 the Montalier Design Review Committee. I will let members and staff introduce themselves. Eric Gilbertson. Liz Pritchard. Steve Everett. Meredith Crandall, staff. And at this point I'll ask Meredith if she will review the remote meeting procedures. Yup, let me, I'm gonna share screen for anybody watching on ORCA, so that they can log in if they need to. So here's the information for logging in. For those viewing this meeting via ORCA, you can participate in the Design Review Committee meeting via the Zoom platform, using either the video or telephone access options shown here. There's the link. You can call that number. And here's the meeting ID and password. And you can download the full agenda and meeting materials at this link. If you're having any problems accessing the meeting, you can email me here. And further for everybody who's on the Zoom meeting, if you have difficulties accessing different video features, please feel free to use the chat function to reach me. Those chat, you're trying to limit chat to just those technical difficulties at this point. So this meeting is being recorded, as well as streamed live via ORCA media. And turning your video on is optional. Public testimony will be taken verbally. And as I said, the chat function should only be used for troubleshooting or logistics questions. Please keep your microphone on mute when you're not speaking to reduce background noise. And for those participating by phone, star six will allow you to mute or unmute. Also as a host, I can manually mute and unmute most participants. Sometimes it doesn't work, but sometimes I can do it. If you're interested in speaking on a particular matter, particularly if you're not the applicant and we aren't aware of what matter you want to be on, and you didn't say which matter you would like to speak on when you first logged in, please raise your hand either physically or by using the raise hand button on your toolbar if you're on Zoom. For those on phone, you can press star nine to do a raise hand on Zoom. Or you can state your name if you're unmuted. Once the chair is recognized that it's your turn to participate, please unmute your microphone, confirm that you can be heard and provide your full name and address for the record, particularly if you're not listed as an applicant on the application forms. You're then free to provide your questions or comments, aiming to keep your comments to two minutes. Members will then have the opportunity to respond or ask questions of you, and the applicant may have an opportunity to respond as well. So far I think all we have on tonight are applicants. You can't provide additional input after that comment period, but only if the chair recognizes you again. If in the event the public is unable to access this meeting, it will be continued to a time and place certain. If you're having connectivity issues, try turning off your video or closing other applications on your phone or computer. And if you're having trouble seeing the document, screen share options, all, as I said earlier, all files are uploaded to the agendas and minutes page for this meeting on the city website. Please note that all votes taken during this meeting that are not unanimous will be done by roll call vote. I'll now hand this back over to Steve. Okay, unless anybody has anything to add at this point, do I hear a motion to approve the agenda? So moved with the change of moving that first one to the end of the agenda, because nobody's there. All in favor of the agenda, speak your names. Eric. Liz. And Steve. So we'll go ahead and move to the first item, which is seven court street, is anybody there? Right, nobody's logged in for that. Okay. Then we will move to the second item on the agenda, which is for national life insurance. The applicant is Vermont Public Radio for an antenna. Is somebody there to describe the application? Yes, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, my name is Will Dodge and I'm an attorney with Downs-Rackland Martin, our firm prepared the application for VPR and for national life. And also with me on the phone is Joseph Timecky, who actually it looks like he may have just dropped, but he'll join back on. He is the chief engineer for VPR. And it looks like he's back on. Okay, technology. So very briefly, this is a project that involves trying to improve VPR's overall signal strength and coverage in Washington County and Montpelier specifically. The existing VPR translator facility is basically in an inadequate location at the moment over at the College of Fine Arts. And the idea is to do what most, both telecommunications providers and other broadcasters have done, which is to try to use the height and the location of the national life building specifically the top of it in order to substantially improve that signal for VPR listeners and also for public safety purposes given the sort of emergency broadcast functions that VPR provides to the community. So the project basically involves putting two antennas up on the rooftop. One is a transmit antenna. That's a 17 foot, basically a pipe that has two bays extending from an existing pipe off of the rooftop. So there's basically two antennas on the mount as attached to an existing mount that's right off of the cooling tower. And then the second antenna is a small receive antenna. Basically, it's about seven by five and that is attached to an existing penthouse where there's a number of antennas right now. And if we can show you sort of where some of those are in, with some pictures, but basically apart