 We are staffed this evening by Mike Miller, sitting volunteer planning director. Thanks for being here, Mike. And then we are assisted as always by Tammy Furry, who is our recording secretary, who makes these meetings into minutes, which we greatly appreciate. So what I will do next is turn to Mike, who will give a brief overview of the procedures that can be followed for anyone who might be watching on ORCA, but wanting to zoom in with us here. Do this real quick. So do this, the state of emergency declared by Governor Scott as a result of COVID-19, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and pursuant to addendum six of the executive order of the Development Review Board is authorized to meet electronically. In accordance with Act 92, there is no physical location to observe and listen to this meeting contemporaneously. For public access, however, in accordance with temporary amendments to open meeting law, the Development Review Board is providing public access to the meeting by hosting a video conference meeting, including both video and telephone access options with additional access offered through live streaming of the meeting. And that is what's coming through on ORCA. We are using the Zoom meeting platform for this remote meeting. All members of the Development Review Board have the ability to communicate at the same time with this meeting through this platform and the public has access to listen and if desired participate in this meeting in real time by either joining the meeting at this address here, which is available on the city's website as well. If you go to this location down here on Montpelier-VT.org, you can go to our calendar and find this meeting and click on the link or you can call into the meeting at this number. And with either option, the meeting ID in the password is right here. And I'll leave this up for a few minutes if anyone wants to participate. So we gave notice to the public of the necessary information for accessing this meeting, including how to access the meeting using telephone or video and it is posted in the meeting agenda. And instructions have been provided on the city website as we mentioned at that site. If you have problems getting access to this meeting, you can email me, Michael Miller at emmiller at Montpelier-VT.org. Further, if you have difficulties while accessing video conferencing in the Zoom platform, you can also message me through the chat function, which is at the bottom. When you have logged into the meeting, you should have an opportunity to tell the moderator which applications you wish to comment on and you can send that via the chat function to me. When the chair announces that the time for public comment for your application arrives, the moderator will unmute members of the public based on the order you submitted your intent. If you're interested in speaking and did not say you would like to speak previously, please raise your hand or state your name. If you're unmuted and city staff will add you to the queue. Once the chair has recognized you to participate, the moderator will unmute your microphone and confirm that you can be heard and you are then free to provide your questions or comments aiming to keep them to two minutes. The members will have opportunities to respond or ask questions of you and the applicant may have an opportunity to respond. The chair may grant additional time for speakers who have follow-up questions or comments. If you have finished, your microphone will be muted again. The chair will then call on the next person to speak. You will be able to provide additional input but only after the chair recognizes you again. If no one requests to provide additional information, the chair will move on. Continuing the meeting if necessary. In the event the public is unable to access this meeting, this meeting will be continued to a date and time certain. Please note that all votes taken during this meeting will be done by roll call and I'll now hand the meeting back over to the chair. Great, thank you, Mike, for that overview. I appreciate it. All right, so what we will do next is approval of the agenda which we'll do by roll call. Are there any modifications to the agenda from DRB members? Okay, in that case, I'll take a motion to approve the agenda. So moved. Motion by Kevin. Seconded by Joe. Seconded by Joe, thank you, Joe, and I'll call the roll. Joe. Yes. Rob. Yes. Roger. Yes. Kevin. Yes. Michael. Yes. And then Kate, I vote yes as well. So we have an agenda. Thank you. Comments from the chair just, Mike gave us an overview of how things will go, but I just want to just kind of reiterate the flow that we're generally going to take with each application. The applicant will present their application and then have a chance for the, then there will be a chance for the board to ask questions. People who may, who wish to comment may then present and also be asked questions by the board. Applicant will have a chance to respond. We don't do cross examination in this setting. So just a reminder that any questions or concerns do need to be addressed through the chair. And that's, those are the comments from the chair. So the next item on the agenda, I believe, looking at my agenda on an iPad here, that's why I'm looking down. Yes. Is to review the meeting minutes of July 6th. Are there any modifications or changes, which are the same thing, to the minutes as presented in our packet? All right, I'll take a motion to approve the minutes. Go move. Motion by Rob. Second. Second by Roger. All right. All those in favor, Joe. Yes. All right. Rob. Yes. Roger. Yes. Kevin. I wasn't at that meeting, Kate. Okay, thank you for reminding me. And Michael. Yeah, so I wasn't there either. You were not at the meeting. I was not at the meeting. Okay, thank you. Thank you for confirming that. I will vote yes. That gives us four voting in favor of adopting the minutes, which is enough to pass. Thank you for adopting the minutes. All right, so now we'll turn to the business of the evening. And the first application is in for North Branch Park and coming street. And we're going to hear from the Mount failure area mountain bike association about a bicycle track. And for starters, what I would like to do is swear in anyone who's here to be heard on this matter. So what I would like to do is know who those people are. If you could either pipe up or raise your hands if you're going to be heard on the pump track application. So I see Paige, I see John, Paige Burton, John Holler, folks on the phone are Ned or John hoping to present testimony on this application. Yes, John Jose. I would appreciate the opportunity to. Okay, great. So we will swear in both John Jose and Ned Slumber. All right, please raise your right hand. Thank you. Swear in the witnesses. Do you finally swear or affirm that the test will be in your eyes, please? Yes, who's this? Hi, I'm also on the phone. Oh, thank you. I didn't see your name. What's your name, please? My name is David. And the last name is spelled P-R-Z-E-P-I-O-S-K-I. Great, we will include you as well to be heard on this application. Thank you for chiming in. So for folks who are going to be heard, please raise your right hand and I'll administer the oath. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the evidence you're about to give us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under the pains and penalties of perjury? Thank you. Thank you. I do. All right, thank you all. We have sworn in the witnesses. So what we'll do first is we'll hear a brief summary of the project from Mike Miller and then we'll turn it over to the applicant. So Mike, if you would be so kind. Right, well, because as some of you, as probably most of you know, Meredith is usually the one who does all these applications, worked with the applicant, prepared all of the pieces of this and came down sick. And so I am covering for her. And so I don't know what's gonna be the best way of actually going through and doing the presentation because I'm not as familiar with this applications perhaps the applicants are. And maybe that might be a better path to take. Sounds fine. I just put you on the spot, Mike, without any warning. So thank you for reminding us that Meredith's been doing most of the work on this. I'm also comfortable with getting an overview from the applicant. So with that, we'll turn it over to you, John. If you wouldn't mind taking about the more than 10 minutes to tell us about the project. Sure, happy to do that. Thank you, Kate, and thank you all for serving on the board. This is my first time to appear before the DRB. First night meeting in a while, but I appreciate all that you all do for the city. So I'm here on behalf of the Montpelier Area Mountain Bike Association to present this proposal for a pump track. I'm not gonna go to great detail because you have that before you in the application as well as the very thorough staff review. So I'm gonna assume we've looked at that, read that, and I looked at that happy to respond to any questions you have about the project or the comments that are made by the staff. But just briefly, a pump track is a small surface with sort of rolling hills. You may have seen the Times Argus over the weekend had a picture of the Waterbury pump track. There are probably a dozen around Vermont. They're very popular with kids, young children, teenagers. Some adults use them, but it's not as common. They're mostly for kids. And it's a great recreational opportunity for kids. Mamba, the Montpelier Area Mountain Bike Association, has been looking for a site, thinking about proposing a pump track in Montpelier for several years, maybe five years, and have been looking for a long time. When we began work on the North Branch Trail Project a few years ago, the trail builder who was helping us with that project pointed out this site, and actually I think it was also working with Alec Ellsworth from the Parks Commission who was not a director then, but was a staff member. Also, we had discussions with him about that site and it really became clear that that was a pretty ideal location. And we've looked at a lot of different sites. It's, obviously not relevant here, but really difficult to find an appropriate location for lots of reasons. We think this one's really ideal for a lot of reasons. One is its proximity to the North Branch Trails, the very popular mountain bike trails that the city has helped support, mostly privately funded, but enormous popularity of those trails that we're seeing grow every year. This is a nice adjunct to that for kids to be able to explore mountain biking as trails are difficult for kids who are probably younger children for sure. It is in close proximity to the swimming pool, the recreational fields, just a short few hundred yards across the bridge, across the North Branch and down an existing trail to access them. It's also located adjacent to the coming street apartments. I think it's gonna be an enormous addition for those residents. If you've spent any time over there, you know that those kids love to bike. There are bikes everywhere and there are always kids on bikes. Kevin, I sometimes have trouble with my bike, so I want to make sure I'm... The sound is dropping off a bit. Okay, I'll try to speak up. I know what I'm saying. That would be great, thank you. Computers never, as often the audience, I think. Right, it's a compromise. Okay, no, and it's my system too, it's not great. So just let me know if I'm not being loud or whatever, I'll make it justice. Biking is very popular in that neighborhood. Kids are on their bikes all the time. Do you think this would provide a really tremendous recreational opportunity for the kids who live in that area? So it's a flat area. I don't know what it's been used for. Tony Fakos told me that it was at one point used to store materials for the reconstruction of Route 14. I mean, Route 12. I don't know whether that was the case or not, but it's not used now. It's a relatively flat surface. We think we've done a lot of due diligence, worked with the state, the wetlands office there to get their sign off on it with the city planning department staff as well. We think this is a really good project. We've raised about $8,500, most of that through private fundraising to build this site. Short distance about a mile from the center of downtown Montpelier, so easily accessible by a bicycle. So we think it's gonna be a really popular, great addition for recreational opportunities in Montpelier. Okay, great, thank you, John. So trying to think, we have several people here to be heard on this, and often at this point we would let those folks speak. I think what I would like to do is go through some of the items highlighted in the staff report as needing some discussion and to give the applicant a chance to speak to those in more detail. And then work in some of the comments as we go. Rob, yes. Yes, I just would like to say I'm an avid non-biker and a member of the Vermont Non-Bike Association, but I don't think it's a conflict, but I'd like to disclose it, and that can be fair in reviewing this application, so. Thank you, thank you, that's a good reminder. Are there any other members of the DRB who have anything to disclose or visited the site or anything else that might be relevant to our discussion? Okay, nobody else has anything to disclose previous work on this project. Okay, so maybe what I'd like to do is just so I know how to manage the flow of this, I would like, I'm gonna go through each of the people who have said that they're interested in chiming in, and I'm gonna get a sense of what issue you're going to chime in on, because we may be able to do this in the middle of the staff review, so I'm just gonna go in the order you introduced yourself. So Paige, which parts of the application would you like to comment on? If you wouldn't mind just unmuting their page so we can hear you, that's okay. I'm not concerned about the rental pool on the other side of Coming Street and the wetlands, which turns out to be a beaver pond adjacent to the site and just making sure those are protected. Okay, thank you. And John, John Jose. Yeah, my concerns are similar to Paige's, more specific to some of the amphibian breeding and migration that takes place in the area of the wetlands and in the proposed project area. Thank you. And Ned. I have five things I would speak to, or at least four, one of which is again, you know, the rental pool and the wetland features and they're used by wild and the lack of any kind of space or buffer or planting. I'd also like to speak to the fact that it's an overlapping hazard area with floodplain issues and river corridor issues. Make sure we're clear about what that's all about. It also relates in part to the CRS program, but that's kind of a sidebar, but it might be of interest. And I'm also very interested in whether this responds to the actual social and recreational needs of the people in the adjacent apartments or whether this is coming in kind of separate from anything that's been identified by that community. Okay, thank you. Parking that, as I said? Yes, that's right. Okay, okay, thanks. And then David. Well, everyone, my name is David. And so to add to what everyone else just said, I'm also very concerned about the wetlands and the rental pool. I don't like the idea of putting up a buffer or a fence. You can't segment nature, which is, you'll destroy it. Also, I happen to live on Cumbia Street and I don't know if anyone else does, but it's a little joy to hear in the spring, all the spring papers, and it's really beautiful. And that's just one aspect of the beauty of this area. Cumbia Street is how integrated nature is into the departments and the houses that are already here. And I don't want to destroy that. There's all kinds of animals, a lot of all these things. I can go on and on and on about its beauty. The other thing is I'm very concerned. I just as a cyclist for a lot of years, I know that there's a lot of fads. You know, mountain bikers are calling it a pump track, but being a lecture is called a dirt race and track some years ago and they're just fads. And so I fear that what a few people want now is just a small segment of the population and they're just going to lose interest in it. And I don't like the idea of the 10 parking spaces or the extra traffic on this road. Okay. Thanks. Traffic. Okay. So as we go through each of those items, I will invite people to speak. I thought that might be a little cleaner than bouncing than having people speak before that, before we've heard some of the details on those various issues. I'm going to give that a try. Thank you for bearing with me. It's a little funky on zoom compared to in person, but we will do our best. So the way that I like to do this is to go through the staff report, which hopefully folks have a lot of the things. And then we'll talk about the things that are outstanding. So the issues that I've identified as outstanding based on the staff report, we should talk a little bit about the youth determination, what it's actually uses as well as whether we should decide as a board whether we believe that impervious surface is being created. And then wetlands and vernal pools, parking and landscaping. And for each of these, I will ask the applicant to provide information. I'll ask the board to ask questions. I would ask that people here to be heard on the matter. Please wait to be invited to speak rather than jumping in. Okay. We'll just do our best to manage it. So let's start with the youth determination. So the staff recommendation is that this is a considered a nature and recreational parks use that use is defined as a site designed to accommodate primarily passive recreation or appreciation or nature with a minimum of improvements or structures. Passive recreation is generally defined as recreational activities that do not require prepared facilities like sports fields or pavilions and can provide communities with opportunities like camping trail running and cross country skiing. The staff recommendation is that it is such a youth and that even if we do not agree with that determination, it is materially similar to those uses. So I'd like to turn to my fellow board members and see if folks agree with that determination. I do agree with that, Kate. Okay, some thumbs up from Rob and Kevin. Any questions or concerns from other board members? Roger's okay. This is Joe. So if I'm reading this correctly, the staff's determination is that it is a passive recreation area. That's right. So I feel like that lies in conflict of part two here generally defined as a recreational activities that do not require prepared facilities like sports field or pavilion. I know this isn't a sports field or pavilion, but it's a track that you're going to be building. So I disagree with the staff's recommendation. Okay. So what do you think about the further staff suggestions that this is considered materially