 Welcome to the Monday, January the 7th meeting of the Montpelier Design Review Committee. I'll let staff and members introduce themselves. My name is Martha Smirsky and I'm a member of the committee. Hannah Smith. Meredith Crandall. Staff. Stephen Everett. Eric Gilbertson. Seth Mitchell. Benjamin Cheney. And unless anybody has anything else to offer, do I hear a motion to approve our agenda tonight? So moved. All second. All in favor of the agenda. Raise your hand. The agenda is approved. We also have a election re-election of chair and vice chair. Do I hear any new nominations from the committee? Happy with its current status. Is that a motion? It's a motion to maintain current status. Do I hear a second? I second it. All in favor of maintaining the current staff. I should oppose, I guess. You're doing such a good job. You should understand. You should both understand. Probably. We'll move forward to the first application. It's for 112-116 Main Street owner-applicant, Sam Shippey. Family eye care. Can you get a second chair? And is Sam here? He's not here? He's not? Oh, okay. If you're representing him, come up to the table and introduce yourself. Hello. Roland Tate. I work with the micro-design. Okay. Roland, R-O-L-A-N-D. R-O-L-L-I-N. Okay. T-A-T-E. T-A-I-T. T-A-I. I can't spell for these. Okay. Describe the work on the building. The current building has three shops at ground floor with mixed offices at second floor, and the proposal is for the ground floor to be converted to the Shippey eye care offices with the upstairs having three market rate rentable apartments. And the external alterations are fairly minor. There are on the front facade three existing windows at the second floor, which if, I think it's handy if you have that to look at, the first sketch shows the existing arrangement which is the windows divided with one large light in the middle and two either side. And the proposal is to make them more traditional in appearance so that they're more fitting for the... Did you look at any historic photographs to see what the original configuration is? No, we don't have original photographs that I'm aware of at the moment. I haven't seen them. So the proposal is to alter the three windows to be three pairs of windows. And then on the alleyway, which is probably easier to see on either the elevation or the three-dimensional view. There are a couple of small windows, the window arrangement at second floor is quite irregular. And the existing window arrangement we're proposing a minor alteration increasing the size of two small windows to better fit the arrangement of the apartments inside and also to regularize the window arrangement slightly. So is that existing 402 and then DR001 for the two we should be looking at for the numbers of the apartments? Yeah, so existing 402 and then if you want exactly the same view for the proposal to be DR402. Oh, okay. Yeah, sorry. So the elevation, I've just noticed that that little rectangle should actually be an existing window. I'm sorry, I'm not sure why that hasn't shown up properly. Mine has it on yours? That's the air conditioner. No, that's a very small window and the proposal is to increase the size of that one and another small window. I see. So those two windows would be enlarged and they were previously that one and that one. And essentially they're done so that they get better light into the apartments at first floor. Is there any physical evidence that you've seen that you could restore the size of the windows or were they made smaller or is this the way it was built? We think that the brick facade on this face was, we think it was original but it's built in such a way that it's a bit like a curtain wall so that there may have been different openings behind but we don't think so. We think that these have been altered at some point but we don't have a record of when and what the shapes were previously. Your sketch shows for the people. On the front facade, yes. Right, it seems like they're going to be more accurate. No, the proposal should show an existing front elevation. That would be the sheet just prior to that BR401 shows the proposal for the front. So there should be a logical evolution from the sketch. I guess they're looking at existing ANC BR401. There you are. So there's BR401. That's what you're proposing. That's what that's existing. Yes, I'm really sorry that has come up as existing and it should not fit existing. But then so in the proposal, are you going to put a new divided light in there? Yes, yes. I'm afraid that there is a, I'm sorry about that. The correction on sheet 401, view number one currently says existing and that's wrong. I'm afraid I should say proposed. I'm sorry for that confusion. Sorry, I didn't catch it earlier. On sheet DR401, which is the proposal, the proposed elevations, view one currently says existing and I'm afraid that's wrong. It should say proposed. I'm sorry about that. But your sketch and what is in the neighborhood shows paired windows. Yeah. Yeah. So those are all these divided lights. Yeah. The sketch did not show the divided lights. I suppose simply to try and keep it readable at that scale. The scale is smaller. So I guess the sketch seemed more in keeping with what's existing from when I look at the building's next floor. Yes. I can see that there is a logic for that. I think our thought was that because the building has divided lights on the other faces that we would keep the divided lights on the facade. And I believe that the windows of Jason, although the photograph is particularly clear on that one, I think there's a single divide. Is it on the one adjacent? It looks. Yeah. So I think we'd be happy to consider whether that was more appropriate with the divided lights. The question about the divided lights there, I think our intention was to replicate the other windows on the building in terms of the division of the lights. Yeah. And using the existing openings. And the existing openings would be remain the same. Yes. Yeah. We're deciding going to be changed to a second or remain the same. No, that's remaining the same. On the front. Yes. Or actually all sides. Yeah. The proposal is not to change any of the surface. And the only other alterations were the proposal for an additional window on the rear elevation, which is shown on DR-401, the comparison would be the existing one is EX-401. So those are the comparison views there. The existing building has a blank face at second floor. And the proposal would be for the addition of a window in the kitchen area. Okay. There. The existing views also shown on the photograph page. So there would be an additional window on there. And this door exists. That existing door. It's going to continue. Yeah. But continue. And the two doors at the back of the two other units would actually go because the ICA would have offices in that area. Okay. And then there's one additional window, which is shown on for DR-402. Sorry. Keep learning on that microphone. And that is to a landing on the second floor just to get light into the back end of the landing hold at second floor. So the comparison view there. And that's in the courtyard at the back. So you would not be able to see it unless you were in the courtyard. So there's the new window and the existing view is below. Okay. Just to, so we are replacing getting rid of that door in the back? There is. Yeah. Okay. It wasn't on the overview cover, right? Okay. Yeah. The door, the doors at the back of the. Yep. Those two. Both of them. Yep. It shows here. It shows sort of a faint. Yep. Darkened area. Gotcha. Thank you. So on the, yes, the proposed elevations. Here's from the photo that you have. A mix actually. Yep. Yeah. There is a mixture in the existing. They're not all the same. Yeah. We've got two of the two lower and quite a few. Yeah. There's lots of, lots of different patterns. The, the original block of the building we think is that block there. So most of those are consistent patterns except for the oddball ones up at second floor. And then it changes to a different pattern. In what was at one point in extension to the rear. So this construction is different from that. And so there's, that's why the windows, windows change at that point. And that's from floor to floor. And they change from floor to floor as well. Yeah. So the matching for floor. Well, the intent for these two windows was to match. So those are the two enlarged windows. Yep. And the intent was to match the other ones of similar size in that area. And divided lights. And the divided lights because the ones next door are the same. The divided lights going to be divided lights. They would probably be simulated divided lights with the spacer bars. The bars on both sides with the spacer bar in between. The dividers would show up on the outside. They would. On both outside and inside. And the bar between would make it appear that it was straight through the glass even though it wasn't. Can you talk about this? Yes. On the, looking at the facade study, the first sketch shows the existing building. And the purpose of that compared to the next sketch was to show the change in the windows at second floor. But also to look at how we could alter the