 I'm going to call the order, this meeting of the Montpelier Development Review Board on November 5th, 2018, and the first item on the agenda will be the approval of the Montpelier Development Review Board on November 5th, 2018. The first item on the agenda will be the approval of tonight's agenda. We should. So starting on our right, Rob Goodwin, Deb Markowitz, Meredith Crandall, staff, Kevin O'Connell, board member, Ryan Cain, Tom Kester, Claire Rock. So the first item on the agenda for this evening will be a designation of the Acting Vice Chair. So board members, that's us to act on for us to act on. I'll move that we approve Kevin as the Acting Vice Chair. I'll second that. Is there any discussion? All those in favor of having me be the Acting Chair, please raise your right hand. And the motion passes. Thank you. To bring us up to date as to where we are in this deliberation of the 100 State Street. Excuse me, Kevin, if I could just interject for a moment under Vermont Law 24 VSA section 4465B4. I'm bringing a petition by 10 or more persons for interested persons, any combinations of voters and real property owners. And I would like to give that to you, the appropriate municipal panel. I have the petition and we also have compiled our comments. And I could speak to those now. I do have a copy to turn in at this moment. We're still dealing with administrative issues. Be happy to entertain that when we've gotten through those. Thank you. I just need to do it before we get into the work of the committee under Vermont Law. We're not there yet. Okay. Thank you. So I'm going to ask Meredith to bring us up to date as to where we are at this point in the deliberations for 100 State Street and nervous. Okay, for very general starting purposes, just a reminder to the board members, the public, the applicants that this is a development review board hearing. So the questions in front of us today or whether or not the three applications in front of us meet the zoning regulations. This is not the place to discuss whether or not the parking garage should actually be built or the location of where it's going to be built. Those questions are for tomorrow in front of city council, the bond vote. This is all about these specific applications and the zoning regulations. So we have, as I think everybody here knows, three applications before us. We have first off the subdivision request. The city's request to subdivide the parcel owned by Capital Plaza. At the last hearing, there were a number of supplemental materials supplied as of October 19th. Following the last hearing, sorry. And then some additional internal items were added in. So the major issues to deal with today on that really are probably to just revisit some of the traffic issues because there's an updated traffic study. And then really, the, I think the biggest issue on that one still is just to make sure that conditions regarding the master agreement and easements, making sure that those all line up with what has to happen under the hotel site plan amendment and the parking garage because the easements are all recognized in the subdivision final plat. So that's going to be the big thing is the final plat here matching with everything else so they can all be recorded appropriately. And you all have my staff report and that was posted publicly if people need it. Is that more in-depth than you're looking for? If you could just address why we have the board configuration that we have this evening. Oh, sorry. Yes, I can do that one. Sorry. And then I would like to move to the approval of the previous minutes. Sorry, Kevin. Yes, jumped ahead. Sorry, all. So yes. So tonight, as you can see, we had to appoint a vice chair because the chair, normal chair, Daniel Richardson, and it's included in the application materials and was pushed on the website, provided the department with a letter accusing himself from any further participation in the hearings on these applications due to the potential appearance of a conflict of interest. So a copy of that letter is included in the board members application packets. It was posted on the website. I can probably, I think I've got some extras here of the full packet that I'll put up there on the table in a minute. And as the vice chair, Kate McCarthy, is also not present, we had to have the board members appoint a vice chair to act going forward on this matter. Okay. Sorry, Kevin. Perfectly. Okay. So moving along, I just like to address the approval of the minutes of September 17, which are still outstanding in the minutes of October 15. Those members present at the September 17 meeting were Dan Richardson, Kate McCarthy, Ryan Kane, Robert Goodwin, and which means we do not have a quorum for passing those that these will be deferred till the next meeting. Looking at the meetings minutes for October 15. Those in attendance that evening were Dan Richardson, Thomas Kester, Ryan Kane, Robert Goodwin, Claire Rock, and Meredith Staff, of course. So let's say one, two, three. And in addition, I watched the whole video. So I can count for approval of minutes. Okay, that all three hours. Very good. So we can we can we can act on the October 15 minutes. Do I hear a motion? So moved. Second. Okay, we have we have a motion to approve and a second. Is there any discussion seeing that there is none? All those in favor, please. All those in favor and eligible to vote, please raise your right hand. And so minutes for the October 15 our past. Okay, now just moving into the agenda itself. The agenda items. If I could ask you, Meredith, to bring us up to date on the three applications for 100 state, the first being the subdivision application, the second being the removal of parking, safe plan amendment, and the last one being the site plan review for the new parking garage. So you're good with what I said already with the subdivision or should I start over? Okay, so so that's that was the subdivision. So then of course we also have the hotel site plan amendment. Sorry, give me just a second. So for this one, again, we had some additional there was some clarifying items provided if you look on your it's a C4 stamped with October 25th. The big issue we had to clear up was whether or not the hotel site plan amendment proposed improvement site plan clearly had on it the frontage along the access easement to clarify that that was on this site plan as well as the garage site plan and the subdivision plat. So that material has been provided for consistency and then there's the big issue we're going to have to watch out for here is to make sure that changes involved with the garage site plan get reflected in the final site plan amendment for the hotel because there may be some other things coming up that you decide on that have been discussed including in today's design review committee hearing that may need to be reflected on the either the hotel site plan or the hotel landscaping plan because those are separate from the garage site plan. This is keeping those things separate but the fact that they all interact and then that was the big outstanding issue for the hotel was just making sure things were consistent. Everything else appeared to have been dealt with. So then we get to the garage site plan. I think that a lot of the issues on that one had been dealt with previously. If everything new in your packet starts at the blue tab new or presented during the last hearing and some of the things in here just so you know in your packet are things that were presented by the public. They aren't necessarily views that the applicant believes represent what this project is going to look like. So just you know if you see something that looks odd maybe flip black a couple pages to make sure you know what the context is for things in here that need to be dealt with. I need to update you on the design review committee outcome from this evening when you're ready for that. Okay. I'll be happy to do it. And then there were several items that I think probably Mr. Rabidou will be more able to incorporate in his presentation considering the amount of time we've taken up over here. So so this this juncture there was a considerable amount of public testimony and applicant testimony taken up in October 15th here. And excuse me. Just don't forget your microphone. I don't know how close you have to be. You're right. So what we want to do this evening is pick up where that left off with the new information from the design review committee. And I'm going to board members I'm going to be relying on you considerably. I was not at that meeting. I've reviewed the reviewed the transcript as much as I could. So I have a general view but we're going to really have to approach this as a as a board this evening. And I do want to mention to the those that are here this evening from the public the board the board's responsibility is to address the three applications that we have before us. I want to be very clear about that very specific items. One having to do with subdivision of property the other having to do with a site plan amendment which is the parking issue. And the final is the parking garage itself. And that is for site plan review. Any of the more esoteric items are really not our per within our purview. And the as as the zoning administrator has already mentioned the the body to address your concerns in that area would be the city council itself. So without belaboring the point too terribly much. Yes. Okay. Just as a general just as a general rule. Could you please wait to be called. You could ask to be to be recognized and then just just so we have a certain amount of decorum as we proceed. So I will ask of anybody who has testimony this evening to please be on on task with regards to the the items that are before us. I'm happy to entertain a little off script. But I would like to to see that at at without being overly long or laborious. And I'll be happy to to to be timekeeper and instances like that. So is there anybody who would like to make a statement before we begin point of order. Mr. Chairman. I was wondering if I could move to approve the agenda with the inclusion of that there was an election for an acting vice chair at this meeting as well. Certainly. Is that a motion. Yes. So move. Okay. Second. Seconded. Any discussion before we vote on the amendment to the agenda. All those in favor please raise your right hand. Motion passes. Okay now. Board. Do you have anything further before I ask for initial statements from from the public. Okay. And we will be swearing in anybody who would be testifying this evening is going to get a show of hands of who would like to testify this evening. Testifying this evening. Okay. Okay. So I'm going to swear you in right now in mass. So anybody who would like to testify please raise your right hand. Do you attest that the information you're going to give before this body is the truth and nothing but the truth. Thank you very much. Okay. So opening to for initial comments from the public. Who would like to be recognized. Yeah. Could you come forth to the microphone. For a petition under 24 BSA section 44 65 before this is for the development review board. And it's in regards to applications Z 2018 dash 0 115 and Z 2018 dash 0 116 and Z 2018 dash 0 117. So I have that which I will give to you. And then we have summarized our concerns for the development review board. Would it be appropriate for me to go through them quickly. There is probably would just take a few minutes. We've also printed them out in a copy that we will be submitting to the board for the record. Well if you couldn't limit your comments to I would you know two or three minutes that would be fine. Okay. And can you tell me again who you are representing. It's a group of residents and property owners of Montpelier. We have I guess 18 people who have signed up. Okay. So we do have 10 concerns about these three applications. The first being the need for 30 feet of street frontage. We're citing the three zero zero two point F street frontage laws and the three five zero five B lot dimensions. All private or public streets or right of ways are going to have to go through the PUD process and we do not believe that this one has done. We also believe that there are inadequate in analysis of the view corridors and we're citing twenty two zero one D on that and also the architectural standards thirty two oh seven C as well as the standards and thirty five or seven B and we also feel that the design review committee has not given analysis of these vistas and also we've asked the city to fly balloons to confirm the group heights and that has not been approved. In regards to the riparian setback the group of front standards twenty one F and the urban center one dimensional standards in section three zero zero five. So would it be safe to say that you have a number of concerns where you're going to be citing the the legislation. I guess so. Okay and we'd be happy to take that as. Should I just limit my comments here just to our concerns and not the stating. I think would be. I think that would be more. So we just think it's an incomplete analysis of the setbacks and the riparian setbacks and the report or analysis was not done and we present a future phase of we presented with the future phase of canopy with solar panels and that's a significant material change and that would necessitate a complete reopening of the hearings and materially affects the substantive the substantive analysis under the review criteria and we feel that the board is obligated to undertake a comprehensive and cumulative review of those solar panel additions. Moving on to our concern five the state stormwater permit and requirements should be part of the application but we could not find the permit this time. Our next concern is pedestrian safety and street design and also the pedestrian and bicycle facilities are very concerned about the safety and then our next concern is about the traffic studies and how many trips there are projected to be and we're concerned that the conclusions of the traffic study didn't think that there would be an increase in traffic where we feel that there would be. Also when you come in from the bank entrance to the proposed garage the parking should be parallel and not perpendicular. We are required to have five foot minimum sidewalks on both sides of the street whereas there is only one side with sidewalks. Bike lanes should be present and the four-way intersection at the garage must meet at one point or be offset a minimum of 150 feet. The raised bike path along alleys to the west of the parking garage both create unsafe pedestrian paths so we're concerned about that. Moving on to our concerns about the loading zones I know that due to testimony given the original site approval for the hotel and smaller garage did have four loading zone spaces but those were removed. We feel that this would violate