from those two installations, all of the other operating equipment will be inside the existing washer closet within the building. There'll be cable runs that go along the rooftop. Nothing will take place to the facade of the building. And basically these antennas have been located in such a way that they are as far away from the, if you will, the frontage of the building that you can see from National Life Drive. So the idea is if we don't want it, obviously right on the edge of the rooftop, we want it as far back as possible, but also taking into account where other antennas are located on that building today, like the city of Montpelier, as well as some of the other, there's a couple of other communications facilities up there. So that gives you some idea. We've looked at other possible options technologically speaking for the antenna design, but this is really what's needed in order to maximize the signal. There's not an easy way of replicating this so you truly need that height off the building. I think we have some of the simulations to show you, but essentially for the public who will be viewing the, or who can see the rooftop of the building from National Life Drive, it'll really be imperceptible unless you're looking for it very closely. I don't know if it makes sense to sort of answer any preliminary questions or if we should be going through the actual design review criteria or how best to proceed. There are lots of antennas and stuff mounted up there, veritable forest of them. That's correct. And I think the reasons for that are fairly obvious, right? It is at a very high point within sort of Montpelier's overall geography, both in terms of where people are, where roads are. It's not visible from the capital dome, which is a criteria in your design review. And it's not a tower. In other words, that building rooftop as large as it is, as tall as it is, is an ideal place to basically put antennas so that you don't have to build new support structures. And that's what we wanted to do here both because it works and because it's essentially innocuous and because the National Life folks very graciously allowed us to do this. We're working closely with them and they are supportive of the project. Let me know if anybody wants me to pull up a part of the application, because I can easily do that. I read through it and I really don't have any questions. I don't really either. Maybe just a visual simulation from National Life Drive. Like it's good to look at. Yeah, so I can, oh, you've got that, Meredith? All right, so this is from the actual where you would be in a car. And it's right over there. Yeah, yeah. The second page where you get an actual closer shot of it. So that's already there. And then this is the new. The new one, yeah. Okay, thank you. You're welcome. And even that zoom picture is a little bit exaggerated in the sense that, you know, it's location. You can see that it almost looks like there's something white next to each of the FMBs. That's more just a function of the simulation technology, but really, it'll be almost imperceptible. The Christmas ornament, as we call it, that flagpole that has the lights on it, that's basically turned on during the holiday season. That's gonna be what people continue to notice when it's on it. The VPR antenna won't be lit, so it won't be like there's a blinking light or anything like that. There's no FAA requirement to do any lighting here. Eric, what color are you gonna paint it? I think the antenna itself is basically just gonna be the galvanized, same kind of stainless steel finish that you see for the flagpole. So no painting or anything like that. Yeah, the gray galvanized look, that's good. Thank you. Matches the skies when we have California smoke. Let's hope it doesn't get here too soon, but we shouldn't be fooling ourselves. Any other committee members have any other questions, comments, or suggestions? Any other suggestions or comments? If not, I can go through the criteria. There are two sheets here. One involves all projects. One is regarding exterior design and materials of new construction or alterations of existing buildings. The antennas are compatible, that's acceptable. Existing buildings recognized as a physical record time and place. The, again, new construction addition alterations are fine in this location. Proposed landscaping is not applicable. Location of parents of all utilities shall be cited to minimize adverse visual impact. This is acceptable. Alterations to buildings called for by public safety is not applicable. It says development shall be designed to respect views of the Statehouse Dome. This does not affect Statehouse Dome views for parcels with both river and street frontage. This does not apply. Height, height of the building and additions, sign in this location, proportion is fine. It has to do with roof shape and equipment, acceptable architectural features. This would not be applicable. Roof drainage systems, not applicable. Signage, does not apply here. Up for lighting fixtures, not applicable. Landscaping, screening and site furnishings. Other than down at the bottom, it says mechanical equipment. We'll call that acceptable. And for this particular sheet for all projects, do I hear, let the committee members speak if they approve the application for these features? Eric says yes. This says yes. And Steve says yes. So this one is approved. And there's also another sheet which we have to go through which says projects that do not involve an historic building supplied with this. There's several