entrance of the, what I'm currently pre-shopped to make it a bit more logical to be a single entity for the eye care. So the entrance to shop number one and two would be maintained as an entrance but only have one door rather than two. And there's a sketch that'll show that change. And then the third entrance which would be into the, what's now the flower shop. That entrance would be closed. And I'll show you the sketch for that. So that's the existing entrance to the wool shop and the nail salon. And there's an entrance on both sides of that little lobby. We would close that one with either a glass to match the shop front adjacent. And then the paneling would be carried through. And that's what this sketch shows. So the, so the door would be replaced by a glass panel here with wooden panel underneath to replicate the pattern going around the corner. The door on the opposite side would, would be closed, sorry, would be maintained as a door entrance to the eye care shop. And then the third entrance which is currently at the, the florist. There's a step up to it because there's a change in the level. That shop is about six inches higher than the other two. So what we would do is to close that door in the same way that we closed the other one with a glass panel and a wood panel underneath and then to level up the steps and create probably a planter feature there to give it a bit of logic so that it would make it clear that the entrance is the other side. Is that where the stairs from the second floor come out? The stairs for the second floor come out just to the left of that entrance. So that's the third shop entrance and that's the staircase up to the second floor where the apartments would be. Missing your train. And are there entrances to the second floor on both the front of the building and the back of the building? The entrance at the back. So that's the entrance to the staircase upstairs at the front and then at the back. Actually that photo doesn't show it but it is on the elevator. It's actually inside the courtyard. So, sorry, I keep covering the microphone. That door currently goes into the back of the first shop and that would be maintained for going into the back of the eye care. The other two doors would be closed and just to the right of that door is a staircase which then goes upstairs and that would be maintained as well. So that's actually on DR 402 that's the existing door upstairs and it would be maintained. Compare that to the existing. The existing is below and that door would be maintained. What's the manufacturer? Is it Marvin? For the windows? Yeah, the thought was to use Marvin. I think the Integra. Wood frame integrity. It could be that depending on what the council thought was best. We weren't sure what the owner would like. He is cost-conscious so I think he probably prefer to use the, I think it's the Infinity one is the plastic inside and outside but I think he'd be open to, it's only a few windows so I'm sure he'd be open to. There are other windows that, for example, the ones at the back are already not all wood. Some of those are not all wood currently. The ones on the front portion of the building are. You'll be happier with the performance of the wood. Yes, I know. There's a huge difference between that and the straight-in integrity. Okay. Wood altrucks. They're both altrucks on the outside. They've had some issues with the straight altrucks when they put them in. Two months later you see daylight beside the sash. I have those in my house. I haven't had that problem. All altrucks, we know. They've had runs that are better than others. I'm curious what everybody else, I am fairly inclined to appreciate this elevation of a one over one in comparison to the rendering of what I've heard is four over four for those windows up above and keeping sort of a language across all the buildings versus, because I don't feel like you get to see those I don't know if they're four over four or what they are. I guess they're six over six. I guess it makes more sense to me. The sketch makes more sense to me than the BR401, I think. Yeah, BR401. I guess I would like to hear from anybody else around this table what they think about that. Yeah, I like the consistency across the front of the building. The building to the left, the Miller building is actually a two over two. Yes, I think, I was going to say the photograph doesn't, I think, I'm sure you hear about the old lobster type building, which is the Necky building now. Those have been replaced some time ago. Yeah. But those are, I believe they were one over once. I think it makes sense. Maybe you see the two over two. I'm going to the one over one because they're simple and anything else is speculative anyway. We have an historic photograph. Steve said that it used to be just evenly spaced windows. But I can't remember what now. Look it up. But I do have a photograph of it. It's late 1800s. Okay. Do you have a cut sheet on the doors? I don't have a cut sheet on the doors. Did you mean windows? No. I'm sorry. Are any of the doors being replaced with newer doors? That hasn't been discussed at the moment. As far as I'm aware, the doors would remain. Okay. Just getting rid of doors. Yeah, just removing the doors. Not replacing the other ones. I'll take those photographs up and then you can, we could do, you know, give them an option of using two over two or an envelope of photograph and then they can decide if that sounds familiar. But I feel like that would be a nice room. It's more consistent with the buildings on both sides in terms of compatibility with neighbors. And it's built about the same time even though it had a renovation done probably in the 30s or 40s at some point. I guess. I would guess that the windows, the second floor windows that are there are probably from the 50s or 60s. If that could be to me. Not what you're probably right. Probably 50s or 60s. They saw a lot of those windows and sort of the center panel. The center panel with the casements. Yeah. I mean, if you don't know what you're, what exactly, what it could be, I'm usually in favor of doing the simplest thing which would be just be one over one window. What do you anticipate for parking? I believe that the property has 18 spaces at the back and some of those would be reserved for the flats above but also some would be for the eye care and we don't yet have a division of those spaces. If that was something you'd want, we can ask the owner to look at that. When you say reserve for the eye care, you mean the employees or the patients? I think possibly both but I'm not quite sure what its intention is. There's no, I mean, that's one of the things that we'll be dealing with in the administrative permit but there's it's in UC1, there's no minimum parking requirements. Is there going to be any unification of the awning things or are the awnings called? Well, the intention was that we were going to look at that at a second round and bring it second as a separate issue because he wasn't quite sure whether what he wanted to do with the awnings and how he wanted to deal with that. The sketch shows a possible way forward and he was positive about the sketch but wanted to explore more options so the idea was to present that again separately. Maybe with signage? Yes, with signage. So this is sort of structural issues here and then other things separately. It would be nice to see some unification of those awnings. Yeah, I think at this point the intention was to give the structural practical and to make everything read more as a unit. Makes sense to me. Any other comments, questions, suggestions? Color will be the same? Yes. Okay. Any other exterior, any lighting changes in lighting or? We haven't discussed lots of detail in terms of the lighting so we could perhaps bring that back and we can come back with the follow-on discussion about awnings and so on. Okay. I don't know if you had any proposals for. What's the lighting that would become your main entrance? You have the panels straight ahead. Is there overhead light that shines down? Do you mean at the entrance area for the front? The proposed entrance right here. Yes. I'm not sure what the current lighting situation is there and we haven't discussed a proposal yet for the lighting I'm afraid. Okay. No, I didn't know if you wanted. If you were planning on coming back anyway, that's fine. Otherwise we could put some overhead cans with a downcast flood in both locations if we can add that in. And again, we don't know what's there. There's something already there. There's no need to make any application for change. I'm afraid I don't actually know the details of that. Okay. We can easily find out. We'll perhaps discuss it when we come back the next time. That might be the easiest thing to do, I suppose. And then any lighting in the back as well, whether it be an entrance lighting over an entrance way or some lighting in the parking area or whatever. Yes. Okay. Then any signage you might have for directing patients to parking or I'm not sure what your parking plan is. Any additional changes in utilities or signage? Yes. Okay. I'm assuming the signage will be interior on the glass or will there be anything that's really not a sign