laws because it would slow traffic coming and going from the garage. The traffic study also has no analysis of when the peak flow is and many of the conclusions especially in the revised traffic study are false conclusions based on no additional data collected. Okay I did want to limit the comments. Yes we're almost done. We were asking also that the police and fire comment on the extended scope of the project that hasn't been done and finally concerns about the way firing requirements that were not properly addressed in the meeting just prior to this that was concerned some of the board members were quite concerned those have never been pictured you know drawn out we don't know what it would look like we don't know if those requirements would be met so that's kind of a summary and I have the petition and our discussion. Okay thank you so much. Before we just I think that I suggest that we maybe have the applicant present the kind of additional information that was provided like the we haven't heard from the applicant about the updated traffic study and some of these other changes and I think it might be helpful. We needed to have petition pulled in. Right so at this point let's let's as you suggest Ryan let's proceed in that way. Please come to the table and speak. So we're looking for an update of what's happened since October 15. That's understood. Test money plus you presumably were at the design review committee. Yes. And so we're gonna need to integrate that into our discussion to see. Of course. When we do that it might make sense for me to say read off what they actually decided and then maybe you can ask them questions on that. Does that make sense? Just so that we have it clear because I have it in front of me. That does make sense. Okay awesome. I'm just quickly gonna try to get this working. And again just just for the record and for the public. Can you all identify yourselves for the course? Good evening. Thank you for your time. My name is Greg Rabbeau from Rabbeau Architects and with me this evening on my left is David Grover from Resource Systems Group our traffic consultant and James Finley-Sheris on my right here is our landscape architect from Wagner Hodgson and far left is David Marshall from Civil Engineering Associates of South Burlington as well. I always wanted to say Shelburne. Also with us tonight in the audience and who may speak is Ron Lyon from Dubois and King who was a civil engineer for the original hotel project and continues to act in that capacity. Before I jump into my formal presentation I just wanted before I forget to ask if we could get a copy of the notes that were presented to you before the hearing. Yeah is Mike here? Mike can you go make a copy of this? And that's just so that I can try to react to some of what I'm here tonight and also would ask that you know for the for technical matters it's just sort of our opinion that if someone's going to make determinative or definite statements about sort of traffic engineering or civil engineering or one of those issues we'd like to know the basis for those conclusions as far as the qualifications of the people making them. Well as you know an individual who attends one of these meetings is can testify to anything that they wish regardless of what I understand but if it if it if it reaches into the area of expertise we'd like to know the underpins. I think that anything that's submitted to this board is is a public document so for better or for worse you would see it anyways. I've said on that so I have a great many documents here and... You want me to turn off the lights up here because is the stuff you're presenting up here more new than compared to what's in their packets? Well it got everything that you got they provided to DRC. Yeah I think most of the things that I want to show are here and they're going to speak to the subdivision issues so I think it would be helpful. What I'm going to recommend is that we start with the subdivision part of it and then look at the the amendment to the hotel plan because those are two fairly simple things because I'm going to guess that bulk of our time will be spent on the site plan approval for tonight but here again you know what we've got what I'm putting up are the the essential elements of the application we don't know to dwell on any of these for particularly long other than to highlight a couple of things. First of all which this is the this is the subdivision plan itself and what's changed since our last hearing is the addition of all these various and sundry types of easements that are scheduled on the drawing. So there's the utility easements, there's the easement that allows this sort of private road to cut through the project site and and then there are you know various cross easements for purposes of utilities and the like. Since the issue is a lively one we'll be talking I think primarily during site plan approval about any any required setbacks from the from the north branch of the Winooski River which is the only portion of the Winooski River that actually physically abuts the project site otherwise there's an intervening railroad land right away on the one Taylor Street property. Does anybody have questions or or lingering issues from the last hearing about the easements as they're displayed on this element? I think I think I think there was just a requirement that this be shown but if anybody wants to question any one of them we can talk about that and board members that were here at the October 15th I would like to address those concerns specifically to your recollection. Jay said one question so the distance of the right away where it intersects the entrance to the garage the front basically the frontage on that on that easement right um that's not I mean that's not 24 feet. That's correct. I'm sorry Dave Marshall civil engineering associates that expands to 36 feet at the face of the garage at the lawn. I'm going to try that. I just wondering if the final plaque could be updated to show the full dimensions of that of that easement it seems like it would be maybe appropriate in case there's a discussion about that so he's talking about this area right here and there are as you can see there are a number of easements that go through that area. Yeah but you're saying that's what what distance 36? That is correct. I thought that to just to clarify there would be no easement that would cross the Heaney property from the parking garage to State Street? No because the city controls both sides of that line. I don't I don't know that we're subdividing the Heaney lot. No so at this point there is a secondary egress from the garage that's as you look at this particular plan and it doesn't show the garage but nonetheless in the northeast corner of the proposed garage there is an access that goes directly out onto the Heaney lot and because the city does control that particular property there is no proposed access easement because they control that access and egress component today. And of course the easements on the hotel property we've discussed before. And does it still stand that the idea of the design of the garage is that would really only be used in case of the egress? For the secondary egress on to the yes and then I will talk about that a little bit more under site plan review I presume. Was there anything further from the design review in regards to this part? No, nothing with regard to the subdivision. Okay and so board members do you have any recollection of outstanding issues from October 15th? My notes say that it was essentially the information that was presented in the solicitation. It seems to be complete. It was complete. I mean I think you were going to clarify that that these potential steep slopes kind of between the right along this line here. Well yeah exactly. Proposal to in the Heaney lot there. And those were confirmed to be less than 30 percent. That's correct. The information we provided to staff and as part of the application did indicate that that's the case. So if the board is satisfied and I'll put that question to anybody here who is specifically interested in the subdivision aspect of this project as it's a separate application but I do believe that probably most of your concerns are on the site plan itself. So unless there's yes I'm sorry Dave Marshall again one thing that I do want to give credit to the Department of Public Works provided a report to staff with regard to issues on the project and it did try to create a roadmap no pun intended for components that are important or integral to the subdivision plan itself as far as easements that are necessary to support the other components of the project specifically whether it be the hotel and the utilities that serve the hotel or the utilities that are necessary to serve the garage. In this particular case the report from Public Works basically I think represents a good document that would be an appropriate condition of approval that the applicant need or basically put into place those particular requirements or recommendations set forth in that document. I do see that the Director of Public Works is here and Tom would you like to comment? I'm sorry I apologize I took Tom's thunder out from under it. There's plenty of thunder to go around. Tom McCartle Public Works Director. So thank you Dave that's what our staff report was presented as a recommendation that's what it was intended for. The board would accept those recommendations. The easement plan has I think everything that we believe is necessary unless they've added it since with the exception of the undesigned district heat line that I don't know that we have that certain alignment of that but believe it will come from State Street so everything else I believe is complete. This document will be referenced in both the subdivision conveyance as well as the agreements between the parties removing all the other clutter so it simply speaks to the easement saying the subdivisions that are necessary to complete the project. So if there's no further discussion on the subdivision application itself we'll move on to the site plan modification for parking. I don't think there's a lot of new data submitted with this as far as it goes I think the purpose of this second permit is to just allow for the use of off-site parking at the hotel with the understanding that the off-site parking would be provided in this parking garage. I don't know. I mean as I understand it is essentially you're going to abolish 160 parking spaces but those 160 would be recreated essentially in the parking garage should that project go forward. So for purposes of what we need the board to act on is we need them to amend the original approved hotel site plan to allow for the shift of parking from on-site to off-site. I don't think that was a big issue last time there's no we don't have any new displays or anything on that. No further action on part of design review. Unless you think it's somehow involves traffic or anything like that but just just as far as allowing the off-street parking. May I think the arena for that is the site plan. But I did want to just sort of make sure that there aren't any other loose issues attending on that. We will talk about internal circulation and clearly the subdivided lot and the garage will will continue to use the same circulation we do have plans about stop signs and stuff so when we get the site plan we can talk about that. Were there any decisions made at the planning committee? Design review. Design review that are relevant to this. So the only thing at design review changes were discussed that wouldn't necessarily impact the site plan for the hotel but would impact the landscaping plan. So there may be some changes to the landscaping directly in front of the sort of walkway between the garage and the hotel. So there may be one tree there or small medium shrub that needs to be removed and some different landscaping put in. That's the only change from design review that would roll over. The only other thing we have to make sure is that as Greg was saying that when we're looking at the parking garage site plan that the when we we have to make sure that a condition on the hotel site plan is to incorporate things like crosswalks stop signs things like that that are technically on the hotel property those have to be in the end put in the final approved hotel amended site plan that comes to the Department of Planning for the file. Other than that there were no other changes to the site plan. So I guess maybe a walkthrough of some of that because I think that's a good point by Meredith that part of the site plan amendment for the hotel site plan is kind of everything on the hotel's land. Right. A lot of the sort of traffic flow and some of the signage is is part of that that site plan. Okay. So if you can walk us through that quickly. Sure and of course going back to that first drawing which I won't drag back up but obviously the easements that serve as access to this is one part of that and those easements will become a permanent part of the permanent set for the hotel. At the request of this and other boards we were asked to put together a plan for the traffic control signage which is presented here. Obviously these stop signs and and other directional indications and things are part of the shared functioning of these two lots together. In particular there's a sign that will suggest that people exiting the garage who want to go to up to the interstate go via Taylor Street. You know that's obviously sending traffic a particular way through this lot. So so largely in terms of the in terms of these shared traffic amenities the landscaping issue specifically was that the design advisory committee was looking for clear pathways from State Street to the river and the bike path and there are two there's there's one that goes from State Street along through here through a series of crosswalks between the garage on the hotel and down to the bike path that way. There's also pavement markings on a proposed for the Heaney lot that would extend the bike path back this way. From this point you'd have to take a ramp feature up to the level of the boardwalk and there you can get on the bike path there and indicated on the landscape site plan we had put some wayfinding indicators and I'm trying to get to the site plan sorry let me get to the landscape site plan. We had indicated a system of signage and benches which was determined to be I'm trying to get to that last image here sorry there. So we had prepared a plan, boy stop, one more, showing these wayfinding elements here here at the beginning of the ramp up to the bike path and then just around the corner here on the boardwalk here. So that was fine but it was not fully what they were looking for what they were hoping for is a better visual cues to somebody coming from State Street that this is all going on. So