Uh our secretary will swear you in.

First, we have Alison Burke of 135 Van Zant, and that is a Director Butter.

Do we have to swear to?

For public testimony.

You want us to swear in or not?

No.

We don't need to.

We'll wave that.

All right.

So we have your name, and we know you're Alice and Burke.

I live directly across the street from Coxville School.

Thanks.

Um, I've been very excited about the um development uh project that's been going along, um, although I've had quite a few reservations living directly across the street.

Um, my first question would be for the person who said how many parking places would be available.

I wasn't able to hear that.

But it's a little building with 41 spaces, 41 spaces, yes.

It didn't appear to be 41 when I looked at the specs, but um that would be great uh because my biggest concern is and for the safety of the traffic assessment is the impact on the actual neighborhood.

Um right now there's not very many cars parked on Banzan Avenue, and that's because they get hit all the time.

We personally have been struck six times, five times hit and run.

Um, so anytime there's going to be cars parked on either side of that street, um, it's going to negatively impact um the entire neighborhood.

Um, it also puts the street down to one lane.

So that's very important.

Um it's I'm also uh concerned about the dormers.

Um I beg to differ that that would negatively uh not negatively impact the neighborhood because they're going to be looking directly into my windows.

So I am very concerned about four big windows or small windows looking directly into my face.

I currently am going to be affected negatively with my privacy and quality of life by all the other windows.

I'm really concerned about four more.

Um it may not seem like a big deal to you guys, but um I don't like people looking directly into my windows, so my privacy is going to be gone.

Other than that, um, I really don't have uh much else to say, except I do agree with um uh Rob and Jackie's letter that they sent in.

Um I'm very concerned about um Evart Street, because right now everybody does park on both sides, and it's like one nine already.

So I'm very concerned about their street as well.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, the next we have Edward who's crossed out.

I just wanted to give him the opportunity, okay.

Uh Thomas Kane of 56 Evarts Street.

Good evening, members of the committee.

My name's Thomas Daniel of 56 Evar Street of NM in that house for 45 years.

Um I'm gonna try not to jump all around, but I was taking notes as things came up.

Um I think what I'll do is just start with the question about the basketball court.

So I think I've been at every meeting.

I've heard one person say they don't want a basketball court.

He was adamant about not wanting a basketball court, but it was one person.

I made a comment that going from one a full court to a half court doesn't seem like a great trade off, and I believe the response I got was okay, you don't want a basketball court.

Not what I said.

Um I guess my main concerns are about the duplexes.

Um, been pretty vocal since the beginning of this that we don't think the duplexes should be on that space.

Um there's very limited open space in the neighborhood.

I know there's um a small park there, um, and we appreciate the fact that it will be rehabilitated.

Um, but I always think the loss of open space is a big problem in a city that doesn't have much.

About the park, um the house next door on the least side is the largest multifamily neighborhood, it has four units, it has a paved back space for cars to turn around and go back.

When I read Mr.

Hole's report, he stated it is impossible to provide sufficient space on site to turn cars.

That was contradicted by the attorney who said we could do it, but we would have to pay it in the back.

But we want to preserve open space for the people who are gonna live there.

Our whole premise from this is preserve open space for the people who have lived there for decades, so I find it a bit disturbing that we will do it for six units, but not for an entire neighborhood.

So I think if the regulation or the code is to have turnaround, they should have turnaround.

The way the parking parking is configured, stacked two cars, two cars.

I don't believe that people are going to use the driveways exclusively, because you've got to get out shuffle cars.

Not everybody has the time to do that when you're getting ready to go out to work.

So that I think people are going to park on the sidewalk.

If you looked at the um pictures that the four centers um submitted, it's pretty congested in that area already.

My daughter lives directly across the street.

They have two cars, one has to park on the street.

I'm really concerned that if those cars are not in the driveways, and I think it's reasonable to consider that they won't be all the time.

There's not going to be enough place for people to park who already live there.

One of the things that it seems to those of us who are lifelong new borders is there's always consideration for other people and not long-term reports.

I think we should take that into consideration.

The other thing I want to go back to in Mr.

Hool's report, he talked about the three duplexes and what I uh wrote down from his report is the proposal will undoubtedly result in significant enhancement to the neighborhood talking about the three duplexes.

I would defy anybody who tell me we're adding three buildings as a better enhancement than maintaining expensive.

Just don't suit.

So I think just to uh summarize, um, if we have a rule that says far to turn around, should be able to have to turn around to get out to the street.

We should make sure it happens.

The basketball court, I think, is an important piece of the neighborhood.

My daughter told me there were people out there till 7 30 playing ball last night.

It's people who know that I've been involved in this process.

The one question I get asked the most is are we still going to have a basketball court to play in?

And finally, I guess, I believe that there shouldn't sidewalks, not just grass on that side of the school.

Thank you.

Thanks.

I do have a question for staff and counsel.

Is there a regulation that requires uh turnaround in driveways?

Yes, for yes, there is.

Um, whether it's specifically under the variance or because of the special use permit is where I'm so the the parking design standards um for single family allow the typical driveway for two families for duplexes, allows that typical driveway.

For multifamily, requires you to be able to turn around.

So when we looked at this, in addition to not wanting to pave the backyard, we looked at this as really as three duplexes, which if these were if if we kept these on separate lots and came in for a different variance to say we want you know variance from the size standard, um, those lots would be those same houses would be entitled to have this standard driveway by right.

So one and two have family dwellings are exempt.

The reason why we need a variance is that putting them together on one lot, turns it into multiple.

All right.

Okay.

Next, the next person signed up is Philip Young of 140 Van Zan F.

Good evening.

Good evening.

So uh my name's Philip Young, and I am the owner of 140 Van Zan.

I am the only privately owned abutter that shares a property line with Cogshell School on the Banzant Avenue.

I know that this project will impact the value of my property one way or another.

I'm going to back this project solely on the witness of Mr.

Melville's proven quality at development at France and Calvert School.

I feel that we must be careful what we wish for.

This monumental building, great architecture, which can't really be replaced today, should be preserved, and the next developer to come along may just demolish the school and build a tenement block similar to Candlewood 2.

I've owned Banzan long enough that that impacted my property value, but that was developed.

If they do develop uh a tenement block, that would impact the streetscape, character of Van Zant property values, in my opinion.

That's the manual.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And the next person signed up is Becky D.

Witt of 27 Sheffield Ave.

If anyone else is interested in signing up to speak we have it right here and you're welcome to add your name.

Good evening.

Good evening.

I'm here tonight to express concerns regarding the proposal that would allow tandem parking in our neighborhood.

Well I understand the intention behind this change tandem parking will inevitably lead to more cars parking on the street.

Our streets are already narrow enough and heavily used by residents families walking to the park and children playing increasing on-street parking will only worsen congestion and reduce safety.

In addition tandem driveways create a significant safety hazard because cards are stacked the inside vehicle must back out blindly into an already contested and congested street.

This design forces drivers to reverse into traffic at awkward angles with limited visibility.

On a roadway like Evarts where children walk families cross to the park and cars already struggled to pass this dramatically increases the risk of collisions and unsafe interactions.

Tandem driveways don't just add more cars they add more dangerous backing out moments to a street that cannot safely absorb them.

Furthermore the traffic analysis determined that there will be an additional 113 vehicle trips per day coming and going from Cockchill school site an increase of that magnitude is not minimal by any reasonable standard.

It raises a critical question how is it possible that an additional 113 daily vehicle movements will not cause safety or capacity issues on streets that are already strained and heavily used by pedestrians and families this conclusion does not align with the lived reality of residents or the physical limitations of the road lab.

There are however several practical steps the city can take to improve traffic flow safety and neighborhood livability steps that are fully within the control of the city make Ebart streets park ebart street parking on one side only to reduce congestion and improve visibility or perhaps one way from Malbound to hall add sidewalks on both sides of Ebark Street to protect pedestrians especially families walking to and from the park.