band overhead above the awnings? Or would there be a sign on that panel next to your entryway? Again, I'm afraid we haven't discussed the sign. We can't just throwing out things to include on your next visit. Yes, I will. Anything else? Otherwise we can go through a set of criteria that we need to go through. Evaluation criteria number one, preservation or reconstruction of the appropriate historic style if the proposed projects in the historic district are involved in the historic structure acceptable. Harmony of exterior design with other properties in the district acceptable. Compatibility of proposed exterior materials with other properties in the district acceptable. Compatibility of the proposed landscaping, non-proposed. Add something with your planter in the next time, too. You were talking about that in the front. You can sort of throw all that in at the same time. Prevention of the use of incompatible designs, buildings, color schemes or exterior materials acceptable. Location and appearance of all utilities, no changes proposed in this application. Recognition of and respect for view quarters and significant vistas included gateway views of the city and state house acceptable. And then again, the option was that the replacement windows on the front of the building may be one over one or two over two at your discretion for historical integrity. And again, I'll pull up a photo. Yeah, that's useful to see. Did you want to put anything in there about the wood frame windows or not? Or you don't really care? I just knew it was discussed. It was discussed, so I didn't know if that was something that you guys had limited or not. And again, I'll say the replacement windows, and again, the replacement windows, you can use either the just straight integrity or the wood frame integrity. And I'll improve the application as proposed with your hand. Steve, will you see it again before they go forward when he comes back? Does he come back to us or to the board? Yes, he would come back with the additional items on us. Any changes in lighting of planter box? Yes, I've got a list of follow on items. Yeah, that'll be a separate administrative permit that comes here for your review and goes back to our office to have the actual permit issued. I'm the new guys. I'll get you to sign your name there and then maybe just above it print it so they can have it for the record. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Good luck with your project. Thank you. You're in Black River Design's offices upstairs? Yes. Build it over. Okay, good, thank you. The next application is for 25 East State Street. Hi, Paul. Introduce yourself. I'm Paul Somerset. I own 25 East State Street and 3 Miles Corp. I'm 27 East State Street. Good. And describe your project. The project is the repainting of 25 East State Street. I was not, I would apologize that I did not know that I had to get a design review for the painting. So the situation was that I tried to get it painted last summer and I tried to get it painted this summer and I talked to six people on the phone and nobody had even come by to get a bid and it just kept going and going and going and I couldn't find the painter and then all of a sudden somebody came by and said, I'll paint your house. It kind of went up very quickly. So the proposed colors were going to be, all I really wanted to do was raise the tone up one notch. I had this existing kind of gray-green on there. I have a couple of the old pictures on my iPad. I didn't have time to print them out. I've got kind of the old gray-green of the building behind the one that's all wood. And then what we went to was nature green. But this is the word it is now. Yes, and that is what it is. Is that what it is? No, that's the old one. This is a 2012 screen capture. This is the old look. That's the old color. Okay. And then the, was it the 158C3, the nurture green that you went to? Yeah, so that is... Our printout is not as good. That's the picture of what it is now. All right. So this is from our color copier, which doesn't show quite as well as that. You're doing the same pattern. Yeah, we've changed the red trim to a dark blue and but the cream remained the same. So it, and that's an even pastel around. That's what it is now. The three color paint job, it seemed, you know, it's exactly what I had on there before I did change the red trim to a blue, but all the blues where all the red was and all the cream is where all the cream was and the green base color, I would say, went up one tone level. Well, thank you for keeping the architectural details painted similarly. As a matter of fact, I'm turning one of the little corbels came off in the back and I'm hand turning another one over. My dad's wood shelf will go back up in the spring. So I do like the historical building. That's why I bought it. And I really tried very hard, both inside and out to maintain historical loveliness of it. This would be a much more uncomfortable meeting if you hadn't maintained some of it. Well, we really try. I mean, if you guys have been in the barbershop, you know that it's gone back to the original, you know, the original lap and plaster in a tin ceiling and it really represents kind of the era of what it was. We saved the building originally. I mean, the whole foundation was crumbling in the back corner. We spent a lot of time and money putting that back in and trying the basement out and really kind of saving the overall water soggyness of the building. I really am. I don't. I do apologize. I didn't want to do anything. I talked to all my neighbors. So the process goes like it always goes. I put the patches of the paint up on the side of the building. They were there for several weeks. I talked to customers. I talked to friends. I talked to neighbors. I talked to everybody else. Actually, the only people who really live within that core are Doc, whose house is fairly bright purple. And, you know, I talked to her. She liked the colors. I talked to the doctors in the back. They actually picked the color out, the green they liked, which was the lowest tone of all the greens I had up there. So I own the business in the building too. I don't really have any vested interest in painting in a not just color. What ended up going in the back of the first floor where the bar was? I am heading towards what I would like to call semi-retirement and I just decided not to open up another business. So it is remaining a small apartment, which is still not undone. But it's unchanged. Okay. And it's unchanged. We finished the insulation project and all of my tools are still in there. I got to put in a hardwood floor. I was excited for the bar. Everybody was. When I was back there doing the insulation project and I just realized that I didn't want to get back. All in the same building. I suppose that's the new and incoming thing. Questions, comments, suggestions from anyone? Nice. Okay. Done, right? Done. Okay. And I just for clarification, so that 27 East State Street isn't in the new downtown core and 25 is? Well, the design review overlay district. And it wasn't that the district boundaries didn't change in 2018. Okay. But yeah, 25 is in and 27 is not. 27 is out. Okay. You happen to own two properties right next to each other on either side of a line. All right. Good. Yeah, we got to go through the whole thing. And again, I'll just read the criteria, which is the same as you heard for the last project. Preservation of reconstruction of the appropriate historic style of the proposed projects in a historic district involves an historic structure of a color preservation acceptable harmony of exterior design with other properties in the district acceptable compatibility of proposed exterior materials acceptable compatibility of proposed landscaping non proposed in this application prevention of use of incompatible designs buildings color schemes or exterior materials acceptable location appearance of all utilities no change recognition of and respect for view quarters and significant vistas including gateway views of the city and state house acceptable all in favor of the application again, I'll have you sign this below and left above my name. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. We actually have enough people here to take care of all the minutes we've got. Let's do that after we get done with the these guys have been waiting. Sure. I'm okay with that. So in deal with our rules of procedure after we can bump those if we need to. Seven and eight. Two to after. Okay. So we have to number nine for now. Yeah. Review of the new design review regulations. Anybody interested come forward and sit at the table. Sorry. You don't have to grab more chairs. Bring them up. Sorry. I couldn't. I wasn't sure how many of you were going to show and it must feel like deja vu. Do any of you need clean copies? Jenna, you didn't bring yours in. And do you guys want to introduce yourselves? Hi, I'm Jamie Duggan. I'm Lily Fornier. General Apatinsky. Elizabeth Peebles. Okay. We'll leave it open. Okay. I'll try. I'll give it a shot. To you to give it a shot. So we have been working on a revision to the design review policy and procedures. Focusing first on the ordinance in response to some feedback that came out of the proposed changes back when the, I was a year or two ago now? Started in 2016. 