in addition to the wayfinding stuff which will remain a part of the project we've been asked to relocate some trees and in this area in particular that we're blocking visual access to this element and then to incorporate into the final plans when we come in for a building permit any additional features that would strengthen that visual connection and provide for better wayfinding for pedestrians which could take the form of some artwork or colored pavement or other things were amenable to that we agreed to it at the DA design advisory and so we're hoping that can turn into a permit condition because we just learned about it at five so we don't we don't have a solution to that but those wayfinding elements were for us based apart on the current plans being developed by the city of Mount Pillar for wayfinding city-wide unfortunately didn't realize that their particular proposal hasn't yet not yet been accepted but what we want to stipulate is once the city settles on a program that it would be appropriate for this portion of this problem that our designs would be consistent with the city-wide standards and we've just modified them slightly to incorporate some built-in seating where they happen so we did have an answer to that design advisory had some strong recommendations to enhance and improve that and we agreed to their suggestions as to the the number of parking spaces on the surface lot I think there's been a question as to if it's 55 54 it's one of you could provide a number I did a manual count came up with 55 surface parking spaces and that that'll be consistent throughout the design at this at this point anybody who hasn't fixed it on their plans is fired I don't know I believe so the other design advisory issue had to do with the type of railing proposed and you sort of saw me scroll by some pictures here this this is a picture of the type of railing this is a different project this is up at UVM I understand but this is the same fencing system being used at one Taylor Street and we proposed to use it here as well so that they're consistent one to the other design advisory was fine with that but they added a condition or a proviso that where this is in the landscape it will be just regular galvanized and when it becomes part of the building design it'll be powder-coated black and we were fine with that that works fine because we use this going up the other the accessibility slash bicycle ramp it's also used at the top of the retaining walls and we're using it as a way of keeping people from filtering into the garage from from unsecured points trying to focus access to the garage to places where we have cameras some control of the situation so there are there are there are grates like this on the ground floor that sort of fill the openings anything else board on anything else in the hotel specifically anything from the public on the hotel is there any further comment from anybody on this hotel site plan amendment for the parking we're at this point we would be going into the main event which is the site plan review for the parking garage so we'll move along okay thank you in terms of site plan approval for the garage there are several pieces parts that we should talk about and I'm going to invite first David Grover to talk about traffic and and issues related to traffic because there's been a change since the last version of the report presented to you and that's coming from our coordination with public works and in responding to questions that come up at the hearing so I want to invite David Grover to say a few words about traffic David and just again for my it for my knowledge as well as the record could you state which which firm you are with and what your involvement in the project is David Grover and with RSG also knows resource systems group and I'm the traffic engineer on the project and the last meeting my colleague Corey Mack filled in for me due to illness so you heard from him that's why I look different from Corey but we're going to talk with hopefully the same things surprisingly not that yeah our engineers look the same so at the last meetings requested that we do new counts we've been relying on 2013 counts for the original memo and so right after that meeting on October 18th we did am and PN counts between set looked at 7 to 9 in the morning and then 4 to 6 at night and then took the peak hour within those counts and updated our traffic study to reflect those counts and as we thought the counts that we got on October 18th 2018 were a bit lower than the counts that were done on 2013 that we had previously used and this is consistent with what do boys and King found and what we were also finding was that traffic has gone down since 2013 so is anybody ventured a guess as to why that's happening or what affects that traffic is generally dropping in a lot of places it's also going up in some places but in these urban type areas where we are seeing less traffic just around the state you wouldn't know that to look at some of the trans guidance they're always wanted to be careful to make sure that we are looking at growing traffic we are finding a number of areas and they're on the state where traffic does go down particularly urban areas but strictly this one I cannot venture a guess as to why okay and so using these new counts traffic had gone down a little bit and our conclusions are still generally the same from what we counted on our previous memo the major change was that's looking at level of service major approach that was of concern is Taylor Street northbound on the Taylor State Street intersection and this was an F before the project we projected to be an F as well after the project there's some delay out of there and then there's also the Governor Davis Avenue the southbound approach it went from a D and a PM to an E so it dropped one letter grade which sounds bad but also considered that it only went down by four seconds so it's four additional seconds of delay that happens to straddle the cutoff between a D and an E for level of service and so that's that changed from our last study we also asked to look at warrants for turn lanes so we looked at warrants at the driveways both the State Street driveway and the Taylor Street driveway we found that a warrants are not met at all right and left-turn warrants except for the left-turn warrant at State Street and so that's if you're heading west on State Street about to turn into the site make a left into the site the warrant was met and so it's and that is why I get some context that's met by about 30 cars so it's just barely met and we also should keep in mind that the warrants that we use and that all traffic engineers use the situation are really geared towards higher speed roadways somewhat urban or suburban areas rural roads where you don't expect to see a stopped car the main goal of a left-turn warrant is to the danger in that situation is I'm driving along someone is stopped in front of me to make a left I don't expect them to see them there and so I had to rear end them and so we have these we look at the volume traffic volume to say is this a danger we need to be worried about and in this case by the standards of a rural roadway you might not see somebody here this is an urban setting that people are stopping for pedestrians frequently it's also a pretty narrow road so people are pretty aware and typically we found that it's not advisable to have a left-turn lane to take up that pavement that's better it's taken that pavement with for a left-turn lane when it's not going to enhance the safety greatly and there's also concerns that if you have a stopped vehicle it can prevent through traffic from going through so we'll create delays but we found that delays are minimal for through traffic it's very infrequent that a left turning vehicle is going to stop a through movement for any amount of time so the warrant or sorry the left turn they would not be useful in that situation either and so we were asked to the left turn for these warrants we did them it is met in this one situation but typically we would not recommend it actually be implemented but as a condition of the permit though follow-up studies that would look at whether or not mitigation might warrant in the future yeah something that could be looked at sure yeah this you know if if we read crashes go up at the driveway that would be indicative that I'm wrong and it is a danger also if the volumes go up considerably so it's you know well over the line and being met that might be something we want to talk to public works about to to see if it would be useful it in the way that it's designed it could accommodate a left hand turn lane with the current um width of critical width there is enough room for left turn lane and there might be parking it have to be removed to accommodate that with regards to this was not information we had had at the October 15th this is all new this is all new and to summarize how would you summarize it so we could to summarize it not much has changed for my conclusion this I still think that it's it's a safe situation there is a level service apps they were there before 15th meeting there's still there now and in my opinion the fact that the warrant was met doesn't this has to take the need for a left-turn lane so I don't think that changed anything either do you think that warrant would be met without the project site I mean that we're talking right the bank that left turn lane from State Street into the bank access now yeah given the truth the back so I did I did that warrant as well yeah it's right on the line so it's just under the line it's just barely not met now and it's just barely met with the site additional home traffic okay thanks and I think one of the other things that we didn't have was looking at level of service like leaving the this new private but public road right and and I just kind of looked at it myself but those were all fine as far as delays entering on to State Street from the project or entering on to Taylor Street from the project yeah yeah that's all A's B's and C's D's and it just I shouldn't point out letter grades we don't want our kids getting these in school but for traffic engineering point of view at D is fine it's delay but it's not absurd delay it's not you know road rage inducing delay we have low standards for road range if everyone's comfortable with traffic I want to pull in Dave Marshall and I know that there's a lot of concern about the storm system I should explain to you that there are storm improvements called for on the hotel plan and then those are routed to storm improvements on what will become the city parking garage lot and the Haney lot to its ultimate discharge so so could I ask how are those two issues being that they must be integrated at this point there are there are shared easements between the properties allowing for these this plumbing to happen this this was actually part of the previous approval as well and it does tie into the bike path project but what I want to say is that for purposes of tonight's review there are really no proposed changes to the approved stormwater plan city approved stormwater plan for the hotel part of this obviously all of the all of the work associated with the garage lot and the Haney lot is new new work but I want to ask David to focus on how this system improves water quality in the area and so maybe you could just sort of talk about the parts of the system nope that's fine I think I would like to just kind of touch base a little bit on exactly how the stormwater is conveyed from the hotel lot through the garage lot and perhaps if we can shut off the lights quickly we can at least touch base on that so under today's conditions pre-development conditions stormwater basically runs from the top left of the drawing to the bottom right down to the confluence of the north branch and windows and that occurs in a series of stormwater pipes so if we go I don't know if you're going to see it on this one but if you could basically just take the cursor to the left and keep going in front of the hotel and actually off the drawing oh or I could do that there we go so bear with me well I do have the other drawings please this mouse into doing what so right now there's a low point that's kind of right here and a majority of the site all drains to that particular location it's it's much lower maybe four to six feet lower than the other portions of the existing parking lot that runs out in this particular that occupies I should say the eastern and southern portions of this particular area the river is over here hang on I'm sorry north on this plan is up so that's a little cleaner so here's the hotel property here's the does the central from our railroad this is the north branch this is all Taylor Street here but there's the actual main channel the Winooski River there and the low spot that Dave's talking about anybody who parks there today or drives through there on a regular basis knows that there's just this big pothole kind of thing right near the red shed that when you drive in you sort of slope down from Taylor Street pretty significantly and then slow back up to get out sorry Dave well you have the mouse working a lot better than I did so maybe it's because I'm close so with that there's actually three projects that are identical to the stormwater component down in the bottom right of that particular drawing Greg if you can just put the mouse on the shared use path and this is currently under construction or at least it's beginning construction today and part of that contract is to replace the outfall that again takes the pothole stormwater as Greg describes it which is all conveyed in the southeasterly direction from top left to bottom right and the last section of that existing stormwater conveyance piping is being replaced as part of the shared use path project and from there the hotel project originally had again relocated the stormwater conveyance system in a way that would tie into that particular shared use contract component and then what this particular project does as far as the garage it basically take allows the stormwater now I will take this and okay so basically takes the stormwater from this far top left area and brings it down through the garage and then basically paralleling the railroad tracks and then discharging out in the bottom right of this particular dry so that concept has been the same whether it be the hotel project with its own garage system or whether it be with this particular city garage expanded city garage project what is different on this particular one is that all the drops of water that fall out of the sky and basically end up on the top deck all are collected and it's treated no pun intended just like a parking lot it's under today's conditions all the runoff in the parking lot goes into the stormwater collection system goes directly into the river