Allow the community to participate in planning the new playground so the design support safety accessibility and neighborhood needs I assume the land trust needs to approve the park as well paint curbs yellow near driveways and in front of fire hydrants to clearly mark no parking zones and prevent unsafe or illegal parking add an additional crosswalk at the park exit on Banzan Evarts for families frequently cross and visibility is limited.

These changes would meanfully improve traffic and safety without creating the unintended consequences that tandem parking tandem driveways and increased traffic volumes would bring I urge the board to consider long term impact on residents to provide to prioritize solutions that enhance safety clarity and unity involvement.

Thank you.

I have a question for staff please.

Steph can we add a condition about working with the city to add no parking signs or cur yellow the curves to I mean I I have genuine concerns about the standup parking spots in this particular area because it's my neighborhood I walk it every day I'm not in a butter but I understand this particular issue really well and I don't disagree with some of the testimony we've heard tonight that these are small streets and people do park on both sides.

So I'm wondering if there we can do a condition about that.

Yes.

So the way that this is done is um citizens typically fill out a citizen can um concern concern request, which then goes to the ITC, which stands for interdepartmental traffic committee.

Um and these are concerns that you know different areas of the city have definitely had as well.

The ITC evaluates it um with the residents there if they're able to attend um through a conversation or dialogue uh against the traffic standards that the city is upheld to both by the state and in the federal government.

So that is definitely something that can be brought to the ITC and they can work out a solution with the residents um to to address those safety concerns.

Is there anything preventing the planning board from sending a letter to the ITC on behalf of the entire city rather than or and the entire neighborhood based on testimony that we've heard here, rather than having testimony being repeated over and over.

So what Hayden just said is as a property owner, the applicant could go to the ITC and the property owner is city of Newport.

For the applicant, depending on which parcel the the applicant team that's under PN purchase and sale grants.

So that could be a condition to work with the ITC.

Is it the I conditioned on behalf of the entire neighborhood?

Ask the planning board or ask the planning staff.

I didn't hear you, Trish.

Right.

I just see um our consideration of whatever.

So Trish, just it it has to go back once after after preliminary, still goes back to the TRC one more time, correct or no?

It doesn't.

Okay.

Okay, but it's TRC.

Okay.

That would be done by me.

Okay.

Okay.

Mr.

Wade.

What specifically was the suggestion?

I don't I don't think we had an issue with it.

I just wanted to make sure I understood what we're saying.

Sure.

So uh may I oh go please go um so I think they're at least from Jared and I um agree with Mr.

Kane and the and and some other residents that uh there should be a sidewalk added to the top I'm not sure we can hold the app and to build it on the city part going from the park, but at least in front of those residents, and I'm sure what would the if it's just an isolated sidewalk and stuff so it's what is that?

Well it wouldn't.

We'd appreciate it if it went the entire distance uh in front of both properties, and then we would ask the ITC when you say to prevent properties, you mean from from evarts.

On EVER, on eVART.

The entire length of both the park and in front of the the three duplexes, a sidewalk.

And we would ask that there be no parking uh on that side of the street.

I mean, I heard that about the park, we have no issue with saying we do the city or petition the city to say that there be no parking.

Okay, and now that's it's a decision the city has to make in consultation with neighbors, of course, and other people who might be using R, but that's what we have no issue with at least with that aspect.

Yeah.

Yeah, but uh we've had not as much testimony as I thought, and it it seems to all be around that that one issue of of parking, and and that seems to be the biggest.

So I'm trying to figure out ways that we can both sides could be satisfied.

I get I get why we have three duplexes.

I I I understand that you want to have some sort of a backyard.

Um, and I don't I don't want I don't want more impervious services.

I think that the the drainage plan and everything is well above and it will improve that neighborhood.

And immensely one of the things in the uh and I think it's noted in the TRC report, the city, and we've said that we're going to sit down with the uh the department of utilities because we're redoing the field.

They think there might be an opportunity to put some additional training infrastructure, sort of a public-private project, and we're happy to talk with the department of utilities about assisting with that since the field's going to be renovated anyway.

And so the land trusts might be an opportunity to need some more trainage to, you know, above and beyond what's what's required here.

Yeah, but but with regard to the and I don't, didn't we interrupt with regard to that issue?

Um we have no no problem with supporting managers one, but you know, parking on the side of the street.

Madam Chair, yes, I I have a question.

Um I don't see how I mean I think sidewalks are great.

If you want to do parking on one side of the street, I don't see how that solves the problem.

Okay, it's still tandem parking.

I know for a fact, if there's two units in each of those duplexes, there's going to be more than two cars.

Because guaranteed, if it's a husband and wife, it's gonna be he's got one, she's got the other.

So my question is this has the applicant, and this is a question for the applicant.

Did you consider you want to combine these three lots?

The so the space the the two options that we had here were to uh put the duplexes, one on each of the three existing lots.

The three existing lots are only 50 feet wide, minimum width and R10 is eight.

So these are narrow lots.

So when you add the driveways, it gets a little tight, and the driveways are double web.

So you can park two cars each side by side, so it's not four cars stacked, it's it's two and two.

Um that would have required us to come in for different variants uh because the minimum lot size for a um a duplex is ten thousand square feet.

Um when it becomes a multifamily, the formula chain is in this Mr.

Poole testified you could put a total of nine units on the combined lots.

So we're coming in asking for third lesson.

So it was a question of one variance or another.

We hadn't come in and kept it as three separate lots, um, you'd have the same houses, but those driveways would be permitted by relaxing.

Okay, but so but it's uh you're saying four cars per building.

That's what you're showing.

Four cars per building.

Yes, but they're still stacked.

The driveways, and then what's this is a render, but the the driveways are wide enough that you can have two cars side by two car seats side by side stacked.

Right.

So they're still stacked.

Yes.

Every other driveway on the neighborhood.

Yeah, but just about every one, most of the other driveways in the neighborhood, one of those be single family homes, so it's a couple or a family that's stacking their cars rather than tenants that don't live with each other.

They live in the same building, but they're not sharing vehicles, one would assume.

So I guess my question, my question was, was did you consider since these are such narrow lots, only putting two duplexes and having a center parking area, a shared center parking area?

Um we didn't because that there's a couple of once again, we considered leaving it as three separate lots, but that still would have reports and conventional relief.

Um the issue that drives this, and and just so you know, of all the proposals that the city received, this is the least density on Evar Street.

The others had one one had 18 unit building on Evarts, um the other one had substantial number of units as well.

This is the least amount of all the proposals that the city received, and um the problem with this this project is that the cost of rehabilitating the college show school building is so high, and it gets higher and higher because of the continued deterioration of that building, that the cost per unit of all the units in that building is over 400,000 per unit.

Um there was discussion beyond when we were negotiating with the city and this they were suggesting, oh, you can there's plenty of money for affordable housing.

You can't for this project because you know, all that affordable housing money from Rhode Island Housing is very competitive, and the main metrics are the number of units, and 32, it's a decent number, but not when you look at other projects across the state.

But the most important metric is what the cost is per unit.

The cost per unit of this project, if you were trying to get money from Rhode Island Housing, you would not be competitive.

We actually had a letter send it to the city council from uh a housing X uh portable housing consultant along those lines.

So it is these duplex units which are considerably less expensive to build um that make this project work, that make a project project financially viable.

Um so that is why the number that we have is the number of so I have yet another question about parking.

Is it would it be uh permissible to allow the duplex units to park in the upper lot where the cogshell reuse is there are there are an adequate number of parking places at that at that given the number of units.

Um the difficulty with that, and that and that was something that was considered uh having a larger parking area up on the hill, but the topography is such a we'd have a very large retaining wall, and then the idea of you know, these are units that are designed for families going to the supermarket with the kids and then getting from that parking area sort of down a big set of stairs to your unit, particularly in bad weather.