2016? Like for a whole grant cycle, so two years ago. Okay. So this is part of a number of goals that the HP commission identified, the first being to work on the process to make it a bit more transparent. I'm just blanking on the word. But easier to provide some measures for more administrative opportunities so that, for example, perhaps the last project, which was paint, could be handled administratively rather than having to go through the full process. And to provide, I think, also with some feedback, we have other goals, but we thought it was important first to tighten up the process and make it a little bit more predictable and have some of these options that wouldn't require everything to go through a full on the view process. We're appropriate. I think this is in response to a couple of things. One was the public outcry, which I will not characterize as about objections to design review. That kind of stimulated a lot of interest in doing something with design review. You say public outcry, we're talking about Cliff Street. Yeah. And then the Planning Commission did some changes to the design review stuff that didn't meet the Secretary of Interior's standards. And somehow the Historic Preservation Commission got charged with making the rules. And we've really worked hard at it. And I think it's a good set of rules at this point. I mean, I think it's not complete. And the Planning Commission has to approve it. We want you guys to be fully on board with it. And certainly welcome any suggestion for changes that would make things clearer in the East here for design review. And in the end, the City Council has to approve it. So we've slogged for a while. Now we've got a few more steps. And I plan to have a meeting with what's your name? Chair of the Planning Commission, Leslie Welter. And talk about that after this meeting, I couldn't meet with her over the holidays. I was going to meet with her over the holidays. And then we'll probably go to the Planning Commission at that point and have a similar meeting to this one. So we're a long ways. And this is really a draft to give people a thing, to comment. And there's a couple of things that we've done that I think are, in marriage itself, does the city attorney... No, no, no. I thought you were going to ask. I was going to ask. That whole issue that I got so upset about that the major billings in town were not covered by design review, according to an opinion that Gwen Hall Smith got. And now I think Marist has done a great job of writing that in. The projects do come to design review for a look at the things that we can review. Some things we can't do. So I think that's kind of a major change in process. And then our recommendations go on to the development review board. So... And I think another thing just to point out as I said, this is part of a first step. And I think the next step that we've identified is updating information on the design guidelines. And so essentially be updating cityscape in many ways. To provide additional guidance to folks on how to navigate through the process and what type of things they would anticipate. For example, talking to you folks and then as well at the development review board. So this is really the first step, though, is getting the policy in a good place that everyone can feel comfortable with. And then we can start talking about how that kind of getting to the issue of parity that folks have been complaining about that some folks are in the district and not under design review. Some folks are not in the district, the historic district. I think we haven't done yet. And I think we all agreed that getting the rules established or at least reasonably established before we set the boundaries for the district. So we've got to wait. We had a number of discussions about how it would be difficult for residents and property owners to comment on updating the boundary without knowing what would be in the new language of design review. I had a discussion just today with Mike Miller when you're looking at this. The parts about view sheds is pretty general. There's not a lot in there. And so one thought on that and sort of goes along with designing the new district is that here on the view sheds issue you're going to want to sort of make baby steps and just pick a couple of very specific view sheds like, oh, the dome. You don't want to impinge on views of the dome. Later, after doing maybe a really detailed view shed analysis that could then be elaborated on. But it's the same with the current overlay district. Right now trying to mess with that doesn't really make sense because you need to get a lot more data on that first to then be able to try and back up the data changes that people are going to have issues with. But getting the process really laid out and some of the other more detailed standards that HBC is working really hard on here making sure we're all on board with those and making them workable is the first step. The hand is right over the horizon. Of the first step. Of the first step, yes. So since you all are the ones that implement this what were some of your thoughts? I don't know how you want to proceed with this. I mean we could kind of go through a section by section quickly. Not every word because I want to be home for midnight. And I've got like an every word workability analysis from Mike over two and a half hours this afternoon. So if you just have some sections where you go I don't know if this really works to administer. I'll let you know if I've already talked about it with Mike and maybe you'll be able to do a read write already. But knowing what your thoughts are on it and you know sections that you think don't make sense would be helpful for everybody. Or things you really like. You can send your address by email to us. Is there anything that jumped out though as far as... It didn't seem drastically different in terms of administration. Like the committee's role. Yep, exactly. The checklist is probably going to be longer. Yeah, there was like new design standards. But other administratively it didn't seem. I think humor projects would be coming before you as a group. And things like paint colors would be approved by just administratively or they wouldn't come at all. They wouldn't come at all. Well and then there's some things like if somebody came to you previously for a whole big project and then they, you know, change. There's a couple things in here where if they come back for some really inky, dinky change I might be able to approve that. Yes. Without the whole thing having to come back to you again. Which makes a lot. There's specific items in there. So looking over those to make sure they aren't something that you want to have come back to you. In one of our public outreach meetings we got some very positive feedback about having a laid out list about activities that are considered exempt. So to understand that, you know, certain things you don't have to bring it forward. You can look at the rules and read through it and understand it and know where the priorities are in terms of front and rear and extent of changes. One question that some people who come when they obviously some of the rules are changing if they'll be a little more relaxed but there's some people who come and gotten some advice. I mean we have builders, architects on the board some people have seen that as a fairly valuable resource and a couple of people in particular have saved thousands of dollars on their project and ended up with a better plan with the suggestion of a couple of architects and people on the board in the past and they've been very happy with it. And in that sense, hopefully we are seen as a resource and I wouldn't mind if there was a way that if somebody wanted to come and either for administrative approval on something or if they wanted some input from people on the committee that there's a way to, I'm not sure if it would be waving a fee or making it easier just to come to get some input from people here. I mean with Eric's expertise on historic preservation, architects and people there's a lot of resources here on the committee. So in section 2201.G on page 3 the first paragraph it does call out specifically applicants are encouraged to consult with the designer of the committee or for technical assistance with implementing repair and maintenance practices. And so they could still request to come for you even if they're not required to. I mean we could, I could talk to Audra we would have to probably have something in the fee schedule that specifically says we can bring it here without a fee, changing the fee schedule or something. And again I'm just trying to figure out a way to make that work. Yeah and to make that easier for them. I think that's something I noticed when I re-read it this afternoon that that wasn't specifically in there. And I know there's a lot of people, John Anderson was very enthusiastic about that. Kim Cheney was. And I think a lot of people are applicants. Yeah having somehow making sure that it's clear that there's a fee waiver for the informal review