similar, which is defined at the bottom of page four, that it should be allowed to the same extent and subject to the same standards if it has similar impacts to the neighborhoods such as traffic noise and lighting, similar characteristics such as building types, site arrangements, floor area, number of employees, other things that aren't really relevant. Could you see this as being materially similar? Yeah, I can agree with that. I don't think that there is no lighting proposed and no buildings or staff or anything. So yes, I do agree there. Okay. And I agree with Joe that echoes my thinking on it, that it does seem a bit more improved than passive recreation might imply, but for the sake of evaluation, we could consider a materially similar use section 30-01-D. Michael, anything to add? Michael, is our check. Okay. Okay, so that was the first thing we needed to figure out in the staff report. So moving on to page five of the staff report, we're looking at a section that has to do with dimensional standards and accessory structures and uses. We just talked about uses. One of those standards in the zoning has to do with the amount of impervious surface on any given site. And the staff recommendation is that we should consider whether this is, whether the way that the track is built creates impervious surface. So she also notes that even if it does, it's well below the maximum allowed. But for the sake of weighing the groundwork, no pun intended for our subsequent conversation about erosion and wetlands, I'd be interested in hearing from the applicant about how the surface will behave. Will water run off of it? Will water soak into it? And I'd be interested in knowing that both for the track itself as well as the parking area. Yeah. So this surface will be largely impervious. This is my understanding. I guess I unfortunately did not see this comment until today. So I haven't consulted. I don't have any expert opinion on this, but the purpose of a pump track is to bring in compacted soil. To the extent that it absorbs water, you're going to have the material itself is going to disintegrate and then over time you're going to lose the pump track. So I think just by definition, by the nature of the facility and its purpose, the water will have to run off of it. I just can't imagine that it would be designed in a way that allows it to absorb water because it does, then I think it's going to lose its form and then become less functional. Okay. Thank you. That makes sense. Questions from the board members about the nature of the surface and we can get into runoff a little bit more later and erosion control later. But any questions about this section? Yes, I have a question. Just through some basic, I'm not a mountain biker. Just through basic Google research on a pump track. I see they can be constructed in a number of different ways. You said compacted soil, but I've seen some pictures online where all the area that isn't, you know, for biking on has been seeded and grass. Are you planning on doing that in this area or could you shed some more light on the act? Well, I don't think we'd do anything to it. I think we would leave it as is. So to the extent that there's, I mean, some vegetation on the site right now, that would be largely undisturbed. I don't think the intent is not to create, you know, a park or stuff that's going to take some ongoing maintenance. We're really just interested in the track itself, the pump track itself. I guess I was a little unclear here. Maybe I can just pull up a picture real quick of what I'm referring to. So this is a good example here. I'm just going to share my screen really quick. That's all right. Sure. Yep. Okay. You can see this picture here on the right. Oh. So like I said, it's not a landscape, I suppose, but it's just grass. It would need to be mowed, but that would be the only maintenance I guess it would need along the edges and on the interior. Or are you, I'm just wondering, or are you considering all of this area would just be compacted? Well, only the area where you see the bicyclists. I mean, I just can say this is a vastly more elaborate, this pump track you're looking at probably would cost 10 times what we're proposing. What we're proposing is sort of a very scaled down minimalist version of something like that, but no improvements on the grassy surface. And we just don't, you know, we have money. We don't have staffing. These are not a public facility in the sense that it's not, you know, falling into the purview of the rec department. It's going to be voluntarily maintained. So the idea is to give kids an opportunity of place to bike, but not to create another, you know, a park on the site. Okay. Thanks. Thanks for your question, Joe. I think that. I appreciate that pointer is that what we were just looking at there is not quite the design of what we're going to see in Montelia. That was sort of the, the gold plated version. We might be doing something a little different, but the point is that the parts that aren't going to be placed on will be pretty much less on, will not be compacted. Okay. All right. Any other questions from the RV members on this issue? Okay. So we might as well dive into the issue that many folks are here to be heard on and that we could learn a little bit more about. So. John Holler, would you please give us an overview of how you believe this complies with the wetlands and viral pools that you're going to be using? I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point based on your. Based on the work you've done. Sure. So the first stop I made was with the state. Shannon Morrison, who is a wetlands expert with the, within the department of environmental conservation. She visited. She and I visited the site. I've got her input on whether this was going to be. Some of that's consistent with the state. Regulations. So we walked the site. I had several conversations with her. We talked to her. We talked to her. We talked to her. We talked to her. We talked to her. She was included. In the materials that you received. She wanted to ensure that we have a 50 foot setback from the existing. Streams. We've done that. They're strict. The wetland itself is pretty well demarcated. There's a fairly steep drop off. An embankment. The site itself is very dry. I've been out there. You know, any. Outside of, you know, once the snow melts, it's very dry. It's very dry. It's very dry. It's very dry. It's very dry. It's kind of wetlands that are on the site itself. So we. Design this in a way that meets the state's requirements. In terms of a setback. There was. Her suggestion. And we were certainly willing to pursue this. To create some kind of buffer to ensure that when the city. Dump snow on the site, that it doesn't run off. I have to say, I'm. You know, I really do think that's the city's obligation. To ensure that it doesn't run off into the streams. It's really, it shouldn't. I mean, we're not creating any, any new. A burden on the city or. And I don't, my understanding is, hasn't been used for maybe seven years. For snow dumping. It certainly seems appropriate to me to ensure that the city. Protects that. The streams from runoff. From snow that's dumped there. But. You know, to the extent that the city is dumping snow on that site, I think it's their obligation to ensure that it doesn't run off into the streams. It's really, it shouldn't. I mean, we're not creating any, it shouldn't run off into the streams. I mean, I don't know that's dumped there. I do question whether that should be an obligation of Mamba. Since we have nothing to do with the city's decision about where to dump it. I mean, we're due to take about half the site. The other site, a half would be for snow dumping. So. Even if we weren't. Proposing this application. Those concerns, I assume would still be there. I'm sure they would be the state would say, you know, if the city is going to dump. And we would be able to do that. And I do question that. I don't know what one they probably should create some barrier. So I don't think our application. Is raising those concern should be viewed as raising or creating. What was concerns for the conduct of the city. Having said that, I hope that's not. You know, we don't want that to be a determining factor here. We'll do that. If we have to and probably work with DPW to come up with whatever appropriate barriers there. I also just briefly, well, why don't I go ahead and talk about the vernal pool issue, Kate? Okay. So that was an issue that came a little later. I didn't talk to the state about that. Wasn't aware that this was within the scope of the vernal pool regulations. I don't think though this triggers any real state concerns and sets, I believe a unique, peculiar ordinance. I visited the site and I think I located what was earlier on the map. I think that's been filled in with stone. It's not, I don't, I couldn't locate anything that resembled the vernal pool on that site. Others may have seen it. I didn't, I saw from the staff report, well, the staff report didn't respond to that issue. It talks about the distance or the parking, the fact that there's a parking lot between this proposal and the vernal pool that's designated on the staff, but not whether the vernal pool exists. And so I just, I don't know. I'm going on an expert, I didn't see it. I had heard that before, that somebody had raised a concern with me. This was before we even proposed this, that somebody had dumped some kind of stone fill in that area. So I'm not sure it exists, you know, unfortunately. But then I just also point out that what we're building is across a parking lot and a road from that site. So to the extent that there's a vernal pool there, I just don't think that this creates, it's going to create a burdens or impacts on that pool, given, you know, that it's already surrounded by a fairly dense, small, but dense residential area and parking area. We'd be located on the other side of both. Well, those housing, the parking lot, and then a class four road or trail. Thanks for that overview, John. So board members, so remind you that we have seven standards that need to be met to make sure that rental pools and wetlands are being appropriately treated. And the overall thing that we're trying to assure is that the effective development in this area not have an undue adverse impact on the wetland or the vernal pool. So with that, I'd invite here, be members to ask any questions of the applicant about this part of the project. Yeah, Rob. Also, I know that we're going to get into runoff before, but they've come together. So I just didn't, I just, my question is, is there will be any drainage to collect the runoff from the pump track itself? Not the snow storage area, but just the pump track itself will be drainage around there. You know, I don't think it's designed, the pump track is designed in a, well, I'll put it another way. I think it's designed in a way that any runoff would be diffused. So you're going to have runoff off, obviously have individual mounds and then probably be a dozen or more individual mounds, but that runoff is not going to be collected in any kind of centralized place. I think it would be dispersed on the site off of each of those little mounds. So I don't, I don't think this site, the way it's constructed is going to create any consolidated runoff, at least as I understand it. Kevin's muted. Kevin, you're muted. Kevin, you're muted. Sorry about that. That makes a lot more sense. John, can you just tell us again what the mounds are covered with? What is the material? It's dirt from North Montpellier. We have a site, I don't remember this, I didn't come prepared with the name of the company, but somebody who's built, I think he's an owner of a facility that provides materials for construction other sites. He's built personally dirt tracks for a little motocross. And so familiar with the kind of the soil with sort of compacted soil. So it has compacted soil, so like there's fiberglass or something like that. No, no, it's all natural soil. It'd be all natural soil with a high level of clay so that it stays, or at least some level of clay so that it stays compacted. Okay, so there's a lot of water that could potentially collect within the track itself. I mean, if it's clay and so forth, there's going to be runoff, but it's not as though you have an impervious surface on top of the mound itself. It's all natural, yeah. Yeah, thanks. And we, I mean, yeah, yeah, I guess it was. And I would say to the point of it being impervious, I mean, to the extent it runs off, we lose the project. So it does have to be built the way it lasts. Do you have an estimate of how much soil will be required? I am told, and we've budgeted for 150 yards. Is it expected that there'd be, need to be routine maintenance with additional fill brought in from time to time? I don't, that's a good question. I mean, I don't think of the short term. We certainly haven't budgeted for that. Don't plan on it. So I would say no. You know, we may be back to you in 10 years, but my hope would be that we would be at least a 10-year investment. Okay, other question? Well, maybe related. Our staff report notes on top of page eight that we have not received existing or proposed grading plans. Is that still the case or have those been submitted, have grading plans been submitted since the packet went out? You know, when I first approached the city about this, I was told this would be an administrative approval that we get in 10 minutes. So this has all been new to me. And as I saw the staff report, I was a little overwhelmed at what this has become. We thought this was going to be a minor application with a simple process for approval. So this has grown into something that's obviously much more complex, but no, we haven't. And I wasn't even aware that that was something that we might need to submit. Okay. All right, thank you. Okay, so is the design such that you, so it sounds like the recommendation of, looking in my notes here, there's a recommendation from the state wetlands expert to a determination that you're not within the 50 foot buffer of the wetlands and a recommendation to sense it so that people don't bike into it by mistake, or are both of those things true? Is the pump track stay out of the buffer? It does. The closer, my understanding that I went back and looked at her emails today, her concern was with the snow storage runoff, not the use of the property by a pump for the pump track. I could be wrong about that, but that was my understanding. Her concern is the runoff. And of course, what the material that's in the snow, it runs off the industry. Okay. And would you be open to a condition requiring delineation of any buffers that not, I'm not asking for landscaping, but delineation of a buffer that would assure that people using the pump track don't end up in the wetlands? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Gotta go through my notes here. All right. So what I'd like to do next is turn to the folks who are here to be heard on this. And the order I'm going to go in is Paige, John, Ned and David speaking specifically and concisely to the vernal pools and wetlands. So if you wouldn't mind taking just two minutes each, you've now heard a little bit more about the project. And so I would ask you to share with us any new information that you want to make sure we hear and consider. So starting with Paige, make sure you unmute there. Sorry. I submit comments very late in the day today. So if it's okay, I'd like to read them. Full disclosure, I'm a member of the conservation commission, but my comments are not on behalf of the commission because I'm not approved by them to make these comments, but they're informed by my membership and by the concerns of the commission. It's definitely within the 500 foot protection area around the vernal pool. In my letter, if anybody's had a chance to read it, I said I would suspect that the project would not have an impact on the vernal pool because the site is on the other side of the road and it's away from the woods and that the land and vegetation on the proposed site are not of the type that would be likely to support the amphibians that utilize the vernal pool as a breeding ground. However, John Jose will correct me on that and I'm grateful for his comments. There is an obvious wetland which needs to be protected. And so I'm asking for, that one suggests the following conditions. One is to mark the 50 foot buffer around the wetland before construction begins to be sure it's not encroached upon. Two is to provide erosion control between the project and the river and wetland during construction. Three is to take steps to protect the wetland from runoff and this is from the pump track, not the snow parking that's not part of this application. But it could include fencing around the perimeter of the track to make sure people don't walk or ride into the wetland and or planting native vegetation on the river side of the track to mitigate runoff from the raised area and control erosion. Four is to create as little soil disturbance as possible given the toxic nature of the soil that's been subjected to snow dumping and all of the associated contaminants that are in that and compaction for a long time. And five is to use gravel only for the parking lot not paving if they could do that. I would also ask why the parking lot is necessary when there's a paved dead end road adjacent adjacent to the proposed site that's plenty wide enough for cars to park and for city trucks to get by which they want to be able to do. If the parking lot were eliminated the whole pump track could be moved further away from the wetland area. Okay. Thanks, Paige. And what we'll do rather than a back and forth is John, I'll give you another, John Holler, I'll give you another chance to talk at the end if some of these concerns aren't addressed as we go along. Questions from the RV members for Paige? Yes, do you know the location of Wall Fool? Exactly, it seems like there's... Yes, it's on the other side of the road. You know where the... Coming street. Sorry, coming street. You, where the bike track goes up across from the apartments that are on the left-hand side as you're driving toward this site, there's a bike trail that goes up and there's a sign, a new sign right at the bottom of it if you've been out there. And the vertical is just to the left of that sign and it kind of runs along the... It kind of... Thank you. It kind of runs along the road but it's right at the edge of the forest and right now I was around there this morning to look at the site and it's completely overgrown so you wouldn't see it. There was, it was full of wood frogs and spring peepers this spring when I was down there. And it's a state-ranking high-spirited pool, I believe. Great, thanks for that question and that answer. Other questions from the RV members? So then, next up is John Jose, about two minutes