 Good evening, everyone. We're going to call the meeting of the Development Review Board for City of Montpelier to order. My name is Daniel Richardson. I serve as chair of the board. The other members for my right are Rob Goodwin, Kevin O'Connell, Meredith Crandall, staff, Kate McCarthy, Ryan Cain. All right. As a preliminary, actually, let's approve the agenda. Does anybody have any additions, changes to the agenda? Mr. Chair, I'll make the motion to accept the agenda as printed for October 7, 2019. Okay. Motion by Kevin. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Kate. All those in favor? Please raise your right hand. We have an agenda. Good start. The comments from the evening are as follows. There are five of us here on a board that normally sits seven. So any applicant coming forward tonight, you're welcome to go forward, but if you feel as if you would benefit from two additional members, the requirement of, and let me take a step back. The voting requirement remains four. So for any application for affirmative votes are required for us to approve whatever application appeal or modification you put forward tonight. It's just you have less of a margin of error with five of us. If one of us has to recuse for an application, that means just four. So all four would have to agree. So you do have that option, and I'll just simply put it out there that you can ask to continue your application to another night when we have the other two members there. Mr. Kaplan. Can you guarantee that there will be more members if we wait? I can't guarantee for any given night. I will say that it is unusual for us to be down to five. We have one alternate and we have one full-time member who could not make it tonight. So the last meeting we had close to a full contingency. We had actually the full seven. The meeting before that I believe was the same case. So this is a quirk of tonight and that's simply why I'm announcing it now at the beginning of the meeting as opposed to later on. You don't have to ask for the continuation at the beginning of the discussion period for your application. You can wait until you've gotten a sense of where things might be at and then ask to be continued. So in other words an applicant could present their evidence to the people who are here today and then conclude that they would like you continue to a later hearing when there are more people. At that point you'd have people who are not quite as who would receive a recap of the information though not the same. They would probably watch the video. They'd have the option to watch the video and or read the minutes. So that's how the additional members would be prepared if you were to continue to another night as they would they would get speed by watching the video reading the minutes and that's how you would be assured that the evidence you present is received. If you very presented it. So basically any time prior to us closing the record and taking it under advisement or to a vote you can ask to have this continued to another night when a larger contingency of the board is going to be present. Okay. Any questions? Great. All right. The first item of business apart from that is the approval of the September 16th 2019 minutes. Myself, Kate, Ryan, Rob were in attendance. That gives us four. Do I have a motion to approve or do I have any corrections? I will make a motion to approve the minutes from September 16th as drafted. Okay. Motion by Ryan. Do I have a second? I second the motion. Second by Rob. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor who are eligible to vote for the September 16th minutes please raise your right hand. We have approved minutes. Excellent. First item of business is 242 Elm Street. This is Matt and Olga Benoit. If you'll step forward and introduce yourself. I'm Matt Benoit. Okay. Live and own at 242 Elm Street. Is anyone here to comment upon the 242 Elm Street application? Okay. I just want to note that this afternoon I got some comments from a neighbor who owns 7 Winter Street, so behind 242 Elm. I'm going to pass these around and I'll give you one. Just a minute so I'll help them here. There's two more. Give me a minute. I'm going to pass them around and then I'll explain. Okay. So just generally the neighbor at 7 Winter Street is in favor of the project. His main item of concern or item of note really is that his parking lot is behind and lower than the back of 240 Elm Street and so there's some concerns about making sure that we think about where snow is being stored and where that water might run off to. But other than that, just generally in favor of the project. Mr. Bernal, if you raise your right hand, I'll put you under oath. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the evidence and testimony you're about to give for the matter under consideration shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth under pains and penalties of perjury. Yes. Very good. So if you'd like to walk us through what you're proposing, my understanding is this, you know, we're looking at this conditional use for minor site plan and demolition of historic structure. So why don't you describe to us what you're proposing? It's a four-unit apartment building now and there is space in the back that's unfinished and I'm hoping to turn that into a fifth unit. There's, according to the historian, it's not necessarily a demolition, the more of a repair. It's a wall of doors, basically just holding on for its dear life. So we propose to finish that space, rebuild that wall, add a new foundation in the back. Okay, and so this is in the back of the main building? Yes. And if I think of Elm Street just running north and south, what side of the building is this area that you're going to be north or south? It would be north towards Montpelier? No, north towards Middleson. North goes to Middleson. South goes to Middleson. So it would be west, east of the building, the rear. This is on a weird part of Elm Street. So north is actually pointing towards north is pointing towards one of the front corners of the building. Okay. Well, I'm just roughly... Yeah, so be it that easternly... Just for the record, if you could... Into the meadows. Right, into the meadows, yeah. Okay, so the... The particular. Right. So towards the back of the building? Yeah. Facing towards the meadow? Yes. And could you describe exactly what the face facade of the building looks like right now as opposed to what it's going to look like after the renovation? The facade is in the back or the front? No, just the actual area you're going to be working on. The actual area I'm going to be working on shouldn't change much at all. The back wall consists of doors that will be rebuilt with traditional siding. The sides of the building in that area have metal siding on it now. I'll probably use a vinyl siding of similar. So this is the rear of the building right now? That's the rear of the building, yeah. And that's the area you're going to be renovating? That's the back wall, lower section that's going to come off and be rebuilt. That apartment goes into the building quite a ways. Right. Yeah. So everything in the triangle is remaining? Yes, yep. But the doors will come off and it will essentially be some more clabbered? Yes. Continuing down? Yes. Do you have any doors and windows? No, there's just going to be storage area back there. So okay. Two doors added onto the east early side I guess, north east early side. For entrance. Right, I see that there's an apartment five entrance doors that you want to put. What looks like it's the side facing towards Montpil here. Right. Replacing a window with the door. Yes, I do have some modifications to the site plan. I don't know if those ever made it. No. The proposed conditions now I think that you have show up cantilevered back wall. They're my builder nor my foundation repair guy like the idea so we're just going to rebuild it right where it is. I do have some more drawings. Would you like to see them? Yeah, we need at least one for the record. Sure. I don't know if we can pass them over. Do you have multiples or just? Okay. Great. So right now the back of the this back wall does it sit on a foundation? It used to be a I believe there's stone there. Right now it's a disintegrating timber. Okay, so the sills are actually in the in the ground. Yeah. And what's left of them? You said it's deteriorating kind of falling off. Yeah, yeah they actually actually the upper triangle is not connected to the lower section anymore. The lower section is sunk enough so it's not connected. Okay, so this is more than just a there's an actual gap here between them. Right. Right. The second floor and the and the doors. Right. The frame. Right. Apart from the the so you're proposing put in a foundation below. Yeah. Obviously repairing any rotted sills or wood. Changing the facade. Anything else that you're changing to this? We're going to install a dormer on the northeasterly side. On the second floor. Similar to the existing dormer. Of similar style but much longer before 14 feet. Yeah. It'll be an actual. Right. Right. With windows. It'll replace the existing dormer with. Right. That one small one. Right. We're going to start there and work from there. If this was and this is in part the analysis that we have to do. Let me start with the beginning. The the front of the building with the large columns that will not be affected by this. No. Will any of the changes that you're proposing be visible from Elm Street? No. Okay. You're proposing that when this is done, the back will still be a storage area. Is that what it's serving as right now? It is storage area now. The whole area as was my storage. Yeah. I mean trying to understand in part we need to know about the historic significance of this. Sure. Property. This looks like it was like a horse barn. I think so had three big doors on the back. It was you know big enough to put something of good size in there. And then the historian that came by said that there used to be an addition on beyond where the building is now. He could tell. Okay. So this wasn't actually the back the actual back of the building. At some point according to him he can tell by looking at it that there used to be something else. He wrote a letter. Right. I think that's from Eric Gilbertson. It's the next to the last page in the application packet. And as we dug into the floor a little bit to look at the foundation we could see that even this back section that I'm proposing fixing was an addition at some point. So it's exactly. Yeah. I assume it was only this front square that was the original house. And I think just to be clear. So interesting. Eric Gilbertson wrote that letter as an individual rather