 Welcome to the Monday, January the 3rd, 2022 Happy New Year everyone to the meeting of the design review committee in Montpelier. I will let members introduce themselves and staff. Merit of Crandall staff. Stephen Everett member. Eric Gilbertson member. Okay, we have everyone here. I at this point we can let the staff Meredith review the remote meeting procedures and process. All right, so a lot of this is for anybody who's watching via orca and wants to join in on the meeting. I'm going to share my screen here for them so that they can find how to do it if they need to. So for those. I don't think I brought my normal cheat sheet. Okay, so for those viewing this meeting via orca media. You can participate in tonight's design review committee committee meeting via the zoom platform following this link here. Or by calling into the meeting using this phone number. And then you'll have to plug in this meeting ID. Even if we're part way into the meeting and you suddenly realize that there's an application you're interested in and you have a comment on, you can log into the meeting while it's in process. And then we'll we'll be able to see you pop up and let you have comments. If you're anyone is trying to access the meeting and is having problems, please email me at this phone at this email address down here. I'll have my email up throughout the meeting. Um, like I said a minute ago I forgot my little cheat sheet of my spiel but I think I can get most of it. If you are on via zoom, we ask that you please stay muted when you're not talking. We don't have any members of just the general public on tonight so far. It looked like it was all applicants. So we shouldn't have to worry too much about people raising their hands to make comments, but we do ask that you wait to be recognized by the chair before you speak. And, and Steve will guide you all through that process. If you are having any issues with the zoom interface is use the chat function for that. However, please restrict your chat use to those issues for technical issues or other other non substantive issues. If you have a substantive question or something that comes up, please do raise your hand either physically or using the zoom raise hand button and Steve will call on you or I'll one of us will flag it for him and we'll we'll get that all working. If you want to find out via email that members of the public are trying to access this meeting and they can't. We will have to continue this meeting to a time and place certain. I will now hand this back over to the chair. Thank you. Unless anyone has anything to add at this point. Do I hear a motion to approve the agenda. Do I hear a second. I'll second it. You're Eric you're muted. I'm sorry to interrupt. I'm in a very quiet room. I apologize for not being down there tonight, but we have company. No, that's okay. They won't they're not going to participate. Okay. So we have a we have a motion and a second all in favor of the agenda speak your names. And Steve Everett. I'll go to the first applicant for four land and street might peel your property management for Benton nails bistro. And is someone here from. Benton nails bistro. Yes, I'm here. Aaron England. Okay. Thank you. First question before we go through the review is, did you get the engineer's report? No, no engineers report. Should we move forward without the engineers report or is that a moot point? I mean, that's for the, the Chris lumber have requested the engineers report for the building permit. For the awning. For the design review committee's input on everything else within their preview. I think, you know, unless. Unless the design review committee. Feels that at least for the awning. They need the engineers report. To make a decision on that awning. I could not approve it without. An engineer's report because I think the fasting is. I've dealt with buildings and Ben you sure have to. The fastening is insufficient to hold a snow load. Particularly. And even what's up there. I don't disagree that the fastening or the sort of structure feels. Minimal at. And so I guess your point, Eric, is that. That's not a complete design for you to be able to. Evaluate and tell you see how. What other fastening may or may not be required. If, if we approved it, it would be certainly be conditional on the engineers report. As far as I could see, I mean. I don't know. You know what the materials are the braces. I don't know how heavy that tubing is, but the. The fastening is. To the wall as there as I can figure out is with. Three nails and two number eight or 10 screws. The. I did a little research. The hood is from a 57 Chevy V8. And it's amazing what you can find on the internet, but it weighs approximately 65 pounds. And is about 20 fair square feet. So it could. The snow load code is 50 pounds of square foot. So theoretically that hood could be required to support. 5,000 pounds. Yeah. Yeah. I'm reasonably certain those fast things would not allow, would not. Hold that. It just seems. Sort of the cart before the horse to approve this, if they have to be based on engineering. If they have to propose a different mounting system for it, which would mean they would have to come back again. To have approval. Can I say something? I don't have any. I would say I would have to go back to the table and I'll just take the thing down because. To get an engineer to come. I, I, you know. We just can't afford that. So. I think what we're more interested in are the other things that we've proposed. That do not need engineering. So is there a way that we can. Kind of prove those things. And I will just take the awning down. I think the same. I think that the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the building on the building. That the fast things be. Secure and appropriate for the weight, the windblow. And. And all of that. And. Also have a concern with. Fasting and penetrating the building. And. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. The other concern is the proposed location of the shark on the side of the building is right under the. Eve. And if snow load comes off of that, it's going to. Destroy both the. Particularly if there's any ice that comes off, it's going to destroy the sculpture as well as tear it off the building. Again, I think it, if you want to propose anything, I think an engineer needs to look at it. At location as well as the attachment. And again. Whether we approve or disapprove the application. If anything needs to be changed, you'd have to come back anyway. So. I'm a little concerned. That we don't. I mean, I, while I agree with about. Making sure things don't fall off buildings. And. Hurt people. I'm not certain that we. Apply that same standard to. A lot of various different signs that we. You know. That go up that. I guess I'm thinking back to. The. Book spoiler sign. And that was basically. A precedent that that thing was already there, but I don't know that we asked. We did. We did, Ben. I remember. Talking about that. And it's securing and making sure somebody. Those fast things. To the. To the wall. And again, and again, most of the overhanging signs have a very minimal. Area. That's subject to weather issues. It's certainly vertical. Weather issues like snow and snow and ice coming off of roofs. And I know that snow and ice comes off of this roof here. Because I was on the other side of the street one day when probably about 400 pounds. Of snow and ice came off that all at one shot. Oh, and they closed the sidewalk over there because it. Yes. I'm