categories that could apply here. A scale in massing does not apply. New development, we'll call that acceptable since it's a new addition to an existing building. Orientation, I'll say that's acceptable. And the placement of the antennas, height. Again, this has to do with height of a new building. So I'll call that not applicable. It's not a new building. Proportion, not applicable. Rhythm, not applicable. Continuity, not applicable for this application. Materials, we'll say they're acceptable. Riffs and equipment and fixtures acceptable. Architectural features are not affected by this so that'll be not applicable. Context and connectivity. We'll just say that's acceptable because we're adding components to the building and accessory buildings and structures. This is not an accessory building. So again, all in favor of the application based on those criteria, speak your names. Eric says yes. It is, yes. And Steve says yes. Thank you all very much. The application is acceptable. Thank you very much for coming before us. Thank you very much. Thank you for your time today. You bet. Good luck with your other business tonight. Thank you. We'll see you in a couple of weeks for DRB. Okay. Thank you very much. Thanks. We can go forward with the next application is for 39 Main Street, the city of Montpelier regarding roof replacement. Hi, everyone. My name is Cameron Niedermeyer. I am the assistant city manager and I'll be representing this project today. Thank you all for letting me be here. Chair, do you want me to go over the project? Sure, just give us a summary of what's being changed. So the scope of services is to remove all existing asphalt shingles from the existing decking. They will then be installing ice and watershed underlay. Then they will be going over it with a very specific item. They're going over with a 24 gauge, double locked standing seam metal roofing system in charcoal gray. So to put that in sort of a more normal speech, it's a galvanized steel slate gray roof that's replacing the asphalt shingles. We're in pretty bad disrepair and pulling off the roof. And that is really everything they're doing. So it's the part of the roof that you can't see from the ground. So our roof kind of comes in two different sections, one section on the sides, and then the rest of the flatter part of the roof. So we're replacing that, which was shingled before. Is the membrane being replaced on that portion? Yes, the membrane is the ice and watershed underlayment. And then they're also installing a layer of synthetic underlayment. Right, under the metal. Is the upper portion being replaced with new membrane or is that an existing in good shape? I believe that it's anything that was in bad shape, because it says the contract says in all critical areas and then in any remaining areas. So I guess they'll, I'm sorry, to be fair to myself in not doing this, the contractor is not here today. So this, it says tie into existing membrane roofing system to make a watertight seal. I think they're just going over anything that they didn't critical. And then anything that doesn't have is not critical is getting one layer of synthetic underlayment, so two, and they're tying that all into the existing membrane roofing systems. Okay, thank you. Any committee members have any questions? Again, questions, comments or suggestions regarding the proposal? Same straightforward to me. Yeah, I don't know where you can see that part of the roof from. And they're matching, they're going back to the color of the shingles, the original slates that were on there. And I don't have any problem with it. No, I don't either. Okay, then again, I'll go forward with the criteria, exterior design and materials of new construction alterations, acceptable. Existing buildings are recognized as physical record of time and place, acceptable. Proposed landscaping, not applicable. Location and appearance of all utilities, nothing's being changed in that aspect. Alterations to buildings called forward by public safety, accessibility fire codes not applicable in this change. Respect for views of the state house dome, not affected, they're fine. For parcels with street frontage, orientation of and materials, the quality of materials is fine. Out of the building, that's not being changed. Proportion, proportion is fine, rhythm is fine. It is an architectural feature and it's acceptable roof shape and equipment, acceptable. Architectural features. And again, it talks about character defining detailing, that's acceptable. Roof drainage systems, not applicable here. There's no change into any drainage systems. Signage, not applicable. Outdoor lighting, not applicable. Landscaping screening and site furnishings. Not applicable. So for the all projects form, do I hear a vote of approval by members by speaking your name? Eric says yes. Liz says yes. And Steve says yes. And then the second form is for additions and alterations to historic buildings. Generally applicable character defining features, acceptable. Rhythm, acceptable. Site features would not be applicable for the roof application. Materials, acceptable. Roof shape, acceptable. Architectural features, acceptable. Windows and doors, not applicable. Porches and stairs, not applicable. So all in favor of the criteria for additions and alterations, speak your names. Eric says yes. Liz says yes. And Steve says yes. So the application is approved. Thank you very much. I appreciate you all very much. Thank you for coming and explaining the application. Well, this is administrative so this