than as a representative. Correct. Okay. I mean he noted in here who he is but this is just his individual going in and checking out the site. And it's his opinion that the work meets the Secretary of Interior Standards for Preservation projects and essentially picking probably the least visible portion of the house keeping the structural integrity of the building. Just so I understand if you did nothing what would happen to the back of the building. I give it a couple years before that wall starts to I mean I short it up so it's holding there but that upper section is really going quite a bit. There probably is some pictures in my packet of pictures there. And so this project is attempting to keep the infrastructure of the building. It's half necessary, half wanting to finish the other rooms that are there. Okay. Make it usable. And if you didn't renovate it what economic value could you get out of this back area or what value are you getting out of it now? Nothing. Just my personal storage right now. I wouldn't trust to have anybody or anything up there. And it's not sheet rocked so it's not fire raided or anything? No. Mostly wood or mostly logs that you can see. Anybody have any other questions on some of the historic preservation issues or do we feel comfortable? I know I really appreciate the letter from Eric Gilbertson. Yeah me too. It's nice talking to him. Not that there's really precedent too much but in our staff report it was noted that just down the street there's a very similar sort of building with a similar addition. We've probably seen it. That I think helps maximize the uses of these historic buildings and the lots on which they sit in an area of town where we do want to see more more residential development. Was the space existing as well that he finished up over there? It was the same thing where it was doors off the back maybe used to be used for horses and no foundation following it. So if we have no other questions about the and I guess I would concur with Eric's opinion that this seems much less about a demolition. We've had applications where people have wanted to tear off the back of buildings which are allowed under certain conditions. This is much more about a renovation and rehabilitation of a failing portion of a historic property. As has been denoted by your expert the less are contributing quality than the remainder of the building. Right. Definitely. So the other portion of your application I believe deals with the change in parking that you're proposing if you could just outline briefly what you're proposing to do. Yeah I just gave Meredith a picture. So on the back of that wall there is a sloped sloped earth up into the bottom of the doors. With the new wall we're going to get rid of that slope to make it driveway and add another spot in the back next to the existing three spots. And where would snow storage be located? Snow storage is just beyond that parking area. Okay so on that lawn right there. Let me see if we can get an aerial shot just so we know how long have you owned a building? Five years. Okay and have you always had snow storage in that area? Yeah. And have you ever had to truck it off upside? Nope. It's pretty bogey area over there. Sufficient for the entire season. Yeah I've never filled up more than half of it even last year. So Dan if you go to page 10 of the staff report where it's measuring out the parking area. Now unfortunately the parcel lines here are from the tax assessors map so they aren't really accurate. The parcel line really goes like from the back side of the garage and across. Right. So the you know the the winter street neighbor that we heard from is not it is actually parking their vehicles on their own parcel not on the Elmstead parcel. Right. At least not the hoods of them. Yeah. And so and so just in front of those vehicles that grassy area. Yes. That's the snow storage area. And then how one thing also about the dimensions. Do we have any updated? Yeah that updated one gives us the really important one is the garage. Yep. The garage gives us because really when you look at these dimensions your total 36 feet proposed only gives us four parking spaces wide but the garage contains an additional is that five bays in that garage and each of those bays is you know seven and a half to nine feet wide and 19. Oh wait wait wait. Nineteen foot four and a half. Maybe I'm reading this wrong. Oh nine feet seven and a half inches wide and 19 feet four and a half inches deep so we've already got all five parking spaces in the garage. Okay. So they totally meet the minimum parking standards and they don't go over. They have at least nine. Do I need that fourth spot? Um you don't need that fourth spot. Yeah. You need a minimum of five parking spaces. You already have that so if you don't want to make that a parking space. Okay. You don't have to. Okay. And you have really two options about that at this point. One is to just go forward to see if you can get permission for that fourth spot in which case you're under no obligation to build it or you can say there's no way in hell I'm ever going to build it so I might as well withdraw it. No we'll plan on going forward with it for now. I think that makes a certain amount of sense only because I'm looking at page 13 of the staff report which shows an aerial photograph which looks like the three cars that are parking here are a little tight. I have plenty of room. My wife drives a minivan. I have my truck and it may be the shadow then. Yeah. Um there's plenty of room to open a door and not hit another car. Certainly having that four space will lighten out. Yeah. Yeah. Um okay. So Mr. Chair could someone explain to me again where the snow storage will be is it intended to be at the on the grassy part in front of those four parking spaces? Yes. So you move the cars and the plus now in the fall over here. In the winter most of the cars are in the garage. We don't have enough now. I would be too. All right so that's where the snow goes. Is there any other changes being proposed? Nope. So one question that we do have to ask about landscaping and screening are you proposing any new landscaping changes or screening? No. Okay. And I'll note that there's already parking in this in this area and it looks from this photograph as if there's already sort of screening existing between your your lot and what looks like a house that sits back off of Elm Street just to the south if you will closer to Montpelier that you know might require screening if if that screening didn't exist. Right. But given that in fact the fourth spot looks as if it's going to park in front of a tree and shrub area already so that will be sufficient screening to block the neighbor's view or not to shine headlights right into their dining room at a time. Yeah. So what's the uh just yeah uh well and then the fourth the final staff comment is about traffic you're proposing just one additional unit right um so there'll be five um I don't think that really requires any particular traffic analysis unlikely I mean the driveway seems sufficiently wide um okay so how does the board wish to proceed we've got conditional use I have one more question oh yes we talked a little bit about snow storage and I just want to acknowledge the concerns submitted by the winter street neighbor JC Earl about there being a little bit of a downslope from your property at some point somebody brought in fill on my lot and leveled it so there's drop offs all the way around for the most part uh at least the back half um I know what this I know I've never met the gentleman but I know what he's talking about um even today his parking lot's full of water uh it just doesn't drain anywhere from there yeah um so I'm not sure that's within our power to ask you to regrade your grassy area but it's everything I've ever done great conversation starter right right I'm certainly not making any changes that will make it worse okay um yeah if there if there's anything that can be done to improve or compromise this uh sure might be a good chance to meet sure right I think honestly the most of the majority of that snow bank goes continues further and there's a gully in between uh the winter street neighbors and myself his lot is behind my garage I don't think much water goes over there because I had there used to be trees along the garage and so there's a pretty big mound okay it may eventually end up there but it doesn't directly flow down that way yeah I I don't see this as a significant modification of the existing right snow storage no I agree but I appreciate that acknowledgement of mr. Earl's concerns so conditional use yes all right just and Meredith just remind me we're looking at the conditional use simply because because it's going to five units and five units is a conditional use in this particular district so as far as the conditional use application our review is really about the fifth unit whether adding a fifth apartment unit and let me just ask are there a number of apartments uh along elm street in this neighborhood um on the northeast early side closer to my pillar it's all condo duplexes okay and then on the other side of the driveway is a four unit it's it is all apartments pretty much all around us definitely okay so conditional use as says the application shall demonstrate that the proposed development shall not cause a disproportionate or unreasonable burden on the city's ability to provide community facilities utilities including one local schools two police fire protection ambulance service three street infrastructure and maintenance for parks and recreation facilities five water supply sewage disposal and storm water and infrastructure so none of those things seem to be triggered by this application um this is consistent with the character of the neighborhood um this is this elm street in particular seems to have a number of multi-family this is already a multi-family we're simply adding one more unit to it um and this is not likely to change the um noise sounds smell um it's not likely to create any unusual voters um for the for the neighborhood so consistent with that um what's the does the board have any other questions on conditional use no okay why don't we just um i think this application is straightforward enough we can simply vote it all at the end in one motion that's okay by the way okay so um and i think as far as the historic uh well let's see the minor site plan again is is i think we've hit all of the points on on those um and then the demolition of historic structure are we in agreement that this is really not a demolition of a historic structure but really a repair and renovation to an existing historical structure that will cause some minor