aware that that is certainly. I'm more just. Checking in. Like. What is our. Sort of. Your jurisdiction sort of. Yeah. Yeah. So. The, I mean, there is a. Requirement and it's more for signs, but where that the support structures for them. Still need to. Be compatible with the building. So. In, in, you know, especially for the awning concerns about the supports for it. And how it's fastened to the building. I think kind of come into play, even though that's normally talked about with. With regards to signs. With regard to. You know, if you're talking. You know, damage to historic or character. Historic materials, character defining features. That's something that comes into, you know, the actual safety of it. Isn't really the design review committees. Per view. That's something that I'm. I don't know. I do think though, that if. We have a concern about those issues. That. We should raise. Yep. No, I think having that on the record that those are concerns of yours. Are definitely things to say. I'm happy to speak with you. And I know that. You know, I don't think that's something that's. You know, I don't know that. I'm not sure if. You know, I don't know that. That's something that I'm. In conference with both department of public works about and with. Chris Lumbra specifically with Chris Lumbrer about the awning. There's definitely things to say. I'm not sure that it goes to the actual, how many of the criteria that you look at for design review, but those go to, you know, the. Okay, I mean, we can always go through the criteria based on the application and then vote on that and move it forward one way or the other. And it, you might need to have, you know, if there's particular aspects of the application that come up, whether it's the octopus or the shark or the awning, different parts that you're more concerned with, with regard to each of these criteria, I would just make sure to point those out. You know, I also just add the shark, for example, has been hanging on the outside of my gallery in Marshfield for three plus years now in the same type of position under, under awning and in the weather. So I would say it's more than proven that it's not going anywhere. Those things I take very seriously and I realize this is not going to affect your decision but the awning was tested also at my place before I ever thought about putting it up. I'm not into putting people's safety at risk simply to display my artwork. So I didn't want you to feel like I'm just trying to do that because I was actually hoping to create a safer environment because that front step ledge is horrible the way it was and very dangerous without an awning and a railing. So I was actually trying to do the opposite of what you're thinking it's doing apparently. So just out of curiosity, I assume your, your studio is that spot on, right on route two there with the penguin and... Yes, yes, great. Yeah, I love driving by there. Nice spot there. Thank you. Yeah, you should stop in some time. The inside is impressive also. Yeah, cool. I like that penguin a lot. Can I put that on the side of the building? Might be nice over the river just in case. It is a boat. It's an old boat. Okay, what we'll do then is we'll, we can move forward and I'll just review the criteria and then based on each one, I will get some feedback from the other two committee members about what your feelings are. What are we looking at the shark? The application is for the whole thing. It's for the railings, the hood, the shark, the octopus, the snake on the side, the whole thing. So I'll go through and any reaction you have would be to all of the above, all of them collectively because that's what the application is for. Not for each individual piece, one at a time, but all collectively. So for all projects and the design review district, exterior design and materials of new construction or alterations of existing buildings shall be consistent and compatible with the characteristics of the existing building or other properties in the district. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize the historic property shall be avoided. There's no removal. Character defining features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize an historic building shall be preserved. Deteriorated character defining features shall be repaired rather than replaced where the severity of deterioration, there's no deterioration here existing. And see, any treatments that cause damage to historic materials, including but not limited to chemical or physical treatments such as sandblasting shall not be approved. So committee members, what is your feeling regarding that? Is that acceptable or unacceptable? I say it's unacceptable for a couple of reasons. One is that the hood certainly obscures some distinctive architectural features. And I think one could say the same thing about the other two pieces. I'm concerned that fastening is actually doing damage to the building for the reason that the screws that are out in the weather like that, they're not stainless steel, I don't believe. And in any case, they're going to attract water and allow rotting that will, the first thing that will happen is the screws will lose some of their strength. And there it is damaging the historic fabric of the building. And Ben, what is your take? I'm curious about the, there was, in that description about craftsmanship and it was more about the craftsmanship of the building than it was what was being applied to it. Mm-hmm, yeah. Yeah, it's saying that they need to be preserved. Yeah. And then the other question was that the exterior design shall be in alterations of existing buildings, should be consistent and compatible with the characteristics of the existing building or other properties in the district. So do you find the changes compatible with the existing building or any other buildings in that area? I definitely have a problem with that, partly because I take the shark, for example, it's one of the characteristics of the building is the clabber siding, the fenestration patterns. And this is large enough to, and distracting enough to obscure and distract from that characteristic. I mean, I disagree with that. I feel like these are art pieces that are being attached to a building that are not permanently altering the building. I think it's similar to the murals that have been painted on the brick building that they are large enough and would distract from the character defining of those buildings and are removable if you're talking about the shark in that way or the octopus in that way. I feel like these are not permanent applications to this building, but are sort of art pieces that could be taken down. I like the art pieces as art pieces. I like art pieces and have several of myself that are made out of found materials. I think it's very creative and everything. I think it is, I just don't think pieces as large as this are compatible with the historic character of the building. And I guess I would have to agree with Eric for the same reason in terms of compatibility with the existing building. That's a very old building that's been preserved, gone to great extent to be preserved that was originally on Main Street. It was actually moved back to its current location years ago and it has a lot of interesting features and I'm not sure that the artwork has applied again. I'm looking at that alterations, consistent and compatible with the characteristics of the existing building or other properties and I would have to agree with Eric, but