without any treatment at all this particular system I won't speak for the hotel project but as far as least the garage itself all the drops of water that fall on top of the garage all collected and sent to a filtration system this particular filtration system is designed to handle the first inch of runoff that's typically where the majority of the contaminants are dislodged in that first inch of rain and in that particular system it has a settling component for the large diameter solids that may come out so it can be readily maintained or accessed in the future for removal of those solids and then once it's then it settles down through that particular storage system into an underlying sand filter before it leaves through an under drain collection system and then goes to the discharge system that we talked about that's part of the shared use path today where is that filtration system so currently that filtration system is located down in the off the southeast corner of the proposed garage we're working through some issues with public works as far as again making sure that there's ready access in this particular area it typically will be a low maintenance component primarily because the intent of this particular parking garage is not to use road sand on the surface so if you could imagine in a normal parking lot on surface you're dealing with winter conditions winter sanding those particular particles have a tendency to migrate downhill with the flows of large storm events into the collection system and ultimately under today's conditions out to the river this particular proposed parking garage actually displaces all of that old school parking lot in favor of a system that a doesn't require the winter sand approach that typically that today's parking lot does and then on top of that includes the treatment system so we feel that a significant component of this particular portion of the city's parking facilities will have significant significant improvements in water quality from this particular area of the site now I remember last time that the top-level stormwater management was the hydrodynamics separated the centrifuge that's been changed now to a storm tech filtration system and what what what is the new system being proposed well the new system I didn't do a very good job of introducing it but it is a series of underground chambers that have a dedicated area for initial inflow where those any solids that get in typically would settle out and then the flow will move through that galley or chamber system is this gonna be a gravity fed system yes it is all fully gravity and then ultimately it moves vertically downward through an underlying filter sand filter sheet 2.4 shows some of the components if you would like to get that that's fine you've asked some good pointed questions so this would be perhaps an opportunity to allow us all to get a little bit more familiar with this particular system the thing that we talked about last time is we did talk about the hydro dynamic separators and those are very good systems for small surface areas or at least areas where you have a small amount of area for treatment what we have found with the state stormwater management program is that for the redevelopment component of the regulations the new regulations adopted in 2017 that those hydro dynamic or I should say this particular system is preferred by the state stormwater management group because of the improved treatment capacity it does much better job of basically removing the very very fine particles and that is ultimately the direction that the stormwater management program of the state directed us to move towards as part of this particular application so Greg if you can zoom in on the bottom left this will represent the various components in a cross section so if you basically cut a section through the underground area these are the components that you would see so starting at the very top we basically have the land surface that and we have a certain amount of material over the top just to distribute loads and to protect the chambers you can see those half oval shape features thank you those are hollow on the outside you have crushed stone with a high porosity to basically provide some storage of water as it gets introduced into those particular chambers it fills the chambers it also is is permeable or porous so it's filling up the entire void space starting from the bottom of the chambers up and then as your infiltration rates allow the drops of water move vertically down from the chambers through stone that's the underlying stone that provides a structural integrity of that chamber system ultimately into the 18 inches of sand filter underneath and that is your final polishing component as far as stormwater coming off of the garage surface and being introduced into the system and then on the very bottom you have the under drains that basically take the filtered water and convey it into discharge from the site to the river does that make sense to everybody I just want to note that the hydrodynamic catch basins are still a feature on the original hotel site where we have much smaller catchment areas to deal with and because this is a flood district I think all the underground utilities are going to have gasketed covers on their access points yes there are some internal components of the garage that we spoken about last time in which we wanted to make sure that we weren't taking floodwaters sending them down into the sanitary drains and heading them down to the treatment plant so in this particular case all of those have been designed in a manner that basically allows for them to be protected or at least the treatment plant should be protected from those particular types of inflows and we're also working on the final details with public works on again how to protect this feature from floodwaters also and these are the features that they had concerns about accessing under the boardwalk that is correct yeah so in this particular case actually this particular type of system can be put underneath a building if you chose to do so it's one that we like to try to locate outside buildings if we can they're put underneath parking lots very frequently what we want to do is basically make sure that from it from a maintenance standpoint that public works with its particular resources can access this so we've talked with public works not only about this location and how to modify the access points to avoid the conflict with the various walkway components but at the same time perhaps even to relocate that into a different corner of the building to carry the day so but at this point in time this is what our proposal is to satisfy the state permitting and with tweaks on the main whole access points to find the best way for public works access manual access into these into this particular structure and what's a final design is there will be an agreement that will sort of lay out the various easement rights maintenance and all that describing which party will be responsible for one of the project that might be more important well I think in terms of maintaining the systems that Dave's describing tonight that those are those are city problems yeah so this point in time there are shared easements in order to allow the hotel property to drain through this lot and on to the outlet at the river but yes public works did good to do a nice job of identifying what they would wouldn't be responsible for within the hotel site but Greg hits it right on the head that this particular parcel will call it or at least the site plan for the parking garage is basically a system that is only only take city water and only needs to take so no shared so do you still require state approval or do you have that application has been formulated applications have been signed and checks have been written and that I'll at the end at the end of this tonight I'll give you a summary on sort of where we are with other permits if you wish speaking of water on the top floor yes snow yes what's going on with that well the plan has has been to melt that snow and we gave the city two options to do that one we gave the city one option they came up with another of their own there's a towable piece of equipment called a snow dragon where you just as you scoop the as you scoop the snow up you put it in there and it melts it into a tank at the bottom but public works has asked us to take another approach which is to use district heat to provide for a radiant slab at the top level the design changes that ever crude to the intermediate levels make us really confident that we're not going to have a lot of snow and rain blowing into the intermediate levels but for the for that top level which will which will get snow we decided that that'll melt into into the drainage system that's throughout the garage there are great there are drains periodically on every level in many many places to direct stormwater flows into Dave's system in the easement for district heat is there any you know difference between whether they use the snow dragon or they use district heat no I think the bottom line is that we are not proposing to drop snow from three and a half stories down we aren't indicating on the site plan any place where we want to pile snow up in this particular case what's been happening in the capital plaza lot for a long time is the city scoops that up into dump trucks and takes it away and there's a spot under a bridge where they where they let it pile up over the winter all that truck time and stuff is an expense takes takes personal hours to do it so I think we all settled on the idea that using using a snowmelt technology would be an appropriate response I also we also talked a little bit I guess I got to make sure I get to the right plan I think we've already broached the subject of stop signs and things associated with the site plan but just want to find out was there anything new since the last meeting well I don't think this plan was in your set last time but it's there now just showing where stop signs would be where he is okay so in terms of traffic control we've talked about the volume of traffic we've agreed with public works that there would be stop signs at the exit points both at Taylor Street at state normal stop signs with stop bars will also require stop traffic going west to east on the internal road here at the crosswalk obviously we want to stop people if you know yield to pedestrians right through here because this is a major pedestrian corridor also a stop sign for people coming from the church out to make them pause and just look to their left to make sure there's nobody coming out of the garage there are directional indications here for Interstate 89 and Route 2 it is the preferred choice that they go out through the internal road to Taylor Street if they're heading out to the Interstate and so we have several signs indicating that also another sign making clear that the church parking is private and a small stop sign at the at the emergency exit we expect will favor traffic to the overlook neighbor here and the bike path but this is this is a low frequency thing so I just wanted to just get that out of the way since we've talked to David about traffic everything else it's been that's been done is really a sort of firming up of details and answering questions for public works I don't know if you if you want to take the time to go through any of these detail sheets they're all on your set though and so I do want to talk a little bit about the sort of final shape and positioning of the building one other thing I will I will mention because I know it's of a concern to people we've spoken throughout our process about how the project would be designed to not have a negative impact on floodwater in town that's a little different than stormwater Dubois and King prepared a detailed computer analytical model of the watershed we put the building volumes and and the grade manipulations from the project into that model and have determined that the project will not have an adverse impact on stormwater flows I believe it was characterized to me and Ron you can yell at me if I'm wrong but in a 500 year flood event we're talking about possibly raising water in this area by a quarter of an inch which is considered acceptable in terms of the no rise policy I just wanted to pass that along because that work has been completed it's really more of a more to deal with our active 50 level review but I didn't want to pass that along since we're talking about utilities does the board have any concerns before we move along I just wanted to ask a question about pedestrian safety yes and the the my question is when you do a traffic study you're looking just at cars are you looking at the interaction between cars and pedestrians and did you take that into account in in that traffic study so this traffic study did not look at the internal flows so yeah we did look at you know the we counted pedestrians we looked at them but they didn't play a role in our analysis they weren't they weren't of concern in the situation from for the site drive way and the major intersections well I I do want to sort of talk a little bit about this right now what happens is there's there is there are 206 parking spaces behind a capital plaza now a lot of people in town park back there because the city's got long-term leases on a good chunk of it and as you can see here in the existing conditions plan wherever you park here there are no dedicated pedestrian ways or wayfinding of any kind in the proposed layout you know we've got a fairly substantial channeling of the traffic into a defined roadway and we have some defined pedestrian paths that get you from the hotel and the garage via two crosswalks here and here out to State Street there's also pedestrian connectivity indicated going east to west to east along the north side of the garage to connect the capital plaza lot and all of this to the Haney lot a lot of people use that as a cut through and then this pedestrian line connects down here to the to the rec path so while it's it's not perfect it's a significant improvement over existing conditions I can see that with all of the internal flow I guess what I'm curious about is that the State Street exit okay and and that just comes from personal experience you know farmers market days seeing people trying to take a left in to the lot to find a spot now and and and not being patient to wait for the pedestrians to kind of cross there had so maybe that stop sign for coming out is helpful yeah and I don't know if there is one there today I don't believe there's none now no so that will help but it's really thinking about the left turn in and so maybe that's the question about having that left turn lane is really about patients for pedestrians that may be passing by but once someone has a dedicated lane they might be more patient