demolition but appears to be consistent with what's necessary to save the structure yes yes okay so given that then i think we're ready for a motion on this application so i'll go ahead and make the uh motion to approve the request for conditional use um approval and minor site plan um and i guess i want some guidance with we're going to uh vary from the warning to be uh site plan and and rehabilitation right uh for 242 else okay motion by kevin do i have a second second that motion i have a second by rob any further discussion hearing none all those in favor of the motion please raise your right hand all right you have uh our vote of approval what will happen next is we'll draft a decision indicating the findings of the board um that'll be issued then there's a 30 day appeal window that comes out of that um and then the permit becomes final okay if not appealed um but merit is can certainly guide you on the next steps okay sounds good thank you very much thank you i'm lucky with that thank you matt okay next application is five west street jonathan hurts oh there's actually a change in ownership in the last few days shan and jenny sheen okay so the applicants are now also the owners excellent okay uh if you'll state your name for the record and then we'll swear you in and then i'll let you basically identify the project and my understanding for merit is there may be some changes that you wish to discuss okay jenny sheen and shan sheen okay you're both raise your right hand is anyone else here to be heard on this okay uh do you solemnly swear or affirm that the evidence and testimony you're about to give for the matter under consideration shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth under a pains and penalties of hergery yes i do yes i do all right so if you'll introduce uh the application and any changes that you wish to put forward and it's the full the full application or this part portion yeah this is this covers everything okay all right so um so for the application we're and it has three three parts of of what we're in one the house is in bad need of a new new roof and uh and the paint is peeling and chipping on the on the trim and the and the shakes are cracked and curling and some so one one piece of of the application is to to deal deal with those those items to put a new new roof on um and and to paint the paint the trim and um and uh and patch the the uh the cedar cedar shakes and and stain stain those the the second piece relates to to turning uh the the garage and what they call the summer house or workshop above the the garage into an accessory dwelling unit um so for that uh for that portion um we'd be looking at at uh running running water it already has insulation and electricity running running to it and um and and then because of the uh the parking space uh requirements we would be having the parking space in the garage go with the accessory dwelling unit and we would be adding a a driveway for our ourselves on on the west street side now the amendment that was was referred to was we we we had been looking at uh getting a a waiver to be on the left side of the of the walkway close closer to uh in the in the lawn there um closer to to first street um but upon I think having other conversations and looking and finding out that there isn't the need for for large large offsets that we think it would actually uh look better and work better to be on the the right side of the um of the property um close to the property line there where the raspberry bushes are um now okay can I just add a little procedural note here I was just going to ask you to do so so the only reason that this application is before the development review board is because of the original driveway location proposal which was 40 feet from the intersection of first avenue and west street um and from that location the closest driveway is over 100 feet away in the opposite direction um in moving proposing to move the driveway to the other side of the house closer to the um shared boundary further up there's absolutely no reason for this application to be for the drb um and so I I didn't find out about this until the previous designer review committee meeting where they went for full of all the paint colors and everything so we weren't able to do a written withdrawal or anything from the drb but if they're amending this at this point I think there might be I haven't dealt with this before but there might be the option I'm not sure for the drb to just shoot it back administratively and have it be administratively approved if that's what the applicants want I think so you're saying that the location of the new proposed driveway which you're saying it's to the right of the walkway if you're facing the house that new driveway is sufficient distance from the next driveway yes away from what away from that sufficient from that driveway um you know I mean that's based on relatively rough calculations but was it driveway or was it the intersection wait so so originally the problem was distance to the driveway or distance to the intersection it has to be 50 feet from the intersection so if you move it to the other side of the house it is more than 50 feet from the intersection and I had checked previously that the current location was well more than I mean way more than 100 feet from the next closest driveway and the minimum distance to driveways I'll put that in here somewhere is it 100 feet no 30 feet between driveways yeah 30 feet for MURs the required access points or a minimum of 50 feet to any intersection and 30 feet between yeah and it's over from its current location it's over 100 feet to the closest driveway so moving it even 50 feet is going to be still well within the bounds of the requirements so there's no need for it to be before the development review board anymore so I'm going to just restate that all the things that we are that are in this application if the application has been brought to you a week ago you would have said oh these are all these can all be administratively approved and permitted correct and so we're here just because it was warned I think we should do the right thing yeah kick it back kick it back unless unless there's any any indifference well yeah well let me let me ask this question this is what before the DRC for the design review components correct okay and what was the outcome of that oh they were quite happy with it and they were also fine with moving the driveway then I don't see any reason for us and we'll give you an opportunity to weigh in on this as well for us to necessarily mold this over through a deliberative process simply because the bylaws allow for this kind of application to be done administratively you know it's a bit of six of one half dozen of another but the one benefit is that I think the administrative approval moves us a bit faster it might be significantly faster yes depending on how the work flows go we're happy to go that okay I mean I don't think we need to as a deliberative body you know subject you to that that process where the bylaws don't require it now that you've made that alteration we're happy to send you right back to the administrative approval and I don't know that we have any rules around this one way or another but I would just say that if this had been warned and someone took interest in it and wanted to come talk about it in this public setting they could have done so so that opportunity has been provided through appropriate notice and you've told us and added to the record why you've changed the driveway and we've talked about how it meets the requirements so I think I think we've kind of covered our bases in terms of what we need to do so I'll accept a motion to remand this to the zoning administrator for administrative review and approval based on the Montpelier bylaws so moved motion by Kate you have a second second by Ryan all those in any further discussion hearing none all those in favor please raise your right hand all right thank you you're welcome good luck congratulations thank you beautiful house yeah gorgeous house the staff report is basically the administrative report we just have to clean it up a little bit you never say no administrative yeah let's have to run it by the Department of Public Works again but there's no sideline issues there okay so the next applicant is 60 Main Street the 60 Main Street Associates LLC welcome I will note for the record that I am recusing myself for this application from any vote however as consistent with board precedent I'm happy to continue the city's chair and facilitate the review understanding that I will not be casting a vote in the decision uh and so that would mean they would have to have a unanimous you would have to have all four vote unanimously or so and I'll give the applicants of the applicants have any objection to me sitting as as chair to facilitate the hearing I'm happy to recuse myself fully and step down okay um does anybody need extra staff reports I do have a couple okay this is just the staff report not the whole packet if you need to pull back let me know okay uh so if you would introduce yourselves and then I will put everyone under us I'm Talia Stonaroff Bill Kaplan Jacqueline Rieke okay you all raise your right hand do you solemnly swear affirm that the evidence and testimony you're about to give for the matter under consideration shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth under the pains and penalties of perjury I do I do very good um rather than having you start off I actually want to have Mary to uh give us a sort of procedural overview because this is in a slightly different posture than the prior two applications um okay so um this application is for a sign at 60 Main Street um and the reason it's here is because it went through the design review process and the design review committee's recommendations for the sign which was proposed at with letters of 24 inches high was to reduce those letters to 18 inches high the applicants don't agree with that recommendation and so it has been referred here per section 4301f now that language in 4301f describes it as an appeal but there's actually no statutory basis for it to be dealt with under true appeal procedures and so we're treating it as just a referral to the DRB because there's been no administrative action there's been no permit issued um and so this is you know just like referring other problems that we referred to you when we as administrative officers or you know certain administrators can't make the decision um you know they had the option of having me issue the permit and the appealing the permit but this seemed like the more straightforward so this this is effectively a de novo