It didn't seem to make sense when we were trying to create something that was more family oriented, but we did we had some preliminary plans that looked at that and it just it didn't seem to make much sense.

So you could you couldn't flip the design where the backyard would be in the back and you couldn't flip the design where the backyard would be on if you instead of putting a uh well that once again you'd have to do a parking, you'd have to increase the size of that parking lot.

Um you know, you could push the houses back and put a big parking lot in front, but then once again, you're still doing the same thing in terms of green space in terms of the purpose area and having a parking lot on the street doesn't seem to be compatible with the press and take the book.

Um if I could oh sorry, um I have a proposal that may address some concerns.

So I um uh I process driveway applications for the department, including several for the um that received variances from the zoning board for configurations such as this.

What um we've approved several times is where there's stacked parking like this in parking um space assignments, they'll put a stripe down the center.

So say, you know, one duplex just sharing one of these four space lots.

You put a stripe down the center so that only people within the same unit can stack.

Yeah, that would certainly be what would be proposed here, and that's uh that's how that would be controlled.

The spaces would be assigned so that you're not asking your neighbor to move the car so that you can get out.

You're you know, you're asking your spouse or someone else in your own unit to do that.

So that's I still would think that it would be possible to offload at your duplex and then park your car up, go around the block and park your car in the lot above.

If uh spaces were I don't like that.

I wouldn't go ahead and I don't know if I have another good transition.

Okay, all right.

Do we have and I think that that actually was one of the considerations when we looked at that?

If someone has the option of just parking up above the as opposed to parking up all the parking.

Well, I'm not taking away your green space.

Okay, if it could have order, please.

I guess okay.

I guess my point is is that that's not going to solve the problem.

My husband and I both have cars.

We have one driveway.

We don't stack.

I park in front of the house on the street and he parks in the driveway.

Okay.

That is what most people do because I it's almost impossible.

We have no issue with making it with there being no parking on the street.

But then you have people at the park that need to park.

People at the park have to park subway too.

So I guess I'm a little bit confused.

You wanted a big backyard.

You wanted the green space, and I'm all for that.

I'm all for that.

Yeah.

I agree with you.

I absolutely believe we should have green space.

So you have green space in the front.

Why don't you put a parking space next to I can't see because it's it's very small, but you have the entryway to the house, and then you have a green space right next to it.

Why not have one space there as an extra space?

Um can we take a moment?

Sure.

Why don't we take 10?

Yeah, I think that'll be helpful.

I mean, I I enjoy this conversation, but I I think I'm sure you do it.

It's Newport, we're talking about parking.

That I have to talk about that's so thanks.

Looks like we're ready to reassemble here.

We have been in a public comment period, and we do have a few more people on the list who wish to comment.

Would you like to hear those comments?

Uh and then or do you have something you want to offer at this point?

We we have some comments with regard to the suggestions and proposed revision.

So it's up to the well, let's hear that.

Let's hear that.

Cool.

So um just going back to some of the suggestions about increasing the parking up on uh the vans and parking, um, which if we increase the parking, they would get it at another row, which means not only a little parking but another is which brings it significantly uh to the north.

And just explain it by the topography, except for the color.

Correct.

So there's about a 10-foot grade change from the back parking lot of the school building um to the roadway of the duplexes.

So we're trying to make the slope, you know, you can only have so much steepness on a parking area.

Um we'll end up with walls and stairs.

If you try to increase the parking lot, that's for the school and put the duplex parking up there.

That was a option we looked at at one point, um, but it didn't appear to be viable.

And given the the relative inconvenience of that parking the duplex, we came to the same conclusion as some of the neighbors that those people are just gonna end up parking on the street instead.

Um, so and then in terms of the uh, you know, if we did a uh parking lot with that allowed all 12 cars parked in the rear yard, the duplexes and turn around and fly the signals with the additional aspects.

So we looked at that as well, and when you put the 12 minimum parking spaces with the the aisle that you need for 90 degree parking, and then the access driveway that you need that's double width, so one car can pass the other.

You're looking at another uh you're about about five thousand square feet of impervious surface.

It really takes up most of the backyards, so it would be building parking lot.

Very impervious, right?

So when we went during the break and took a look at the suggestion of trying to fit more parking in the front yard area, um, and when we looked at that, it it was difficult just in terms of the spacing and the size, and we realized it best you'd probably get maybe one space per building.

Um, decide who gets that space.

The other thing, too, if we put it in front of the westernmost uh a building, then we're we're getting back now a back being close to that crosswalk or that close one.

Uh so one of the things we looked at and thought we could do was right now we've got these three driveways that are two cars deep.

We could make those driveways three cars feet.

So you had the ability to park three cars per unit, so six that car three, three per drive.

Um, so somebody has someone coming over, I guess, or whatever else.

You do you do have that extra space uh which alleviates some of the pressure of parking on the uh on the roadway?

We said we were happy to have the roadway not you know, parking, but then other people say, well, what happens if you can come in to use the park?

We're thinking so um that's a suggestion of what we could do would be to make those those driveways three spaces deep.

We're not getting into the backyard.

Uh it's we can make numbers work in terms of the drainage calculations, it's a relatively small additional uh previous space.

Um, with regard to there was also a comment with regard to the crosswalk, that was something that was discussed at the TRC.

Um, the original plan had the crosswalk for the um driveway of the westernmost duplex close to that crosswalk.

And the original suggested we'll move the crosswalk, we can driveway.

Uh after review, the board was an engineer said no, but the crosswalk is where it is for the beast.

So the park.

I mean, I'll move it, and you experience it, and you guess, except when people say you can't just throw another crosswalk, just a whole set of uh issues that you have to take into account, put it in the crosswalk.

And that's why driveway crosswalks stay the same.

And at that last TRC meeting, he was happy with that configuration, and radiuses from that driveway.

So the suggestion that we have is that we're happy to um increase the amount of parking available for each of these units on two spaces per unit, three or basically six spaces of the building, it's simply making those uh driveways.

Madam Chair, may I?

Yes, basically.

Um, okay.

So I know we're beating a dead horse a little bit, but getting to this point, and I I understand it's a it's a formula, right?

Um there's the business side of it that you articulated earlier, makes perfect sense.

Uh there is the need for green space, we all want that.

I get that too, right?

Uh, there's the danger we've heard about on the street, right?

About people pulling out backwards into the street and what that can cause.

Uh, but somewhere something else to give, right?

So it just gets really difficult.

So here's just one more idea, and I get don't you don't even need to react to it right now.

Just maybe think about it.

So you have um you have four cars sitting next to each house.

I'm just gonna give the example of one house, and then you would replicate that.

What if you had what if you had, you know, the two this here all along the house, you would create a driveway, but parking would only be on one side of it.

Okay, so you're you are stacked single cars are stacked in front of each other, and then all the way in the back, you would have a space where people could turn.

So it's like, you follow what I'm saying?

So you would have the cars parking behind each other, and then you would have in the back a space where they could turn.

That eliminates the problem of people not parking in the parking lot because they don't want to be boxed in in the morning if they have to leave the house.

And I think that's sort of part of the issue here.

Do you follow what I'm saying?

Are you talking about kind of a pipe design?

Well, you would have four cars that are in front of each other, right?

Just like at a supermarket where they on the on the side they have like a parking parking lot, right?

And then you would have all the way in the back there, and in you know, not on the street side, but on the opposite end, you'd have a small space where a car can turn.

So that means then no matter where you are alongside, you can at least get out, turn and come out straight onto onto uh front list.

Exactly.

Does that make sense?

Do you understand what I'm saying?

I understand what you're saying.

I think we would have to run the numbers on that, but I believe you might end up with just about the same asphalt as he would.

Well, so there's my so they're also they're also semi-impervious part of that.

Yeah, that was that was my question.

Why does it have to be asphalt?

Why does it have to, yeah?

So we have a 10 foot grade change from the back of the property to the front of the property when you use impervious asphalt, they want you to stay close to almost flat.