especially if it's something where I'm not going through my whole regular process and we just put together what they have and come here. I think our first application tonight could have been an informal review because they really didn't have all the information. But that could have been an informal review and I think the informal review to just make sure there's nothing, no big deal here. Yeah except that they wanted to make those changes. So for us to issue the permit so that they can make those changes and do the change of use we kind of need your input on the structural changes. And they'll probably need a lot of information in order to get bits for doing actual work on projects. But yes, informal review does I think make sense. So again just a mechanism for doing that and maybe a reduced or no fee to make to encourage people to do that if they want some help to the project. Are we thinking of expanding or contracting the boundaries of which we have jurisdiction over? Expanding or I didn't hear what you said, Ben. Expanding or applying logic. How about that? I think there's still a healthy conversation around that. We know that there are varying opinions on the status of that and right now as I was saying earlier there are properties that are within the National Registered District that are not subject to design review. Not subject to design review because they're not. They're outside of the design. The boundaries. Design review over the district. Previous. The other option. Sorry to interrupt you. There are also other areas that could be future historic districts. Our district is the largest contiguous district in the state. The National Historic District. So we have about 660 resources. Now Burlington has far more but they're split up into smaller, more discreet districts. So there's like eight or nine districts within Burlington. Both the state and the fed said we can't expand this district anymore. Yes. The historic district. But we can continue to survey and create other districts as appropriate or we've even talked through this conversation is it appropriate to have the downtown be one discreet district and then have some of the more residential neighborhoods. So there's a discussion to have and I think we're interested in the feedback on that but the hope would be that if this becomes a logical, predictable, clear process that increasing that overlay would not be as intimidating as it perhaps was a few years ago. I think one of the other things that we talked about is that there's a grant program that's certified a local grant program and that's how we funded part of this but to actually make a plan of adding districts and some of the obvious ones are the Meadow College Street and then there's all kinds of other additional districts that we could do but to actually hire an architectural historian to go through and say, okay, do a rough outline of the district and drawing boundaries. I mean, we had one person who wanted their building in the district but it wasn't because it's really hard to tell like the barbers that was in here. There's nothing different between those two buildings other than an imaginary line that goes between them. Right and that's going to be too much until you get the whole thing because there's no definable clear boundaries. I think that there could be definable clear boundaries and one of the things that we've talked about is for the design review overlay district one option would be to follow some of the new neighborhood lines that were a part of the zoning update so that in terms of city administration and understanding of the neighborhoods it could be linked to that but there would need to be a survey to see if that actually even makes sense. And it wouldn't necessarily have to be in addition to the national register. It could be the state register or some other or it could be a local designation. Other than Cliff Street what sort of feedback are you getting from the community as far as wanting or not wanting? We had a public meeting but I think we got a lot of positive feedback from people. I've heard both. I've heard folks to Cliff Street not having an interest in that designation and as Eric said some other folks who wish that the boundaries went another block over so that they could be included. And I think one of the things to one of our goals I think is to help remove some of the misperceptions about what does this status mean and how does it affect people's property, commercial versus private and those sort of things. So this again I think it's part of what's going to be a long campaign for advocacy and education. So much depends on the individual, the individual owner of a property. Sometimes they are happy to be in it just so they can use the committee as a resource to do their own project. Sometimes they're just happy because it helps the neighbor. That's great. The neighboring property that talked well what are we doing wrong with our house? I mean they did a nice job of painting they did nice stuff. Are you telling me we're doing something wrong because we didn't go to the designer? Not at all. A lot of people are doing really nice things in Montpelier but you don't want that person moving in next door and I would guarantee that no matter what is done in either terms of district boundaries or listings on the National Register somebody is going to find problems with it. There's going to be a certain contingency that just doesn't want to be regulated period and they think the feds are going to take their building if it goes on the National Register there's all kinds of misperceptions out there. I think one of the things that I heard was people being unsure of what might happen with the update of will it cost me more money? That's always a question. But once we talk through some of the issues that seems reasonable because we also heard a lot of people talking about concern about what their neighbors might do so there's interest in, I think in more design review as long as it's predictable and understandable and not financially burdensome. I don't think that many people have problems with design review in the downtown area when you get out in the neighborhoods Cliff Street being the obvious one people don't like it I think most often based on misinformation but interestingly those are actually some of the more visible properties because of their proximity up the hill so there's a balance to that and I think one of the goals though is to see that folks feel that there's a sense of parity in what's happening with them I don't think that exists currently but it's a multi-step process. You don't think parity exists or you don't think people understand feel like there's parity? We've discussed everything including the boundaries be the setting that parity is fair. That was an outside suggestion. Well I think it's just one of the it's going to be tough selecting the boundaries the easiest course is to make them concur with the national register but that's the easiest solution. That's also if you're concerned mostly with historic versus historic and design of new development. From sort of an administrative standpoint the boundaries are drawn the buildings are described in there so there's a real basis for doing that and I mean almost everything I think designer view does with the exception of new hotels and parking garages is on historic buildings. And transit centers and what was going to be where M&M is and I feel like there's a lot of buildings that are not necessarily historic that we're commenting on and I think that that's actually really important for me that's more important than the historic stuff like I feel like taking a look at our infill development and making sure that the buildings are interesting and well crafted and beautiful and sort of thought about that is more important to me than the historic part of it. We talk at the beginning of this process the state has established two different types of design review districts one is what we had been which is a traditional design review overlay district which is looking at everything from historic to new and growth and expansion and all of that but they also have the option of doing a historic review district which is very much more focused on kind of keeping that historic district intact as is and we decided that we wanted to stick with what the city has traditionally had which is the design review which does consider new development and how does it fit in and how does it allow for some change in growth while still preserving that character of the community. So hopefully this does that but there were also a commission of historic people so if you guys have thoughts about the new infill stuff that we wrote if any of you want to go to another meeting this week tomorrow night at Christchurch at 7 o'clock there's going to be a discussion of sort of the development potentials on State Street that includes moving the thrush building forward it includes work on Christchurch there'll be some discussion about the wayfinding and the city has a street skate a grant to do a street skate planning which you know those things those kind of street furniture or street design is really important in terms of the district