yeah sorry yes so this is effectively a de novo review but you know because they're appealing that specific recommendation my my suggestion would be to just be reviewing that front sign um and not the other signs on the alleyway but i've included the full application package in here um and i've you know because part of the application is confirming that it meets all of the size requirements there's some discussion in the staff report about the size of all the signs so the site the ones on the side they're not the right and the design review committee was fine with the ones on the side as they were proposed but since we're reviewing under a de novo stance yeah it's it's a little it's a little funkiest because because that well we can certainly you can do it either way we can we we can i mean this is kind of like the old system that we had where the drc would make recommendations to us that we were not bound to adhere to however we gave them a high level of deference right because of the area of expertise but you know at the same time we weren't bound by them if we felt that the reasoning for their decision was not consistent with the bylaws or that there were certain facts either introduced at this hearing or the prior hearing that were inconsistent with the decision so and either way it means the design review committee is an advisory committee they don't actually make the ultimate decision i think in this right well in any instance even when they make recommendations on an administrative permit ultimately it comes to the zoning administrator and even the zoning administrator in some instances has the authority to say oh wait the drc clearly made a mistake somewhere or failed to get some information i've you know it's much less likely to happen so in this instance the 24 versus 18 inch was based upon what specific criteria so the 24 versus 14 inch is based on my understanding at the hearing and based on really what you need to go by is the recommendation form that they filled out you can see where they had this is a little bit would you mind i'm so sorry i'd interrupt would you mind just adding that in the first application which was completely approved they did approve a 24 inch 24 inch letters yeah and that's thank you this was about i was asked to talk about the procedural yes not necessarily the full permit history right here it is in the staff report and that is important thank you but so here it seems to be that the 18 inch versus 24 inch sign height difference came into play for whether or not the sign dealt with the appropriate historic style harmony of exterior design with other properties in the district prevention of the use of incompatible designs conformance with cityscape design recommendations potentially i'm not sure about that one because cityscape doesn't actually have anything about size i have that in i've included those cityscape recommendations in your packet and then compatibility with subject property and adjacent properties those are because that's the only thing where you know that that was that was one of the big issues discussed there were you know one of the problems is that you cannot make sign determinations based on content this is a constitutional law issue um there there was a lot of discussion about the content yes how much you know there are lots of times where the design review committee will give recommendations on things where in the meeting and but it is outside of the bounds of what could be conditioned on the permit so if i were to issue a permit and they had said something on here specifically about content that would not have gone as a condition on the permit because they put on the actual recommendation form which ultimately is that the record of their decision this note about the different size issues that's not something i have authority to make a judgment call on unfortunately you know they did a different as outlined in the history a different grouping of design review committee members previously approved a sign with 24 inch letters i'd like to clarify that point because i i read that and i kind of looked back and forth who approved the first one and who approved the second what was different between the two and it is true that in the first and second applications there were 24 inch letters but in the first application it was 20 feet worth of 24 inch letters in the second application it's 39 feet yes worth of 24 inch letters so i just want to be careful not to talk about those like they're the same yep nope they're not the same there's there's a much different and and it adds up to a a much different total square footage of the signage now both of those signs meet the you know are compliant with the maximum sign area requirements and the standard just basic sign regulations it all comes down to the design review criteria which aren't something i can weigh in on if i feel like somebody has missed putting a particular pertinent piece of information for an administrative application that goes along with design review i can ask for that input information to buffer something but if it's a judgment call on something like this where i don't have a yes no answer on something i can't really make that so that's why it's here so if i understand correctly um there's nothing about either the the sign that the applicants seek now or what was approved that triggers any type of overall size limitation no they're all they're all within the overall size limitation bounce and they all meet all of those basic sign requirements and if if i understand correctly the although not put into the design review decision the discussion that was around whether 24 or 18 inch was really about sort of consistency with the cityscape um it was consistency with the rest of the historic downtown district okay um that that was a major part of it and you know it's you know there are other signs in the district that are this size and there was discussion of that at the hearing about different signs that were this big um and and there were committee members who said yes those signs were are that have letters that height but that doesn't mean that's good design so but it's still it's you know you're asking me to sort of go outside of what's on the recommendation right no no i just wanted to understand what was animating the conversation without necessarily because i mean obviously there was a lot animating the conversation there was a lot of content and then there was also okay size both of those things came up you know and we can't deal with content right and ultimately i mean you know i'll note simply that the design review recommendation form really limits itself strictly to a limited number of content limited number of comments and does not you know articulate any either options adjustments recommendations um and and just to be clear the 18 inch was a recommendation that was not a proposal by the applicant correct it was there was discussion this is something that is a bit of a procedural oddity there was a lot of discussion by a couple of DHC members saying oh we'd be okay with 18 inches and so even though applicants weren't proposing 18 inches to try and find some way to see if that was a possibility especially because we didn't have all of the applicants representatives at the table by the time we got to this level of of discussion um pardon we had directive we were right right well yes it was looking it didn't look like 24 inches was going to pass at all so there was a question of would they approve it 18 inches so that vote was done that wasn't necessarily something that the applicants requested please make a suggestion that so i think what the DRC is an advisory board to us they make recommendations we're at the stage where those recommendations have not been accepted i think it's important that we have the design review criteria that is what we are applying and at this stage the most important thing is for this board to apply those review criteria to the proposal that is going to be put in front of us and i think it makes sense to move to that proposal and let the applicants tell us thank you would like to have us review and then we as a board will review them pursuant to these design criteria and i think it's important to note that yes there's size limitations that's like the maximum as far as the size but we're not talking about that we're talking about design um and you know there's design can mean different things to different people um so there's a lot of leeway there but i'd appreciate just taking like hearing what the proposal is i think before i want to i want to thank you for the procedural yes because that is a good grounding yeah we need that and also the reminder now we're starting de novo anew before we do the donovo i thank you very much i think that there's there's one piece make sure that the microphone's pointed at you this is a little um confusing because you know leaving that meeting there was no um there was no decision that was there were 16 votes taken and two of them um were split two to two otherwise all these votes were in favor and had the three you know necessary votes to move forward so it was it interesting i mean it was it was a little confusing but thank you for straightening that out and and i think that it was just important to note that there was nothing out of hand rejected there were no issues that the board was definitive on that wasn't positive they were positive on a number of the votes they were unanimous there were there were two where um they were split yeah so that's all i want to add to that i i just think that was i would like to understand that a little bit more at the first set of at the first go around talking about the proposed sign there were three people present that's where you had a sign that was 20 yeah i wasn't referring to that first one okay i was only referring to the one that we were um going after the first one where they approved so that's the three that you were referring to okay all right just didn't want to conflate the two proposals we're talking about that one all right okay so um i think taking up ryan's comment um the floor is yours tell us about uh the sign great so i'm talli estonarov i'm an architect here in montpelier and i first want to thank you all for being here and thank you meredith and audra for writing up this incredibly comprehensive report it's really impressive to read so i'm hoping to i think you all have this document and i'm hoping just to walk through this and explain our process of of really understanding and addressing the sign so you can see on the first page uh the previous sign of one more time uh had 31 inch wood letters and that was approved on the next page and on the additional image