will get out in the next couple of days. Thank you. I hope you guys have a good rest of your week. Thank you very much. And we can move on to the next application which is for 90 Main Street. It's the bank building, TD Bank on the corner. Is there anyone there to explain the project? Can everyone hear me? Yes. Yes, yes. Okay, this is Tiffany with One Stop Signs. I'm representing TD Bank today. So basically what we're doing is there is two non-illuminated wall signs here and they are just changing the faces. No sizes will change. They will still stay non-illuminated. They're pretty much going from the darker green to a lighter green and removing the bank off of the signs. So pretty simple. Hold on, I'm trying to share. There we go. Can people see that? Yes. Again, like the other application for the other location, was there any reason they left the sign the same length where there's much less lettering involved? They did not specify why they are doing that. Okay. And one other question. There is an overhanging sign at the entrance. It says TD Bank. Will that stay as is? Yes, that one will stay the exact same. No changes on that one. Okay. Will the coloring of that change to match the coloring on the other two? No, I believe they're keeping that one just as it is. Okay. I'm glad at least one sign says bank on it. Perfect. Do any of the committee members have any questions, comments or suggestions at this point? What does TD stand for? Turbo D. Dominion. What? Toronto Dominion. I think it's for turbo diesel. That would be TDI. Okay. If nobody has any other comments, we've approved one of these for the other locations so we can go through the criteria on the all projects and the sign forms. Exterior design and materials, acceptable. No changes that affect the character of the existing building, acceptable. No proposed landscaping in this application. Location and appearance of all utilities, mechanical equipment, et cetera, not applicable here. Alterations due to public safety accessibility, not applicable. It does not change views of the state house dome and the street front facade primary is acceptable. Part of the building does not apply here. Proportion does not apply of the building itself does not apply here. Rhythm, architectural details in any additions on the outside, that's acceptable. Roof shape and equipment, not applicable. Architectural features, we'll call that acceptable with the signs, roof drainage systems, not applicable. Signage has to do with removing a sign. So there's none removed here. They're just, they're changed, but it's not removed and left blank. Outdoor lighting, not applicable. And then landscaping, screening and site furnishings, not applicable. So all in favor for the all projects form, speak your names. Eric says yes. This says yes. And Steve says yes. And there's also a sign form. One has to do with size, location, design, color, texture, lighting and materials. She'll be compatible with the building and other structures, acceptable. It's in the sign ban, that's acceptable. Placement is acceptable. There is a sign placement over the entry, that's acceptable. Sign installation minimizes damage to character, that's fine. Fasteners are in mortar joints or in acceptable fenestrations in this particular sign since it's just replacing an existing sign of the same size. Sign design, color, typography, respect, historic presidents. Support structures are compatible with the building architecture. There's no lighting on the, actually is, there may be lighting over the existing sign, but that's remaining anyway, so that's acceptable. And again, lighting over the existing entry sign, if there's any lighting there, that's already there and existing. So based on those criteria, again, committee members speak your approval. Eric says yes. This says yes. And Steve says yes. So the application is approved. Thank you very much, I appreciate it. Thank you for coming before the committee. Thank you very much. Have we heard from anyone regarding Court Street? Yes, we actually, it looks like we have both Alan and Shoshana, if you guys could both unmute yourselves and I think, Alan, did you call in? You can use, I think it's star nine to unmute yourself. Or, oh, just hand up. Hold on. Sorry, star six. Star six should let you unmute yourself, Alan. Thank you. You're welcome. I'm sorry, I gave you the wrong direction at the beginning. Oh, sorry, we're a little late getting to this little meeting. That's okay, you made it in time. So yeah, you're the last application that we've got to deal with. Well, thank you so much for getting us on the agenda. You're welcome. Go ahead and describe your sign change, Alan. Thank you. Well, thank you. It's the exact same size, same location. We would just like to change the color from the maroon to a black. And instead of saying the bar in our building, which is Barrett Martin, just seven court street. And those are the only changes other than that would be the same size, same lettering, and as the users come and go. Will the circular seven number be removed? Yes. Yes. Okay. I apologize if you don't have something in front of you. I'm not sure what you've got. But it would just say seven court street and it would be in capitals. Okay. No, it's fine. It showed as an overlay and the circular seven, the upper portion of the circular seven was still showing. And we assumed it would be moved, but just wanted to verify it. And also there is an existing sign, must have been from the state years ago that says seven court street in the front. Along court