of comments if you would say. Thank you, Kate. I wanna apologize as I only found out about this project as of today. Otherwise, I would have offered comment sooner. A little bit of background on me, I have an interest in matters related to natural resource conservation in Montpelier. I was formally on the Montpelier Conservation Commission and I have a particular interest in amphibian conservation and when I was on the commission, we undertook an effort to identify at least what represents some of the vernal poles in Montpelier, including the one that's located in proximity to this project. And also, because of how easily accessible the wetlands areas are down on Cummings Street and the fact that I used to live down there for a few years, I had the opportunity to spend some time down there, including evenings when spring migration was taking place. And my own observations are that when this migration is taking place early in the spring, which consists of amphibians such as wood frogs, spotted salamanders, green frogs, spring peepers, at least the wood frogs that I've observed had the opportunity to watch down there. One of the places they cross, and at least one spring when I was down there where they were concentrating their crossing was precisely the area where the project is located. They were coming down off the hillside, as far as I could tell, down off the hillside, and I believe bypassing the vernal pole and moving to the beaver pond wetlands to breed in there. There's a substantial, within the past couple of years, there's a substantial population of wood frogs that has started to breed and continues to breed in those beaver pond wetlands that have been identified. And that's part of what this is about is it's not just a vernal pole and wetlands and amphibians breeding there or utilizing their habitat, it's the movement of these amphibians back and forth between these habitats and other habitats. And also there are overwintering areas. For instance, those wood frogs may move back up that hill in the fall to borrow down shallowly in the soil up on the hillside there and overwinter in a frozen state up there. I'm not opposed to the project because of this, but I would like to make the recommendation that when the pump track is being developed, the tribe will avoid to the extent possible that impediments or quote unquote inadvertent tract would be created that would present a hazard to amphibians trying to move through the area. And keep in mind, when these amphibians are leaving their breeding wetlands as our wood frogs right now, they're very, very small, literally the size of a tiny little cricket. So what might not seem like an issue to us for a frog to surmount an obstacle can definitely become an issue for them. And I, this is the first exposure I've had to the idea of this kind of facility and I Googled it real quick. And I could see it was kind of this series of dips and rise is kind of a mogul kind of structure. And that's the first thing that came to mind was could the construction of this project potentially inadvertently inhibit amphibian movement or even create some quote unquote traps for them. And I do want to state that that vernal pool is there to my knowledge, when I was there about a month ago, I stopped in and checked on it. And it's one that is certified as being present in the city. And last thing I'll say is a few years back when Mambo was having some trails installed off Coming Street, some new trails. At that time was on the Conservation Commission. And I had the opportunity to meet with the gentleman who was constructing the trails. We had a very similar, very brief conversation where my basic suggestion was that he do whatever he could to avoid creating steep slides to the trails he was developing in the area of the vernal pool or any other potential impediments to the amphibians moving from and to the vernal pool. So again, that's what I'm basically asking be taken into consideration in the construction of this project. I'm not opposed to it. It's just that whatever can be done be done to not impede the movement of the amphibians in this lowland area when they're moving between their breeding habitats and upland habitats and such. Great. Thank you. Thank you, John, for that perspective and that request that is helpful. And Ned, and Ned, if you wouldn't mind speaking to what we're talking about now, the vernal pools, wetlands, buffer, and you could talk about the hazard area in River Corridor, but I'll save parking for later. Sure, sure. And it sounds like we can speak to whether this is active recreation or passive that's already a separate issue, right? And whether they have stormwater permit? We require that state permit be granted. Yeah, thank you. We'll get to that a little bit later, but consider them flagged. So it is actively a very wonderful wetland. It's a hot spot. I walk to it all the time in the spring. It's full of wood frogs. The vernal pool is very active there as it was described by Paige. Bust, hooded mergans are off in the spring. Also the wetlands, you know, with beavers, wood ducks, and all sorts of activity all through there. I found a bidder in there not too long ago. So it's a hammered wetland. It's been filled through a whole process of probably illegal and overlooked fill. I've seen some images on Google Earth where you can see the blackness rolling off of the piles of snowmelt. So there's some real historical issues with that site for sure, but it's a very active spot and it would be a shame to take places so hammered and instead of perhaps restoring it for wetland function and buffer function and float plane function increase the problem. So I am very alarmed about that. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Any questions for Ned or John from Board Members? Yeah, I just have a question. We're talking about barriers during construction. Do you have any specific examples? And I've not seen like at some points if installed incorrectly like cell fence can be a barrier, temporary barrier to these creatures, but seems like you guys know more about this, I know that I do. So I just didn't have any specific alternatives to stuff that would control runoff, but also allow passage of amphibians through the site. And you're asking about during construction in particular, Rob? During construction, yes. Okay. It's very tricky. I won't speak to that much, but it would be a tricky issue for sure, Rob. And I do believe that Shannon Morrison talked about putting up permanent barriers such as Jersey barriers to kind of block access into the buffer and protect the wetland from including snow dumping traffic and the exprawl from the site. So, but that's a very interesting question. I can't respond to that as well, Kate. Okay, yeah, go ahead. I think there's a couple of things that can take into consideration depending on the extent, the length of the vernal, excuse me, of the silt fence. This would be something we'd wanna look into some more, but it may well be that the animals can get around it, work their way around it. That's one possibility. The other thought is timing. Most crucially, and if the project could take this into consideration, your big movement of amphibians to the breeding pools is gonna take place somewhere mid-plus or minus April. And usually there's either one large night or a few different nights that they move on. So if timing of the project could take that into consideration, I think that's one possibility that could address concerns around a barrier like a silt fence impeding their movement. Great, thank you. All right, if there are no other questions from DRB members, I wanna move on and give David his two minutes. So, David, please go ahead. Hello everyone, this is David. So my concerns is also the wetlands and the vernal pool, but it sounds to me that the Lamba is saying that, you know, it's not gonna, they're once the track is built, there's not gonna be any maintenance or I'll keep for the facility. So my concern is that if it does get built, I think there should be provisions that we'll ensure with the concept monitoring that the movement migration and wintering of all these infusions and ducks and beavers and groundhouse and deer and turkeys, there's everything here. So I think that there should be some kind of ongoing monitoring to make sure everything's working out okay. And if it doesn't, there should be change of state. And in the future, if this track isn't gonna be used, there should be money set aside for its removal. Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you, David. Okay, great. So is that everyone who wanted to be heard on this application before I turn back over to John Holler? All right, so I wanna give John Holler five to six minutes to respond and then the board can ask questions and then we'll move on. Before I do that, everybody's disappeared from video for me and I wonder if that has to do with my internet connection or if it has to do with people just sort of listening silently and quietly. Are others having trouble with video feed? I just didn't, wasn't sure the protocol on myself. No, there's a, nobody's breaking any rules. I'm just wondering if my computer's broken. Okay, I can see most people I can see for eight, 11 people. Okay, so it's on my end and I'll just, I'll go with that, but know that I can't see, raise your hand, so that's what that means. All right, so John Holler, go ahead and if you want to respond to some of those concerns and reflections or let us know what you wanna say, yeah. Well, I'm trying to organize how I would respond. So maybe just a couple of things. First respond to Paige's question about the parking. Why do we need parking? Honestly, we went back and forth about that. I don't think very many people are gonna drive there. I hope they don't. It's bikeable from downtown. I bike to those trails. And there also is, there's, Cummings Street is a pretty wide road. So people, typically now there's no parking for the North Branch Trails. There's probably much more vehicle traffic, I would think, bringing bikers there to that site and they park on Cummings Street. I'm not sure about the road, the access road that goes towards the river. That's when I know Tom McCartle was concerned about that being open. We did look at whether that was wide enough for putting parking on the other side. You know, I guess also we just came down to the fact that this was gonna be convenient. We had enough room on the site, but it wouldn't be paved. It would just be gravel or some kind of very minimal, minimally maintained or upgraded surface to allow for parking. But it's not, I don't think critical, but I do think it would be convenient to have, but not intending any pavement, certainly, if you haven't budgeted for that. You know, I share John's, I was just concerned about the frog migration. We certainly don't wanna do anything that's gonna impede that or, you know, that's gonna have some, an adverse impact on the amphibian movement in that area. I'd be interested in maybe having John talk, I think it was John who mentioned talking to the trail developer, Brooks Gatcher, who's done these all over the state. And I'm sure he would be amenable to have any conversation about how this could be constructed in a way that minimizes the vernal pool or the migration from frogs. I know one of the concerns is the timing of this. So I think John or maybe it was Ned mentioned that mid-April was the period for migration. This site would only be used when it is dry and we would probably close it and maybe, I'm not sure we haven't talked about that. Now we'd rope it off, maybe we do that with trails when the trails aren't suitable for biking and then open them so there's a site that you refer people to determine whether the trails are open and that changes during the course of the year, but there's a period of time before which the trails aren't open and they're just not suitable for riding. That's usually, well, it depends on the conditions but maybe early May, but mid-April is almost never, I don't think trails would be suitable for riding. I think that's probably the case here. If the trail, the bike pump is wet or there's still snow on it, we certainly wouldn't want people on it. So I think there's a way that we could maybe have a conversation about how to ensure that it's not used at a time when there may be a movement on that site. Yeah. If I could interrupt you for a second, John, I think, do you know what time of year this would be constructed if you get your permit? Oh, this summer. This year. This summer, okay. So construction would not like to be here with the migration. No, no, no, no, he said finishing work on the existing trails network this summer and hoping to do that when he finishes. Sometime this summer. Okay, great, thanks. Early fall. I guess that's all I have to offer. Okay, that's helpful. Great. Any other questions on this issue from DRB members before we move on? All right, thanks everybody for bearing with us. Good conversation and informative for us. So the next item that we're looking at, page eight of the staff report has to do with erosion control, which we've discussed a little bit. The staff recommendations, the staff recommends a condition of approval, which is that prior to, you know, first it's sort of a typical requirement is that, no, I'm sorry, one thing at a time. The staff suggests the condition of approval that the applicant submit to the zoning administrator and erosion control plan to show compliance with this part of our zoning, which is called section 3080 and that has been signed off on by the Department of Public Works. So John Holler, would you be open to that condition? Yes. Great. And you talked a little bit about erosion control. Could you provide assurance that you're going to be following the practices as delineated in our zoning, which is again, 3008. Those are to limit the size of the construction area to the minimum necessary, preserve existing trees where possible, as we heard in discussion of the wetlands marking site boundaries to identify the limits of construction. And I would say probably also the limits of those wetlands, limit exposed soil, stabilize the construction entrance, et cetera. It's also a census, divert stormwater, treat and filter water as necessary. Yes. So you're prepared to comply with those requirements. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay. Questions from the board on that, on erosion control and management during construction? Yeah, I guess I have one question though. The existing access, that's kind of the old gravel road, the trail there, obviously be upgraded some during construction. Do you see any concerns like sort of long tire needed? Doesn't that cross a ditch or there and there's a culvert? Maybe I'm mistaken. I don't, you know, if it cross a culvert, I'm not sure. You know, I guess this is sort of an ancillary response, but there were questions that come up about maintenance of this. And Mamba is taking on the obligation to maintain the pump track. And we've done that with trails throughout this region, including the North Branch trails we've have, I mean, I was out just to sort of panic. Don't really mention that I think there were 30 people out working on the trails maybe a month ago. So we have a very active network of really committed volunteers to maintain these trails. And I think we'll have the same kind of enthusiasm for people who support this pump track. I don't, so it's a long way to say, man, I'm not sure whether this is gonna create access issues. I don't recall that on that site, but I haven't thought about it like in terms of the truck traffic and bringing the loads of dirt. But I can just, I mean, I could certainly ensure that we'll maintain it and make sure that it's accessible and have no problem at all with the condition like that. Thanks. All right, so what I'd like to move on to next is page nine and 10, which has to do with access and circulation. So John Holler, if you could, you spoke, you said that you expect people to access, you hope for people to access the site by bike. The sun may also come by car. Do you have any sense of the volume of use that there will be? You know, we really don't. It's hard to compare. So the nearest popular pump track is in Waterbury, but that's a couple of miles from downtown, a small community in an area that gets a lot of people coming from out of town to that site. So, you know, it's really hard to say. We've put in the, we had said nine, 10 spaces, the DRB staff had said we could put nine there under the existing rules, which of course, that's fine. I'd be really surprised if you ever saw that many vehicles on the site or that many people on the site at one time, but it's just, I just don't know. Maybe we hope it's popular, we hope it's used. I hope people bike there, but mostly we just want people to be able to enjoy it. Okay, thanks. Questions from the board about access and circulation, anything else board members need to know to make a determination in this area? All right, so when I move on to the parking and loading areas, we just talked about parking that 10 spaces were proposed, but if the spaces meet the required dimensional requirements, there can only be nine spaces and it sounds like you're understanding of that as the applicant. And we talked about how that will be a gravel surface. One question that we're curious about is will, it says that no storage area for the parking lot is indicated, will the parking lot, will the truck be used in the winter? And so will it be necessary to clear the parking lot in the winter? No, generally seasonal, so I'd say May to, maybe late October, mid to late October. Okay, so no storage isn't an issue. Great. Any other questions from board members about parking area? Okay, so a possible condition. Again, I know we started out as minor site plan and this has become a more involved conversation, but to complete, to put a bow on this before getting the permit, we would ask for submission of a site plan that shows in a little more detail where the parking spaces are going. So we can kind of have an idea of how people are coming and going and using the site. That would be for the record. Thanks. That's fine. Great. Okay, if I can pedestrian access and circulation, I think we've talked about that and we have a sense of how it's connected. Last item, I believe to really discuss is landscaping and screening. Again, forgive me, I'm looking at my notes. So we are interested in knowing a little bit about whether there's any plan to screen these from the apartments between the parking area and the housing development to the east if that is under consideration by the group. So we haven't talked about that. We hadn't, as I mentioned or alluded to, we hadn't spent a lot of time on parking because it's really not the purpose of this. We hope that it's parking is not going to be necessary, but I did notice that in the staff report, that was a new