What if you had the semi-impervious all the way in the front by the street?

You know, in other words, and you make it, you know, asphalt in the back to give it stability if I'm hearing you correctly.

You're worried about the grading.

I understand.

But I have to connect the two, and you have to have certain separation vertical from the water cane.

So you end up with the slope on the.

Do you know what I mean?

Yeah, so you make you can make the parking area pervious, but I have a drainage system underneath, so then I'm a pervious asphalt on top of a drainage system.

I don't know if I can do that.

I think they would count that it.

I don't think you can stack drainage system like that.

Um, but that that's kind of what you would end up with, and then you're in your aisle that you have going up is where you capture your slope page, you know, so that would have to be asphalt.

I'm not sure we can that way.

Maybe something to just at least think for for five minutes.

Several concepts before we came out of this particular because I I just agree with that.

This this notion that people will park in the front, uh or in the back, I should say, of the house.

Um, I think human nature is I'm not gonna go park there because next morning I gotta get out of here, you know.

And so who's going to like free up behind me in order for me to get out of the space?

That's just human nature, you know.

So, I don't even have two kids and we park in the driveway.

Except yeah, those are your kids with each other.

Now they're neighbors.

So, your neighbor doesn't have to move you to get out.

Your neighbor's not you're not stacking with your neighbor, your spouse does or your heart.

Like most of us, yeah.

So you you got your stack, your neighbors got their stack.

Um, you're not inter, I suppose it intervening a little more.

Okay.

One one more question.

Yes, please.

Um, I guess just brainstorming a little bit more.

Uh if you move the three duplexes back a little bit, does that allow you enough space to put all the cars in front?

Because just looking at the images, you know, to embrace Sonny's idea there.

You could put the the duplexes, and I don't know what that would do in terms of grade change, but if I push the houses all the way back, I'd have to be reset back.

Just enough to just enough to fit.

Putting that same parking lot in the back.

I'm just looking at the right.

No, he's just enough to put the cars in front across.

It would be uh it's against the zoning code to have parking in the front.

In the front, that's a problem with that.

So it doesn't look like a strip.

It also creates a curb cut that's like 120 feet long.

There wouldn't be enough room.

Okay.

Yeah, these these were issues, and I know you're just seeing them for the first time, but these were issues that we worked on with the city staff last year, issues that we've worked through uh for two months with the TRC in terms of um how to best configured this.

And did you also consider a different configuration of the buildings?

So let's say the buildings were U-shaped or something.

But six unit building.

You said there was one proposal that had 18 units building.

Yeah, we felt that having three duplexes was more compatible with the rest of the neighborhood, rather than having a large uh multi-dM structure.

But if you have to be more suited to the NC and even I'm not suggesting actually a six-unit building, I'm suggesting maintaining the three buildings.

But if the middle building, so if they were configured in a U shape, if you will, if you follow me on the property.

Would that address some of these issues?

Won't fit.

I s neutral through the Madam Chair, that would also change the image of the neighborhood.

At least this way it looks like houses, versus an apartment building.

Complex.

Okay.

Uh are there any other questions regarding the uh creative uh thinking that's been going on?

Then let's continue with the public comments.

I think we have several more people on the list.

The next person is Emily Kane of 120 Evarts.

Hello, I'm Kane, 120 Evarts.

I will try to be brief here.

Thanks.

Um, so I did just want to see the actual congestion of what we're looking at now.

I live directly across from where the playground is now.

Many days when I come home from work, I have no parking at all.

Uh, so I live on the corner of Evarts and Longwood, which is a dead end.

Many days I have to pull up onto Longwood and fully onto my yard and to be able to park anywhere near my house.

It's not like, oh, I can park a few places down.

I actually stagger with the elderly couples um who lives next to me, their kids who come to visit them who also have to do the same thing.

So it's it's very congested, and then that when the park clears out, maybe around six o'clock or so, I can back out of my my front yard and park on the street.

Um so obviously leading to that, my issue would be the tandem parking on e-barts.

Common sense tells us that tandem parking is not going to be used to its fullest extent.

One, likely one car from each unit will end up on the street.

Given the congestion we have now, I'm not sure how the neighbors, including myself, currently will be able to park there on a daily basis.

It was said that there are multiple multifamilies on Evarts that do not have a turnaround.

I did a mental walkthrough.

Now I've I live at 120.

I grew up at 56 Evarts, so I've lived I have almost 40 years of living on EVART.

If I walk from my house at 120 to Malbone, there's at least three different multifamilies, two of them being duplexes that do have full turnarounds, including the house next to me.

Um, and I believe every other is a single family.

So most of those houses do have full turnarounds for the multifamily houses.

In addition to set to them saying that they want to preserve green space and give these six units of backyards instead of adequate and safer parking options for a lack of better words, seems like a slap in the face to our neighborhood.

We fought for the last two years, as you can probably tell, there's a little bit of tension there to save this green space.

The screen safe the green space is not being saved at this point, but to say you'd like to save a backyard for your six units, just tells us as a community in a neighborhood that your tenants are more important to this community to this.

Your your tenants are more important to you than the community surrounding you is.

We wanted the green space, green space is not an option.

At least if you're going to take that from us, provide a place of safe and adequate parking.

My nieces and nephews are at that park daily.

If I come out of my house, I have to tell them, whoa, stop, don't come run to me.

Because I'm already afraid they're gonna get hit by a car.

We're adding in all these other cars.

We need safe parking options.

If not, I'm telling you, a tragic accident is going to happen.

And I'd really like to see any court to help avoid that at all costs.

And lastly, I just want to say that there was three proposals.

It was said that none of them had um an option where there was no building on eBart, and that's not true.

The night corporation did actually bring for a uh proposal that had no building on eBarts.

Okay, thank you.

What's next?

On the list next, we have um Lisa.

Yes, Lisa Rose at Five Armstrong Place.

Sorry if I mispronounced purposes.

I live at Five Armstrong Place, and I'm not sure I missed anything on none, but we did come in late.

Um, as far as raining zones, yeah, when we get a heavy rainform, I live right adjacent to the landscape property.

Um, and when we get a heavy rainstorm, the water comes rushing down, and you can see you drive by it washes right out the driveway, but it also washes down into my property, and we have rain in the cellar constantly.

I've got a sump pump there.

What's gonna happen when you remove this or when you replace this grasses there?

This dirt, this drainage and put houses there.

Am I going to be flooded all the time?

Oh, we had approved this before without the three houses.

I don't know.

But nothing you say.

Thank you.

And the next is via at 125 Van Zant.

Hi.

Hi, um, I'm grateful for all of you for all the work you put into this.

This is new to me.

I'm kind of representing the building that I'm in, which is um, it's the units across the street from Cogshell on uh Van Zant.

Um, and the board president couldn't be here, so I'm kind of speaking for them.

Um the parking and all of the issues that they're talking about are non-stop, and it's not just everts, it's Van Zand.

And I walked the property at the uh cog shell yesterday with a measuring tape and the amount of space that you need for parking spaces, forget about backing in or all that, and I cannot even imagine putting 41 cars anywhere around that building.

So I'm gonna just take off on what Emily just said, and that is the common sense dictates that y'all walk that space at least once before you're making any further decisions to actually see for yourselves what that looks like, the actual physical, you know, space available, and I'll also add that common sense is a very rare thing, so you use wisdom, God's wisdom if you have to, to make a good decision on behalf of everyone.

Um, the the spaces on uh on Van Zant when cars cannot park anywhere in those um uh rental units, the multi-units that are on those roads, they come out to Van Zant.

And last night there were three cars in areas that had yellow on the curb, and there's no other place for them to park.

They have to go to work the next day.

There's no other place for those cars to go, so you just need to use good judgment when it comes to that.

Um our parking lot at 125 the Ansant is not locked, so what happens is people just pull in at night.

We've had instances where um cars have been hit, and you know, people drive away.