so that's Christchurch in the sanctuary and this meeting is organized David Sheets was key the people from Christchurch probably I participated but I wish they'd done the hold on town just State Street there's a lot going on on State Street and the issue of the hotel and all of that and what's going to happen with the gas station I think there's a lot of buildings in field development that happens especially recently that was a lot of the changes to the 2018 regulations were to allow that you're going to be seeing more of that especially based on the subdivision permits I've been getting it would really be nice if they could find a way to move the thrush building back up on the street where it used to be and then do whatever they do behind is less sensitive to the street scheme so when you guys look through these were there any sections that kind of caught your eye of not sure how that's going to work or any concerns that should be addressed before it goes before COVID-19 and if you really didn't have a chance to look through it you can also send me comments Mike have concerns with the workability thing this afternoon like I said I met with him two and a half for two and a half hours a lot of it was just moving stuff around so that we could administer it better and so that we can create recommendation forms that make more sense because if it's this much longer there may have to be actual written decisions that for our administrator decisions that have more detail on the designer review section so there weren't too many oh this isn't going to work things most of it was just reorganizing a bit so that we could administer it better so a lot of those changes are just going to make send to you guys to look at and then some of them are discussion points we can have another meeting joint meeting if one Meredith sends that out but it can also be a comments thing however you want to do it and it would be nice to be able to incorporate comments and changes that people have while I'm doing a revision and be able to pull it all together at one time since the design review was going to be the one that deals with this preservation commission done with it particular sections that you want us to look at but I would always say so yeah probably so the subsection H exempt development the subsection K administrative review things that I can approve without it even coming to design review um yep those are two big ones exempt is on page three subsection H and then page five subsection K administrative review it's so nice to have subsections now we were like subsection X for two years the other thing we've got a section at the end no definitions good look on that any additions we sort of didn't try to define everything in that dictionary we just defined the words that were particularly related to the review process and then just be aware that there are specific design standards that apply to alterations and additions to current buildings versus standards for new construction so this is the starting halfway down page seven versus halfway down page nine it's different so that would be like two different recommendation forms if you get one kind of recommendation form if you're dealing with an addition or change and then one kind of recommendation form for new buildings Sarah McShane helped with this talk a lot she did a lot of this before I came on she'd been working with us before Meredith came on I think there's probably biggies for sort of the big picture changes I mean many of these things are already addressed but only in a more generic and a general way in other words of the existing criteria they talk about compatibility with adjacent properties and other properties of the district that's pretty broad that encompasses a lot of these things materials, roof shape things, architectural features so again it's nice to be familiar with the details so that you can address those in terms of compatibility which is one of the criteria and I think some of that laying it all out is for that whole transparency so that when people are coming with their application they can look at it and go what are they actually looking at and be able to figure it out and also that way they go oh wait I do have to apply I do have to go to design review for this issue because it's in there we also I think looked at it with the idea of defending decisions in court you know because there have been very many that the I don't want them not on cliff street but it's on camera that would have been before me you look at it vinyl siding and windows change and I can't remember the guy's name I see just to kind of so that our decisions are defensive and to give you guys words to back up anybody that might challenge what you are already practicing but just so that it's spelled out in the regulation and this is I should know the answer to this question I'm not going to ask it anyhow specific to Montpelier more than it is like a general document before we used a number of other municipalities for reference and we did a like don't like as we went through different cities regulations I think a big part of this is the kind of guidance piece of it this is the regulatory part the other foot is the guidance piece and Shelburne has a very detailed guidance piece so that's our next project maybe I'll retire before that no you won't you can be an honorary member at the very least please the other thing that's kind of happening that I think is really good is the Montpelier Heritage Group is sort of reforming I was going to try to get that to happen but it's happening without me which is fantastic so the National Park Services guidance about designers in historic districts is that you start with the kind of basics of what are the Secretary of Interior for rehabilitation but then you really need to expand and customize it for the specifics of your local community because neighborhoods and development patterns change what are your priorities I think that's a little bit of what we tried to do this is really based on the Secretary of Interior's standards for rehabilitation and so with the last groups that we're doing now so I don't think there's going to be a great difference in the decisions that come up when people come into fill out their applications they don't see you, they see Audra more often, don't they if it is for administrative permits if it's not something that's going to the DRB as well then usually they see Audra it depends generally it's Audra who needs to tell somebody that they need to this will have to go to design review I guess is what I'm getting at I wouldn't say that generally it's Audra who would look at their application and say if it's an administrative application and say you've got everything in here you need to have so what's I guess my question is the perception of the public when they're told that they need to go to design review is that generally something that they're like oh god it depends on so some people especially if it's something that they have to go to design review and they have to go to DRB then they get annoyed because it's extra hearings that hopefully we've spaced out so that means two weeks in between the two unless we're really trying to squish it but for your standard person who just all they have to do is come here and then it's an administrative permit it's usually not that big of a deal but they don't necessarily know everything that they have to give us and especially with my learning curve I don't always know all the questions to ask as I've been working on these it's helped and as I've been sitting in these meetings but at the very beginning just as a person who was just coming in I was in the same boat that the applicants were in and trying to figure out all the things I had to find out that they needed to provide so I can sort of see how somebody would be surprised at all the information that they need you know if it's somebody who does not have an architect with them or a general contractor doing it I mean I guess no I was okay I mean we'll still need to explain it to them but to be able to have something other than just that like one and a half pages of design review standards to show them in some ways is better because we can point them to specific sections and give it to them that lays out what design review is really going to be looking at yeah I mean I guess or are you talking about changing well no more I'm not talking about any of those things specifically more I just feel like I do think that this is a valuable resource for the city and community and I do think that there is some like educational very quick educational things that could happen in your office as to like why we exist and what we're doing and we do and we try and tell and people who do start to complain it's a sort of a selling point of look you're going to go there and you're going to get a panel of people who do development who understand buildings who are going to be able to give you advice well and I also think like there's plenty of like photographs of our I mean the cool jewels building of like what it used to look like versus what it looks like now because somebody actually took the time to rip all of the terrible siding off and sort of like