issue for me. Hadn't been, so we haven't discussed that issue at all, but I did notice in the zoning regulations, the screening standard, and it says that screenings should be applied to minimize the visibility and impacts of incompatible, disruptive, or visually unappealing aspects of proposed development on the surrounding neighborhood. I would argue that if there is going to be parking there, it's a maximum of nine spaces, it's not going to be visually unappealing or incompatible, disruptive, or visually unappealing. I mean, this is, there's a large parking lot that is in the center of that residential area. This would be, I don't know, some distance when behind the apartments across this trail. I guess I'd just question whether if we put nine space for nine cars on a relatively unimproved surface that that's going to trigger that screening requirement. We'd have to have, we didn't, we don't have money in the budget, we haven't budgeted for screening. I don't know what that would entail. I think there's also was a recommendation that would be certified by an architectural land scraper. We certainly don't have a budget for that. So, you know, there's also a question of whether we've just abandoned the parking altogether if that additional cost was required. But I just not sure, I mean, as I look at this and think about adding additional nine spaces when you already have a pretty substantial parking area right there on the side in the front of those houses or those apartments that this is going to meet that condition. I think what we're probably comparing it to is what's there now, which is more like a meadow rather than what can be seen from the houses which you're right is parking. So that's sort of the balance we're looking at when we're thinking about disrupting this. Questions from board members about this issue or thoughts, opinions? I'm sorry, I can't see any. They hate this, Michael, please go check. Yeah, go ahead, Michael. So from the applicant, I'm really confused about your parking. Do you want the nine spaces or do you not? You seem to be going back and forth and I'm just curious, do you actually want those spaces? Oh, we do, they're in the application. We do want the parking because I think that creates more flexibility and more opportunity for people to use the site. But I think what I was saying is that I'm not sure that if there's screening that's required and that we have to hire a landscape consultant to certify that the screening we've done is adequate. I don't know how many thousands of dollars we're talking about in budget for that. Is that unbalanced then? Is the parking going to be worth it? So yes, we do want to have the parking. Not sure it would be worth it if we have to meet that requirement. I'm not sure I'd have to consult with other people. Thank you. Okay, and Jay, are we trying to screen the parking or the track itself? When I read through the material, it sounded to me that the screening would only come into effect if we were concerned about screening the actual track and not so much the parking. I believe it's about the project as a whole. Right. We do have other instances where we require the screening of parking in particular. Mike, Miller, I don't know if I could put you on the spot about that and ask for your help interpreting. Yeah, that's true. I guess just for maybe thought for the group, I don't know that I really, to be honest, I don't know that I really care at all about the screening parking. Like the applicant said, it's a parking lot. There's gonna be potentially nine additional cars. I don't know that that really matters. So to me, the larger question for the board is, do we wanna screen or require the applicant to screen this track from what sounds like is basically an unused parcel that may or may not have been used to dump snow on. So I guess just, I would like to know what we're trying to analyze the purpose of screening for. As I look at the proposed coming street pump track in our packet, which is page seven of our overall packet, it's the GIS printout showing the wetlands, the wetland advisory layer, snow storage pump track and parking, the screening of the parking would screen it from coming street. And again, what we're comparing it to is currently when you drive by there is that open field wetland. So it would be screened from that as well as from the backyard of folks who live in the coming street apartment. Because it's not being added to an existing parking lot. It's a new, it's a new, it's a new area of parking that in a previously undeveloped area. So I think that's why we're talking about it. Thank you, Michael. So the parking area is the rectangle, the dark gray rectangle that has the arrow dancing around it. So it is a new, a new area. Okay. Other board members have some questions or thoughts about that? Yeah, I have a follow-up. Yeah, Rob, go ahead. Yeah, yeah, I just thought that I had the nine spaces and it seems like that's not an essential number to serve the project. But one thought was ensure that there's space for an emergency vehicle to come in and turn around there. It seems like there is, but if the applicant believes so, none of the site will be better. Okay, so questions for the applicant. Yeah. There certainly would be the way the site plan has been submitted. And that's a good point. I think we'd want to make sure that that is available, that space is available. And I believe this was reviewed by the Chief Police and the side department and found to be adequate for emergency access. All right, so we've taken testimony on all the items in the staff review. And again, I thank you all for your patience and going into detail on things. So at this point, I can't see. Well, I'm gonna sign off and sign on again after this application so maybe we can see each other. But what is the pleasure of the board? Our options are to discuss and then vote or have a private, a deliberative session, which would be just board members in order to deliberate, determine conditions and then vote. What is the pleasure? And that could happen either later this evening or it could happen at another time that we agree to meet together. So based on what you know and what you're comfortable with this application, board members, what's your pleasure? This is my, I would like the deliberative session for this one. Okay. And we could do that later. What other board members? I was gonna say that I did not see a need for a deliberative session, but I'm willing to go with one if that's the board's inclination. This is Joe, I'm comfortable voting now and not going to deliberative session. This is Roger. Likewise, I'm comfortable voting now. Okay. All right. So I'm going. Yeah. Do you want to talk about foot things or river board orders at all or not do that? Ned, thank you for raising that. I appreciate that. If it's okay with other board members that'd like to acknowledge Ned's point, it is in our staff report. And I believe, yes, I'm going to take two minutes of testimony on this from Ned. Thank you for jumping in. Go right ahead. Thank you. I've probably appeared at various other hearings as a state comment from AC Natural Resources in terms of regional floodplain manager for floodplain issues. And I'm not speaking under my official hat tonight. I'm speaking as a resident of Montpelier concerned about the situation. But I did want to just kind of point out what I understood to be some of the elements that come in. And one of the curious things about the Montpelier process is that after it goes to the DRB, then it goes for the floodplain river corridor permit at the very tail end. And it would be really nice if there was a better way to integrate these things so that it doesn't turn out to be so disjointed. So the whole area isn't the floodplain and this is fill in the floodplain. And the city does not have any restrictions against fill in the floodplain. I live right up against the North branch downstream. And as we add fill into the floodplain, it flows higher and faster in various ways. It flows higher in some places and it may flow with more velocity in other places. So as we do that, it does increase the risk that people are already close or in the floodplain elsewhere in town. One standard the state uses in the model is no net fill. So if you add something, you have to add something, you take something away. This doesn't necessarily do that. And again, the city does not have a standard about that. It's not in the floodway, which is a big concern. It is in the river corridor. And so that's a big step that the city took to enable the protection of a river corridor along the North branch itself and only along the North branch upstream of the coming street bridge. And that's based in large part, as I understand about some of the dialogue statewide about river corridors and river corridor protection. But in fact, it is a municipal standard adopted by the city for the city's reasons. It pretty much says you don't do new things in the river corridor, except maybe small accessory structures. You don't put fill in. And part of the logic on the state idea, the state concept of river corridors is we're trying to create room for rivers and streams to change over time. Their positions will incrementally adjust. And that way they'll have the room they need to maintain the least erosive gradient down the valley and do the least amount of damage as it continues through Waterbury and beyond. And so that's really what it's about conceptually. And that helps homeowners and business owners and the city and the roads and all these things all the way through the system. So in this case, as I would understand it, the river corridor is basically to say this area that is not highly channelized, one of the last remaining sections in the city that isn't, that we're trying to not put in new things any closer to the top of the bank than we already have. And to leave some room for the river. That's the basic concept as I would conceive of it. And I can be corrected in terms of how long it would be or interpret that. And the dirt construction of the pump track is an interesting thing. It seems a federal, it's compacted soil, it's complex, it's not going to be asphalt yet. But it poses this question in my mind, is this something that is just kind of a playground and it's gone? Or is this the beginning of something that is loved and cherished and enhanced and becomes more and more precious and needs to be protected against the river over time? So that would be the way in which I would look at the proposal. So that's just, I'm just putting that out there as such. It's an ancient issue, it doesn't need to know rice analysis, but it's basically a nature of the kind of proposal. Okay. Well, thank you, Ned, I appreciate that. I might like to ask if Mike Miller has anything to add about the order of operations with our permitting that would provide some clarification on how the river quarter issue would be addressed for this project? Well, applicants can address their various permits in any order that they want, they can pick them on the ones they think are the most critical to get first. So presumably this application has already been talked because all of our flood rules are all administrative. They've already been working with Audra and I don't know specifically how in depth this conversation has been with them already, with her already and with them. So it's possible that this has already been discussed and is already on its way because our permits are mostly administrative. Okay, is that the case, John? I keep saying John Hallard because we got two on the call tonight. What's the status of the river quarter regulation permit? Yeah, so we've had a number of conversations about this and honestly it's not clear what the right approach is. I mean, I know Audra has mentioned this no net fill requirement. So basically that would mean if we're bringing on 150 yards of soil, we need to take off, we need to remove 150 yards of soil. We think that's a terrible idea environmentally to disturb 150 yards of soil. We don't know what that use has been and you I think have a couple of emails from Alex from the plant from the parks commission who's very supposedly strongly supports this project and is willing to do what we need to to make it done. But that does not seem to me to be in the spirit of this rule. We would I think create valleys and sort of unnatural dips below the surface in the interest of meeting this standard which really wasn't intended to apply to a facility like this. So I made that argument in the submission that I provided to the and I thought that the DRB would be making this determination not that it would be administrative. So I made that argument that that this is not a structure under the Montpelier zoning ordinance. The term structure is a tend to refers to what you would normally think of as a building or other kinds of an improvement. But this kind of a dirt improvement is we didn't think would argue is not a structure. I included a case from another community in Vermont applying a similar definition of term structure. I gather that's not your determination. So I guess I'll follow up with Mike to see where we make that case. And I'll have to hear from Audrey to see where she came. I don't know where there would be in no net field requirement unless you were in the floodway. But I really I don't like to overstep because although I'm a certified floodplain manager myself, I always fall back on the people who do this every day and that's, you know and that's Audra who does the floodplain and Meredith who does the zoning. And so as much as I have experience in working with all of these when you do it every day, you remember where that requirement is that I'm overlooking right now. Yeah, so I'm happy to continue this conversation. So the upside of it is DPW has agreed to hallway if we need, if we're required to do that 150 yards of soil and place it elsewhere that's not in the river corridor. So that's this, you know that meets the requirement of if the floodway river corridor provisions I think it was section 803 applies that that's how we meet this no net fell. We would take away as much as we bring in and DPW has agreed to do that. I'm hoping we can avoid that. I'm not sure that's the best outcome for the environment. So I think we continue having those conversations to see what makes sense. Okay, great. Thanks for raising that net. And now we all have clarity on how that particular characteristic of the site is going to be overseen. So thanks. So I will turn it back to my DRB members. Is there any further discussion or questions from DRB members before we talk about that motion? Hey, Kate, is Michael again? Yeah, yeah, go ahead. So I gotta be honest. I thought this was gonna be a straightforward permit and I'm not really tracking what, and I mean, maybe I'm tired of not paying attention but I'm not really tracking what we're going to vote on. We're talking about maybe fencing, maybe not fencing, maybe vegetation cover, maybe not, maybe doing some sort of thermal pool, amphibian protection thing. So I'm just really unclear where we're at on this permit. Okay, well thanks. That is okay and that's why we're talking. So the conditions that are proposed in the staff report. So first of all, we are assuring that the wetland and vernal pool standards are met and we are applying conditions as we see fit to make sure that those resources are protected. Some of the things that we've discussed are construction during a time when amphibians are not migrating. We have talked about a visual buffer between the pump track so that users don't stray into the wetlands. We have talked about that buffer not necessarily being a Jersey barrier because that would impede amphibian movement. We have not made a decision about landscaping but if the DRB decides that we want landscaping that would become a condition of a permit. And then we have some standard conditions that suggested in the staff report, which I'm slipping to now, having to do with the erosion control plan that would be required, copies of state permit site plans showing the buffers, the parking space, parking spaces, and then if we determine a landscaping plan. So that's kind of the scope of what we are contemplating in this motion, I believe and I would welcome other DRB members to clarify that for me, is that fair? I mean, I think the issue is, is that from my perspective, I would go with the staff recommendations and leave it at that. If board members feel as though there's a need to discuss the other factors that were brought up, journal pools, amphibian migration, screening, then I would recommend that considering we're doing this by Zoom rather than in person, which is an inherent impediment to our ability to express this in a coherent way in a short period of time, then I guess I would suggest we move to deliberative session, close the public hearing and do that. But I'm certainly willing to vote now if the board is so inclined. I am inclined to because there's a lot that we could ponder and deliberate and that I think we need to be on the same page about as board members in order to put together a coherent and fair motion and conditions. So is there a motion to close and might please correct this motion if it's not technically correct, to close the public hearing on this application and continue in deliberative session? Is there a motion? I don't think you need to close the hearing. I think you just need to enter the session. If you're going to deliberative session now, I believe that's what you would do. Okay, I think we're going to go to, we're going to go to, we're going to, my understanding is we'll go to deliberative session at another, outside of this Monday night meeting. Okay. Because I don't, I want to move on to the next application. And Kate, I will make that motion to close the public, no, we're not closing the public hearing, excuse me, to move to deliberative session for consideration of the application. Okay, we have a motion, is there a second? I'll second it, Michael, was there a second? Michael seconds, all right. Joe? I'm comfortable under the deliberation, yes. Yes, okay, Rob? Yes. Oh, I'm sorry, was there any discussion? Let's have some discussion. I just wanted to jump in real quick to go and say, we do have to go to a date certain. So if we're not, if we're not closing the hearing, which I don't think we should close the hearing, then I would say we would move it to a date certain, which would probably be the next meeting. August 3rd. August 3rd, thank you. I'll accept that. Schedule a deliberative session. I'll accept that as a friendly amendment to my motion. Thank you, Kevin. Michael, do you accept that as a friendly amendment? Yeah, that sounds great, August 3rd. Okay, so we did the vote. Joe? Yes. Rob? Here. Roger? Yes. Kevin? Yes. Michael? Yes. And I vote yes as well. So thank you for your patience with the process, John Holler and everyone. I