people are behind them right right right I see our director of public works is waiting in the rooms here thank you would you join us so do you need this this this yeah okay so through the this is the easement plan again yeah what would you like Tom your traffic control plan so back to the question as well but if you look in the the heenie lot there is a lane presumably that's a lane white lines edge lines in the bike lane symbols that could our in-house person knowledgeable bike lane design that's not appropriate we shouldn't be marking that as a bike lane that is in our staff comments the the shared use path is designed as a as a bicycle facility meeting all of the actual standards and requirements for for a shared use path these are pedestrian walkways designed for pedestrian use that may be misleading through them through that parking lot to lay out a bike lane which then reaches the back corner or you could a person could choose either way but neither is appropriate for bike use walk your bike there that's fine that's all I want to point out this these symbols right correct yes okay anybody else have a comment on that because if not I have a question okay so but some other form of symbol potentially to mark that as some sort of access point to get to the back even if it's not a bicycle symbol would not mark a pedestrian or pedestrian bicycle or pedestrian way unless it met okay standard for one or both okay so would you even mark it out just a specific lane better the pedestrians make their way through that parking lot okay it's very common practice parking lots of that type to not have any marked area so I want to be misleading nope I just want to be really clear as to what you wanted there so I had a question has there been a final determination the number of electronic charging stations that will be included we're we're gonna set the we're gonna set the garage up for 20 and we had presented cut sheets for those previously I think there's gonna have to be a policy discussion about whether or not those are exclusive use or not and just depends on I think that's a management issue it really shouldn't be a permitting issue if the city finds they're not getting penetration if they're not getting a lot of use you really don't want to take that many spaces out of circulation altogether so I think I think that might be an iterative thing as far as how they get labeled it's going back to Deb's point what is there are there any changes to that crosswalk kind of across the new State Street entrance to the project site is that is that gonna be pretty much as it currently exists or is there new markings there I guess the stop sign we've discussed any other changes to improve there well on the project site there'd be stop bars and pavement markings angst I think if there was an improvement on this side it would be in the city right away right so our standard for streets roads intersections is to not have a concrete walkway cross them in there they're marked crosswalk may have noticed that we did made a change at stone cutters way this summer removing the concrete painting is crosswalk there this is a an access easement it has a lot of similarities to a street I suppose we could look at it that way removing the concrete which provides separation and provides a visual cue to motorists that that's a pedestrian way so I think either is suitable I think the mark crosswalk is more visible but you know concrete remains you around crosswalks tend to wear off and it's a little higher maintenance so I think either way they indicate they provide that the necessary visual cues that that's a pedestrian way and the pedestrian has the right of way so I'm not sure that this really rises to the level the additional part vehicle traffic to warrant any different changes as I pointed out there are water parking spaces there now and the additional parking doesn't doesn't change things that dramatically I'm not aware of any complaints or concerns raised about pedestrian safety there because of slow slow traffic visibility is key I'd be a little concerned we want to look closely at a left-turn lane sometimes a waiting vehicle can prevent visibility of somebody a through car going around it particularly for the crosswalk on State Street we balance that what are we gaining what are we achieving but I think it's fine as designed it's a concrete crosswalk sidewalk that serves as a defective thank you we're we'd like to take us next Mr. Chairman do you want to take comments on pedestrian safety and traffic before they jump into wastewater or do you want my thinking wasn't this is this is a point of discussion my thinking was was to get through the new material and then to open it up to the public board members what do you think should we take it at each phase upon request of a public or should we wait till the end and then take comment I think I'd leave it up to the applicants representatives and if you'd rather keep going with the changes you're presenting or if you want to have a pause and hear some response per item you know I could go either way I think you know in terms of wastewater disposal that's a fairly short discussion and then I was just going to go around the outside of the building and talk about the design changes that have come up but if people want to keep their train of thought that's fine with me I think it makes sense to finish hearing from the applicant and then this would occurs so between Dave and Ron who would like to talk about sanitary sewers mine's easy so go for one again Dave Marshall on the garage the way the federal regulations work is that any drop of water that starts inside of the building and gets collected is considered to be a sanitary waste so even though you might think of those drops of water coming off your car as they melt in the snow and hitting the floor and draining dribbling off to the drain are a storm water it actually technically is a sanitary waste and so that every level below the roof is considered to be something where we have sanitary sewer collection systems and conveyance systems in this particular case the garage has been set up so that all of those particular collected sanitary waste go to a water separator prior to being introduced into the sanitary collection system that happens to be conveniently located just off to the right or east side of the proposed building what we also did in working with public works was to figure out a system that would again as I mentioned earlier avoid a situation where we're funneling floodwaters into that particular sanitary collection system that is essentially all ends up down with the wastewater treatment facility so those are the components that have been integrated into the parking garage there is no bathrooms so we don't have any traditional waste streams that otherwise would have to be managed so from that standpoint other than perhaps a small sink within an enclosed area for maintenance purposes our sanitary needs are fairly minimal it's gone right into a piping system so there's no overflow risks that is I think for the hotel it's actually even a simpler solution we just run a pipe from the hotel to the state street sewer that has capacity to reduce yourself so so that's very very simple it's everything sealed up it's floodplain areas covers required it's basically just a lot of water supply I don't know if you run if you want to continue on with that water supply is almost the same as a house lateral not just a bigger part going to the hotel coming down from state street state street down to the hotel from the state street entrance there will be a connection possibly for future connection the City of DPW has asked us to put in a larger pipe so in case there's a connection for that system in the future to connect over to the east but in general our hotel has a maintenance pipe there's a hydrant at the church we have to supply so it requires a minimal main inch up to that hydrant six inch or four inch the garage will have a dry suppression system so it'll have dry standpipes in each of the two stairwells and dry pendant type heads throughout the garage for fire suppression that system is not normally charged unless there's a fire and I think there was some discussion in a previous hearing about us requiring heat in the building for the purposes of fire suppression system and that's that's that's not true the building will not require heat for the fire suppression system to function and we've worked with public works in the fire department to understand what they want and basically the standpipes where the fire departments biggest issue I'm sorry Greg sorry just because so you don't need the controls for the standpipes and the sprinkler system that controls to be in the heated room the there's a like a closet or something with a control we've talked about this before we were going to have a server closet for the operational equipment of the you know that runs the traffic functions of the garage all I really need that that's in addition to that for this dry suppression system is a compressor it's not a very big one right but that's but that is that little piece has to be in a warmed room right okay good I'm not sure a compressor does but we will put it in a warm room yeah that's that's my understanding from the fire chief in the comments I've incorporated in here so I want to just confirm with you back and forth which which was the right thing and for the public because I know there was a question and that issue might have been confused I've been involved in literally hundreds of these types of systems so I think we pretty much have a good idea what works for them but it's whatever the fire department needs the only other utilities there are there is not national natural gas on the site there's a propane tank farm that serves the hotel but that's part of the previous approval from time to time we get comments about making sure that those are flood proofed and they will be they'll have ballasts underneath them and tied out straps those details were previously submitted so the only other the only other utility on site is the electrical cream out in power is a main transmission line that runs down the southerly property border boundary we are going to branch from an existing overhead pole underground to service the site and I think one of these plans shows where we're expecting transformers do you remember what the numbers so utility plan okay so this dark shaded area here where my cursor is and this dark shaded area here are the two proposed trans closure faults and those would be mostly underground than the transformer things it's on top but this this is this is for the hotel part of it and all the electrical onsite will be underground the easement plan shows the appropriate easements for these utilities to route their way to serve the existing capital plaza and the commercial spaces on its ground floor as well as as well as the new Hampton Inn and then loop I guess the extend existing power back to some of these adjacent users who are currently coming off of overhead lines that run right through the footprint of the garage and these mean all sort of flood standards yes yes as I mentioned earlier anything that could float away or you know flood has to be bolted down tied to something I in terms of general equipment in a garage our solution of that is that we're not going to put anything below the first floor that's good but as far as these utility vaults and stuff go those are all those will all have gasketed lids and yeah the so when Greg mentions the transformers they're typically placed on precast concrete vaults and in this particular case the vault has to be placed high enough so the actual transformer structure itself the metal green component or cabinet is actually above the the base flood elevation of 525.8 so that's going to be a component that is necessary in order to satisfy the the flood protection component that's great there's actually a water proof vault I'm sorry I'm sorry the transformers essentially kept it basically I don't know if you want to call them water proof they're designed to be weather protected so that the equipment inside is not beat up by mother nature waterproof might be pushing in the tad though that would be why you have to lift it all the way up above the BFE though is it above BFE or above DFE because the DFE is the what two feet above BFE that yeah I don't have that answer for you there okay but anyway that's a floodplain permit which we don't do I'm just trying to figure out here if I can you need a light on no I just I just need to get back to my root directory somehow the changes on the building have been fairly subtle but our work with design advisory has focused on here we go a couple of things that were worked out with design advisory board and this image well she is a few from the the bike path as you cross the north branch of the Noosky River and arrive at the garage we working with them have kind of remodulated the facade a little bit to there was a big arch on the previous version I think you saw this that's been removed in favor of raising up this boardwalk between the garage and the bike path so when you come off the bike path bridge you're gonna end up there's gonna there's this little like pocket area here and you can see how it's you know it's enveloped in these little river birches there are benches and an opportunity for smaller maybe more frequently changed art this that was one of the changes requested by the design advisory board and we worked that out also there were changes to these fences we settled on a uniform form of that I think we talked about that earlier and then one last bigger issue which I'm gonna have to go back to the meeting minutes from the previous meeting to find this information but we talked a lot about how to I think you're right detail of art installation let me just rotate this to you sorry we presented a variety of ways in which we could do the infill on those big masonry openings this is the one that the design advisory board selected out of the choices we had the original design showed sort of a pickup sticks kind of thing going on with colorful tubing this is more traditional steel sections with bolts and welded connections and things framing a sort of a major element at the top that acts as a sort of lentil to carry all the masonry above and then some steel bracing that helps sort of cut the span of that down behind which and it doesn't show great here but is a fiberglass scrim that's breathable it allows air in and out of the garage but it's also something we can print on a little bit and we were talking about ghosting on there a faint pattern of you know artistic interest I've shown a bunch of gears here and stuff and thinking about this as being you know a sort of nod to the red the adjacent railway I think the design advisory board and their recommendations to you is suggesting