I could just write down that it was two to one. Number two, existing buildings shall be recognized as a physical record of their time, place and use. Any new development shall be differentiated from the old but shall respect and be compatible with the massing size, scale, architectural features detailing and overall character of the primary historic building and nearby historic properties. This one typically is more to do with, say an addition on a building, but I didn't wanna say that this one was completely not applicable to this because it's not something that says that it can only be applied to additions. This is where the design review guidelines that the Historic Preservation Commission is coming up with will I think help when it comes to interpreting how to apply these, we're just not there yet. Okay, so if any new development has to do with additions to the building, then this one would not be applicable. Right, but it's a little fuzzy. Okay. I think the hood over the doors is considered an addition to the building. The other things, maybe not. I mean, I guess I feel like it would take 15, 20 minutes to pull that thing down, if that was like, and I guess like anything that I imagine that is like an actual addition to the building is like deeply built into the building. Okay, then we can just make a call that that's not applicable in this particular application. Yeah, I'm good with that. Down on the bottom, number five, alterations to buildings called for by public safety, accessibility, and fire codes shall be designed to maintain the character of the construction materials and features to the maximum extent feasible. And again, this is really just for the railing. I'm sorry. No, it's okay. My apologies. This is really just for the railing. Okay. The railings are fine, as far as I'm concerned. I have no problem with the railings. Neither do I. Okay. So, number five is acceptable for the railing only. And again, it's a safety feature. Number 12, architectural features. Architectural features, including but not limited to cornices, windows, shutters, fan lights, and tabulator, trim, and other forms of molding or character defining detailing, prevailing on the existing building. Shall be considered in the alteration of a building. Eric, would you call that applicable in this particular case? Yes. Okay. Because I think the hood covers up the end tablature for the door. Right. And it's, you know, the materials are not compatible. And Ben, what is your take on it? Well, it kind of goes back to the, like, how built in is this? If this was like a built in permanent fixture to the building, I would agree with Eric that this is not compatible with that building. If it is a piece of art that is attached to the building that also happens to keep the rain off the side of the building and it's not compatible with the building. If it is attached to the building that also happens to keep the rain off the step, then I don't quite feel the same way. And again, the summation of that, of number 12 is architectural features shall be considered in the alteration of a building. And again, it doesn't have to be a permanent, something more permanent in the sense of an overhang or of an enclosure or some kind of a roof support that's meant to be permanent. Yeah. I would have to agree with Eric on this one as well for the same reasons. But I'll let you make your call. Yeah. I view it as a piece of art that is applied to the building. Okay. So I'd call that two in favor and one not in favor. Yeah. Well, two. Two not in favor. I'm sorry, two not in favor, one in favor. I think none of the pieces of art we have approved concealed architectural features at all. Right. I think it's a great addition to downtown to have our art around. But I, our, our. Part of our design review. Charge is to protect the historic buildings. And being an historic preservation person, I take that very seriously and don't want to see anything done. The damage is historic buildings. Art or otherwise. Well, I have to take a little offense to that Eric, because it seems memories are a bit short. The amount of time and money we've put into that building to not only preserve it, but make it better than it's been the last couple of decades from what I'm told. So we're certainly not trying to do anything to harm the building. In that respect. We've brought that place back. Inside and outside all three floors and the basement actually has a lot to do with it. We've brought that place back. We've brought that place back. We've brought that place back. To a place that it is not seen in, in decades. So I think that that should be at least. I appreciate what you're doing to the building. But that doesn't mean that an individual part of it. What you're doing. It does not have the potential to cause damage. It's not. We're using the building. It's great. I don't know everything you've done inside. But. I think it's great. It's just that. The art proposals particularly. I think have the potential to do damage to the building. And are incompatible. Particularly the hood. So. What's the. Your, your, your. Your stainless steel screws can be used. They can be rubberized and cocked. So. Those, those arguments don't really. That could be easily solved. As far as that kind of. Damage possible damage done. So. Again, I'm not exactly sure. They haven't damaged my building. Like I said, they've been on them for years. So. It's, it's tested. And I know it's not going to sway your, your opinion. Obviously you where you are, but I have to say that for the record. It's, it's, you know, I don't, I don't do these things. Very easily. I know what I'm doing. I don't know what I'm doing. I don't know what I'm doing. I don't know what I'm doing. I don't know what I'm building and hope it stays up. I do have a little more skill than that. So. I just hope that. Taking into account before your final vote. I appreciate your view and. And that. I. I do like to see art and creative things being done with buildings downtown. It's not, not, not that part of it. I don't know what I'm doing. Maybe, maybe this will turn into me just asking, is there any place. At all. Then on the building that you would approve something. Maybe we go from that angle because. This seems like. A time waste for everyone to keep trying to. Doing that. So I would take your advice on that. You could just tell me, no, if, if that's going to be. I would certainly. Like your opinions on that. Before we go backwards back up. To the. Earlier criteria. The last one. That. Staff suggests not applicable. His porches and stairs on historic structures. It says, I would suggest that the application of porches, ramps and stairs shall be placed on a manner that does not impact or undermine the original and significant ornament. Ornamentation or detailing of the existing building. I would. So that was just that sub part. That was suggesting not applicable. And then there's other sub parts. And then it says stairs, ramps and porches. So employees. buildings and new construction and stairs and ramps will be designated on a matter with details and materials that provide the most sensitive and compatible structure that fits the building design and layout. So stairs, ramps, porches employ suitable detailing to connect and be compatible with the historic and important design features of existing buildings. This one's a little weird because this isn't, they're not adding a porch or stairs. The stairs were already there. Yes. They're just adding the railing. So it's just