think it will be valuable for us to be able to talk through this just a little bit more in our August 3rd meeting, at which point we'll make a decision and then be in touch. So thank you very much for your first appearance before the DRB. Appreciate your participation. And thanks to everyone else who signed on for this as well. Appreciate it very much. Thank you. I have one more process question real quick. Yes, Rob? The public hearing is still open. Sorry from the public that has additional information that they wish to submit or in fact, that can be submitted and we can review it at our deliberative session. Yes. That's it, thank you. Yes, the reason for keeping the hearing open is if there's at any point, when you go through your deliberative process at the start of the next meeting, that if there is a question, we don't have to re-warn the hearing. If you close the hearing and then find out, we need one more piece of information than legally we have to re-warn the hearing by leaving the hearing open and continuing it to the next meeting, then we don't have to re-warn the meeting after your deliberative session. Great. That makes sense. Important clarification. Yeah, thank you. All right, so soon we will move on to the next application, but what I'd like to do now is take a 11 minute break. Please come back up there. They're all your faces again. Please come back at 847. All right. I wonder if there are any members we have, everyone we're waiting for. I wonder if Joe is going to be rejoining us. I have not heard to the contrary. Can folks still hear me? I can hear you. I just saw Joe not too long ago. Great. Okay. I keep getting booted on and off Zoom itself, so forgive me if that keeps happening. I'm gonna proceed even though I can't see what's going on. Just to let you know, Kate, your voice is coming through fine, but I don't have any video of you. Okay, thank you. And I don't have any video of anyone. I'm only basically joined by phone by now, but you know, I'm gonna do my best to just keep rolling along. It is my goal to wrap this up by 10 o'clock or sooner, if we can, while also not rushing or marginalizing any concerns or rushing any information collection. We do wanna do this right. We don't like to make it a habit to go two meetings or three, but it has happened as folks on this call now. So let's dive in. Let me just say one thing. I totally support your 10 o'clock drop dead time. I think it's important that we contain the testimony and the deliberations within a context when people are still basically awake. So I agree with your 10 o'clock timeframe. Okay, thanks. Let's even aspire for more than basically awake, but entirely ready and in service of our applicants and neighbors in community all around. I know that's what you meant. I'm gonna stay here on phone and click my Zoom link again, but I'm gonna get started. So thank you all for being here. The next application is for general, we're looking at general standards, minor site plan, conditional use review and design review at 99 State Street. And we're familiar with this area of town because we've had some conversations about it this spring and summer. But one of the things that I think we need to remember is that we are making decisions about this application based on what's been submitted for this application, both from the applicant and from anyone else who is participating. So while we may be aware of the overall context, which is kind of our job as DRB members, we know the context of our community. We, as far as evidence is concerned, since I know that this is meeting the zoning, we're taking evidence tonight. Okay. So with that, I would like to swear in witnesses. And Mike Miller, would you please let me know who the witnesses are since I can't see anybody at the moment and still working on that? Okay, let's see, we have worked my way through. We have Jay White, Tom Lowson. There's Alicia. I didn't see you on my list here. Alicia Fieler, and I think that's it. Okay. Anyone else to be heard on this application? Okay, in that case, I will all swear you in. Please raise your right hand to be sworn in. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing, but the truth under the pains and penalties of perjury? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Because you can't see that there's a lot of nodding heads. A lot of nodding heads. Thank you for the translation. And I'm sorry for this inconvenience. My next effort will be to try and join on iPad, but we'll see how this goes. So, Mike, in this circumstance, would you like to provide an overview or like the last application, would you like to have the applicant present that? I think I will let the applicant deal with that. I've reviewed the applications and I've read the staff reports, but I don't think I can summarize the application as well as Alicia probably could. So I'll let her. Okay. Take care of that. That's very good. So in that case, Alicia, please go ahead. Thank you. Let me get my screen at this point. Yes. Okay, great, thank you. So down along the bottom of the page is State Street. This is the parcel 99 State Street. We are proposing to have some changes to the, sorry, the site and also to the actual architecture of the building, which has gone through the design review committee meeting a couple of weeks ago. So the changes to the site plan are proposed to be a removal of an existing ATM kiosk located here and then a inclusion or kind of reinstatement of a teller window here. So there currently is a structure for that that bumps out on the building and it hasn't been in use for over a few years. And so we're looking to remove this kiosk and slide the kind of drive through component forward to have it at the teller window. So with that, we are adjusting the curve width where it's located relative to the actual building space. So it just gets a little closer. The way the drawer kind of opens up for the teller window. The overhang of the drive-throughs. So the same exact piece, the same etching of their community national bank logo and name. Similarly, we are proposing a sign over the Vermont federal sign on the front of the building. There's currently etching granite Vermont federal and that's not what we're going to be in there. So we're proposing to have a, I think it's a stainless steel plaque sign over that so that it could be reversed at a future date and remains that historical nature of the existing sign on that front. That's a general overview. More than having an answer question now or as the meeting proceeds. Great, thank you, Lisa. As we start off, are there any general questions from the ERB members about what was just presented? Fairifications on the go-to-the-project. And I would invite you to just type up because I'm still having trouble getting onto the Zoom. This is Alicia again. I want to clarify change of use currently is an existing office building. So we are changing use to thank yous as well as having that condition. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Before we get into it, one thing I want to understand about the site and forgive me if you've explained this just now, I was a little distracted with the Zooming. This will come up more later, but just as part of the overview. My understanding is that there's a proposal to raise the elevation of the area and access the drive-through by 10 inches. And you may have just shown this on the picture that I was unable to see. Again, I apologize. But could you clarify what that looked like and how it relates to the overall space that we know is the shared area or one of seven and another? Certainly. So yes, we are proposing to raise the elevation at the face of the building. And we managed to get that to eight inches. We originally had a different kind of kind of height inside the building and Jay was able to work with me and really go through a thorough analysis of what is a comfort level for the deteller box and whatnot. Because we need comfort on the inside of the building and on the outside of the customer coming to the window. So we managed to get it to eight inches of elevation change, but then it flares back down to the existing pavement elevations all along the property line, certainly in the route crossing to the property line. And then also, this is our stopping point of the northern side of the site and then down here in the southern portion, which is still over 40 feet from the sidewalk where along State Street. And it did make a whole cross section for reference and everybody's information. So this is the existing. We're not seeing your screen share for you. You need to pop that up. I'm so sorry. Okay. So this is the cross section that is of the existing. Here's the property over here on this side would be the. 105 State Street property. And then this is the property line here. This is the edge of the right away line, which is 10 and a half feet. And then over here is where our building face is. This is the restored roof that is being proposed. Now there's a flat face to the exterior of the building. Instead of having the pump out the current layer. We remove the curve in. Because that doesn't require the curving so far out. And so the proposed elevation change just to give you an idea. And in this, this dotted existing rate is over 6%, about 6 and a half percent. In this area. And then so we are increasing it. Some and we definitely take a note of that. And that's why we were trying the best to minimize how much elevation change there was in that area. So there's no. So. I think that unfortunately I wasn't able to see it. I'm glad others are seeing it. I know we'll talk more about it. I don't know. I'm restarting my computer more than you want to know, but that's where I am. So at this point. I think what would be best is if we heard from Mr. Logan. Here's a comment on this application. No, I'm sorry. Let me pause there. Is there. Is this an appropriate time to hear from Jay as well? Or should we wait? Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. I mean, maybe it doesn't matter. I mean, I think it's very straightforward. You mean. I think the science is sensitive to what's there. And I don't think there's really any issue regarding the designer. I've been, I think you've seen the. Issue with the design. Okay, well, I think what we'll do is maybe tap into your expertise as we reach the site plan more in more detail. But just to think of general overviews and a question of information. I would like to invite Mr. Logan to speak next to take a few minutes. We've received your memo today and you're welcome to go ahead and present that now. Okay, thank you very much. Can everyone hear me okay? Yes. Oh, okay. I have to apologize. I'm not very technically proficient. Is there any way you can put my memo on the screen and I'll simply run through it? Could you screen share that with us? That was a yes. And I want to explain to you the timing because I know you're all very busy. I didn't mean to get the deal late this afternoon. But what happened was the packet was on the webpage, the city's webpage on Thursday, and I didn't realize that Meredith was going to need to take the packet down on Friday. So I ended up working on my comments on Friday when I went and accessed packet. It wasn't there because Meredith is adding some information. So I was only able to access it on Saturday and then the range of sites isn't okay. So the only issues that I have, I've got an issue with the third stacking space. And as you can see, that's my deal. The first hardening space is removing the act away from state degree. The first hardening space. And when I took the picture, I wanted to just note the little page in my vehicle. I typically park about a foot from the curb. You take a good reference into the picture and use my right perspective. So if you see where the little dog house is sort of in the center that protrudes, that's the dog house that's over the existing color window. And I believe they're posing to replicate that dog house and in addition to the building. So that's actually the edge of the building. The brickwork that you see that protrudes out a little bit more. So that's actually the end that's going to be eliminated. And then we're ready. So moving to the second red line second to your right. It's where the right away starts. And I would point out that this project seems to pose work in an area in a right of way that we have legal. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. You. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. And. If it wasn't discussed with us before before we saw it here. So if you could move that down to the next picture, Mr. Miller, that would be great. He moved the, yeah, there you go a little bit more. Little bit more. Little bit more. Yeah, that one's that one's fine. Actually, I can go I can do the narrative on that Nope, the yeah, I mean that one's fine. I think you might have moved a little bit down and skip the picture. I apologize Yeah, so that's just a better picture of you know the side of the building and So if you were looking if you look at where the the red arrow on the left is that's actually that line is Depicting where the parking area is it's rather faded But it's there. So that's where the rear of a vehicle would be and the second arrow to the right that's again the start of the right-of-way and That yellow line that's a distance of approximately seven feet. So it would be difficult for You know again, we just have concerns with that third Stacking area because if there were a vehicle at the drive-through and occupying the second stacking space a Vehicle simply and there was a vehicle parked in that first parking space a vehicle simply wouldn't be able to queue up Properly in the third space without being at somewhat of an angle and by being at an angle the angle They'd be encroaching on the right-of-way. They just the third space simply wouldn't function If there's a vehicle parked in that first space and two vehicles occupying the teller lane So if you could move down, please mr. Miller You're doing great Yeah, that's that's perfect and I just wanted you you know to notice, you know again looking at the angles We didn't put if you look at that site visually When we place the Jersey barriers, we place them well away from You know the right-of-way line because we didn't want to encroach on it I wanted to leave plenty of room for people So in fact the the right-of-way a lot of people think the right-of-way is depicted or our property rights are depicted by the Jersey barriers They're not those are well back from the right-of-way line, which actually is painted on the site So you can see you know where the right-of-way starts On the left-hand side left arrow and where it ends with the right arrow and you can also note You know if you note there how significant the grade is the grade from 99 State Street You can see that's a fairly significant grade and so you know again we have concerns about Filling and adding to the steepness of that grade when we presented this memo to Meredith she forwarded it to Tom McCartle and Tom McCartle response was I missed that this is going to affect Stormwater runoff, you know the stormwater comes off the roof in from the teller lane And he noted that it was going to affect stormwater runoff and and again not to hear a phrase It's what he said in his memo. We missed that in our review I think I believe Mr. Miller, I think that's our last picture. Oh, no, there's one more actually if you wouldn't mind almost Yeah, perfect. So that's the existing teller window So again, and I want to say we're very supportive of this project You know Pat does a good job with his buildings. I think it's very very well done As we were planning our project I'd look at that building and I thought it was sad how it had been allowed to deteriorate and we would place bet The windows would actually stay in the sash Fortunately, they made it until Pat bought the building. So I think they're going to do a great job So we are supportive of the project in general But I just point out that all of the change in grade which is going to affect stormwater which is going to affect because the the change in grade and what the applicant is proposing goes beyond The right-of-way it goes into the right-of-ways proposing to change the grade of Property that others have rights to and change it in a way that's going to have adverse effects on our property So again, all of this could be eliminated. That is the existing teller window You can see the drawer is at driver door height and I I don't have a high vehicle. I have a low vehicle so You know if that teller drawer can can service my vehicle I think the the natural or logical approach would be simply avoid the fill and Move maintain that window height when the window is relocated and I see you know, you talked a little bit in the presentation I know you want to talk Jay in the presentation you talked about convenience convenience of the customer convenience of the teller However, that you also have to consider the convenience of the neighbors and the fact that by changing this grade You're going to significantly impact and you can see the steepness of the grade just in how my car is sitting You can see that's a fairly steep grade now and they're proposing to increase it So again, as long as that third stacking space can be addressed and the grade or Elimination of change and grade can be addressed. We're fully supportive of this project. Thanks very much. Hope it didn't take too long Oh Yeah, just a second, please Jay I'm here and I think that my my phone is not joined with my voice, but you get the idea So what I'd like to do next since this is kind of a big issue it touches upon stormwater as well as site Circulation issues. I would like to have a little bit of back and forth on this now while it's all fresh in our mind rather than waiting until we get to that point in the staff report and so So, yes, I just wanted to provide that little overview Jay. Okay Okay, it might be helpful to either have Elisha's plan back up or the for the photographs that Was just up recently might be helpful might if you can put that one back up that shows the window Okay, now time says that's a drawer. What you're looking at there is not the drawer That's the remains of a pneumatic tube system And that is actually a drop-off that is being removed. That's not going to be there the window. That's going to be put in Petrude outward of the building. It actually is flush with the building So that allows us to move the curb closer to the building which reduces the Overall height and slope and I think if you look at Elisha civil engineering plans They actually show it better as far as what the right-of-way is and what the driveway is But what we are proposing is leaving the roof where it is, but restoring it. It needs to be repaired and moving Away the existing window that you see there and putting in a new modern window that does not require