that i gave to you you can see our proposed sign with 24 inch aluminum letters we then just show how there are signs greater than 24 inches consistently in town currently so on wall green some of the letters are 31 inches on cool jewels and we're not commenting on the design we're just strictly showing the heights of the letters they are also 24 inches the new beautiful montpelier sign that was just installed i think just last week is 28 a little over 28 inches high so we took the drc's comments seriously and we wanted to test this and say well okay so what does 18 inch look like on this signboard which is very large i believe it's 54 inches high the existing signboard at the new rattle browser and what does 24 inches look like so we did mock-up letters and we pasted them up there and we took photographs and we actually talked to people walking by and got their opinion and everyone agreed that the 18 inch letters on this very large signboard which is existing just ended up looking kind of diminutive and really small and almost silly so as meredith noted this sign we're proposing is absolutely within and in fact quite under the regulations by the planning board in terms of square footage also noted the initial sign that had different content was approved with some 24 inch letters we also decided to change the font there was a talk about the font with the initial proposal and the letters were thicker and a little more ragged so we changed the font to be calmer and cleaner more of a mid-century historic font on the next page you can see the previous sign that was approved with the 24 inch letters that said rabble rouser which the committee really i think wanted to have the name of the company up there and as meredith noted there was a lot of comments about having what what was contained within the store that that they weren't as positive about that but that's not what we're talking about on the next page you can see those mock-up letters so you see the 24 inch letter and then the 18 inch letter and you can see how much extra space is left when you have that 18 inch letter and then finally you can see the sign again as we are proposing it with the 24 inch letters on that last page and on the rendering which is actually a photograph just with the sign rendered that we presented we looked over the recommendations that meredith and audra kindly put into this document and looked up on the website recommended how do you choose the correct letter height so if you look at the additional map here which is taken from the montpelier interactive website we took some dimensions so we took a dimension from state and main which is our key intersection in this town and that is about 278 feet and three inches from there and at that distance to really maximize the benefit per the recommendation of the website it's clearly 24 inches in fact that's greater than the 240 feet that's recommended in that document that you provided meredith from other areas in the town for instance at the edge of skinny pancake it's 457 feet so again those 24 inch letters would be entirely appropriate at that distance and the 18 would really not be at the maximum visibility so we're really thankful that we have the opportunity to present this to you and we're eager to hear your comments any questions from the board you give us a new picture tonight yes and i i want to try and understand what i might be seeing or feeling differently about this picture compared to maybe this picture and one of them is daytime one of them is nighttime this one is lit so we've got shadows we want to understand it i mean there's something about i'm just going to react at the moment okay it's because design personal all that if you know there's something soft about this nighttime shot with the goose neck lighting with the with the the depth of the letters being featured by that lighting sure and that plays like reads differently to me then i forget which of the the daylight photos looked and felt very different to me so can you tell me what's happening in my brain when we don't think you've qualified the expert for that yes but more like when people's eyes take in light in different ways and they respond to a design what what is different between that sort of softer nighttime and the larger one because i like one and not the other okay well one the image that i just recently gave you i actually went and photographed um and that is exactly what the building looks like at dusk with just the sign super imposed on it uh i think this one you you don't you don't see the shadows as much which this is a this is a rendering you would see the shadows in the daytime because the letters are offset from the building so unless you know you're getting a direct sun you're always going to see that depth um because that's the kind of thing i'm going for yeah when you look at a building there's sheen there are different things that are happening you would never this will never happen you know this might happen on the perfect kind of overcast bright day um but i don't even think you'd get that because the letters have different texture there's different things going on this is generated by a computer and it's perfect you know the building will never and then and the sign and the conditions would never be perfect that's why you pick up on the uniformity unit right i just want to be clear on the on the excuse me on the type of of lettering this is your current proposal that's okay not not what we have in the package or at least not the same it's really the same so the original it's just a there's sorry well it's okay i just want i think this is the point be clear i mean in the original looks like you have a font with serifs um and then the revised proposal we're seeing in what you've handed out tonight and one just to make sure we're clear is the sawn serifs uh the sort of uh mid century correct font that you know from a typographic point of view has less space because there's not those little feet um on the letters what serifs speaking my language um i also note that the calculations the square footage calculations that were done on the first sign though that font was chunkier so actually we might we're at quite a bit less in terms of square footage because this is a more elegant i don't think you gave me the full dimensions on the new version did you without the serfs and so this is in the actions of yeah it's going to be less yeah i get that so yeah that's that you're right that's the best point meredith the the drc was reviewing this part the drc was reviewing that font so this is new to us this evening correct the the proposal with the different style of font is not something that the design review committee saw okay because we heard them yeah and we we did try and respond uh in full to their comments we tested it we shifted the font yep no and this is one reason it took a little longer to get here than it might have otherwise because i knew they were working to try and redesign it to see if 18 inches would work for them and it didn't and so these letters are going to be made out of aluminum oh thank you for asking so we're really excited about this fabrication um ben cheney who is a local incredible metal fabricator and designer uh it's going to be making these they're aluminum and they'll all be custom fabricated for us and then um offset from the building by about i think an inch and a half or two inches so you get that beautiful shadow so there's not going to be a great deal of depth in these letters off of the there's not going to be i mean the aluminum will be not that thick right well i would contrast it maybe with just for understanding purposes the wall greens or either the wall greens or even the the once of one more time sign that was there that was very much a three-dimensional yes kind of letter this is going to be sort of a flat letter against the wall i mean it'll it'll have some depth because it's offset of the shadow we live in the third dimensions well three dimensions but i mean it's not going to have a great deal of depth there's a lot of eight inches there the letters will probably be quarter inch thick yeah but then they'll be this far off the signboard okay so it's a it's a thin and elegant piece but then you'll get that depth of the the uh shadow i will just note at least as one member um i find that the new proposed font makes a big difference like the first what you were doing before is very massive you know it's heavy yeah thank you i think one of the things that i mean if uh how have you compared like the overall sort of width that's kate i think mentioned to us you were going from 20 feet of 24 for letters to now 38 feet or something but maybe a little less with your new font right and so i mean i think you know hearing some of what the drc was talking about and they're sort of um you know they were they're happy with the name but they're less happy with this string of the things that you have inside and obviously we're not gonna if you if your name was ravel rouser coffee forest you know i mean then we wouldn't say oh you can't do that but i think some of it is um you know you could put up as many words as you want and take the full you know amount of space that you have within your your sign band there um did you do any analysis of other how other the the sort of linear space that other signs use in the city on mainstream oh that other signs use yeah i've looked a lot at that um most signs go basically from within you know a foot to 18 inches of their party wall you know across they're out use the majority of it i think that's part of what's happening here um is that this is a very large space i think that's why it's at empty for a long time i think that's why it it has taken a little while to get this up and going i and i think that what when you see this big space you know i would hope that someone taking that risk doesn't get penalized and get limited to you know kind of compared to a place that has 18 foot frontage versus a place that has 60 foot frontage um because there's a lot here there's a lot that it takes to operate the store and i think that there's a need for clarity of what's going on so it's not superfluous this you know that none of these two things are redundant they all kind of express what's going on not to talk about content but i appreciate that and i mean i'm looking at Walgreens they've utilized you know the full cool jewels they did it twice Walgreens have so much space yeah so and i mean maybe that's aesthetically just like looking at the previous one more time sign which did have the 24 high letters but didn't utilize the full width of the space 31 31 a 31 big um and they i mean just for perspective what Bill was talking