one of those ones where it's a little funky as to how much of it would really apply to this particular situation. But I wanted to make sure that I didn't just decide it was all not applicable when maybe the committee would disagree. You have any feelings on that, Eric? Yeah, I can see how it would not apply, but it's not, this is really porches and stairs. The only thing that gets involved with porches and stairs is the octopus. Yeah. How I would, I would just call that not applicable because it doesn't, it doesn't really, it doesn't really address what's being applied for. I would agree with that. So the main, the two issues that had a split decision on where exterior design and materials of new construction or alterations shall be consistent and compatible with the characteristics of the existing building or other properties in the district. And number 12 was the architectural features. And again, the, anything added onto the building shall be considered in the, in the existing features, architectural features of the building. And again, one of the requirements is that anything added does not obscure any of the architectural features of the building. The hood over the entry does somewhat, but it does leave much of it visible, but the question again is everything that's proposed. Is that compatible with the characteristics of the, the existing building or other properties and the district. I keep coming back to the word additions in there that I feel like these are very temporary. New, new construction or alterations. Yeah, I don't see them as an alteration either. I, Ben, I disagree. I think it is an alteration in the sense that these are not similar materials. And Aaron, a little bit to supply to reply to you is that there's a bigger picture of compatibility. Maybe it is not appropriate to add sculptures of this size. And of the materials which I like. Maybe it is not appropriate on a historic building. Yes. This is a very dangerous word, Eric. It's art, you know, doesn't really sit well with me. I don't know what's appropriate as far as artwork goes and anyway, you know what, I, it's okay, it's okay. I don't, I don't, it's obvious where we're headed with this and I don't want to waste anybody else's time. Yeah, I'm sorry. Before we have any, anything irrevocable said, I just step in procedurally. Just that you're aware because we haven't really had this discussion yet. If you're disagreeing with what the design review committee is saying, you do have the option to bump this up to the development review board, right the development review board can step in as, as, as sort of a judge to take a fresh look so I'm sure you do have that option we very rarely have this kind of back and forth. But, but that is an option after tonight. If you want to do that, right. That's no, there's no guarantee that the development review board would have a different opinion than the design review committee but we can talk about that tomorrow if you want. The options are going forward. I do need as a zoning administrator I do need the design review committee's input and for them to have a final vote before we close this out tonight so And again we are only an advisory committee and they're just advisory, right. So they give guidance on how either I have a development review board apply the design regulations. And, and so that's just so you know, okay. Sure I understand I appreciate that I guess what I was getting is like I said in the beginning if we could take the awning off the board. It seems that the functionality of some of my artwork is confusing people. And I get that. And so when we're just simply talking about sculpture and artwork that doesn't necessarily have any functionality. Maybe it's seen differently. And we, I could use that mural on the brick building I you know I don't understand how that's different. That could be explained, but that that's what I was talking about taking the awning off the board I'll just take it down. You know, if that's the big problem here, it sounds like it is. Well, again, your input on that. And you can say we approve you know we're okay with certain parts and not other parts of the application, if that is the conclusion. So, would you approve any portions of the application, you have the existing to the Chevy hood, plus the, the art on top of the hood. And then you have the other piece of art on the next to the corner board and the front of the building is a dragon slash snake octopus and the shark. And then the octopus and the shark on the sides of the building. Do you do you find any of those pieces as alterations compatible with the characteristics of the building or other properties in the district. I'm thinking I haven't disappeared. Not really because of the impact on the historic character of the building. Certainly be fine with them as freestanding objects I have no problem with that at all. I know they don't work that way but just for the sake of discussion. And what are your thoughts Ben. I don't disagree with Aaron in that I don't see a huge distinction between any of the murals that we've chosen to put up on any of the buildings and this sculpture. I do hear the concerns about it falling off the building I do hear concerns especially. I think it would fall off the building when the snow fell off the building, or that would be the moment it would fall off the building. And I feel like the snow is the bigger problem than the, than the sculpture itself. I think that these are pieces of art that actually will draw the eye to the building that people might actually notice some of its historical components that they may not have seen before. Because now they're looking at the building in a more unique and possibly critical way whether they like or dislike the art they're actually paying attention to the building. So, that's, I feel okay about putting these things up with some consideration to, which is out of our purview about whether they were to fall off the building what would happen. So you would be okay with all of the components. I'm okay certainly with yeah all the components I do have concerns about the hood from a, from a person that spends time building structural things over people's heads I have concerns about that one. But again I don't feel like that's my, my role here. And I have a combination of concerns about the, the size and number of pieces of art on the building. And I think that number is a fair concern that seemed to overwhelm the building a little bit, as well as the structural issues. And again, if those, if those pieces, or the structural components of the overhang that the hood Chevy hood are not starting enough to be acceptable from an engineering and a building code concern. Then that would have to be changed if it were to remain. And that's unfortunate that it have to come back for an entire, you know, for a modification of the application, as it is, and based on those based on the criteria that we are obligated to review the projects by I would, I would find the application as it is unacceptable myself. I hear the concern about number of pieces, numbered size of pieces related to the size of the building. I hear that concern. They are. I mean the other, the, the artwork on some of the other buildings are either single piece or some murals painted on a lower portion of a very, very large building brick building. And it's only on one side, not three sides of the building. And it's down on the ground and it's it doesn't project out. And it doesn't have any safety issues. I just