you're part of this larger fabric of like trying to create a community that has you know values in its buildings and whether there is any part of this that is front-end front-end educational for the person coming in. Get me some more time to be able to put up displays in the office I'm not trying to push it as more of this question oh no it's in that we've talked about that in the historic preservation committee meetings about trying to do that outreach. And I think that the next step with coming up with some more design guideline material how do these flesh out that there's a huge educational component to that because you know my recollection sitting around this table as a DRC member many years ago that was exactly it the process was not clear for some people and therefore they would show up without everything needed and now I gotta come back in two weeks then that means I can't make the next DRB meeting which means now all of a sudden I'm six weeks out and I could be done today if I had just known that. And so that's part of I think again the education and advocacy that can help front load all of this so that it's not so intimidating and it's it's again we keep using those the words predictable and clear. And some of the material we hope to produce later I think is a lot of people don't get it they see their project in this very narrow scope that's sort of like about them but don't realize that you know building's been around for a long time it's gonna be around for a lot longer after they're gone and like sort of see how it fits into but I think most people come to it just like oh god this is so onerous on me to have to deal with this thing. Well hopefully when you read the little intro section of this regulations we tried to put a lot of the not visuals but the kind of the concept and the reason why we do this. You know why is the city important and why is design review important. Clearly I appreciate it. Yeah you can't put those in the regulations. We already have a few design guidelines that are available on I think they're on your website you know about dealing with what's the way to approach windows what's the way to approach other elements roofing porches and those can be enhanced and those I think can be you know that can all be expanded to include stuff that's discussed here so kind of how the rubber hits the load or hammer hits things. And read this purposes and declaration because that really firmly establishes this as policy of the city but at city council we put words at their mouth but we so I think it's important to us because that really establishes the framework that makes a lot of the other stuff defensive. One quick question when people are buying properties in town the realtors tell them that they're on the national register or they're in a design review district so that if you're buying a house and you're going to fix it all up that you need to get approvals for certain things. I've had realtors ask me how that all gets transferred through I'm not really sure but it's part of them. It's really worth the salt should be doing their due diligence to get any requirements and we get those questions. I believe it would require I know other states have laws for realtors that say they have to disclose things like design review over late districts but I don't believe Vermont has that. That's something I don't think we could do anything about and we could encourage and promote the benefits of that I think they have to divulge everything else whether you've got a septic or sewer system or whether you've got asbestos or I mean there's I think that's writing a letter to your legislator here because I don't know that Montpelier has the authority to do it with local or like that. I don't think Montpelier has any local realtor ordinance. That's all state level. Is there a brochure or something that's created that could be distributed to realtors to hand to a client who's purchasing something that we could do that? I think it might come after we doing the application forms but I will put that on the list because I think that's a great idea. Just an informational to not even just to realtors. That's just anybody coming in. I think what we can maybe do when this gets further along or gets adopted probably it's just the city could send a letter to all the realtors that in town saying here there is new design review district here's the information about it here's where you can get more. Yeah but also just a general designer overlay district handout that could be sent both to realtors and to give to people who are interested in anybody who has property in that district. Steve, are you a realtor? No. I don't need anything else to do. But realtors can be very useful. A bunch of years ago there was some contact in a presentation at one of the realtors meetings about historic preservation. I didn't do it. Some realtors actually see historic building as a benefit because there's a lot of character and people who appreciate that are frequently willing to pay more for it which obviously the realtor is very interested in. So if the building has historic character and has a lot of unique features it can be an asset and a sale. And maybe they would describe it as something other than colonial. That's a shame. They have at least a 7% interest in it. 6%. 6%. Any other suggestions or clarifications that I think it would be great before this goes for the planning commission and I don't know if this is possible at the timing because I don't know what the timing is. If after you all have a chance to look at it you could maybe, if you feel comfortable jointly support it with the HPC as before it goes to the planning commission because I think one of their first feedback is going to be how does the design review committee feel about this. Well basically a lot of the proposed changes lightens the load for the committee and a lot of the things that can be administratively approved. I mean the paint job that we just reviewed according to this could have been administratively approved. Is there anything in here about something like that situation though where somebody has already done something and coming back, you know, retroactive I don't think we talked about after the fact in the bag. I think that's just dealt with I mean under the big picture zoning regulations you, if it's if they were supposed to get a permit for it they didn't then it's an enforcement issue where I go and that's what happened here is I go to them and say you need a permit for this and they come and really you guys have the authority to say no we don't approve of it and he has to repaint his house and it's just that's if it's retroactive it's retroactive which means you're reviewing it as if it hasn't actually been done. That's nasty we don't want people to do that. Well, which is also why we want them to come in and get a permit before they do the work. We're also just advisory. Yeah, but wait you're advisory but it comes through don't have to repaint Well, right but if it was something where you really say we don't approve of whatever it was the zoning administrator can't tell them they have to take the work out I think to Hannah's point though and something that we experienced in the past is hopefully this provides decisions that are more defensible because there's more content here there's more clarity in what it is what needs to happen and how it's evaluated and I don't know that that was always the case in the past and so I remember a couple of decisions the DRC made that the design review the development review board didn't take the DRC's guidance on it and still made a decision on a project independent of the guidance of this body so you know this hopefully will not prevent that because that's always an option but will at least support and strengthen the normal process Yes, because we're advisory but if there's more detail the advice given may be the decision becomes less subjective and it becomes something that's based more in I think there's there's a provision in here for consulting the preservation commission if there's an issue about historic whether something is is a character defining feature it comes back and the DRB can come to to the preservation commission to make those decisions which is I think the way it should be Does that get in there or was that just a discussion piece I think that got in here one of those HPC making a judgment call on something Mike said you can't do under state statute so there's one of them I had to I'll let you guys We'll talk about it So as on the administrative side versus my being staff of the HPC there's a little bit of conflict So just giving your heads up the planning commission The intent behind it was so that we were all to make a recommendation to the DRB that something shouldn't be done in a certain way if you're giving that to the property owner and they go to the DRB and say no that's not historic that's not a character defining feature the DRB could then theoretically if this stays in go to the preservation commission and say you know from the preservation commission standpoint is this something that contributes to the historic character of the building in the district to help clarify the