a Pneumatic tube the ATM that is going to be in That's been removed from the little kiosk building that is in kind of front of this spot That's been removed. So that allows the curb also to be straight back And it also the ATM is going to be accessed on the pedestrian side of the building Which is the other side of the building as well a night drop box And so what Tom says the drawer is there it's not a door Tom And that is a drop box that's being removed and also I think Tom You've parked your car quite a ways away if a person was actually using that window They would be much closer to the curve than what you're showing So I think if we go back to Elisha if you can share your screen and show the site plan again I think that would clarify that there is enough with to do Basically what's been done for for years if you'll go the overall site plan You see the parking is really the same parking that's been there we're proving that because we're no longer having to have cars stop at the ATM machine and perhaps block access to the dry through teller machine So there's only one machine on this side of the building now And I think the grade that Elisha has there on the right hand there if you can kind of show in there You can see the the existing grade surveyed by the engineers a dash line The other line is just slightly higher in the curve that you see is there as we're putting a six inch curve there But we're not putting the curve against the brick wall because we want to not bury the brick wall But the driveway I think works perfectly well all within the normal standards of the driveway because the right of way is actually a lane over from where the drive through is so I think that it's It's better to look at the site plan as opposed to perspective photographs and I think Tom you You I think I've noticed when you park in front of your You're building in Berry City Hall you park much closer to the curve than what you park at this site But I think that drivers can park all the way in and as they have for years you can get around the The tail end of the cars that are parked under diagonal Spaces that are already there So I think that actually the an improvement to the overall flow of the traffic As and I think the other very important thing to notice is that this the site plan that was submitted by uh, mr. Lowes on civil engineer did not show the Existing drainage that tarmer carl said just it could be added in the park in the flush in the swash parking lot It's already there And I think that the grade change is here as you can see the leashes civil engineering drawings Do not go into any additional fill on the property line of the neighbor So as long as the survey is correct, which ours is certified I don't I don't know that uh, mr. Lowes on is certified because it did not show an existing major Storm drain which is where the water this water would go to it doesn't all drain down the right of way And tom mccartland was suggesting that perhaps it could be added to not drain down the right of way It's already there. It just is not shown on the low zone site plan, and I think it should have been Can you show us where that is on this site plan? Yeah, I'm gonna I'm gonna take you don't mind j So the site plan the site plan that I submitted as well had a missing structure on it in error So it was not just mr. Lowes on's plan. I will take Admit that I did exclude by accident the drainage structure located here It is on our property the 99 states u property It is a catch basin So it will let water in and it is generally in the low spot of the site now You can see my screen. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. Um, there is also I have a photo to share that Um That shows here's the catch basin And I just it was oversight on my original submission. It has been included in the plan now It is generally the low spot. However, you may see that there's also a pothole that's lower right now, which would be fixed To allow water to drain properly to that structure I did check to see if the the grades on our site were going to pond substantially or Create an excess of storm water now draining to the structure on mr. Lowes on's property That's located closer to state street and they're proposing a little bit of work on that one I did not include the proposed work. It shifted the catch basin and Made sure to match their new their new height So the water is draining from right arrow down here Um, it's a shallow slope, but it is still the draining all the way in this direction towards this catch basin Excluding there there's a few, you know, um, kind of anomaly spots of potholes and and such in in this area Where it gets really really shallow and maybe Um, we'd love to work with um, I never did see a grading plan from this proposed Um project, but I assumed they were meeting existing elevations along the property line as it's kind of generally understood. Um And so we're proposing to do the same thing to match existing property line Um, and then also I wanted to show this partial This partial plan to try to alleviate some of the concern with the the parking space So if this this is the the 10 and a half foot right of way, this is the edge here And um, tom mentioned a seven foot width Approximately and I can understand it's it's pretty hard to measure and perspectives of photos or sometimes Can be miskewed. So anyway, I've drawn a line here that's seven feet when I ended up measuring it on my planet Ended up being seven and a half. This is the seven foot line And this is kind of the projection of the back of that parking space here or the side Which would end here if it was a square about space so the vehicle maneuvering From the common right of way this direction comes around um If those if there are cars which several times of the day there might not be but oftentimes there may Those cars this car could maneuver in the right of way, which we're allowed to do and I think everybody agrees that And then they can maneuver back into this parking space. Excuse me stacking space Um, and that allows us to have one service space and two stacking spaces There haven't we don't feel that there's the need for a third stacking space just based on some different information and different projects in the area and different existing banks in the area So we feel like that that is an adequate amount the one service and the two stacking spaces um And so that it is closed. I could have finessed the the model a little bit better to make it Even further, but that's not what we're trying to do. It does get that car into the space into the stacking space as we've shown it um I also got the information from tom mccarroll. We can just grab that real quick Um, so I agree. He's he absolutely said that he missed that there was a great change Um, and I think the the main source of confusion was the lack of a catch basin shown on on the plan that the water um that Is coming off of our now higher elevated site will will need to make it to this catch basin which it will Um, and it that wasn't shown before so there is an area for it to collect um, I'm I'm not sure about how much water the catch basin um that Is further towards state street is going to collect that's I mean, we're not going to we're not proposing any changes to it It's not on our property. We kind of um out of our hands on that one, but so mr. McCarroll mentioned um That no possible remedy to the drainage flow problem Maybe to add a new drain Westerly of the existing drain with a room elevation to catch the water and so I think the When the plan showed Adjusts room as necessary. This is the drain manhole. So it's a solid drain cover as a as a junction from multiple pipes The actual inlet is here So we just wanted to make sure that somebody didn't bump their car over this manhole Or we're going to a big pothole because we're changing elevations We want to adjust that room to to have a smooth site. Um, and that's why that note Adjusts room as necessary is here. We aren't proposing changes to this as it falls in the corner of our proposed area Of change so that's supposed to be existing and stay there Okay, so at this point if I may um, I'd like to pause and See if drb members have some questions or clarifications. I'm glad that we've dived right in They're talking about substance I can see you now. I'm on an iPad. So I'm gazing off into the distance. Just thank you for bearing with me Questions from drb members Do you have a number for that um, that stacking lane as it currently exists? It seems like you'll be moving that closer to the building the other exact You know measurement on how Much closer the car will be able to go to the building For instance, maybe a distance from the edge of the right of way to uh, you know The the closest point at which the car can pull into the building sure, um, so the Let me just grab it then there's the the curb has been slid a distance of sorry lots of clicking Um over one foot the curb has moved closer to our building. Um while still remaining With a gap between behind the curb like jay mentioned to protect the existing base brick facade And face so that curving has slid over an extra over a foot. It was about um 11 sorry 13 inches And so does that translate to an extra foot of the traveled way of The uh, the right of way other question. Yes It's an extra foot of drive through space the common right of way Only is ever 10 and a half feet wide right I have a question about the uh slope um, are there any Recommendations or standards as far as slopes within a parking lot in vermont that you know of um Flatter is better except not too flat. So you don't pond So that's that's I mean there's there's no um, I was unable because I did a lot of searching as I was um Wanting to make sure we had a a well-designed site. So There's some information on parking garages on what side slopes, you know, because it's not a vertical slope you're not driving up and down it like a um Traditional travel way it's across the slope which is getting steeper Um, so I was trying to look into that So I looked at a lot of different areas around small pillar just to see how how do things work in a pillar already Are there cross slopes? Are there's you know, where cars are moving around corners? How steep do things get so? For just for a reference, I don't It's unrelated to our site completely other than I just wanted to use it for reference Um When you're turning from Berry Street onto Sibley ad so everybody know if you've been there, you know that it's like a reverse curve almost Um, and that's a 16% Turn so that's not at all over losing. We're down to the 10. It's still more than a normal street. That's A cross slope of two to five percent But it is it's a travelable travelable slope And and not unheard of. There's several other areas in the in the city that are steep and I'm not aware of issues with them, but that doesn't mean That they don't exist, but I didn't Tom McCartle didn't necessarily you know, the spot all lesions are there. Um He didn't necessarily say that he was concerned with the slope. It was more just that where's the storm are going to go Um, I think that that concern could be just alleviated machine Thank you Could you just point one more time? On the north side going towards the catch basin of where uh, you know the approximate Like limits of your filling for the raised grade will be This here. Oh We're matching back to existing Um and the what I am the uh Steepest section is in this course at the teller window component here. Yeah, right And then it to give you a perspective this is where it it takes back in here Thank you. So it's a little difficult to visualize, but there'll basically be a hump There the car kind of pulls up onto to access the taller window And then it'll be kind of a hump back down to get back into the travel life I think it's more gradual than a hump. It's slightly higher. It's a drive through but I don't I wouldn't call it a hump Go ahead Lisa I think I think that's the easiest way to describe it that yes, it's an elevated surface and it flares down everywhere else um, it's not necessarily like a um A pothole that you're bouncing in and out of or you know a Mound I guess not the opposite of a pothole But you you slope up and you and then you slope back down and you're on a cross slope. So you kind of um Yeah, it's it's like uh going around a bank curve or something like that that there's a cross slope But then you're also maneuvering horizontally forward and backward forward. Hopefully Um across the site Okay, I guess when you speak the cross slopes on a roadway I know the agency of transportation tries to stick to under 8% on a side slope and the 6% being more preferable the reason being because of ice um I know it's probably a minor concern, but 10% is pretty steep for a side slope for a car to be on and there is the potential that in a freezing conditions Like freezing rain or something where the entire surface comes covered a nice car will just slide down that 10% slope um I don't know for a fact without what happened. I'm just stating that it does concern the 10% slow concerns me a little bit understood um, and and that's why we really um It was a little bit steeper before and we really tried to push the limits of the um usability uh to this minimum minimal slope um, and I think in unfortunately in freezing rain um The the key is is to have the water move off of the surface And so when the surface is sloped The water should be shedding off of the surface and go into those low points in a freezing rain situation where um, or or icing situation where things are going to be slippery faster Is on those flat areas that aren't draining um And then if there's already ice. Yes, the steeper the more likely for a sliding um occurrence I think that the of course the agency of transportation is probably working with Different speeds, you know, I'm I'm hoping people are are driving cautiously through an area where there's three different properties using it and being aware of their surroundings freezing rain stay home. Don't go to the bank, but um people will kind of always do things. Um That's that was Consideration, you know, I think also that's as steep as both of it is less steep it gets down to nothing again So it's just the steepest part right where the drive-up is And there's only one Yeah, it's um the the steep section that we're calling is is the length of one car So, you know as that or 20 feet or so. So Um as you're getting off of it, uh a half a second later again, you're coming back off of it So kate, are you still with us? Okay, so it appears that uh kate's uh technical issues have have uh reappeared Evan you're the vice chair i'm the vice chair I need to get oriented here a bit. So i'm going to call for a For a three-minute recess So we can get back on track. Let's see if we can track down kate She might be coming back in she's under vnrc now. Okay Wonder if you want to worry. Here she comes Well, while we have a quick break. Alicia, do I have the the copies of what you just presented? Or does that have to get sent to meredith for the files? I will send to meredith for the files certainly perfect. I already have toms. So that's good Thank you. That was inconvenient for everybody and I apologize and I will acknowledge that I'm signing on on my work computer Um, but I'm it said the nrc, but I'm I'm here as kate mccarthy citizen of montelier. So Um kevin, why don't you um take it to the next step or finish whatever thought you were? guiding and then I can Why we were in between we were just finishing up with the with the testimony from the applicant And so we didn't really skip a beat. We took a break for three minutes and you're back and uh, I'm going to pass the baton back to you kate Magical thank you all for your adaptive. Welcome. Welcome to my dining area So what I would like to do next is um start on the staff report The first item on the staff report has to do with the recommendations of the design review committee Um, we're just going to go in that order and from what I see I'm going to have to quote my notes as we're talking the design review recommendations involve, um rough I think rough free I'm sorry j could you summarize the design review recommendations for me? I know that's not typical, but I would appreciate your help The design review the design review recommendations had an approval of every issue on the list there They liked everything that we're proposing. So I think mainly what I like is we're basically proposing to restore the exterior of the building to its original conditions, uh with the exception of this replacement of this one old drive through window with a new drive through window We are good pointing the bricks We are painting all of the woodwork. We are replacing two uh Rotted windows with two brand new windows to match exactly. There's still single pane windows with the same size buttons everywhere else has Um, we have an option to add historic shutters that we're researching what they would look like We think that they may have been operable. This is the lower portion of it. Um, that's an option that we can or can't do We didn't want to make that a requirement and the design review committee did not require that we put on shutters But pat malone would like to consider putting shutters on the building We have located all of the mechanical heat pump system On the roof of the lower section where it's not visible They like that feature very much because we're not adding anything into the yard area They also like that we are maintaining the flood control major that were already in the building when pat purchased it That was mainly a concrete block wall that sat Inside of the existing original historic stone walls There was a kind of an 18 inch space between the concrete block wall and the stone wall And that was set up for flood Control and also all of the exterior openings that you normally have an historic building in the basement level Had already been filled in so there's no Flood issues that we would need to worry about plus Eric Gerbertson wrote a very strong letter of confirming that the building is and is a very strong candidate for the national red register contributing structure and it will be more so contributing when it's restored Wonderful and I think the The advantage of Of the product going ahead is that it really is an improvement for the city of Montpelier And it's it was a bank before we're making it a bank again And we're improving the instead of having both pedestrian and three things to access on the I guess it'd be the west side of the building. We only have the tele window where it is now and we're moving the the ATM And the night deposit box over on the pedestrian side of the building and that We heard about that a little bit earlier Thank you. I'm sorry to I think that um, I'm sorry to cut you off, but in the interest of time I want to say that I think it it sounds like it's very compatible. It's wonderful to hear