that that there be some public process for sort of discussing this art and curating it a little bit and we've talked about in general on the building design how there's there are these big pieces of public art that that selecting that art ought to be a quasi ought to be a public process bringing into it the various and sundry legendary arts groups here in Montpelier you know council on the arts and and some of the other groups who are interested in that sort of thing so there's an opportunity for public involvement in sort of perfecting the design here but out of all the different ways we thought about solving this problem this is the one that they recommended and we're perfectly happy with that back to the rendering and show me where on that that we're talking about sure I think I just want to make sure I'm clear as to of course he just so see here where I had these yellow things happening that was one of the three ideas this is the one we've had for the longest but it wasn't the one they picked in the end so where you see these yellows these yellow pipes here instead what you would see is a is a kind of a nutty bolty steel frame which is very much intended to sort of call back the trestle bridges that so to find this area you know the one across Taylor Street this one heading across the north branch so I was felt more sort of a more of a nod to the context by doing that and so anytime you see this which happens on all four corners of the building you would get that design element it's just a huge amount of time goes into making these models and we just couldn't we just couldn't remodel it for the so just moving along because it's 10 to 9 now I just want to bring this this part of the presentation to completion is there more that you would I think I think with the design issues I just wanted to bring you up to date all I'll say in sort of closing as far as our our take on it is as a design advisory board had I believe seven recommendations and a couple of other things but generally voted to move this on to you I'll just say that speaking for the applicant that the recommendations of the design advisory board are amenable and we're happy to stipulate to those okay Tom two questions one I see in some of the plans that there's gonna be outdoor seating there is the night on this plan here I see outdoor seating yes how many outdoor seating you gonna have we just quickly find the site plan we have five or six benches on the boardwalk area okay Jamesville and shares landscape and we also have working with the sign the way finding a signage we have this idea where we have way fighting in a small bench opportunity at four locations within the site plan so I counted I counted five on the other side the other thing was there was a discussion from the police chief about fencing for underneath the the the boardwalk here is that this is that been it's it's it's it's the same detail that we would use for the other fencing so it's that square grid we we have said that site where it happens on the site along the top retaining walls and and the like that it will be left in a natural galvanized where it's becomes a part of the building architecture it'll be powder coated black so you would have that in the openings on the ground floor that happens there but it's also indicated on the civil plans and I think it's on your plan as well that underneath the boardwalk that that'll extend down to the grade as well so that so that to extent we're creating a hollow space under here that won't you won't be able to get into that there was I think there's a question raised in the comments earlier about whether or not the 20 20 foot setback from the river oh good point there's common in the staff notes and we talked about this last time about the other side the board having previously determined to be channelized so maybe there's no setback required where where are you on that that is in fact the determination that I think is supported by our work with the floodplain manate district floodplain manager as well but it's our conclusion that the north branch of the Winnicki River is channelized okay by virtue of all the impounded fill and it's no longer a natural sort of riparian waterway a lot of this section of the river has actually got stone riprap walls on it but by virtue of all the fill and everything in the buildings in place has been determined to be channelized which would require no setback the only thing that might have violated a potential setback the building itself met it but it was the accessibility ramp the bike ramp slash access ramp here this little corner of the ramp kind of came down close but even even at that I think you're allowed to impact up to 50% of that setback but I think I think the applicant's position is that there's no setback required because the river is channelized okay and the building itself is 20 feet from the garage is 20 feet plus some little buffer in there not much engines but just the first landing on the accessibility ramp enters that space but it's completely open underneath you know so there's it's not impounding anything so can I just clarify that you spoke with the regional floodplain manager and that was Ned's assessment or is it yours yeah yes okay so it's the state's online firm has been the one doing the most direct work with that but in our meeting with him he outlined what the standards were and the ultimately the report or the study came to conclusion that there were minimal impacts in the flood level elevations virtually no change in velocities as far as what was moving through the area and as such we've easily fell within the no adverse impact that's okay range that was acceptable from there that department but I think we've gotten they've accepted this the model what I understand and at this point they've asked us to submit some other standard items that go with their review which point they'll be able to provide the final night final report with all their findings that's great thank you okay at this point I'm going to call a five minute recess we will reconvene at nine o'clock and we will open it for public comment there will be opportunity for the board to ask for the questions as well as involving the applicant so until nine o'clock okay let's reconvene so at this juncture we're going to take testimony from the public and so those that would like to to make a statement or other matters you wish to discuss I'm going to ask you to keep your comments to a reasonable like the time couple couple to three minutes and at this point I'm open it up so who would like to go and when you comment please make sure to come up to the microphone state your name and make sure you have signed in on the sign-in sheet so that we have your addresses for mailing purposes afterwards let's keep mine to three because there's you've got four topic areas of process traffic stormwater etc as long as they as long as they're germane to the applications they're germane okay I have raised earlier and in support of the need for the balloon validation of the perspective view impacts I want to use these two as an example you've seen this one earlier where this 35 foot railroad bridge appears to be about six or eight feet above the height of the garage on that one whereas this new one we just see shows this thing 10 20 feet higher than the railroad bridge so they both can't be right and the only solution is to have the designer of you board order the balloon validation testing as was suggested by an architect witness at a prior hearing that is an essential validated independently validated balloon heights with photographs from various angles around town you're not going to be able to assess the view impacts otherwise we cannot let tomorrow's vote drive a corruption of this process this thing has been rushed and rushed and rushed in too many corners have been cut we're facing on the eve of this bond vote 16 million with 30 years interest a rushed review and the design development review board is the final check and balance that can hold bring some accountability and due diligence back into this process that will necessitate you slowing down and doing your due diligence we have we don't have a contract yet with the architects the architect just told me he hasn't been paid at all and we have not we were arguing over whether the architect needs to produce the 3d models so that independent verification of these view impacts and view corridors could be done by a third party architect those are public records work made for hire I know it's not for this body to adjudicate that but you ought to understand it we we will have we are accruing a bill as work made for hire of 3d models of this garage and they are necessary in order to do the due diligence and independent review the traffic pedestrian I especially first want to focus on pedestrian safety and I won't try to call up in the interest of time call up the past the three-way stop at the entrance exit to the garage the church parking and the L shaped egress through Taylor and state you have most if most of the garage users exiting their crossing at a stop sign getting shifting crossing another section of the parking lot on a sidewalk crossing the bank drive-up lanes and getting on to a sidewalk that's already frequently congested where the northfield savings bank entrance and ATM are located and we're going to be pushing all this pedestrian traffic into that because we have not accommodated a sidewalk on the opposite side which could be would have only the very low traffic volume of the church parking exit and reach state street much more safely it would require sacrificing some of the spots that are perpendicular I've raised at the last meeting that the 35 foot frontage requirement there's no way that you can allow that to be compressed down to 24 on this private road easement and keep it past the straight face test I said I'm going to give you a written copy of this for slower reading and I'll pass an electronic copy of Meredith as well I'm going to offer a few photos just for educational purposes pass around that is the elevation group change between the Haney lot and these were taken at the most recent farmers market these ones that we know these are not these are new ones that show that now I'm going to get to the traffic state they show the amount of volume we're talking thousands of cubic yards let's let's back up for just a session I want to make sure that we complete the first order of business that you pedestrian traffic safety the issue with the balloons yes I'm just asking you to order that test be done okay and the materials you've given us just now these are not to support that I'm going to just tell you what these are as I handed to you those are illustrating the elevation where we're within fractions of a percent of grade to reach the steep slopes according to the surveyor and the illustrate the the photos that I'm taking illustrate this slope in that area and there's another one at a higher level but what they also do is they show the volume of material that's going to have to be removed in a hundred and fifteen by two hundred and fifteen foot garage digging for four or more feet down we're going to be taking thousands of cubic yards out the traffic impacts analysis has not accounted not only for the all the dump trucks to remove all that material possibly toxic possibly contaminated possibly flying toxic dust etc the traffic impacts analysis has not at all accounted for the internal flow or the displacement of the dozens and dozens of parking spaces that are going to be eliminated during construction so you could potentially ruin the entire city's flow and enjoy ability and safety for a solid year by having three construction projects going on simultaneously not to mention the traffic impacts of all the workers so a comprehensive traffic impacts analysis must be done not a piecing together of fragments of trip generation estimates that were done here and then and there for different pieces of this this is a very complex combination of projects with massive impacts on not only the public safety but on the traffic flow and enjoyment of our city so your argument at this point is on traffic flow yes and you're concerned primarily with during construction is that no as well as beyond but the bus study there was a study done by the boy and king of the bus traffic which we discovered necessitates the long buses not even being able to enter the transit center and turn around so they're gonna have to park across the street blocking the access to the state lot and or the Chittenden bank lot and require passengers to cross Taylor Street to get on the bus so that study is still in draft form hasn't been completed since last year so since 2017 I don't know how bus where the buses park is determinative of flow counts and that you're gonna block traffic be both behind the buses and in and out of the existing lots okay but as far as trip generation the background rates of the boy and king study was used for aren't determinative of where buses park is that no what I'm saying is they're related that the traffic flow analysis remediation solutions analysis and the traffic impacts on all the intersections and especially within this private easement road that they were that is not up to the 30-foot standard of frontage so Steve it sounds to me like your point has to do with pedestrian safety with the crossing of the streets that's one point okay overall traffic impacts the inadequacy of the studies that have been done or the pieces of studies that have been clued together to justify that this project is okay that adding a third project on top of the hotel on top of the transit center is all just gonna be so I think I think I think I'm not gonna just summarize what I my understanding at this juncture is is that the concern is about the traffic impacts and its effect on pedestrians in particular and specifically with three different construction projects going correct the walkability and the preservation and interconnection of existing trails and walkways I walk through the farmers market and people walk three and four abreast we're going to now necessitate all those people are going to funnel into a little wheelchair ramp in order to get down to the river to our new confluence park both you're going to be creating two of these urban canyons and this is the picture I took last night which illustrates the best case of an urban canyon between a hotel parking strip you know retail four-story structures and parking garage you're going to create an urban canyon between the Christchurch affordable housing project in this garage as well as between the hotel in this garage that are not safe that are not inviting that are not maintaining and enhancing the interconnection of trails I'm going to try to wrap up here because I know I exceeded my time there's a need for independent verification of the