issue that one stayed in I think it was the definition of historic building or something where it was the or as designated by the HPC and Mike said that wouldn't work Which one is that Okay so that's Mark it and we're going to talk about that now Mark that Well we might as well push it that's what I know I mean States actually allows for local designations Yep The historic building definition So this is on page 13 definition number 12 Any building listed determined eligible for the state register or national register of historic places that's where Mike said to put a period because he said that the or deemed locally significant by the HPC through testimony in a DRC or DRB hearing he said that the planning commission will immediately delete that because applicants need to have a reasonable certainty of what it is that they need to meet that applicants not knowing ahead of time whether or not it's a historic building is not correct okay and what we had talked about is that again with not everything being surveyed to that level but the historic preservation commission is responsible for that survey and therefore Yeah I think you're going to need to somehow define this better and be able to sell it to the planning commission just letting you know it was just like big red flag for Mike I think it's the deemed locally significant that might need to be struck I would rewire that it is deemed eligible for the national state register Yeah, but I would say it would need to be I don't know if that would need to be something that was done before the applicant actually applied versus during the application process and I think just one of the intents of that is to encumber the applicant to go out and hire a professional consultant to evaluate it because that the district was established through qualified professionals research and recommendations and so that's sort of how we had envisioned I think the preservation commission could just offer that service to the public But yeah We can look at buildings, look at pictures We don't want it to be seen as an overreach Anyway, I'm just I'm giving you a preview of where planning planning commission is going to go on that one because he was But if you don't overreach Jamie nobody is going to give you something you don't I guess that would be my other question for the DRC is through your experiences with applications have there been situations where you just felt like I really wish the regulation covered this I wish that there was a mechanism, a standard guidance because you're the one seeing what's kind of coming through like with some of these bigger development projects did you wish you had some other tool or guidance or did you feel like what you had you know set the right direction you got the information you needed That's a great question but I don't know this is the opportunity to put suggestions in that if you feel like there's been a gap Yeah, that would be great It would be nice It would be hard to be specific on some of the criteria Again, the criteria is pretty broad now and some of it's much of it's objective some of it's subjective to try to more closely define it I don't know if you're going to cover all the situations but Or if there are application requirements for something I don't know Well, I guess what I would also say from my experience coming on the board there wasn't a training I'm sure I got an opinion you want to hear it So as far as I don't feel like there has been any sort of So maybe we have a thing in here that says you know and I don't know if this is the right spot or not because I believe that the HPC is supposed to provide some training and guidance to the DRC I think Sarah said that at one point and I don't know if we put that in here somewhere It would be I think it would be more just HPC working with the Department of Planning because I mean that's when Martha came on, I did my best to put together a package of stuff but it doesn't help that I haven't been here that long either The other thing we discussed was I didn't we didn't figure out a system for that but having somebody from HPC beyond the designer of you I've done both for years but you're in but to have our own requirement that would be DRC DRC rules of procedure that's a different set of rules of procedure as well as getting city council for requirements for DRC members but that doesn't really deal with the training I think the training is more of planning department policy issue and that's like right now like we had a whole huge switch over on development review board and now that things are slowing down we're actually planning some training for them the historic preservation commission because we're a certified local government has certain requirements for the people that have to be on that commission architect architect historian but that's not true for they can put anywhere they want to DRC I think there's some general standards but pretty much so more training for DRC yep it would have been helpful I'd like a chance to take a look at these especially the parts that you emphasized and I'll get back to you Meredith send me any comments suggestions and that is the other thing to remember just for the DRC training issue ask me stuff and I can try and find a way to make it happen okay I'll ask a question what happened on clip street there's no idea what you're talking about is that a conversation for a different situation no it's just an issue where somebody had problems with peeling paint on a building and they decided after talking to the 10 men that the solution was to put rigid insulation with vinyl siding over it to hide the deteriorating climbers underneath okay and the decision was made I was the chairman at the time the decision was made that probably should take that all off and deal with it in a better in a better way and personally I wouldn't have bothered with the siding to begin with because they're just basically getting deteriorating materials which I was going to contend to deteriorate but somebody took on bridge with the the way the decision was made and he didn't want to spend the money he already had an outlining he already have done it and it was already mostly done and then people from cliff street got organized and just did not want to desire you because of some decisions that had been made there in the past and I guess that cliff street is out now as a designer of you I can't even remember to be honest it's not like it's done through and checked all of them we'll go back in again there's no it could be challenged either way very easily okay yes I wasn't here for that so because they might be challenged probably never getting development review board they got weird advisory they reversed the decision that one to environmental court that's what I'm saying it was sort of decision or sort of like cutting the baby in half that weird decision anyway okay thank you for your attention consideration of all this really would value your feedback thank you for the work all of you have done putting that together it was really a good committee and exercise step away from the table have a good night good night guys thank you for coming yeah so do you want to do minute yes the first set of minutes is for October the 15th and we have Eric Seth and Ben here three people second I mean look I'm mature we've seen them a few times but I think you haven't been here all in favor of approving the 15th although Ben had distorted okay that was so approved okay the next set of minutes is for October the 40th boom this was the parking garage that was the beginning we reviewed these ones but it was the wrong draft that you reviewed so I made all the changes that needed to happen so you're reviewing them again anybody have any other questions, comments, suggestions regarding those minutes and then again it was myself Eric Seth and Ben Eric moved you moved to approve, yes so you're second for this one all in favor of approving the 30th okay that was approved yay and then we're out to December we're actually moving forward I wasn't there Steve had a Seth and Martha and this is a new sign at the rear of the building the 32 main oh that was it yeah okay that was basically the three by three sign that was pretty much you'll hear a motion to approve that one I'll move to approve I'll second and all in favor of that December 30th that one is approved okay awesome okay got those done and then if you want to there's some minor changes to the DRC rules of procedure that needed to happen so it changes on page two and four really minor stuff about when the meetings are held okay you can I'll move to approve I'll hear a second for those changes all in favor of the changes for the rules of procedure raise your hand we've been operating this way right? the rules of procedure just never changed it was just I was going through all the rules of procedure and went wait nobody actually approved these it is Monday it's not changing what you're doing it's just making sure the rules of procedure that you do that's all I can do you can just say we'll do it we damn well please awesome do I hear a motion to adjourn? you do do I hear a second? all in favor of adjourn raise your hand the meeting is adjourned thank you