about about how signs that have less frontage are still using a large percentage of their sign band if you just look on page seven of the staff report i just pulled in some just street views of signs nearby so thank you yes these signs are smaller but their percentage of sign band for each stir front being used up it just gives some perspective both with regard to size of letters as well as how much of sign band they're using just you know it depending on what you're looking at because you're looking at design and on on that page yeah on that page seven i i think that was the question that it came down to for me is how how much of that band is occupied by the sign the the lettering of the sign and how does that compare to the other parts of the area and that's the sort of compatibility thing just one more note on that that first application that was approved we were only applying for rabble rouser and there would have been a florist sign also that would have been on the left but that wasn't part of the application at the time so if you're looking at the total amount of area used or distance used in fact it would have been twice that much because florist would have had a sign also we just weren't applying for that at the time yeah but since we're looking at it as all one band i'm sort of looking at page seven here and we've got one two three four five six seven eight and at least three of them four of them about half of them use really just the center third of the sign band and i think that is that is sort of what i'm accustomed to seeing even though there are exceptions i think maybe part of what our brains might be grappling with here is that this would be a very large exception and so when it comes to compatibility that's kind of where we have to think and contemplate and i understand everything that you said about a lot going on in there and taking a risk and all that well i was going to put it in historic content uh context because if you look at ova sean as an is an old retailer uh kinny drug is an old retailer capital stationers is an old retailer and you look at how they have used their sign band over experience i think that there's been a lot of research on how best by these you know tenants to is how best to set themselves up for success in that space so and i think that these successful retailers have also done that same research perhaps i guess well some of these signs that you're looking at are just vinyl banners they're not okay you know they're not yeah it's not material i'm talking about so much as the proportions but it's design right yes i don't want to be argumentative but i'm trying to understand what the issue we need to address is yeah and i'm trying to isolate one element of the design not the material part of the design which i think is very exciting um but the proportionality and location of it with respect to the sign band one thing that occurs to me would be that the the proposal presents a uniform retail visual experience i mean that is different than what we have downtown that doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do no it doesn't mean it's inconsistent with with other things right and i think that's how i take your point but i do i appreciate the fact that you know at least half of the examples we have from from main street they have uh you know fully utilize the um next to the the linear width of their sign band and so i don't think and i mean i think that's a good point too to think about these individually uh you know half of this had been rabble rouser and half of it had been a florist you know there's nothing to say the florist couldn't have come in and proposed something like the language or or just or or um a design that's very similar to rabble rouser such that it would have a similar effect of having this one massive sort of unified sign even though it's four separate individual you know if these are four individual businesses and you just said i'm just a florist i just want my sign to say florist and and to match and then the chocolate here comes in next door and says i really like what the florist did i want to do something similar it would have the same effect as this i think it's just because it's a big change from what was there previously and because it is this big unified thing but um i i don't uh i appreciate that that these really are important and necessary but sort of separate elements of the use of the space and as such i think one thing i will note that this this just because when we dealt with this with one more time this is an unusually large sign banned as opposed to the budding um spaces it has a good i don't want to estimate but it seems like at least two of those sort of horizontal um clabbered are deeper than the other sign pan i mean it's it's not insignificant the size the the the palette that they're working from um so any other questions that we wish or testimony that we need from uh the applicant as far as this is there anything you wanted to discuss further or describe about this i think just to add that we all feel really passionately about this city and we're really committed to this city and it's been thrilling to see this new business come into the space and enliven a space that was vacant for i believe over five years and was really a blight on downtown and we're just really excited about bringing life to the city and making this something that's exciting and you know continuing all of the energy that montpelier has i would just add um that it's true what bill said just about the size of the space and the risk involved in occupying the space and um i do think it's a much more elegant sign than our initial proposal well both of them and we're we're we're feeling like this is going to really contribute to the success of our business and also we've been um honored to be engaged like in the process with the town and everything and following that process but it has been um a lot of waiting to get ourselves revealed and so we look forward to moving it and i think this is the right way to go because i just asked a question um based on your experiences architects and experts in this um you know what we're really talking about is harmony of the design with properties in the district i think that's really compatibility of the materials i think is great uh prevention of incompatible designs color scheme tricks your materials maybe incompatible designs um but what i've heard from the drc was that they were really concerned with 24 versus 18 inch letters and i really appreciate this mock-up to show the sign so i guess what i'd like you to address is whether you believe that an 18 inch letter following this same design would be more harmonious with properties in the district more compatible less compatible or um or neutral well we looked at that digitally and in terms of design first really did not feel like it was nearly as strong a strong a proposal i think we've shown that there are many examples of signs in the district that are 24 inches or larger so yes there are some that are smaller but i think you can find both sides of it so i would say it's absolutely compatible and will help to enliven the city oh i think that the work you've done is great so what if a couple you couple three five years down the road you know one of the one of the tenants leaves and all of a sudden you've got a sign there that doesn't match with the new tenant um so we understand that any sign alterations need to come through the city and we're comfortable with that and three of the four of these offerings do come from rabble rouser from one company the florist is a separate company that we want to work really hard to retain and to help support they just had the most successful month of their life in september so that was really good yeah um double their most successful month ever yes um and the three offerings yeah there's a bit of a risk in terms of um materials replacement and board and board approach you're proposing something that's that's new right and that may be good and we're learning and that may be and our coffee is not perfect it's pretty good we're getting there but you know what i see these three things as and um again i reckon you know in recognizing the the risk the liability the expense that's possible from committing to this is that the power of it is that it is the commitment it is our commitment to the town and it's saying first of all we're a chocolate factory which i don't anticipate whatever change but then second of all we're going to be a coffee house that's available for people and we're going to be a place where people can have spirits in the evenings and so basically it's saying we're here for you in the morning we're here for you in the evening and the way that we're here is because we're a chocolate factory and so those things although they may change they're not likely to and also i feel that by putting the sign here it helps them to not change by putting the promise out there um as a commitment the one sign that this does remind me of a little bit and i'll just throw that out there is um necky with the restaurant at the top right it makes a lot of sense i'm gonna leave that risk to the applicants i think that's true of any business you might change the name you might change your hours you might change anything about it so i think we're looking at sort of the massing and the i'm trying to scramble these letters up in my head and pretend they're not really words and just looking at the shape on the band and thank you kevin anything further yes um i really appreciate the description you help me understand better what i'm seeing in a photo versus a computer rendering and we're such visual animals um it's very hard for me to sit here and say what would this look like at 18 inches or splitting the difference 21 inches what does it mean what does it look like how does it feel because this is what people despise about aesthetics but it there's a lot about feeling it's also what people love about aesthetics because it makes a place a place um so i don't know if it is within this board's interest or power to request something like this in the daytime with 21 or with 18 because i'm having a hard time valuing this versus that i think this is actually also part of the problem with the what the drc did is that our role is not to design design or redesign projects our role is to answer the simple question it's not a simple question answer the very difficult question of is this design in harmony with the surrounding properties and the feel of downtown and it is very subjective it is very thing but i don't i'm hesitant to say let's show us 21 and then come back and say you know what show me 23 and a half and show me show me with