the design review committee is favorable one of the recommendations of The design review committee pertains to tree care And that recommendation is as well as the option to do the shutters are ones that we will likely Um, include and I think there's no no objection to either of those. Is that is that correct? And just the there isn't an objection The owner did not care for the wording about the tree uh component On the recommendation form so he didn't sign that one He's he wants to just make sure that everybody knows We know that those trees are not in the best of health and we're going to get an arborist to evaluate them We'd like the ability to have the arborist help us in decision making for options for the tree, but certainly limbing and minimizing hazards of the tree Is is a very key crucial part of this project So the the wording in the recommend wasn't quite what he wanted. He did sign the the sign recommendation form Okay, and is that is the objection to the wording that it calls for I think it calls for like historically appropriate trees Is that a limitation that he wants to avoid? No, the it was just It was just that they indicated if at any point these trees are deemed to be in poor health and no longer an asset They may be removed. So we already know that they're in poor health and we're we're not asking to be removed It was just a little bit vague a little bit ambiguous. Um We're already evaluating them. We do want the ability to remove them if we need to for his safety But um, we want to go to the proper saving the tree if we can All right, we'll take that into account when we get to that point Kevin Yeah, I'm just gonna ask what what type of trees are they currently? Norway, Naples Okay Okay All right. Well good. Thank you. I think that that gets us through the design review portion here What I'd like to do next is have a look at the general stand. We're just gonna walk through the staff report We we tackled one of the big parts of the discussion. We'll we'll return to that As we go through but um, it's it's okay with everybody and I'm dragging back in. Um, we'll just go through the staff report. Is that okay? Let's go here. Do you remember? Thank you All right, so um, as you recall what we're looking at here the these uses are allowed So the change of use isn't isn't really under great isn't under scrutiny It is the drive-through that is a conditional use in this district as we are aware Um, the dimensional standards appear to be appear to be met. Um, the removal of the The bump out atm is not it's not part of the original this thing is dark places. So we're we're okay there um Can we comply with the general standards? Um, we've discussed um We have not discussed erosion control, but as as is standard. Um, we want to Confirm that the applicant will comply with those erosion control practices of 30 Oh, eight D. Is that the case? As best as they um as appropriate on a small site. Yes As appropriate on a small site. Okay. Very good. Um, and then storm water management We talked a little bit about um, it's possible that um One of the reasons that tom mccartle was unsure what to conclude about storm water lighted the proposed grade change Was that um, the the cash basin was not on the plan We since discussed where it would be on the plan and it it seems to clear up some of those questions Do any um, you know my thought there is that if dpw signs off on storm water This section could be found to be met But before before I conclude that on my own Do drv members want to talk need any more evidence about storm water on this site? Not here Okay Maybe I just I think it's not what I wanted to sort of flag an issue here. Um, I don't know where appropriate is to do it We've got two sites. We've got they're both currently being engineered And we have you know, I think as joe mentioned we have some very, you know steep grades and Maybe I just want to reiterate that only gets the place of the drv to be deciding What can and cannot happen within that, you know, a deeded, you know, right away Very much would encourage that be worked out. Um between the two, you know, landowners especially because you know engineering Doesn't stop at the property lines. They have to have to meet together And so I don't think we're going to be able to finish everything tonight and would encourage That type of collaboration Between now and our next hearing so Maybe that's already happening, but I just wanted to reiterate that If I may thank you for that and we're we welcome a call Thank you all. Um anything else from drv members on storm water? All right Moving right along. Um, we move into access and circulation section 3010 um, and We have talked about The fact that the the new atm the new drive-thru It's not a cam the new drive-thru teller window is going to be about 10 feet closer to the street than the current one is We've talked about ingress and egress From 107 as well No, the teller window is exactly where it is now The atm is being removed and the atm is going to be on the other side of the building We're not moving the door roof where the teller window is it's still going to be the same location. It's just a different window Okay, so what i'm looking at is um in our staff report on page nine where it says The only significant changes that instead of drive-up bank customers stopping at the It's just an atm ks because they will stop roughly 10 feet closer to the egress for 105 states Um, I'm not sure what that's referring to. Maybe what it's saying is that I think they may have thought that the atm was being moved up to there and it is not Okay, I understand that The atm has been moved over to the other side of the building as a pedestrian only atm We don't okay. That makes sense. We've walked up to the side of the building Yeah, it's the the staff reports a little uncertain on that Okay, I was going with the red highlights in the staff report. I've got enough clarification on that if others do too We'll roll along Good to go Sounds a lot like rushing, but I do intend to be thorough. So do you stop me as as you did um so, um another highlight from our staff report is the signage about how to Navigate through that Drive-through is not indicated on the plan. Is there a Plan for signage to direct customers of this bank to the to the new new window or the the old window in the new configuration Right, we had um, we hadn't proposed any signage The the site flows counterclockwise currently and has Historically for many years The diagonal parking already is there. So we didn't necessarily have a Sign that said drive-through come in this entrance or anything like that I think uh For whatever reasons it seems like it's been it's been functioning quite well And if somebody were to go the opposite direction They would just notice that they couldn't access the drive-through and they'd have to come back around in the other opposite direction because there is an ability In theory two-way traffic on both of those common right-of-ways um, and then What was the other piece of that? I think that's So then the other That we were going to put drive-through Paint on the on the drive-through lane and a white stripe along the right-of-way to to focus people into the Lane against the building to not have people Flowing around in the right-of-way okay Dear B members, who's that does a painted lane that you're basically indicating the directionality of use The direction you go in order to use the um the teller window So the W and arrow painted on or something like that Right similar to if you're in a restaurant drive-through there's stainless Okay, great. I think that satisfies the concern as I see it So we're moving on to page 10 of the staff report emergency vehicle access street improvements are found to be adequate We talked about signage um And ensuring that we're managing flow within the site as as well as as can be Um, are there any dear B questions about site circulation management of traffic in the site directional signs? I have a quick question about where they park at the the window Is there okay, Joe? Yeah, it's a little difficult to tell it looks like it's close Is there site distance from the driver's side window? You know down that road or does the building cut it off? um There is um, let me see if I can um Yeah, I guess the building doesn't really come out that far Right, so, you know, this would be the the driver would be sitting roughly here looking through the windshield um, and the building corner outermost corner is here um, and so there's I would I would Say that they could see the entire opening here and certainly that um I think that they can visibly see around that corner to the street Thanks any other Yeah, all right, all right, okay I'm gonna continue Um parking and loading areas are not applicable. We're not seeing any changes. Um We talked a little bit about signs um And they are within range of what is acceptable within our um requirements So that brings us to the bottom of page 11 of the staff report, which is special use standards The special use for contemplating here is the drive-through um, the stacking lanes Um are located by the building as required. We talked about how they will be Will the stacking lanes themselves be signed marked and separated from travel lanes? The the idea would be to have the paint marking designate that Designate those spaces as separate from the maneuvering space of the common right-of-way Okay, thank you. Um, we talked about signs to direct Teller users Um Some of these other standards are not applicable because of the location of the stacking. I look into the building Um, can you confirm that those spaces are 18 feet long by nine feet wide? Yes Thank you So then the other thing to consider um, we're we're familiar with this part of the of the um The specific use standards is um We we want to confirm whether we want to understand whether it is The drive-through is located a sufficient distance from property lines and screens to prevent adverse impacts Including but not limited to noise and light trespass on adjacent properties. So could you Offer testimony on how um, those impacts from the from the color window will be managed or mitigated Um, yes So the the um Light from the the actual window. There's a proposed overhead light underneath the underside of the roof overhang um, uh, that's the only lit component during the evening hours when Outside of business hours, I should say. Um, obviously it gets dark earlier um The kiosk that was previously used was an operation 24 7 And this teller window will only be an operation during open business hours um, so we feel like that the the light kind of associated with it will be Comfortable or less the um Noise, you know in the in the area. It's a downtown area. There's there's going to be noises We don't think it's outside of the level of any of the other Abutting properties and and similar businesses Okay, thank you. I might just add the um, can it add one thing to it? We just have the light that we are Putting over the this or under the ceiling of the existing roof Is a small led light so it just shines down the current light is a larger sodium light that basically floods the whole area We just want to concentrate right over the teller window Great. Thank you. Um, any questions from board members about this standard? Okay. Thank you Um, all right. So we're moving on to site plan standards. We beginning on page 12 of our staff report We know this is a minor site plan that we are reviewing and approving Or reviewing for approval. I should say um So by some pedestrian access you told us that there will be an atm I'm sorry a pedestrian accessible atm and night drop box um, and those are Accessed by a sidewalk to those to those features both a sidewalk and a ramp so they're handicapped accessible But they are not in where the driveway is They're at the public entrance from the parking lot Okay, and not required but always applying curiosity is anybody's parking being proposed None is being proposed Okay, um any questions about this from the um board members Okay, so that brings us to landscaping and screening. We've talked about the trees um We would like to know a little bit about how um where the rubbish will be stored and how that will be screened the previous um use in used the Exterior dumpster bin that's located on 107's property. They had a shared agreement for that usage. Um, currently They haven't necessarily negotiated any such um usage But it's intended to have totes type Waste containers inside the building. Um, we aren't proposing any new dumpsters on our uh portion part parcel Okay, all right Um Okay, so one of the main outstanding questions about landscaping was how that would screen the refuse Use storage and what I'm hearing you say is that the wheelie bins will be inside the building Or inside a shed or something like that Do do others have questions about this? These sections they are being members. Um outdoor lighting we've talked a little bit about that. Um, we We we do need um We we know that it's very very likely that these lights will not exceed the maximum allowable for the parcel But the suggestion of our staff Meredith is that we receive um A diagram showing the total movement output for all lights on the parcel the The exterior lights, uh That are being you know on the outside of the building are those little five inch by five inch by inch and a half led lights And that that specification is actually submitted as part of the architectural drawings Okay, and uh, and then the other light that's on the front of the building is an existing lantern that has two candelabra lights in it And we would just seen that and we placed those little candelabra lights with with new ones that aren't burn out and All of that was approved by the design review committee when they also had the same question on lighting And we are there are existing Pull lights in the back that we are just keeping as they are And all of the lighting is within the 60 watt equivalent and a warm color temperature Okay Can you come through the board? Or yeah, at least I go ahead you're asking for a um Like an engineered plan of of what the lumens are for the existing poles I mean we have to take them apart and figure out what light is in there, but um Is are you looking for a lighting plan or just a plan showing where the lights are and what each picture has The second thing Thank you um All right, I I feel like I'm rushing a little bit, but I also think we're hitting what we need to hit so board members Tell me if you want if we need to do something different. Uh, we're All right. Thank you very much. Um, so we're going to move into the conditional use standards Which brings us to page 16 of our staff report Again, the conditional use that we are evaluating is the drive-through. It's only the drive-through that we're looking at Um capacity of community facilities and utilities. This is not going to increase park usage or water usage or um kids in schools The next item of conditional use has to do with traffic and we've received testimony that There's an estimated 125 vehicle trips per day 10 a.m peak 28 p.m peak peak p.m And it's the um staff assessment or It's the evidence presented is that the trip ends would be created with even without the drive-through So that's a thing about this conditional use. We're not evaluating How many trips the bank would generate we're evaluating how many trips the drive-through would generate and trying to separate those out um There's no request for a traffic study the only concern expressed by dpw's lack of clear markings and signage which we've discussed so the staff recommendation is that um The city's experts on the matter do not appear to have concerns regarding potentially increased traffic from the drive-through And the expected new peak hour trips do not trigger a traffic study I want to pause and see if this is something that drb members wish to discuss further So 10 to 28 trips per hour And peak and p.m peak respectively And if p.m peak four to five or is it varied by location? I think it's worth noting that the drive-through teller is only going to be during business hour There's no longer going to be a 24-7 access as the current Situation had been when there was an ATM there. So that would actually reduce the amount of of traffic on that right away So the the am peak and p.m peak most likely are within those business hours And and contributing to when one other things are I believe it's four to six It can vary based on area, but generally four to six Okay, thank you Um anything else on this from drb members Okay, references to character of the area That's another component of the conditional use review that we look at we've talked about architectural compatibility quite a bit There are really no changes to Yars or a lot coverage and landscaping is compatible with the character of the area It could be argued that the Rebuilding of the window improves architectural compatibility Staff points out that it is A shifting of the bank related drives reuse is as compared to a completely new use So my own opinion is one word number is that when things have gone dormant for a while We we kind of start over from what's there Rather than what used to be there and comparing it to that Um, hey, I think correct that it isn't improvement because now the window is flushed with the building doesn't protrude forward And we're going to be repairing the brick wall underneath it, which is now Missing and we will match that and tooth those bricks in to match the rest of the brick wall. So The only thing that will protrude beyond the brick wall is the roof which is as it does now The best is Thank you Um, do you have any members thoughts on this um character of the area and the drive-thru anything you wish to discuss? Well, I mean I already see this A form of requirement here, but I guess I think uh, you know What I'm seeing everything together with these these two adjoining properties and these two projects is that Um, all three properties and the public would greatly benefit from you know Some clear pedestrian access all the way all the way through. Um, I don't know that that's something that Is required of us, but um And I don't know that this new drive-thru even really increases the traffic on this lane But um, you know, while this, you know, redevelopment of these adjoining proposals happening I think that everyone would benefit if that was uh, you know something that existed Thank you, Rob. In terms of Thinking into the future. I think that's something that we can um, we can hope for but not mandate We don't have anything to hang our hat on standards wise and in making that request at this point But I think it's a good observation anyway Um, Joe, did you want to chime in? No, I'm also Okay But um, really noted Rob. Thank you um, all right, so pause I'll take a breath. Um Are there any other items? drv members that you wish to discuss further or Get a better understanding