My other concern, and this is just because I've lived somewhere else relative to this that had all rentals, is that renters don't buy into the community.

They live there for a period of time, we're in a navy area, and then they move on.

And it's not saying that anyone is a bad person, but you've got a lot of renters for a long time.

It's not like these folks who have been living there for a long time where I own, I don't rent.

I bought my place, and I commit to making it better every day, even if it's picking up trash from the street.

So just make good choices, and I trust your judgment.

Thank you.

I know a number of us have in fact walked this property, so we do.

We do know what it looks like when it feels like do we have anyone else?

All right.

Uh Mr.

Regan, did you want to make any closing comments?

Thank you.

So, first, thank you all for your time and consideration tonight.

Um with regard to just some of the comments, and and and I understand that you know the these three lots have become de facto part of the park for the people that live there.

Um, and I understand that changing it to something other than the fact that part of the park is a big change.

If I live there, I probably wouldn't be thrilled about it.

But as a practical man, it's not part of the park, it is property that the city is designated to provide much needed housing.

And uh, and that's the whole point of this project is to provide housing for people that many of whom the people who live in this community, if it's approved, will be people who already live in Newport or who work in.

So this is not a question about you know, the people who live here now versus the people who might live there again.

It's anything like this caliber, 90% of the people who live in that building work in the city, and so most of the people I think that would live here, people who either lived already or work here and would like to.

So it's gonna be people that have a connection uh with the city.

Um, I understand the concerns about traffic, but we've had uh an expert traffic engineer review this and say that there is no hazardous condition or safety problem caused by these three duplexes.

And if we came to you and proposed it as three duplexes on three lots, the exact same house in the exact same area, it would need overleave, and those driveways would be allowed by right.

Um, we are happy to um extend the driveways so that there are uh three spaces per unit, so 50% more parking than what is required.

We're already providing 41 spaces on Van Zant or 26 spaces are required, so a substantial amount of additional parking.

Um but these are issues, and I know that the board is seeing them for the first time.

These are issues that have been reviewed sideways, and backwards, at least the last two years, and we've had experts look at this and try to come up with best plan that plan is about for by those experts.

We have found that the that these plans are appropriate and that they are safe, and that they're gonna provide what's needed.

Um, so we are once again happy to extend those driveways.

Um, but I believe that based on all the evidence that's been presented, notwithstanding um the opinions of the neighbors that we have met all of the requirements for both DPR approval as well as for uh the requested special use permit.

Um, and um, you know, this is this is a project, as I said, it's been in the works for a long time.

Uh Jeff Mona's first went into this building eight years ago when I think the city had this property on the mark, and there's been a couple of our since then, and it's only gotten worse.

And you know, this may be the last or best and last opportunity to do something with the structure uh before it is beyond uh repair, and that's another component of what's being proposed here is it's not only providing house, but it's also preserving that historic building, which is something that's been very important to a lot of people.

So uh we once again thank you for your time and your consideration.

We ask for your approval.

Um, and uh happy to answer any last questions that uh, any further questions?

Thanks, Mr.

Regan.

All right.

And with that, then I'm going to close the public comment period.

Um, and I'm going to ask the board.

Uh, I'm gonna call their attention to the staff report.

Do you staff?

Do you have anything uh upon hearing uh upon the hearing this evening?

Do you have anything you want to add to your staff report?

Any further comments?

Not at this time.

Okay.

Then may I please have a motion to ex adopt the staff report as findings of fact?

So moved.

So any discussions.

Okay.

Uh all in favor of adopting the staff report as findings of fact.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right.

The staff report is adopted as findings of fact.

We're now going to begin the evaluation of the applicants' requests.

Um, we're going to refer to the report.

We'll refer to the expert testimony that we have.

We're obliged under law to make our findings based on facts and evidence and expert testimony.

We are not we are not allowed to make our uh assessment based on personal opinion uh or um of our own or others.

So with that in mind, uh, let's begin evaluating the dimensional variance requests.

There are two in front of us.

Parking to allow for driveway parking for the three new residential duplex buildings, and this parking as it's configured does not allow cars to turn around on the subject property.

And then there's also a request for a variance to permit the addition of dormers on the third floor of the existing COGShell school building.

Uh this does not change the uh this does not increase the height beyond the existing tallest part of the structure, but it does result in a an increase in height.

So those are the two dimensional variances we're asked to consider.

The standards that we have to apply, and these are the only standards we may apply in making our decision.

Standard one, that the hardship from which the applicant seeks relief is due to the unique characteristics of the the land or structures.

I'm not going to read these in complete detail.

They're available uh online or in law.

Standard two that the hardship is not the result of any prior action of the applicant.

Standard three, that the granting of the requested variants will not alter the general character of the surrounding area or impair the intent or purpose.

And standard four, require that evidence is entered into the record of proceedings showing in granting dimensional variance that the hardship suffered.

If the variance is not granted, amounts to more than a mere inconvenience and so on.

So those are the four standards uh for us to use in considering these two dimensional variance requests.

Um I'm perfectly comfortable taking the two uh considering them both together.

If that's every all right, or we can do it separately.

What would you like to do?

Want to take them one at a time?

Or okay.

All right, then let's start with the parking dimensional variance request.

And this and what in the members and boards members' views are your views about the application of the standards to that request.

Well, kick it off.

Um we have expert testimony um that indicates that uh these conditions, these standards are met.

Um with respect to parking.

Um, while I understand the uh challenge of stacked parking, I it's not necessarily an insurmountable uh challenge, and it is allowed uh under the standards and in the way this properties configured.

I'm impressed by the efforts of the applicant to try to find various ways to address the parking issue.

Anyone else?

Clearly not uh it's a characteristic of the property itself, and the neighborhood, not really uh anything that the applicant created.

Uh it's consistent.

The streetscape is consistent with the rest of the streetscape with the way these parking uh parkings arranged for the duplexes.

Anyone else?

I I think one of the things about the parking is that um, there's a lot we have to weigh here, but also the the fact that they're they're trying to avoid having too much hardscape is an important aspect here, and I think as Frederick pointed out earlier that you know we're we're trading off here, greenscape versus hard, you know, versus parking.

Um, you know, we um you know, I I don't see I don't see the safety concern.

I think it's more of a you know they're they're trying to create a better a better situation overall with the with the design that they have.

And and because it is a bit of a hard a hardship case where they're trying to get this total project together.

Um we have to look at the parking as a um, you know, as a as a trade-off as a hardship and allow it to be.

Thanks, Dick.

I just think it's it would be tough for me to vote against that particular um hardship um because there's already other use cases in the neighborhood uh for this.

It's tough for me to say that it's okay for one person at a property down the street to do it, but now we have an opportunity for more housing and um we can't allow them to do the same thing.

Um I think there's some caveats we can put in later that will ease the burden in the neighborhood.

Um but like I said, I I think we're that is the hardship of the neighborhood.

It's it's in order to get the required spaces with it.

Do you have some conditions you want to suggest, Kevin?

Um that goes that goes back to the to what we discussed earlier with our ability to put conditions on an applicant.

Um I'm not sure we could ask to have something put in the lease for those where there would be no parking for those residents.

I'm not sure if that's allowed.

But if if it was, I think that would be a condition.

I'm sorry, I didn't completely understand that.

A condition in the lease that would be in the lease for those three units, um or six units technically.

Um that doesn't prevent that uh that there will be no parking on that in front of the the dwellings.

Oh, in the street, in the public street, in the public street.

Yeah.

But like I said, uh it's I'm not sure if that's legal.

Probably not, right?

Because you're that would be in their residence and they could get stickers just like everybody else.

Right.

I mean, this neighborhood doesn't have yeah, it's not a residential neighborhood, but but yeah.

I mean, based upon the evidence that has come before us, it's clear that you know it's gonna be a hard chip for this project if we can't approve this parking.