renderings this is off of cherry's correct yeah and we would those urban canyons are not something we should be aspiring to or they're not in the nature of my failure the visualization test and a comprehensive traffic impacts analysis are both things I'm asking this body to order even if it means you can't vote to approve this thing as quickly as the city council would like to this board has to be the adults in the room the city council has taken on the role of developer promoter and it has compromised all of the offices of the cities in in their due diligence of critical review both economically I have researched and it's in verified that the cost of this green wall system the water filtration systems the air-conditioned rooms for the server equipment none of these costs were built in power washing and maintenance we're doing a site plan review we're not reviewing the economic costs of the garage or anything the city council so you're saying that this board needs to be the one to focus on our job which is to apply the regulations it's very strict and and then you're talking primarily about things that are not in the regulations so well the walkability in the interconnection in that if we're if this has become not a hotel private garage but a city garage why are not the elevators located closest to where the people who are going to be walking to the city I mean to have to ask people to enter the garage through the handy lot which is their most easy as access and then have to go to the other end to get on the elevator is is undue deference to the hotel if the hotel wants a second elevator on its end it could pay for that one but this the city's hotel should be on the end closest to the city businesses and restaurants bathrooms are essential in a public building with a ten million dollar cost otherwise the parking structure is going to be used as a bathroom regardless and we will have the increased maintenance costs of that since you have this in writing I will not be labored this one other thing if the last year I mean at the last meeting I presented a piece of the 2000 master plan which included the conceptual design for not only the multi-use path bridge but a traffic bridge across the North Branch I'm not advocating for that but I am saying that if we don't do our due diligence here and we create a traffic mess we will have put this garage squarely blocking a potential traffic bridge across the first branch which would be a very traffic alleviating if expensive solution because it would hit made at Barry and allow people to get out in those directions but we that will become impossible if this garage of this size and scale goes in this location appreciate your okay thank you appreciate your summer case other others that would like to testify anybody else one last item don't an intent to intangibles our views and the cost of public faith and trust in this process you could do severe damage to both of those let me I want to go back and just clarify the last question I had for the applicants on just to make it clear that I had asked about the whether or not the regional rivers person determined that the river was channelized at the location in question you know where we were where this building gets close to given your concerns I want to invite Ron up because doing King were the primary authors of the model and I've had most of the conversations with that but Ron if you're it's because we need to make a finding no it's fine because I may have paraphrased a conversation in and I think I think you you're right to say we should probably refine that thank you so online it was a thing we did traffic or a traffic what modeling study we worked with in that swanburg DC flood management review that study this study was purpose of the study was to meet regulations to say is there any adverse impact due to this flood or the floodway I'm sorry the flood plain by putting in the film the impacts were determined to not cause an adverse impact we split that model to that swanburg came back in a review and said no there is no we agree there is no adverse impact but we did not do a determination of channelization in that study nor did we directly ask him if you would support channelization so that as far as I know that was not fine we did define I think the model came out because of the configuration that model did come out we can fill in that we need to get the finish flow of the base flood elevation without the adverse impact the velocity of flow in that area floodway or the elevation of the flood water your story so so let me follow up with you on that because I think the reason I had that impression is because we talked about it at a design team meeting about the question I think the question that I would remember Markowitz is looking for is in your professional opinions is this section of the river channelized or not because we talked about this and I thought the answer was yes so that wasn't a net conversation that was a bus conversation yes I think one of the things that we did is you asked for the definition of channelized I had two definitions from basically Corv engineer definitions and state definitions and said the situation for the river is has construction that's not the normal river banks riprap construction that would channelize that river into an area that would be considered channelized those are definitions I think they're reasonable definitions and Corv engineers practical sense definitions in their programming process and then in the state definition that was always also what they used for a definition in their river control manual I think it was I think that's where the discussion was within our meeting of what channelized was and to me everything that I saw in that was that is more of a normal common sense definition of that going to a normal river fill any kind of structure that keeps that channel confined to what it was before it's natural way so so would you conclude in your professional opinion is this section of the river that abuts the property channelized or not upstream of the north branch is very channelized as buildings and both sides this area is certainly channelized to some degree with the construction of the bike path bridge of Bumpman be impactful on that in any way meaningfully I don't think the bridge of Bumpman was created so because I have two civil engineers here I'll just ask me the same question you have an opinion on channelization actually we did talk to Ned about that in the one meeting that I went to and in particular the reason I asked the question is that the state adopted a new program about river corridors and the intent of the river corridor program is to basically preclude encroachment into what historically has been the overbank areas when a river floods it basically expands beyond its main channel area and overflows on the edges and you get a lot of flood storage in those areas and it helps again ultimately with peak flows and the downgrading areas the reason I asked the question is that when we're dealing with downtown there was a particular carve out in the statute that specifically talks about if you have a building that happens to be right next to the river then somebody that's downstream of it probably should have the right to basically be that far or that close to the edge of the river to and in this particular case when you take a look at the river corridor I'm happy for Montpelier it shows a very broad reach that under theoretical conditions would be where the river would have gone and when you unfortunately don't have the benefit of that but if you can kind of imagine this particular line that extends literally hundreds of feet from the top of the bank of the river and you look at all of the historical development that's occurred you know right up to the edges of the top of bank of the river itself I asked that Ned has said Ned do we have any issues with river corridor issues and it basically goes to the channelization component he said no absolutely not the historical way that Montpelier has been developed has created the channelization of the river so it can no longer go in a comfortable way expanding itself during the flood events it basically is all encumbered by these buildings and the historical fill that's been placed in the overbank areas so in this particular case our understanding of all the channelization component was that was a no-brainer for Ned Swanberg from the river section that in this particular case this area had been compromised in such a way and I look at it more specifically right adjacent as Greg indicated there's a limited area that this particular lot actually fronts the river but you have the railroad bridge that again as far as definitions of creating transportation improvements that literally create bottlenecks for the water that is channelization so we have that not only for the railroad bridge but also for the brand-new recreation path hasn't been designed to be back from you know the very edge of the river absolutely is it back at the top of the bank yes but has it created a bottleneck where we've forced all the water to go where it naturally wouldn't want to go answers yes so in my opinion the channelization is there I understand from staff that the board is found on the opposite side of the river that that same situation is in force and it's just natural based on the historical development pattern of the downtown area that the conclusion of channelization has also been adopted on the opposite side of the river to thank you that's helpful I think the correct question was answering more than correct question yeah okay but nothing gives you pause doesn't bother me at all okay thank you any other party wish to wish to be heard Mike Mike Miller the planning director yep Mike Miller in the planning director just for context for the board and for the public when I'm speaking obviously with city staff so he's a little bit difficult to tell because we've got some people who may be representing the application in this case Meredith and I are working on this side of the table so kind of representing the review of the application and following the previous meeting Meredith had asked me to take a few minutes because of all of her workload to go and look at some of the questions that had come up on the renderings and the wireframes that maybe you had in your packets and we wanted to just kind of go and get a sense of being able to just kind of put an independent eye that goes and says let's take a look at these independently and see whether Greg's renderings are not correct or whether the you know where things are so what I did was went out and took a look at the different sites in particular this as it goes down and I'll pass around the wireframe but you probably have it in one of your packets somewhere and what you'll notice in those wireframes is in the center of that parking lot there are actually three telephone poles one telephone pole would actually be on this side of the parking structure one would be in the middle of the parking structure and one's gonna be in the other side of the parking structure those poles the two larger poles the ones on the ends are 40 to 43 feet high and are also slightly elevated from the ground the one in the middle you'll notice there's a smaller pole that does not have a light on it that smaller pole is 34 feet high and is starting at basically the grade so what I was trying to do is to try to start to look at perspective and then to try to you know reflect on the fact that the parking garage is gonna be 39 feet tall so it's gonna be between the heights of those two telephone poles or those three telephone poles slightly taller than the one in the middle slightly lower than the ones on the end everything's always about perspective are you taking a picture from up on the hill are you taking it from on the bottom so obviously that will change your perspective of whether a building next to you it appears taller or shorter whether the trestle bridge looks taller smaller it some of that will come down to perspective if you look through your other pictures that also have those wireframes I would use those telephone poles as a good guide so my recommendation my thought in speaking with Meredith about you know kind of getting a sense was I'll let you kind of draw your own opinions based on those pictures but the idea was really I don't necessarily think you need a balloon study to go and get a sense for how high this structure is going to be we have electrical lines we have telephone poles that can give you an eyeball of about how high this building is going to be now the ground comes up in elevation the building goes up in elevation but the perspective of the power lines in fact remains the same so it really is I just wanted to put that out as some evidence for you as you start to evaluate the sense of whether we need to go and do additional studies on view sheds that I think you have some good information in your packets already to kind of make those determinations on your own Mr. Rabner could you is that your conclusion as well without be a good metric to work against the photos as presented I'm seeing that using the telephone poles as a go-by is a perfectly rational way to do it was this picture here telephone poles bottom we can we construct the building models in Revit software the same drawings we use to construct the buildings we use to construct these these visualizations and then we we took photographs of the site because Google Earth doesn't really have a very good inventory here but we took photographs of the site from various directions and we we integrate the photographs into the the models into these photographs based on cues from around surrounding buildings and stuff we've done scores of these and they tend to historically they've proven to be quite accurate so I don't really I don't really feel like I need to respond to the to the public about this but I'm confident that the drawings that were submitted for the purpose of the visual analysis where they were integrated into actual site photographs are as accurate as we're capable of making them and that's pretty damn accurate we did other 3d imagery where we dropped the model into a fake world of building plans that we made up for this purpose those are a little less precise because you know a lot of the context is just made up using you know just 10 foot floor to floor everywhere so the drawing of the project when viewed from behind the shell station I'm confident it's pretty accurate that you know of other views where we're trying to show you the bike path railing or something we're never intended to serve that purpose they were intended to illustrate our ideas even though they're built on the same model the difference is you know when we when we put the drawing into the picture we can see that there's a little bit of the capital Plaza building standing up above it