see that as a is a different, different scale. The materials, the paint materials, I mean, we paint buildings that materials are compatible with the painting as well. I might be less concerned with sculpture on the river side. Because that's not a, a, you know, it's a, it's a part of the building that has been, it's not a flat plain, like the own street side, or a primary facade like Langan Street side. I have a question. I don't know whether it's related or not, but did you ever figure out the conduits. I haven't Eric I've, I've, because last time we talked about that was last Monday and I haven't worked since last Monday. Aaron I have a question we approved the lights but I particularly the one on the corner but I believe that was a solar light, and now there's conduit running to it that to me obscures part of the window tram and, and that kind of kind of thing and I don't know when that was installed. The solar lights prove ineffective and simply we're not working. So we found the same lumens that were approved. And what we thought were the same type of lighting. So it's the same light, essentially. I'm not concerned about that as much as a conduit running on the building. Okay well we, we were under the impression that it was the looms that were anything. I think that were the change that significant it should have come back to design review. So, Aaron will, there's there's a couple of different layers to it. The design review committee needs to look at any changes that have an impact on the outside of the building. So, adding the conduit to get to the different light, the lumens and everything is just the zoning permit, the bigger zoning permit that's something that the DRC doesn't look at. That's something I looked at before I could approve the lights. So it's, well, we'll have to go back and look at the, what the permit actually approved if it was specifically for a solar light. But, but outside of that, the, you know, we've only got three members of a five member panel. So, with three, you have to have all three votes in favor to get the design review committee's approval. I should say maybe a design review committees. Yeah, approval blessing. Yeah, blessing. Yes. We're voting on. Pardon Eric. I missed we're voting. I haven't, there hasn't been a vote yet. I was just trying to make sure that everybody was aware that. Yeah, all three of you are going to have to agree on a final recommendation or blessing or not for. Good. Eric, before you asked about lumens you were talking about how you felt that putting art on the riverside was more acceptable to you. Do you want to talk a little bit more about that. The proposal is the octopus on the riverside and that kind of yard and protected by the porch. And I think we're appropriate for the riverside. It's just that. That's all. I mean, I agree that I think that that is a place to be able to put some, an object like that that is out of harm's way, and is possibly a pretty difficult thing to attach to a building but I think it speaks to the river I think it speaks to the piece of art on the other side attached to the Lachlan Smith kind of rock dangler. And I think there's reason that that should be found acceptable. And what about the two pieces on the front of the building and the hood. I hear your concerns about it being overwhelming and it and I feel like I can hear that there's too many pieces that that is a that is a fair concern that I hear. It's a combination of the number of pieces and the size of them in relation to the building. Steve. Yes, just a thought. And this is something that Aaron can say yay or nay too as well. Given some of the input, and especially the thought about potentially pairing back some of the pieces or maybe shifting some of them who knows. Would the committee be open to having Aaron come back in two weeks with perhaps a modified application. Yes. Yes, that would that would certainly be acceptable and again some either Chris Lumber or somebody who can say that that you know the supports for that overhang. And that that is the final design for those supports that will hold 1000 pounds or whatever the load requirement is. Because it doesn't make any sense to approve something that's not going to be acceptable code wise, but because then that design has to come back. I would agree with that too. I would be concerned about any fast fastening the load on the shark. It's significant with snow coming off the roof. And even the little piece on the front. I don't know what to call the creature but that has the potential of falling and I think parts of that are. I would need to have somebody be very clear that the fast things are appropriate. The other the other issue on the front of the building with the whatever you call that snake or sea creature or whatever you used to describe it. The location of that should be moved to make sure it does not interfere or obstruct any of the architectural features again that's a requirement as well. And even the corner board should be should not be covered by any of the artwork. If that was moved around to the river side, or it's not like not possible or to call it. Again the art should add it to a building should compliment the building and not overwhelm it or create safety issues. And again I know that some of that is subjective but if you would be willing to come back to another meeting with maybe some modifications. I would probably take anything off leave everything off the building on the on street side again because of the issues with snow load coming off that building. And the past heavy ice has come off of that enough that it could actually have killed somebody fortunately, it's frequently been barricaded to keep people from going by. And I myself wouldn't add anything to that side that projects in any way shape or form that we could be either ripped off the building or cause any further safety concerns. Aaron Aaron one of the things the committee does not as quickly as I'd like it but we can have informal discussions about this without presenting a formal application. And I don't know what the what the fee deal is on coming back for a second time. No, no, no fee for coming back in two weeks if we just say that this is continued and we we move it forward to two weeks from now. And then for future projects, definitely you can come before the design review committee for like an informal discussion before you submit an actual application with fees. And part of part of it was that you've gotten stuff up and then we needed to get everything in before you put up more our work and get get you before the committee. I would. I think the conduit is not part of this application. It was put up on the front of the building but I think that needs to come back. I've got to go. I've got to go back and look at how the permit was actually worded Eric. Yeah, I'm just concerned that it obscures architectural features. Yep, I hear you. Would you be willing to come back in a couple of weeks with some modifications. It's not that I'm not willing I just go back to my previous question of I think that the river size the only allowable place for artwork, then that's what I'm looking for that you know I want to make sure I don't want to apply for anything that you're obviously not going to approve so that's that's what you're telling me I'd like to know that in advance and then I would happily reapply. I think that's the part of the, the informal discussions that we've had with a number of applicants. When questions come up about things and you get an