of get more evidence on in order to contemplate this application and potentially vote on it I'll make a special pause for Michael in case you're muted and trying to talk No, I'm good. I'm good with the application and explanation from the Thank you, Michael Okay, um, what's the pleasure of the board? We have the option to deliberate Um, we have the option to vote now and articulate the conditions as part of that motion We also have the option to deliberate in deliberative session, which I offer because I want to make sure you get it right and um, I know we're um, a relatively new board There's nothing wrong with that. Um, so if it's a learning opportunity, we can take it if we want But if we feel this is fairly straightforward, um, and there aren't any outstanding questions Then we could proceed with the vote If those have any opinions about that I guess I'm concerned about the cross screen. Um, here It's a concert of mind and um My feeling is I I would like to give the applicant an opportunity that Maybe come up with a solution to make things not so extreme if one exists. Um, but that's just one board member Thanks, Rob What are other thoughts? While I share Rob's concern about the slide slope, it's not ideal This is hardly a ideal site. I think as we all know um And I think after I've been doing a lot of research here, I think While it's not ideal, it's it's acceptable. There's it's not breaking any rules or anything But I guess in summary I am ready to vote Are there any diagrams that you want to be related to this again? For example, there was a No need to put up yet, but there was a site plan um plan view that showed the current grade and then the Where the new grade would be And so that when you're where you encounter it when you're driving through that area Um, then we want to do that again. Does anyone want to see anything else or ask Felicia any more questions? I guess the only question I would have is is is there an option to lower the teller window Even just a few inches would make a big difference Let's talk about that Alicia. Could you speak could you just speak to that please? Sure. Um, and I I think I'll I'll let Jay since he's he's the inside And it sounded like he had done a whole bunch of figuring on counter height teller window the the drawer the outside curb lots and lots of Number crunching for that Jay to do that was that's as low as we could go we're pushing it Yes, the the issue is that the the hrita the The teller window inside is designed for what's ergonomically correct for most tellers from what the bank people tell me Frank's or that does this so if you make the inside too low Then over the day's time because the teller isn't sitting there. They're basically standing at another station walking over to this one They wanted at a certain height and The height that we have now is what they have recommended The exterior the norm is to make the exterior The same elevation as the interior because that's what they do in most urban areas where there's a bank walk up and a sidewalk And they're the same height They have agreed certainly that the difference that we've proposed our site plan is workable because I walked around several banks and made it it from the ground up to where you would need to use the Teller door and actually the teller drawer has a front end that folds down. So we've made it to An open door situation the door slides out and then the front of the door Folds forward towards the driver so you can reach forward instead of down in the One banker told me that that's actually a fairly new feature because it allows the teller to actually watch some Notarizing or signing a check Where we form into just a straight drop in drawer you can't do that so they could not offer that feature at the drive through So it's about 30 about 40 inches is what's comfortable for for Doing that access from the outside. So it's that that gives us the Eight inch difference that we have between the inside and the outside that we're Looking at and when I look across the whole width of the slope and I look at Alicia's diagrams from existing to new I don't see a significant difference there it's um You know, I suppose that if someone could say well, gee we if and I use that based on my car, which is an impressive I think if you had a You know tower SUV or truck you certainly could go lower than that But I we'd like to propose it as it is because We think that that trust a little bit within the norm for this kind of an activity for the use of this space and That's what we would like to pose. I don't That's so that's what depends on the application so that we can continue with that design and I do think that it is Workable situation. Certainly if it was not workable, it could be changed in the future But we'd like to pose it as it is to be the height that we're supposed Okay, thank you for that explanation Yeah, I'm satisfied that although the situation is an ideal you looked into it at least I've looked into it a lot and surveyed about four banks and and talked to two different bankers about it so I think that it's And they have agreed that certainly although the eight inches is more than what they show on the normal diagrams They agree to certainly work with that Kevin, thank you. Yeah, I I just If we were going to uh proceed. I mean, I think I think we're pretty much Have the testimony we need To move along Perhaps we could discuss what conditions we would want to make sure we had in a motion to approve And try try that. I mean unless there's a strong feeling here that we really need more testimony or or Input from Technical experts or something like that I suggest we explore the the possibility of doing a motion tonight Thank you Kevin. Let's let's talk about possible conditions Right. I think we have also I was not many of us have acknowledged that the the height is Not ideal, but that we do see it as meeting the letter of the law and being workable Related to that a condition I would be interested in seeing is DPW signing off on the storm water plan in light of this evidence Um, I believe we should also include a condition regarding Directional signage painted on the drive-through lane to um For the to get people to the tower window as well as show them where they're supposed to go to queue um There were some minor recommendations. There were some minor recommendations that the design review committee had proposed Would we want to incorporate that more? I would yes, um It's not signed off on by the applicant for the reasons that Alicia noted regarding the wording and wanting um flexibility Uh around that Um Kevin you're referring to the uh tree issue. That's the only one i'm aware of that there's an issue Is that what you're referring to? I'm referring to yeah, yes, it would be the so I think what what Alicia's referred to is is letting We just more consistent with exactly what was discussed design review meaning that We really want the opportunity to have an arborist advice on what's happened with those trees as opposed to just deciding in the fans and so that's oh in that in that case, would you be Uh amenable to a condition which would basically memorialize that approach that you would use an arborist to resolve the tree and and let the uh um the zoning office have a You would certify what your what your ultimate plan would be signed signed off by this by the zoning office We we want an our we want an arborist involved in a decision I don't think that we want to relinquish the decision of the owner for an arborist does not associate with the project Right I'm suggesting we give you exactly what you're asking for That easy, um, so the recommendation as it as as made by the d r c is that applicant clarified that the two Norway maple trees in front of the building will be pruned to improve appearance and safety I think we can keep that We you're going to do that anyway The then what it reads is that at any point these trees are deemed to be in poor health and no longer an asset to the property They may be replaced with historically correct species and with appropriate approval Um, I think we should so I think what what you want to hear and I hope so long can type this down because I can't write fast enough um in consultation with an arborist Trees may be replaced if it becomes necessary or In consultation with an arborist Trees may be replaced with historically correct species um Upon the what am I trying to say again? Um upon the arborist, you know in consultation with an arborist trees may be replaced as necessary with with historically correct species Right we could say it's like in consultation with an arborist The norway maple trees will either be rehabilitated or replaced Uh In such a way as to maintain the historical integrity of the structure No, I think you'd have to clarify that if if the arborist decides that they're fine as they are I think it needs to be the owner's decision really. He said he said rehabilitated Yes, um, so I think that kind of captures fine as they are Do you do agree? You leisure you have that language better what pad I think one and then what I'm referring to I think Wait, um Hey and Kevin we're saying is If the arborist and the property owner Feel it's in good health Then nothing needs to change but should the arborist and the owner agree that They're in poor health and are a hazard um, they need to be removed and then Replace at at that time We're in in the future time. I think I think we're on the same page. We're saying the same thing. I think our Words are about a third As the ones we were just talking about there. I think we're trying to get to the same place So it's just a matter of make sure we do that I guess I just like to add one thing What if the arborist and the owner disagree if the arborist beliefs they need to be taken down and the owner doesn't I don't think that situation was covered You're right Joe and in the original recommendation from the drc. There is that little phrase and with appropriate approval um, I don't know from whom That approval comes Based on the drc's. I I wasn't at that meeting and I've read their minutes Mike or anyone. Do you know who that appropriate approval is supposed to come from? zoning administration specifically I do I I know one of the concerns has been in the past that that If the trees were removed Or a tree was removed that they wanted the Tree to be replaced and in the past an issue has come up where the the tree was having problems And somebody had talked about removing the tree and there it was going to be removed and not replaced and and the concern is You're either going to rehabilitate the trees um And let them stay but if they come down then they've got to be replaced with it historically I don't think there's much of a of a care which decision happens except not ending up in the position of having an unsafe tree or Removing a tree and not replacing it. Those were the two things that the city wouldn't want to see happen Okay, I think we capture that I think everyone's agreement that we want to make sure the trees are safe That's that's a low break The other one is that if the trees are removed there may be an opportunity to improve the landscaping To something different than what was there and I think we want the right to look at that future design and progress without that with or without that's the approval because um Meredith indicated that because trees are part of a site plan they need to still be removed reviewed as Changes occur because it's technically changing a site plan. That was the um appropriate approval that's required Yeah, that would be that would have to go back to get an approval if you were going to take the trees down and not replace them and come up with an alternative Landscaping requirement then you'd have to come back and get a new approval for that Okay, so we talked about we talked about replacement Yeah, we talked about historically appropriate species. It doesn't say trees. So I think we're there. I think we're there as well All right Just looking at the staff report there's Okay, so one of the section 3010 vehicle access and circulation requirements have met. I think we've decided they have So we don't need to incorporate there I think we're I think we're good to go I'm sorry Just want to make sure that the shutter hardware the shutter optional shutter still comes in from the DRC we talked about the the trees. I just want to make sure the shutter still stayed in there Thank you. Yes, we'd like to include that optional optional provision To put on historically appropriate shutters preferably in a dark color. I think is what it said or something like that All right, we've talked about the conditions that um have done for them would be part of this motion We've agreed that we have the evidence that we need to make a decision We've for the record many of us have expressed concern about the grade But the stormwater approval we hope from DPW is going to be a way to make sure that that is within the realm of acceptable So with that I will entertain a motion Okay, so I'll make the motion to approve the application uh as submitted uh with the uh provision additional provisions that Uh, department of public works will review and approve the stormwater uh Final plan That there will be directional signage uh at the drive-through That and here's the tricky one. This is the trees that uh the recommendations of the drc uh Shall be incorporated in the approval and How do we want to address the the final Uh part of that We agree that Okay back a minute Words nothing we can still do even after we've done the vote just as we for the decision But I think we should try to be as clear as possible every effort we made to maintain trees in a trees such that they are safe and healthy An arbor the applicant will work with an arborist to determine if trees need to be removed maintained removed or replaced with historically appropriate species And we'll seek appropriate approvals for any changes to the site plan resulting from this consultation I just like to have the word historically moved from that because I think historically the trees that are there are historic But the one arborist told us that they're an invasive species and not really the best tree for that location I think my cat that we should just have the opportunity to have a new submission on a new landscaping plan if we take the trees out Okay, so it says historic species which I think opens it up to a range of possibilities and it needs a Norway maple in particular And I think the word appropriate historically appropriate gives some room to ensure I think that's for example Lead paint lead paint is historically appropriate, but we don't use lead paint anymore Um Yeah, okay. Okay. So is there anything else or we're ready to vote? I like the second because a very minor friendly amendment You said directional signage for the drive-through. I'd like to change the word signage or sign to pavement markings I don't think there's any signs I accept that amendment Kevin. I accept that amendment. Very good Is there additional discussion by board members? Did someone still need a second? We got to talk about the shutters too, right? Joe has seconded. Michael has raised the issue of the shutters. Thank you We wish to incorporate the design review committee's recommend optional Um, goodness, I'm on the wrong staff report. Um The option to restore the shutters with the fixed with the fixtures to historically using historically appropriate shutters I'm going to defer the language in the staff report that's not in front of me right now, but we've discussed it So I think we know what we're talking about Um As indicated in the application information shutter hardware is present on almost all the windows and is deemed to be original to the building Applicant has the option to install historically correct shutters back on the building probably in black color. It's so desired That's what it is. Okay. We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? So Kevin and Joe, do you accept the amendment to incorporate this piece? I just read about the shutters Yes, yes Thank you. Okay. I'm gonna follow all Joe Yes Rob Stain Stain. Okay. Thank you. Roger Yes Um, Kevin. Yes Michael Yes And I vote yes as well Thank you. Um, you'll be hearing from the zoning office about the next step um Everyone will receive notice of the permit including information about next steps that can be be taken by any party to choose to do so Um, all right. Thank you all very much for participating We're at 10 22, but I appreciate the work that's been done and the fact that it's concluded. Thank you for working together Good conversation. Um, I already said that I appreciate it. Say it again. I do Um, that brings us to our next item on the agenda, which is Other business. Um, our next meeting is august 3rd Um at that meeting, uh, we will have a deliberative session We will be in touch by an email to determine and we will Lay out the agenda for the public so that it is known when that deliberative session takes place whether it's at the beginning or or later on and I would actually Maybe turn to mike and ask if you have advice on that. Um, how we should proceed with that On the august 3rd meeting The on the 3rd there are only two agenda items the continued meeting from tonight And the continued application from 99 east state 99 east state 100 east state Your east state Yeah, so, um, yeah 99 so those you have two continued applications I don't know if that other one is ready for a deliberative session or if that one still has more input Okay Start with the east state street application and then that way if we need to Deliberate privately on that one we can do both deliberations in the same batch Is that work for others? Which is the okay, kate. Sorry dinner up. Yeah, which is the other it's east state Is that is that one from the I must have missed that meeting. Is that what this is from? Yeah, it's from last week. So if you want to participate in the In that meeting, I suggest reviewing the meeting notes and all of the materials It has to do with the creation of a dwelling unit on the parcel where um Is it primer this located there from a piper edelstein primer or is it um Well, I'll tell you down Yeah, so it's um Please please check it out. Yeah Yeah, and um That's that's kind of reminded all of us that leading up to that meeting. Please Do review review the materials to maybe, you know, so the questions we may have coming out of this may be answered by for the review of materials um, and that will help us all be prepared to work expediently In our deliberative sessions um So let's shut it down before we hit three and a half hours Um, it's been our work And thank you all Thank you, Kate All right Second second Raise your hands if you say yes The motion to adjourn is unanimous and Mike Miller. You can't vote, but I will see you later anyway. Thank you all. Good night Thank you. Bye, Kate. Thanks for a great job Bye everybody