because it's a six-story tall building and this is a five-story tall building we could split hairs and say is it a taller or lower by a couple of feet but in the in the main I think this is a more than adequate representation of what the public would see of this project from various angles and I'll stand by our work front oh I do want to add one other thing now I'm just just on the point of whether or not I should give my 3d computer models to to members of the public so they can play with it I think if anybody in the public wants to challenge these things and they feel like they have expertise in it they're welcome to put something together of their own I don't see where they have to interfere with my contractor get my work product to do it but that's a personal opinion anything further board I had some questions on the exterior lighting and the landscaping could you talk a little bit about the exterior lighting plan and the where there will be exterior fixtures and about the lighting of the walkway that'll be between the hotel and the parking garage and also the types of fixtures it'll be along the bike path side so the project is comprised basically of pole lights 50-foot high city standard pole lights placed throughout the site by our lighting consultant those are used in tandem with building sconces that are placed regularly around the building elevations again the numbers and locations work out by the lighting consultant to get the correct and will they be on all the time or will they be on they'll be they'll be in one of two things either they'll be on a timer or they'll be set they have new software now where you can set up all of the lights on the system so they can dim down to certain percentage of light in throughout the night but there also be motion sensors so there's software that can go with it at very least they'll be on an actual on a timer and then I had a question about the landscaping is the the ground cover that's being proposed in kind of what is the sunken area is that landscaping that ground cover going to extend underneath the boardwalk or will there be a different type of ground cover that's underneath there underneath the broad work you're expecting gravel something like that would meant the city might use it for storage or anything like due to the lack of light coming down I'm not sure anything would live under there I'm not sure what the city intends to do if they wanted to pay that or whatever but we were just gravel so water would percolate down and flow down and I did have another question about bike parking is there any bike parking incorporated into this plan or is the expectation that the bike parking would be on the transit center lot and just thinking about how you had managed people using the fencing to lock their bikes up to which they probably will no matter what we do we had proposed to put a bike rack system on the second floor of the garage in one of the corners where there's no parking spaces it was suggested a design advisory today and it's something more amenable to put a bike rack out on the boardwalk area or adjacent to the boardwalk area but we're thinking there's two types of users there's bike path users who want to stop and do something versus maybe commuters who need a place to keep their bike all day so that's our plan for bike storage so that's like there will be a bike rack inside inside the garage level to okay and how many bikes would it accommodate you know nobody's given me a number I was I was just going to use the same standard that you use for lead which I think is like 5% of building occupants or something like that it's been a lot since I took my task but there's a there's a there's a leadership and environmental design standard for for providing bike storage we would do it as a percentage of that garage parking so would it take up one of the parking spaces or it would be somewhere it's it's in one of those neutral corners where you know you've got parking spaces going both ways there's no place to I don't yeah that gives us back to I think something that we were I think Meredith would be helpful to go through since we didn't quite I don't know that we nailed everything that design review had suggested someone asked Meredith go through all of their suggested proposals and then just want to make sure that nothing in there that you're in agreement with right I didn't repeat all seven or yeah so yeah so I'm going to read through all seven of the actual recommendations as well as the two options that were thrown in here keep in mind that some of these things don't fall within the 24 VSA 44 13 items that were actually you know supposed to be regulating but if everybody agrees to them and they're part of the site plan it's gonna be come part of the permit because it's on there so and some of these things were things that we've already discussed but I just want to make sure we are complete here so recommendations from the design review committee on a 5 to 0 vote today was to select the number one option for the large artwork panels so that would be the one that Greg described with the screen print behind the metal framing is that a good way to describe it and then having a public contest for the selection of the actual artwork to be printed on the screens provided that the artwork on the scrim shall be muted black and gray tones in color and subtle preferably echoing the neighborhood themes recommendation number two cornices shall be made out of either GF RC or a polymer composite material but shall be colored to resemble the gray granite used elsewhere on the building number three the decking for the boardwalk shall preferably be made from locally sourced black locust if that's not practicable is it IPA I pay sorry or another tropical hardwood to withstand the anticipated heavy use and weathering of the surface for use a smooth not rough finish for the granite portions of the garage because rougher faces are more apt to catch and hold dirt increasing maintenance costs five and this is five and seven are gonna kind of cover some similar ground but five chains of landscaping around the access between the proposed hotel and garage to invite access rather than hide the access to the pathway also open curbing for walkable access six clarify that the fencing and railings at the rear of the garage may be galvanized metal or black and color metal material back against the building and galvanized on the boardwalk area so they're they really want the railings that are actually part of the building to be black stuff on the railings on the boardwalk the galvanized metal but anything that's actually on the building black so it sort of sinks in a little bit and then recommendation seven clear markings and signage compatible with the wayfinding proposal by the month player alive to guide pedestrians and bicycles to the bike and walking paths along the river need to be included in the final designs then there's two optional items bike racks may be provided on the boardwalk as well as inside the parking garage and option to applicant may provide hardware for hanging temporary banners over the large artwork sections on the river side of the garage perhaps I bolts below the cornice work those were all agreeable to us so you're fine with all seven of them all seven of the recommendations yes okay at this point if there's no further comments we could close the public hearing in go ahead see if anybody else anything that I don't think was addressed please okay so I think this might be a question for James because it's about the lighting the type SL 8 lighting that you're going to be putting within the landscaped wells my understanding based on the one I didn't see any lumen outputs for those I did sort of an estimate that it's going to probably be less than a thousand lumens per eight watt fixture so if you could clarify that if possible I don't know if you can and then the definition of partially shield is is that the fixtures have to be aimed no for no higher than 45 degrees above straight down but I think your plan was to have them horizontally like 90 degrees right the idea is just to have that area the ground plane glow as just a sort of a highlight lighting to the landscape okay so but you could meet the partially shielded of making sure it points 45 no higher than 45 degrees right and it being in a well we don't think that we any like and for the I mean generally would you say it eight watt LED is at least let it's less than a thousand lumens I really don't know that I put in some charts for the board in my staff I don't know comments I in terms of foot candles yeah I mean we have that on the planet so you can see exactly how many oh okay foot all right you might have to put candles versus lumens I mean we would just use the basically this is low voltage lighting that is just very very minimal just to highlight down there also just to create a sort of level of safety at the ground plane just to keep it very very barely lit you know so there's no light cream but again just some light down there we can point them down at the 45 it's really whether or not you all are satisfied I'm I I'm okay but I'm not the one making the decision did you have anything else I don't have anything else that I found missing members members the public any further last minute comments testimony I would suggest that take a motion to close the public hearing so moved second it is there any further discussion among the board members before we take a vote on closing the public hearing I guess I was just curious on on the pros and cons of closing the hearing if we I guess if through our deliberations we found that there was more information that came up during the deliberations pros and cons of closing the hearing so if so if if you close the hearing and move to go close and move into deliberative session what you can do if you're in deliberative session and there are questions that come up that you don't have answers to in the material in the meeting minutes then we would have to reopen the hearing and we'd have to notice for a new hearing best if we address that now before we take the vote just make sure everybody feels like that that was the whole point of making sure nobody had any more questions correct I guess I was just I was just thinking about having a final site plan provided before making a decision on the project rather than going rather than closing the public here in which case that would be not closed public hearing so you want to continue it to the next hearing I guess I was trying to get a sense of the board on for me I'm thinking I see there are quite a few conditions and I guess I would appreciate some level of discussion on on how many conditions we were on considering attaching to the permit versus waiting to have a more finalized site plan provided so some of those conditions could be cleared opposite of them okay that opens up another perspective so what does the board feel about this I mean I feel like the site plans the applicants have provided are sufficient to review the project I don't think that I think they've said that everything this reflects the proposal if you're I mean and the the final plat as far as far as the subdivision goes we'll need to get filed and we can put conditions on what that final plat has to include on it as far as I mean that that's about it I think we're we looking at the site plan an amended site plan being provided for the hotel landscaping change for the tree or for the I was also just curious about if if if we were going to take the recommendation of the design committee and have some changes made would a final site plan be submitted that would incorporate the changes so you have two options you can have that final those final site plans resubmitted to this board for your approval at another at a continued hearing alternatively the conditions on the decisions that you issue can say that all of those final approved site plans and or subdivision flats for each of these three different permits can come to basically my office to the Department of Planning and to the zoning administrator and if the zoning administrator feels that they don't correspond with the conditions on the permits then I don't accept them and they don't get their permits until they actually meet up if there has been a change in the plans that they've made then we have to that has to happen that is a material change where it would change it would potentially change this decision it would come back to the board because as a zoning administrator the zoning administrator can't accept that it basically reopens the whole permit that you have to meet the conditions or they don't so I mean you have two options well you can go back here yeah but let's off again we have three and we can take them individually or we can take them together so we want to address them one time we can do that yes and I clear I appreciate your question and it seems to me that that with Meredith's assistance because she's been taking really good notes on the various sort of agreements and tweaks the question is whether or not we're comfortable closing the the hearing now but having that running list of requirements as we deliberate and and and then that would be reflected in the final site plan and that gives us the ability to also tweak it as we see fit you know in our conversation we may we may you know we may have other thoughts that come out so so I think we can meet your concerns but also you know close the hearing I'm comfortable with that anyway so let me go back to the motion that's on the table of the moment which is to close the public hearing not to move into deliberative session but to close the public hearing and we didn't specify is that for all or is that for one so I'd suggest we I mean they're all interrelated I suggest we just treat them that we close the public hearing for all three and move into deliberative session okay so I would accept an amended motion that Deb I said my friend my friendly amendment that's great Tom do you second with the friendly amendments okay so now we have a devise motion is there a devise motion is to close the public hearing for all three applications and for the board to move into deliberative session further discussion seeing that there is none all those in favor of the motion please raise your right hand thank you everybody thank you we are now going to move into do you want to finish the agenda this is DRC agenda you do yours I just got my I've got my notes if people want to chat loudly need to move out so that we can also hear each other to finish the rest of the hearing for the meeting sorry hey I have no further business I think our next meeting announcement yep our next meeting announcement it's November 19 I don't think I have anything else no I have nothing to add okay I'll accept a motion to adjourn okay all those in favor of adjourning please raise your right hand