idea what we're thinking and we can have a lot of formal discussion about it. Okay, sure. Sounds fair. Steve, it sounds like if they if Aaron and careers could come up with documentation about the, the awning slash canopy like that would be one thing you would potentially be looking for and I know that Chris lumber is looking for that as well to be able to issue a building permit for that he wasn't going to issue a building permit is my understanding without some more documentation about that being able to withstand snow load. Yeah, Meredith, I really don't think that's going to happen we can't. Yeah, I'm just gonna have to take it down. I'm sorry. No, no, I hear you. So, so any future awnings or anything you want to put over that you talked to Chris first, I got the message thank you. Okay. Yeah, an awning there would be smart to protect those steps from especially from ice because that's you don't always see that. And then you are all talking maybe smaller potential art installations, not quite as many and the river side being more, more prefer a more preferable side of the building is what it's like, especially from Steve and Eric. That sounds like a good summary. I think so. And then you were sort of an outlier between you three and then we may also have additional members in two weeks who are attending. And I would just throw this out Eric and Aaron that I would be happy to meet someday to do an informal review and just kind of look at the building and look at some ideas and understand some of your methods for attachment. So, I would be really in an informal review. If that was helpful or desired or. I'd be happy to do that. So, sure. Okay, great. Thank you. As long as everybody reports on it at the next meeting. It's between now and then. And again, there's only two of you. Right. And again, one of the advantages obviously of mounting things on the river side is that you're under an existing roof with supports that have have withstood the test of time so far. And then there are no issues with no structural issues with snow loads or other attachments because you're underneath that upper porch, which gives you a lot of protection and ease of access as well. So, if you would be willing to come back in a couple of weeks with the proposal to move some of the items. I would, I would like to see you back. Okay, sounds fair. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Aaron. So we'll appreciate your time. Thank you. So that'll be continued to January 18th. Yes. Same time. It's a Tuesday, Aaron. Okay, because Monday is a holiday and the city hall will be closed. So it'll be Tuesday, January 18th, 530. I'm just going to give you that back on unfilled and on. All right. Luckily we don't have a development review board meeting at seven because we have half an hour to get through two applications. Okay. We'll move. Aaron, I'll be in the office tomorrow if you feel like calling. Okay, thank you, Mary. Thank you. Thank you for your time and thanks. Thank you for your willingness to try to make some accommodations and come back. We appreciate it. Thank you. Okay. Okay, goodbye. You can go forward to the next application for 51 Berlin Street, John and Maria Quadros. And here to describe the application. Yeah, this is Lori Bergart from Accelerate Permits. Okay. You have her name. Okay. Good. Go ahead and describe your application for the change. So what they would like to do is remove the existing drive through menu board for the Duncan Donuts. And do a replacement. It's going to be a new menu board that's mounted on a canopy, which it also offers like the ordering speaker. And the new menu board would be mounted on that canopy. The menu board is monitored against the wall on the canopy. Actually, the structure is mounted through the ground. It's not attached to the building. Okay. So here's the picture of what the new one would look like with the roof on it. So the current one is attached, I think, pretty much right to the building. And here's this new structure and is that the sort of speakers in the middle with a double screen one on either side, Lori? Yeah, exactly. Actually, the existing is not mounted to the building. It is mounted to the ground. It has a steel cage, so it's bolted to that steel cage. And so it's standalone. Okay, thank you. Alright, to go standpoint, I like the idea of an awning and avoid getting my car wet. That's where you have your window open. So basically, you're just replacing what's there now with a little different design and some improvements in the visual. Yeah, it's an upgraded. The new menu board is upgraded with new technology. Yes. And then the awning overhead to keep the rain and snow out of your window while you're trying to order your food. Yes. Is the awning roof, the red is shown in the diagram. And that's an accurate color representation. As far as I know it is. So is it going to be sort of the Dunkin Donuts sort of orangey color? Yes. Yes. Any committee members have any comments, questions, suggestions of any kind? Fine was me. Okay. I'm sure Dunkin Donuts has thought about it, but 10 feet feels low for an awning if I'm trying to drive my truck through there. That's not my problem. I guess you have a large truck. You have to go inside. I hope people with tall roof racks realize, do you have a sign that indicates the height of the awning in case that became a problem? Sure. So on the side of the awning, it actually does list the clearance, you know, just like in the other times you do a drive through. So it does show the clearance as being 10 feet. Okay. That doesn't help much uncovered bridges, but. Well, I would hope anyone in a box truck would park in the parking lot and walk in. Have you, have you had trucks drive through the drive through? You know what, I've never heard of anyone having an issue with Dunkin Donuts I have run into in my experience more though Walgreens pharmacy drive-throughs, but never for Dunkin Donuts canopy. Okay. Too bad they don't make those overhangs with a, a break away. So if somebody hit it, it would actually rotate rather than break. That's a good idea. But on some of the covered bridges, they're thinking about putting up steel beams. So it lowers the truck enough that they can get through. Squeeze it down. And again, that's not a design issue as much as, I mean, a break away would be nice in case the thing would just rotate instead of breaking off. But I mean, hopefully people read, read the sign for the, for the height. We can't fix stupid drivers anyway. No. Okay, unless anybody has anything else we can run through the criteria for this one. For new construction again, this is exterior design and materials of new construction or alterations of existing building shall be consistent and compatible with the characteristics of the existing building or other properties in the district. New construction shall be considered to be compatible if the materials use possess a kind or type that are appropriate to the district. The material selected shall either fit the neighborhood context of the proposed building and or reflect the nature and use of the structure, acceptable. Existing building shall be recognized as a physical record or their time place in use acceptable at this location location and appearance of all utilities mechanical equipment trash storage and fencing shall be cited to minimize adverse and visual inequity and appropriately screened from public view. The location of this new board on the side of the building is acceptable. And outdoor lighting fixtures the