some serifs here and and like no that's i don't think that's our role i think i will say that we have tested that internally as well and i and i appreciate that i think this is you it seems like you've put a lot of thought into what you want your design to be and what your proposal is and i think it's our job to say to vote yes or no does it comply so that's i think but but then again i mean and certainly this is a back and forth especially given our interesting status here with less than a full board and so i totally leave it up to the applicant if a particular board member is uh you know not want some some more information to make a better to be better able to answer that question then by all means you can provide that sure but you're very right ryan and i appreciate that that it isn't our job to to redesign it because if i were to ask for 21 inches that would be just as arbitrary as wanting to see you know i i didn't like do a projection in my head and do all those measurements sit to come up with that i'm just talking about splitting differences and that's not always the best way to make policy so it's just it is it is hard to understand one versus the other without visuals and ryan has is also correct that we are voting on just one not the other so yeah i just wanted to just reinforce that clarity that that our role i mean the discussion go anywhere it wants to go but our role right now is to is to act on what's what the application actually is good and it's 24 inches with the new font made from the materials as as described by the applicant and i think we probably want to indicate where we where we stand unfavorable yeah so i'm favorable to it i think that the improvement in the much more accurate model for presentation is a huge step from what was reviewed before and so that's a big one for me i think the font is an improvement i like seeing this it's not a rendering to photograph of the dusk i'd be much more comfortable if i saw the same sort of representation with daytime um and i think without that i'm gonna be very much on the fence i'll just give a weather report that i i'm i appreciate your hard work and effort and thoughtfulness and putting together this proposal and your very clear efforts to make it fit within both your vision for the space and within our community so that's also true um great okay so given the board's given a weather report obviously i'm recused and will remain recused so my opinion is of no ilk or matter um not ilk but um of no matter um that must be difficult for you extremely stand as no opinions that said you have i think i'll frame it as really two and a half choices um one choice is to say okay uh we'll close the evidence and we'll put it before these four people um based on the weather report and they'll probably take it into a deliberative session and you will get out of the black box what comes out of the black box um the other option is to um is to continue um you know certainly uh Kate has asked for additional information that would help her clarify if this was continued to our next board meeting there is a high likelihood that the number of board members uh that would be in attendance would be greater than what you have tonight um so that your ability to reach for um votes might be slightly different um it does push this back two more weeks is the cost of that and so i'm sorry you know we're a volunteer board so i'm producing an event in the space on the 22nd so i wouldn't be able to be here uh okay so this would be the 21st okay the meeting would be on monday monday's right i'm that's that's a very i have family flying in from Alaska that day so that would be very difficult for me is there any um option where people on the board can hear the testimony and issue their vote outside of meeting based on the video we can't have we can't get more information in unless we continue it to a date certain um if you wanted to you wouldn't all need to be there so uh could i could i'm sorry since we're at about three and a half is there any further any further information that we can give to to do you have access well no because you have to see everything i think it's important to note that the two design professionals on the design review board voted you know and i think that this is even better so i don't know what the other it's you don't want to conjecture but you don't know we've taken all the comments okay i just like to interject this but i i you know i i get i get what you're saying but the board has a very specific uh job to do and we can't we can't we can't go off feeling i mean i i'd i'd like to you know we have different options available to you we are a volunteer board and this is what we have so i think so if they're if you want to provide any more information for us to base our decision on we need to continue the hearing to a date certain oh i just mean now okay is there anything else i don't know i i don't need any more information okay so nobody else needs information but me correct there we are yeah okay but there's no you but but i want to click okay i mean that's okay that yeah you know yeah that's and it's really up to it's up to the board with i mean you you've heard where we're at it's up to you whether you want to continue it if you did so you don't all need to be here you could provide that additional material to the zoning office in advance i think one person representing the applicant should be here but it can be a representative it doesn't even need to be one of the three of you is it white powder and then and then we can we can just formally accept into the record that evidence that you've provided to the zoning administrator close the evidence and then and then make a decision then with the new members so that's that's an option one thing about this process that i didn't put in here but it's it's a it's quite it's quite personal is that this has been the most amazing collaboration i have ever been involved with everyone who has been part of this team has been all in to the point where we're staying up very late at night we're in this project and coming in early in the morning and it's just been quite you know really quite incredible so just to the point of not having everyone here i think we would we would all want to be here i appreciate that the other option of course perhaps we just leave it to a vote okay um i mean that well if you guys want if you want to take a few minutes to you know don't well here's what i guess in front of us here's what i would recommend is this is the business owners decisions right and and so what here's what i'd recommend i mean i think the board's spoken so you're not going to get more information necessarily out of the board um your other half option would be um we don't we don't have to continue it to the 21st we can continue it to the first meeting in november um and i understand that that's struggling in the meantime i understand that with the recognition i mean we're doing well in the meantime but we're starting with the recognition of the clarity of what we do i i'm just laying that out there as an option right right so we're eager to i think our first proposal was and that fell urgent but you're right we're really okay so can you tell me though is that um um if you take the vote you it's then there's not that we can't take the option to include other board members after the vote i mean obviously that would be much simpler yeah then yeah i don't know that's interesting i know we can't well we don't we don't have to vote tonight we just we have to close the evidence uh and then we can move in and deliver the session whether an additional board member could review the evidence review the tape and then participate in a subsequent deliberative session which we can have whatever we want i'd i'd be a little bit leery about that because they don't have the opportunity to ask you questions yeah i mean that's the whole ideas that we have these content yeah no i mean i i know what our options are as a board just so that we understand it as a long-serving board member i would be hesitant to go down that road that would be entirely new okay that doesn't have merit because i think so i think it could in certain circumstances but i think i totally appreciate that and i'm with you as well so i'm hearing so that's the answer yeah i'm hearing from you guys the applicants that you'd like to close the record no i haven't made any decisions no i'm just yeah i mean maybe the three of you need to just step out for like a five minute break and discuss i'm still just trying to get clarity if you vote so the and it's three to one can we then include the other members no no if that's the decision would be to appeal that decision to the foremost period of our motivation which can i ask the other option or do a new application or submit a different a different application right substantially enough different five inches well right can i can i ask you if you're gonna vote yes before you vote um i've given my weather report yeah okay yeah on the sorry no and i am continuing to think and deliberate honestly as we go through this cool thank you thank you that's what i think tally was talking about is like the daytime nighttime the things that you've looked at we've looked at we've looked at all those things and i and i just you know one i wish it could be this bright i'm thinking everyone could bring in oh for sure yeah because you bring in too much and it's you know it's all gaudy look at all that we have and so um do you have access from here can somebody from your office send you the daytime rendering if you've done a daytime photo my office is closed okay no i just didn't know if you had remote access through anything or if you emailed it to somebody and it's on your phone um because we can you as long as you then email it to me afterwards you can show them i just didn't know if you had it but i'm trying to help conclude the vote yeah yeah yeah we'll still have to continue it till i think another time uh we've had people show stuff on their phones okay just look at these you know the difference you know it isn't it isn't necessarily well there's five out of eight that use the whole length of it you know once it it looks like what you see is there so wait if you vote no then what's the next step excuse me i don't so if there's a a no vote procedurally speaking um you have the option to appeal as ryan indicated to the environmental division of the superior oh no no we don't want to do that and but no no or or if i can finish um you can reapply with a different design that's what you were saying with a with a different design they have what's known this is a successive application doctrine which means you can't turn around