Because what they've said is the application has been before different the committees for a couple of years, and they uh I think it was the the engineer that said that if they do try and put the parking in the back, it's gonna take up the green space, and you're gonna be in the same situation, so I mean, there's still the issues with the neighbors and and not having the parking, but I know the tandem thing is not great, but I guess you would, as the landlord say unit one gets this side, just like in a condo development, unit two gets that.

I think they have shown that it will be a hardship that could maybe make the project not go forward if we don't approve it, which I think would be a mistake.

I think the project should go forward.

I think that we've had long discussion about parking and there is no easy solution.

I do think the city needs to look at that street very closely to figure out something to alleviate some of the problems for the residents.

That said.

When we talk about green space, I think we all seem to think we're giving something to the newer residents when in fact we're trying to protect our environment from um the problems that's associated with uh impermeable park uh services, impervious services.

That said, I think that if we could put a condition on that there will be three spaces per unit, as they've indicated they're willing to do, at the very least, then if there's a child involved or a guest, there's a third space there for someone to park and they're not parking on the street.

I do think I don't know, we can't say no off-street parking for them, but I do think that it's up to the landlord to indicate to the residents that please use your own parking spaces, don't park on the street and leave blank spaces in your driveway.

Yes, Kevin.

What about adding uh or if the applicant would be amenable to it?

Um allowing visitors to those residences to use uh guest parking in the vanzate lot, that would be allowed.

Okay, that's it certainly something that could be.

Okay, so I I I'd like to put in there a condition that uh each unit gets one visitor spot in those in those lots.

By my calculations you have plenty, right?

Those five aren't this guest five signed.

There's they aren't so just as a flexibility.

Kevin, would you be satisfied if residents of the duplexes are allowed to park in the Van Zan parking lot, the cogshell unit parking lot?

Yes.

Okay, so that would meet the need.

We also need to make a condition that there's a halfway staircase from the upper lot to the backyard.

Uh, it's my understanding that there are staircases.

They go into the park.

Into the park, so you'd have to go into the park and then up to the parking lot from there.

I think this is a question.

Yeah, you have a fence around the property.

It's access to the it needs to be accessed a lot.

They would those folks would have to park up top, they just have to walk down and park.

Um, because once again, because it's 10 foot drop.

Right.

Yeah, with putting in stairs down back up in the back parking lot, would require the walls.

As I recall the stairs both now and in the drawings, I think there are now two.

There would be two staircases, and they're from the field, they're from the the land trust property, is that correct?

Just one staircase, one existing staircase.

That's the one I think you retained.

Okay.

So if someone has a guest and you know, they can walk down that staircase and they can on their way through the park back to and there'll be there will be a gate uh in the fence between the park and the duplex lot, so they'll have the ability to access that way.

Is there anything else?

I do have a question about permeable services, services, uh not surfaces, geez.

Um I guess my concern is that we did hear testimony about flooding, and this is something in this that we've heard about this neighborhood in the um in the neighborhood meetings too for the north end, especially the evarts down to uh Prescott Hall.

And I guess my concern is that there are we're adding a lot of pavement to an area that, yes, there it does wash down the hill a little bit, but it also kind of serves as a sink for the neighborhood.

And I'm wondering if make having permeable driveways since we're lengthening them would make a difference.

I'm not an expert, I'm not an engineer, but I'm wondering if that might make a difference in terms of what's going down that hill.

Uh I believe that we have a stormwater management, a set of stormwater management reports.

Um, we had uh some testimony from the engineer, Mr.

Regan.

Could you uh refresh our memories?

But we we cannot increase the amount of runoff or the rate of runoff.

Uh there is a decrease overall decrease in the amount of runoff and both amount and rate of runoff on the site.

We are also separately separate from the requirements for our project that every project has to follow standards of uh stormwater manual.

We're going beyond those standards and having a reduction here.

We've also agreed that we'll um discuss with the city trying to put some additional drainage facilities in the field, assuming the land trust allows that because uh utility department approached us and said they saw this as an opportunity to do something more to uh provide some more drainage capacity for the overall neighborhood.

Um so we're um just waiting for the city to tell us what it is they'd like to do that that very likely to be part of the project as well.

Yeah, my recollection was that this actually improves the uh drainage situation and and makes this area less vulnerable to any series of storm going up to 100 year storms.

Is that correct?

I remember looking at a table.

The engineer is shaking her head, yes.

I believe that's in our stormwater management report.

Anything else?

That was a good one.

Thank you.

Okay, so um the conditions I've made uh with respect to the parking, the request for a parking variance, uh dimensional variance.

I've noted the following conditions.

Uh three spaces per uh duplex building.

Uh allowing and providing access to park in the Madam Chair.

Yes, three spaces per unit per per unit, I'm sorry.

Yes, per duplex unit.

And then uh allowing and providing access uh for duplex renters to park in the Van Zant lot.

I'll just call it or the cog shell uh dwelling lot, and then that the applicant will work with the city to improve drainage capacity of the uh overall site, including both the privately owned and the the park and uh field that's owned, continue to be owned by the city.

Were there any other conditions that anyone wanted to consider?

Okay, with those conditions, I'm gonna call for a vote.

Uh that the standards have been met.

May I have a motion that the standards have been met to grant a dimensional variance for parking so moved second any further discussion all in favor any opposed we have no opposition so pending the given the conditions uh we've approved the dimensional variance for parking with those conditions now let's turn to the dimensional variance for height this is to permit the addition of dormers on the third floor of the existing cog shell school building uh same standards apply with respect to this dimensional uh variance requirement or request um any questions discussion regarding these dormers the only clarification that i would love to hear about at some point uh when the discussion is is ready to be had is similar to other projects that have come up in the last year where we had an installation of solar panels and other mechanical equipment on top of a roof and to the extent that that may now be necessary that we are made aware of this but I don't know when then what the can what that would then mean right so yeah that because this will not come back before us at this point and so um did is there some kind of condition you'd like to try to impose or are there well it is I know you have variance at that point right I mean a further variance.

I don't know that it is a further variance.

I think if we were to that if they were to go above what we approved they would have to come back for another variance right if we are installing any equipment anywhere above ground below ground that does not comply with current city regulations, zoning regs and require any relief we would have then you would have to come back okay as part of the final review.

Under the regs we would have to come back to does that satisfy your concern Frederick thank you okay so for example if they were to install if they were to install air conditioning units on the side of the building versus the top of the building that would be okay if they wanted to put them on top of the building that would require them to come back yes.

This this issue didn't come up previously um so I have not looked at exactly where we might put these and whether they're compliant and in terms of the adaptive reuse of the building there are certain regulations and rules on both the state statutes that are different for adaptive reuse and they are for others I don't know if that makes an impact here because frankly haven't looked at it because the question just didn't come up so may we have our solicitors perspective or Trish in our review added plan we will send it to any of the regardless to step back around great okay so okay with that understanding then any other questions discussion all right then I'm gonna call for a motion to that the uh height that the dimensional variance requested for height meets the standards.

So move second uh any further discussion all in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right.

Unanimously uh the two dimensional variances uh for parking and height have been approved.

The parking with conditions including uh conditions uh provided by the staff, which is which has to do with maintaining with the administrative review.

Is that correct?

Am I missing something here?

Yes, all variances and special use permits granted under UDR are conditional upon the approval of the final plan.

Yep.

So all right, so then let's move to the special use permit.

The applicant is requesting a special use permit, or I'm getting all of my pages mixed up here.

SEP to allow for a multifamily dwelling project consisting of three duplex structures on lots 225, 226, and 227.

Again, I refer you to the staff report and the findings of fact as well as the staff's analysis and review.

Sorry, I'm losing my place in my notes here.

The standards that we have to apply with respect to the special use permit have to do with parking and loading standards, performance standards designated under Chapter 17.96.020, and development standards having uh pertaining to multifamily dwellings.

Those are all found in Newport Code of Ordinances for construction and alterations exceeding 50% of any building dimension provision of a minimum of two bicycle parking spaces located on site.