structural design of outdoor lighting fixtures shall be compatible with the architectural design and function of the building and compatible with the neighborhood. This signboard at this location on the side of the building is acceptable. This is a criteria for new buildings only accessory buildings and structures. Well, so it's accessory structures. This is kind of an accessory structure. Okay. Sorry. An accessory structure, new accessory buildings or structures shall be located within either the side yard or rear yard and shall not visually disrupt the streetscape or alter the integrity of the existing building and propose new building acceptable. All in favor of the application speak your names. Benjamin and Steve Everett. So the vote is three in favor. Approved. And I'll let you describe the next step for them. So Lori, because there weren't any comments or any tweaks to the recommend on the recommendation form to the project. We will get this permit is sent out in the next couple of days. Do hold on trying to go back to my form. Double check. So we actually have you as the only contact for this. Maybe you could email me with who we should actually send the permit to because the, there's going to be a permit and then there's going to be a blue notice card that needs to get posted at the Dunkin Donuts location. So we can have somebody from there come and pick it up or we could mail it, but I don't think you want us to mail the permit and the blue notice card to Arizona. Actually, you know what I'll email you because I represent the sign company. And so I will send you my project manager's information. Perfect. To be sent to them. Awesome. And do you have, I had my email address up at the beginning and it's on the planning department website, but do you have it otherwise. I do have it. Yes, I do. Okay. Perfect. Thank you, Lori. Great. Thank you so much. The record for our longest doing. We have probably hit the record for the longest zoom for DRC so far. Thank you very much for your application and good luck with your project. Thank you very much. We can move on to the next application for 118 Main Street owner Malone properties Hugo's restaurant group. And this is the review of the placement of three new awning signs with lighting. And as someone here from Hugo's to describe the application. I'm green. I'm here and I'm also joined by Erica from wooden wood who is doing the sign work. And so I'm going to refer to her for most questions since they were a bit above my pay grade. Okay, thank you. Hi. Hello. Erica, just so you know, I didn't circulate the, the slight updates you sent us about the sign change. I do have it electronically so I can share it so that they can see about that one. Awning about the piano bar being tweaked on that sign. But I went through the numbers and it doesn't change anything for the larger zoning aspect of it. So we'll be able to show it to the DRC members. Great. Great. So you go ahead and can describe what's up. Oh, great. Okay, so thanks for having us tonight. Happy New Year. We are the location is Hugo's restaurant. We are doing a new three parts. Well, it's to one a and B and number two. The first is the actual facious sign. We have one large facious sign that goes across the front of the building that you can probably see on several different angles that we've provided. That's on the right. That's on the awning, right? Correct. There's a metal. Well, the left part, which is the second part is the awning sign. So to talk about the first part, which is as Hugo's bar and grill across the top, there's a metal structure there that we are going to attach a eighth inch die bond to have that here. And then with some particular screws in which to call them out hex on screws. That'll be attached to the already established metal frame that's there. There'll be two logos on that part. One is very long and then it's 1224 feet by nine by 14 inches. That's the one you see across the top right there. Hugo's bar and grill. Correct. Yes, that metal piece. So it's just going to be that front part that's going to be that very thin eighth inch thick aluminum die bond, which is a die bond aluminum composite, which is used incredibly often. The second part is the Hugo's where it goes above the door bar and grill. That area is 14 feet by 11. As far as I have here, I'm sorry, eight by eight by three, I believe, and 14 inches as well for that logo area. The high point is 28 inches on the V top above there. Again, die bond. It's going to be painted. It's going to be black and white painted flat on that that logo itself plus the line bars. The total square footage that we are allowed that I'm understood as 132 square feet. This itself, including the awning sign will be 13.79 square feet. So that gives us a bit of flexibility. The second area is the Hugo side. I'm sorry, let's go back and just discuss the lighting. I'm sure you're going to ask me about that. We have three lighting gooseneck custom gooseneck lights. It's going to be as well attached to that metal bar and that again has the hex head self tapping screw. The same goes for the Hugo's light. It's an individual gooseneck. So it has a custom gooseneck and it's got a powder coated black flat light reflector. Obviously you can see it bears down curves in by the drawing that we provided. The lighting that can go in there. I sent a spec sheet. It can be of any lumen of the choice of the city's choice or of course the owner's choice. So it's a spec sheet that discusses that their LED lights. Then I guess on the awning sign which will not have any lighting. That's over to the left. That's an already existing awning. We're going to take off that material. Replace it with canvas a very strong canvas is going to have the Hugo's painted right flat as well on their black and white. So we have a square footage for everything that we're doing 1379 100 square feet, which I think Tom can speak a little bit more about than I. There's a restaurant sign that's above the rest of the building that is 100 square feet, which is included on 132. So 132 minus 100 we have 32 left that's 13.79 is what we have. There's a restaurant sign that Meredith's advice we would as sign it even though it's a historic sign that's been there since the, I don't know how long Steve you probably know better than I do, but it's been there, been there as long as I've been in Montpelier. And we had my own properties go up and measure it and measured at exactly 100 square feet. Thank you for doing that. So using the criteria that Meredith gave to us, measuring on the letters in the white space around it so that will give those figures. Great, thank you for doing that by the way. Making me do it. Tell you're that sign. I've lived here 45 years and it was old then when I moved. I remember, yeah, I came here, I came here in 93 and the lobster probably still here. One quick question. Over the long sign. In the middle. Two of the drawing show three goose necks. And one drawing shows two goose necks. And the other is, is that I'm assuming there are three goose necks. Oh, so, I guess I can only say that we did to get this rolling. We have two designs that we have not come to confirmation on. I provided the other, the smaller version and the two goose necks, but we kind of applied through the larger version just in case Tom and his team choose to do the three goose necks. Okay, that again, I guess we were trying to do a time thing and get this in for the last week. I guess we haven't kind of confirmed anything yet. So that's a