and give us the same 24 inch design but if you change it in part along the lines of what you've done here um you know you can reapply and the drc can it would go back to the drc under a new application and if they approved it you'd never see us again um so that's though that's sort of the no option um if if you don't get the four votes tonight that seems like the best to have them vote i think so i have a i feel good about this design i'd love your vote i would appreciate it yeah so just a quick well i guess we'd have to do would we be looking at going into an executive session or yeah okay i think i think procedurally enough of that and clearly the board would want to i think that would be the best option to go forward so so you wouldn't get know what the vote was tonight if we do this because it would go into executive session which means that part is not public deliberative session yeah we would be a deliberative session talk about it now we'd find out tomorrow you would have that tonight they'd have it tonight and they most likely i can just say and this is just on historic again on historic precedent is that when we have gone into deliberate sessions we have generally as a board resolved them that night although there are exceptions and um then generating a written decision off of that that vote but likely to be voted on or approved tonight um for that or rejected tonight yeah so that that's generally the process they go through and that's the it would be a deliberate session with the board members that are voting so well i would appreciate the opportunity to do that i want to give you another piece of information this this is personal this helps me just really know where i stand i think the one thing that would help me understand this better and you know you can you can do image images and renderings like till the cows come home and i know that clients probably drive you crazy um and development reports perhaps um i would really feel better if i saw this in the daytime a daytime version of this if that was here tonight i would be a lot clearer on on what i want to do um and as as bill said you can't know what to bring you can't bring every angle of the sunshine in every season um that's too much paper and too much time too much too many hours on a project um so i respect that um but if i'm being honest that's sort of that's my hang up right now is understanding the daytime because evening's pretty and if you've got that though the next deliberation would well no if i can send it tonight correct no well we would need it like we have to continue if you if you could pull it up if you could access it like within 15 which was yeah yeah if you could access it now it's just that i would also need a paper something to print out to add into the record after the hearing but if you could get it on your phone now or in the next yeah 10 15 minutes to show everybody that i think that might have a lot of pressure we don't normally do that so yeah we've done that we've done that in some what aspect are you trying to the like the brightness i can't get any more specific than i already have i've but there's criteria that you use to see whether this works and this is so that it fits in yeah it's the character it's less about the historic part and actually one thing i think is very interesting that i want to compliment you on is you've got this this historic brickwork in the second and third stories and then you're kind of taking it into a new era with the first floor and there's a contrast there that is very neat and exciting and i think appropriate some people would probably say it has to be exactly the same first to third i'm not one of those people um but it has to do with harmony of exterior design with other properties in the district and how how the massing of the letters feels at different times of day and i'm i'm sorry if that's frustrating but it's it's where i am no apologies you see this is what you're here to do thank you i don't i don't know that it's fair to ask you to scramble to do something professional in 15 minutes when it's almost nine o'clock yeah and this is where i really think we need to be careful because i don't i don't want the board to get backed into a corner either right if that if that little you know foreign screen rendering it's going to be difficult to to evaluate against what we have i would really caution that we should stick with what we know okay thank you coven i appreciate it i mean i have had people send me things and i can run downstairs and print it out yeah if that's possible if it's something that she already had do you want to do you want to provide more information and also have more people review the application this year this year do you want to have do you want to provide more information and have additional people review and vote on the application or do you want the four people who have sort of indicated to you where you're at where we're at vote with what you've had right now that's the decision um you don't want us to enter anything new tonight i don't i think it's i don't think it's well i think i don't i think it's too much the the the feedback you're getting from the board is that you know it's quarter to nine we don't want you to rush and create something that's going to be um that's not going to be up to the standard of the the rest of the stuff you've given and also going to force us to then force the board to review something sort of on the fly it would be different i think if you had it sort of prepared um but you know what the board has said is that you know they would another piece of information would help them evaluate now obviously we don't those the board redesign your application you make you put your application forward it's complete it's you know this is just the board saying this would help us make our decision um i i i think if i had five or ten minutes i i think i could pull together a daytime view of this i think the reason that we're going to go to any length we can is because you have a business that's opened a month ago it took a huge risk on downtown montpellier and now montpellier is having a hard time making a decision and we're trying to work with every little bit of it but excuse me for being a little emotional but this is hard to see someone invest their you know their their life and and energies into and go through these kind of pieces that are that are happening like this so i don't mean that as condemnation i just want that to be kind of the context why do you see us really working hard to get you what we believe is a is a is a really great design for downtown well and i think that submitting the additional evidence would be really helpful too because i think that you would find what you're looking for in it i have a lot a lot of confidence about that um if i didn't i would say would you do a continuance whatever but i i have a lot of confidence that maybe what you're looking for is what you will see in the rendering so let's take and if it if it doesn't that i mean that is also a possibility right then we would return to the drc and that's totally we understand it's not like let's take it let's take it this than that yeah hold on let's take a 10 minute break um and we'll go off take a 10 minute break and then we'll come back and we'll make decisions based on you know we'll make no decisions until we come back thank you all so much for the process thank you really all right we are back on the record i will simply note that during the break there were no ex parte conversations that i witnessed and none that any other board members wish to report is that correct correct okay so i understand you took the time to do up a more evident we prepared a daytime shot of the rabble rouser per request so i'll pass these around thank you mayor that's all right you're welcome thank you for your technological aptitude to with it up are these people always going to be so blurred well and espresso divination practices they're excited they're in motion thank you for this additional information absolutely okay is there anything else that the board would wish to um you know not to sing a hot cake but is this close to what you were looking for or is this this is what i was looking for and gives me more to think about to try and answer my questions and concerns okay and it's really amazing and i just want to note it's unusual for someone to whip that up so quickly and really does go above and beyond i think it's probably not our typical practice um but i appreciate it happy to do it thank you um anything else from the rest of the board okay uh so this is this is the decision um we can two options we put it to a vote tonight um close the evidentiary record um or continue it to october 21st which was our next regularly scheduled meeting we're gonna go for that vote mr chair i think i think at this point and you can sit out that we should if we're going to go ahead that we should close the public hearing and move to a deliberative session i i agree with that now i just wanted to see if the applicant now that you know because we hadn't made any decisions before we broke for that 10 minutes still wanted to go forward with a vote tonight and close the record yeah i feel really confident about your eyes this judgment and if it's not like signed and i think we need to work on it and make it better for you great thank you guys so much thank you thank you very much so so i'll make a motion to close the evidentiary hearing for the application sign application for 60 main street and adjourn the hearing uh we'll wait till just hearing for our next thing close the evidence um and uh and move into deliberate into deliberative session after the adjournment of the remainder of our public hearing excellent okay motion by ryan do you have a second second second by kate any further discussion all those eligible to vote uh please do so by raising your right hand in the affirmative if you choose so okay and i recuse myself this is the evidentiary record is closed matter is moved into deliberative session um thank you very much for your vigorous presentation as well as uh going above and beyond with presenting the supplemental evidence the board will render a decision and presumably will be communicating that to you as quickly as possible um that leaves us with the sole item of other business our next regularly scheduled meeting is for monday october 21st 2019 two weeks from tonight any other business that the board wishes to take under consideration hearing none i'll take a motion to adjourn i'll make a motion to adjourn the public hearing motion by ryan do i have a second second second by rob all those in favor please raise your right hand all right we are adjourned