This is this project the applicant is proposing bicycle parking, access to multimodal transportation, the situation, the location of these buildings are proximate to multimodal transportation.

Staff in fact finds that the proposed sites will have various bike locations.

Any thoughts on this?

Anyone?

For new construction and alterations exceeding 50% of any building dimension provision of sidewalks connecting the parking areas and building entrances and sidewalks connecting with public sidewalks and bicycle and scooter parking.

The site plan shows connecting site sidewalks and access.

Anyone else have any thoughts on this one?

Okay.

No net increase in storm water runoff from the site.

The evidence that we've been provided indicates that not only will there be no net increase in stormwater water runoff, there will be a decrease in storm water runoff and improved stormwater management.

There is a condition proposed with respect to this.

Okay, any thoughts?

All right.

Uh that's been reviewed and deemed acceptable by the TRC.

Uh for next construction, the parking lot shall be located in the rear or side yard of the property.

They the what the applicant has presented to us uh this evening shows this, and they have agreed to a condition that would increase parking to three spaces for each duplex unit.

So those are the standards we must apply to in our analysis and our vote to uh grant the special use permit.

May I have a motion to provide conditional approval of the special use permit category one requested, uh subject to the granting of final plan approval by the administrative officer.

So moved, second.

Any discussion?

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay, eyes have it.

Now we move to development plan review.

The staff has, if you again, I'll refer you to the staff report.

Staff report has or the staff have identified a number of um goals and policies in the comp that are relevant to this application.

We also have some standards to apply here.

Uh the granting of approval will not result in conditions anymore to the public health safety or welfare.

Uh I have not found any testimony that indicates based on facts or evidence that the this that a granting approval of this project will result in conditions that would harm public health safety or welfare.

Uh any other thoughts on this subject.

If anything, the adapter is the cocktail school, especially is a net benefit to the community in the neighborhood because it's it's not in good shape.

It's gonna be rehabbed and reused, which is what we want for these large beautiful buildings that are in disrepair.

Also, better stormwater management.

Yep.

And in improving this building, it removes a hazard.

Um, which despite efforts to protect uh people from it, uh those are not always successful as we unfortunately know.

Uh the granting of approval will not substantially or permanently injure the appropriate use of the property in the surrounding area or zoning district.

Thoughts.

Providing more housing.

No, it doesn't change.

I know that at one point that building was used as a school, but now it just adds more housing.

Okay.

Uh staff has found that it aligns with the area's future land use designation as medium density residential.

And I would concur with that, and and we need it in the city.

Third uh standard here: the plans for the development comply with the requirements of the zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations.

It's quite lengthy.

I'm not going to read it for everyone or for the record.

The proposed development plans been reviewed by the staff and has gone through TRC.

Um thoughts or comments here.

Again, we have uh a variety of evidence in front of us as well as uh TRC review.

Okay.

Some of the goals that the uh staff have uh identified in the comprehensive plan that are relevant include goal H1, constructing new housing units, uh another housing goal, H 1.3, uh H2 meeting diverse needs.

Uh H H 1.3 was uh prevent housing development, which erodes Newport's quality of life and architectural character.

H3 complementing historic architecture, uh identify H 3.2, and so on.

So there's a number of housing goals here that have to do with providing additional housing, um housing that fits the character of the neighborhood, and housing that is consistent with the architectural integrity of Newport.

Um there are many, in my view, as I look at the evidence, there are many virtues to this project that align very well with comprehensive plan goals, not only existing goals, but those that are being contemplated by the community now as we're deliberating.

Tals that I think that are very important.

We're saving a historic structure, which we all know this, we tend to lose them faster than we can save them.

So it's very important that we keep this.

I forget how it's worded.

I'll find it meet diverse needs, support a variety of housing options that meet residents' housing diverse needs.

Yes, and we heard them state how many units are being safe for workforce housing, how many, so you know, providing two bedrooms for families versus the one bedroom for single people.

I think that it's important that we have that kind of housing, because Lord knows we do not have it here.

Um it's something that I think is extremely important.

We don't think about it enough until it affects us.

I have four kids, none of them live in Newport.

They can't afford to live in Newport.

So I think it's important that we have these kind of things.

I think this the staff did not identify any of the economic development goals in particular ED-1, but I think frankly, the housing enables economic development and allows us to sustain our economy as well as to develop it over time.

And without that, as you point out, Sunny, we can't do it.

So the housing's key.

Anything else?

Uh we have uh goals.

Staff has also identified uh goal T5 to provide sufficient and suitably located parking.

There's a not uh quite a number of off-street parking spaces provided by this project, which will be available to the residents and should alleviate uh pressure on street parking, provides a range of appropriate open space and outdoor recreational amenities.

It's preserving and improving a park that's well used.

Uh field making the field uh easier to use.

Anything else?

So the only confusion now is is there basketball court or is there not?

I don't think there's any confusion on that subject, Frederick.

I don't think there's a basketball court okay.

Um goal, uh also providing a secure and resilient water system, uh, including enhanced storage, transmission, and treatment.

I think that's also very important.

We heard about this is actually improving stormwater management and improving the resiliency of the of the neighborhood because this is a very large tract of land that has contributed to flooding over time.

Anyone see any other goals that this is meeting that we haven't mentioned or staff hasn't mentioned?

Madam Chair, you adding the economic development goal.

Um I think we I we can add the economic development goal.

I think is the housing supports economic development.

Do you have a specific goal?

Uh ED1.

Okay.

Okay.

There are being no further discussion about the comprehensive plan review and development plan review.

Uh may I have a motion?

Let's see.

Let's see.

We have some conditions here, some recommendations.

The recommendation is to approve it.

Um, but per the TRC memo, the applicant and city solicitor develop an agreed-upon approach to ensure playground improvements occur at the end of the project following construction phases for each building.

Two, that the utilities department provides approval for the proposed site drainage, water connections, and drainage report, and three that the applicant provides an agreement allowing for access to the existing building in order to provide power to service the irrigation controller for the playground and playing field.

Would anyone like to add any additional conditions related to any discussion?

About the wording of one of them.

Sure.

Um, and this is a staff question.

Um it's stated that they're gonna do the field after the development.

Is there a time period on that?

Or is that I mean that could be 10 years later.

So I will defer to um Peter Regan on the actual timeline, but I also while you posed that question wanted to say the language says following construction phases for each building.

It means following the construction of the buildings.

That was misworded.

So I just wanted to not the phases of the building, it's the final completion.

Yes, of the of the buildings.

So I can address that came up um during the TRC meeting, and it's really form of phasing issue.

Let's say that we had the uh duplexes work completed and ready to get a CO, but because of the schedule of the construction, the field hadn't been completed yet.

We didn't want that to hold up the buildings being allowed to be occupied because the rest of the construction wasn't done.

And same thing if we completed every all the living spaces and it was the dead of winter and we couldn't do field work until spring, we didn't want to leave buildings empty.

Uh so we didn't want it to be, it was really more the timing of the COs when the buildings were ready for occupancy.

So this was that there'd be an agreement with some sort of form of guarantee or something that would ensure that even if they issued a CO for the buildings that the work and the fields would be.

And conceivably, depending upon the construction basing, it might maybe the fields done first.

I don't know, but that was really just it was more of a timing issue.

So that was the gist of that, why that condition is.

Can you suggest some wording that would allow us to know that you're not gonna wait 10 years to do it?

In other words, is there some wording that you can put in there that says within 12 months or whatever of completion of the building?

Sorry, could I make a suggestion?

Uh maybe we have that agreement between the city solicitor and uh the applicant drawn out prior to the final development plan review.

Is that okay?

But then it should be worded.

I would assume that that would be part of the final development plan review.

Um, but yeah, it would likely be once again.

I don't know what the construction schedule is gonna be.

So the issue here isn't so much that we don't think you're gonna do the park.