problem. I'm happy to pull one. And if something changes reapply. No, that's, that's fine. You can, we could do an option if everyone finds it acceptable. We could do an option for either one. And then, I don't know if you saw when I had the share screen up. Let me show you the, they sent an alternative for the awning, and I'll put it back up for you that has slightly different wording. Oh, thank you. Where it has a little bit extra and it talks about it being the piano bar. So that's a little different from what you got in the original right there. Yes, that was you that Eric. Yeah. So it's really in, you know, my point of view it doesn't really change it much it added a little bit of text but we aren't really, you guys can talk about the color of the text and the font used in the size but we can't really talk about the actual verbiage being used. It's actually a good directional, because I don't know how many times we've been on the patio and watch people go to the door for the time, which was not open because it that upstairs restaurant had been closed for years. People kept trying to go to the door and they said how do we get into the building. Excellent. So I decide line use of directionals. Question I have about the lights are they well shielded so that you're not going to leave the lights themselves from across the street. Yes. I did send an actual. I don't know if you guys got this but I sent a cross notion so it will be shielded enough, and it can be, if you see on here it's tempered right in so it's going to be reflecting kind of right back on to the sign itself. If you give me just a second Erica, I'll share it I just I have I took. Okay, I got the I'm making trying to pull the most recent ones you sent versus the ones that were in the packet even though I think this is exactly the same as what's in the printed package. As far as we know it's in line with the other lighting that we have done. And as as you walk down the sidewalk. This is going to shine in anybody's eyes or anything that the fixtures, which is far enough back in there. It's 22 inches off the building, and then the curvature will have, you know, in itself, it will lie down right on the sign it should not reflect and we can always change lumens if it's directly reflect. People going down the sidewalk and getting in there. They're blinded. Yes, of course. My best answer to that is how it's been designed under our consciousness of what you're speaking direct lighting right onto the signing sign itself is what we're going for we don't want to like the the sidewalk frankly we want all the attention on the sign. Okay. I think the size of the canopy at the on the light itself, plus the angle. It doesn't look like it's going to throw much light down on the sidewalk. Below it it looks like it's I mean it's aimed right at the sign. So, sounds good to me. Sounds good. Any questions or comments from any other committee members Eric. Okay, I'll run down through the criteria signs in the design control overlay district. The size location design color texture lighting and material of all exterior designs within the design review overlay district shall be compatible with the building and structures of the site and surrounding properties acceptable. Where appropriate signing show respect the original sign placement and sign bands on historic structures this location is acceptable. If a building has multiple tenants there shall be consistency and placement and size among all signs. There's only one tenant, but with. And the locations are designated appropriately. It is recommended that sign placement be centered over building entries. This is acceptable at this location. Sign installation shall minimize damage to character defining materials on the building acceptable. Sign design color and typography shall respect historic precedence where appropriate and shall be the approximate scale appropriate scale for existing and new buildings acceptable. Sign support structures shall be compatible with the building architecture and must not be overly complex or dominant in and of themselves acceptable. Lighting fixtures for signs on facades of historic buildings shall not conflict with or damage the building's architectural integrity or recover or impact character defining architectural features acceptable. Lighting fixtures for signs mounted on all building facade shall be designed with appropriate housing shielding and photometrics to ensure that there is appropriate lighting levels and illumination that focuses on the design panels exclusively acceptable. All in favor of the application with the changes for the piano bar. And with the option for the smaller size sign on the big. Yes, action if they want it and I can put that. Thank you. There's an option or three lights. Has the option. I should say has has the choice of options for the lettering size and number of light fixtures. The long center portion of the sign. And then again the applicant has a choice of options for the lettering size and number of light fixtures on the long center portion of the sign grouping. And then again, the, the final application is for the piano bar so that that is that is accepted as as proposed. All in favor speak your names. And Steve Everett. So it is approved all three in favor. Thank you. Thank you so much thanks for the time everybody. So, before you sign off before you sign off, because the actual larger zoning permit. I need to know what the lights are going to be. When do you think you're going to make a choice on that middle sign. Tom and I can speak in the morning, I think. Okay, or just in the next day or two I've got to, I've got to do an administrative site plan report, which will be pretty quick because it's really just the lights. But to be able to analyze that and what I'm going to approve I just kind of got to know. He tells me right now, if he knows right now I can. Three lights and the bigger sign. Three lights and the bigger sign it is folks. Okay. Awesome. So, we will need a signature from you guys on from. Well, who do we have as Tom on the recommendation form so we'll I'll scan that to you and you can scan it back. That sounds great. And then hopefully get the permit issued in the next couple of days I just got to do the site plan report. And are you going to want that mail to you or do you want to just come by and pick up the permit when it's ready. Come by and pick it up. Okay, we'll let you know. Great. Thank you so much. Thank you. The larger lettering and three lights is. Is what they're going to end. Is is fine. Okay, no, this is that's that got you those recommendations. So that's perfect. Thank you so much for your time. We appreciate it. I appreciate it. We're hoping early February, but you know, it's a supply and check issues are our main. Getting literally getting ice machines. It's the hardest thing in the world. So as soon as we get ice machines in, we'll be a machine in February. I hope to see you all there too. Thank you. Thanks, Tom. Okay, thank you very much and good luck with your project. The next thing on the agenda is to review and approve the minute. Of the 1220 meeting. But only two of us are here today who were at that meeting. So we'll have to table that till the next meeting. And again, our next meeting is Tuesday, January the 18th. Does anyone have anything else to add at this point? Or do I do I hear a motion to adjourn? So moved. Second. All in favor of adjournment. Speak your name. And Eric. And Steve. So meeting is adjourned. Thank you all for coming.