Yeah, it's really the issue is that the COA won't be held up by the construction park.

That's what this really should say.

What if it says something like this?

What if we just reword this uh to say the applicant and city solicitor develop an agreed upon approach to ensure playground improvements occur in a timely fashion as construction phases are completed?

That's that's that works for me.

Does that satisfy you, Sonny?

Is that satisfactory?

And I wasn't trying to insinuate they weren't gonna do it.

Um but I think the language that was, and I'm just trying to find the uh to sue approval for those would also need to go through uh land for the land trust would also have to be involved, correct?

Or anything else is done, uh, and it happens.

And most of the a lot of the drainage has to go.

Yeah, a lot of the drainage is part of that field.

So it's all gonna kind of it's part of the we're not gonna leave the drainage field uncovered.

So that's fine.

I mean, from our standpoint, we're not planning to do every person, then sorry, the field will be.

It's all part of the process, but I don't know what the time is going to be from our standpoint.

So we'll do the that that language is fine.

And it just songs we keep in the agreement with city solicitor because we just want to make sure that if the if we've got buildings for people to live in the live.

Yeah, but I asked.

Yeah, and I don't have a problem with that.

I just I personally don't like vague language.

So I don't like things to be left vague.

Yeah.

So yeah, that would be that'd be perfect.

And I I've never had the solicitor leave new at the end of the day.

All right.

I am going to so I'll read that one more time.

Uh one, the these are the um conditions.

The applicant and city solicitor develop an agreed upon approach to ensure playground improvements occur in a timely fashion as the project construction proceeds.

Okay, it makes everyone happy.

Two utilities department provides approval, three remains the same, and then all approvals subject to granting a final plan approval by the administrative officer.

May I have a motion that this um that the um applicant has uh let's see how do I want this.

Okay.

I may I have a motion to find that the applicant has addressed the applicable standards to grant preliminary approval for the development plan and to grant approval contingent upon meeting the specified conditions and the final approval of the development plan.

So second um any discussion all in favor?

Uh any opposed?

All right.

Uh thank you.

Thank you for your patience.

Thank you for your flexibility and your willingness to consider other options.

Um appreciate your time.

All right.

Let's we're at 9 34.

Let's zip through our chat.

Uh reports.

That's all that remains on our agenda.

Uh do we have any actions of the administrative officer?

No.

No.

Okay.

Then the liaison reports, tree and open space.

I knew they were working on the equitant playground, until my knowledge.

Oh, they did.

Well, it's an important thing.

Um waterfront commission.

Oh no, I I was at the last meeting if you wanted me to give the report.

Oh, yeah.

So they did review the playground um renderings for the equipment park.

Um they also had the um waterfront commission shared there, and they're working to have a joint um commissioning between tree and open space and the waterfront condition on uh Parati Park.

Um, because since the um proposal for that was first presented, I believe last summer, um, they found through engineering that they're gonna lose significant part of the park.

So they're having a plan on how to redo the area in a way that serves both park and waterfront needs.

Um and let's see, um there's a special meeting date in June.

Uh they're meeting they've found a I think I mentioned last time, um they are discussing potential funding sources for doing a plan for the rest of the John Chafee Recreation Center that's currently um unused grass open space.

Um, and then there was some controversial discussion over the Bellevue hotel um street trees.

Aiden, I don't know if I I mean I've reached out to Maureen a couple of times and gotten a response.

Um when I went to look at the minutes, or not the minutes because she doesn't post, but when I went to look at the agenda, all she had was the photographs of the renderings of the playground.

Huh.

On the last one there was two I saw I on um on the Secretary of State said the site there was two agendas posted.

The first thing she uploaded was the normal agenda and the second one was the rendering.

But when you go to the city site and you click on the agenda all you get is the renderings.

Oh okay.

I don't know if she realized that I don't know who to notify about that.

It's I don't know how those are pulled in um whether they're pulled in from the secretary of state's office.

Oh that doesn't second thing to upload I think that was a one uh one-time mistake I can see how that happened.

Yeah I can let her know.

Okay.

Okay.

Um what about the water commission?

Um they're they're working on sort of evolving beyond the harbor management plan and looking at some of the ordinances they're gonna overhaul the mooring ordinances over the next year or two um interest in and they're they're focusing on what hopefully will happen to the Navy land um there and keeping a maritime interest involved and so that and they're trying to expand their relationships with other boards and commissions such as ourselves um they've as we saw in our last meeting they were a big help with a comprehensive plan and want to continue to stay involved.

Okay energy and environment I missed last week's because I was away but they did have the large the compost event at uh Bragg Park where they all of the people come with their uh five gallon barrels and fill them up and bring them home and it was a great time.

Great time was composted lots of compost in my car.

Okay.

Comprehensive plan uh update working group I think we can unless there's something uh startling that has occurred I think we're all kind of up to speed there staff anything anyone on the board who's part of that yeah I mean real real quick we're sort of in this in the uh crossing this threshold from the analytical phase to now focusing on strategy and goals and um this thing is moving at a big speed uh it's a huge project everybody's doing a great job we have now also this uh advisory council uh that has become involved and uh I think they will also make a great contribution to it you know going forward um so you know I think this is gonna be probably the most uh you know fulfilling uh segment of this whole process right coming up with with the strategies and then goals right and then getting people to agree yeah right and so already now we're thinking about how do we bring that message back into the neighborhoods yeah right so that we don't show up at some point with hey we got a plan and everybody goes wait how'd you get here right so that's really important so communication is gonna be a big chunk of all of this you know over the next three to four months.

And the how did we get there portion of it is right now they're like going through all the information that was gleaned from the focus groups and going through all of the comments and and the data and every that's what they were talking about the other day.

So yeah it's an interesting time now.

And uh just to add to that so looking out onto the horizon now we are in full planning gear again for um the July focus groups of the round two.

So as Sunny and Frederick said we're at this kind of turning point where we're synthesizing all those focus group collective ideas and really honing in on the goals and policies and the advisory committee is um is meeting once a month and they are going to be integral to getting it across the finish line um especially as a non-technical but resident driven committee.

So at your July meeting, which is July 20th, um, we are hoping to do a joint workshop um with the planning board and city council to um allow for a allow for uh discussion forum, right?

So the city council and you all have like a always very big agendas and we would like um the consultant to have the time and the platform to sit down with you and your questions and really go into it.

Um along with the city council.

So that's July 20th, and the consultant will be here that week for the second round of focus groups.

Okay.

So great.

So the July 20th meeting will be organized as a workshop with the council.

Correct.

So it will still be in here with a really fun seating arrangement.

Um I will make sure everyone is might.

Uh, but yeah, so we are really looking forward to that, but in the meantime, if you have any questions about the comprehensive plan, we are at your service to to um go over that with you because the planning board is integral to the comprehensive plan.

You use it every time you act as a planning board member.

So, yeah, that's for sure.

I don't think you know, which is perfect that we need to be just good.

Okay, great.

Um how about the bicycle and pedestrian advisory commission?

Yeah, I can give that one.

Um so the largest item on the last BPAC meeting was since the city is pursuing the uh Safe Streets for All grant, is four of the 20 million dollars available to the islands going for improvements, such as um on Narragansett, which had an initial um the sidewalks and bike lane on Narragansett, which had initially been um part of the um CIP uh with that grant funding now available.

There was an additional 500,000 that'd been set aside for that.

That city administration asked BPAC what their priorities were or were they discussed a variety of projects they could do and voted to recommend that the council uses that funds to improve the sidewalks on theme street.

Oh, sidewalk on e-box street.

What's that uh that what are you lobbying for, Kevin?

That's Julie Kevin.

I didn't know you should have told me we had five minutes.

All right, it's nine forty-three.

Is there any further discussion or questions?

May I have an a motion to adjourn?

So move.

Second, all right.

Any discussion?

All in favor.

Uh aye.

Thanks.

And we end.