street, that's what we thought. It would make a nice, it would be uniform and look good together. Yeah, I don't have a picture of that one out front, but I've seen it with that seven court street, with that same font. That classic state sign looks like it's wood where they do like a carving of the letters and they paint it in white. If anybody wants me to, I can pull that up on probably a Google Maps or something, but I'm not sure it's needed. I don't know. Sure. I have the same kind of sign over at the Redstone building that says 26 Terrace Street. You know, it's that classic state sign. It's that router font. It's routed. Yeah. That classical look. And again, I don't put my name on any building as you may have noticed over the years. That's why we just thought seven court street fit it well. And when you talk with people, they don't know it as the bar market building, but they do know it as seven court. Any of the committee members have any comments, questions or suggestions regarding the sign? No. No. No. Okay, then I can go through the criteria for this one. The all projects criteria exterior design and materials acceptable. The change in sign will say is acceptable for recognizing the physical record of time, place and use. Proposed landscaping, none proposed in this application. Location on appearance of utilities, mechanical equipment, not applicable. Alterations for public safety, accessibility, not applicable. Does not affect any views of the state house dome for parcels with street frontage, orientation, materials are acceptable. Height of the building is not applicable here. Proportion of the building not applicable, not changed by the change in sign. We'll say rhythm is acceptable with the placement of the sign. Roof shape and equipment not applicable. Architectural features not applicable as far as the sign goes. Roof drainage not applicable. Signage, this talk again, the signage criteria regarding removing a sign and not replacing it, not applicable here. Outdoor lighting not applicable. Landscapes, cleaning and site furnishings not applicable. All in favor based on those criteria, speak your name. Eric says yes. Liz says yes. And Steve says yes. And there's also our criteria sheet for signs. Size, location, design, color, texture, lighting and material are acceptable. The signs show respect to the original sign placement. If the building has multiple tenants, there's consistency because everyone, all the tenants would be listed on this particular sign. The sign placement is acceptable. The installation minimizes damage to the character defining materials of the building. The fasteners are in the mortar joints, which would be where the existing sign is located. This sign, design, color and typography respect historic precedence. The sign support structures. Again, this is attached directly to the building and it's acceptable. Lighting fixtures not applicable. The sign doesn't have any lighting or there's no change in lighting. And so again, there's no lighting either exterior or on the building itself. So again, all in favor of the application, speak your names. Eric says yes. Liz says yes. And Steve says yes. I do have a question. Not involving the application, but Eric, this is probably for you. If they add tenants, they don't have to come to design review, do they? No. Good. Thank you. Thank you, Allen. Thank you. Thank you, commissioners. Have a good night. Okay. Thanks again. To. Stay safe, everybody. Okay. You too. I have committee members had a chance to look over the minutes. We don't actually have enough people to approve them. Yes. We'll have to wait till Martha comes back. Yep. I have one thing I'd like to bring up, Steve. Okay. I'll just go ahead. And that's that the historic preservation commission is in the process of figuring out what guidelines or pamphlets or whatever we're going to do. And I would certainly like some input from the design review committee of what they might think might be the most useful one to start with. There's probably going to be a series and. Yeah, I mean, we're going to, there's going to be something that's very similar to the old cityscapes. And the, you know, the question is, I mean, the old cityscapes, there's a couple of different versions of them. And so we're probably going to need to prioritize certain aspects of these new design review regulations to create guidelines for. And we're thinking about something similar to the Shelburne guidelines. So I'll be sending around a link to the design review committee members with some links of some examples of things to look at. And so your thoughts on where to focus HBC's efforts, at least especially for the first get-go and the first grant runs and consultants. We're going to apply for a grant to do it. I don't know when the deadline is. I can't remember. I want to say it's December. December, I think, yeah. But we've got to run it through any grants through the city process. So we just like to have a good idea of what we want to apply for and be very clear about it. And so look for those emails from me. We're all sensing around and use, you know, take those and look at the new design review regulations. We do have copies of those in our office. If you can come by and pick them up or we can mail them if you need us to mail them to you, if that works better. That would be really helpful. And in particular, given the whole climate change movement, I would love to see some of the regulations as far as adapting historic buildings to make them energy efficient for future use and efficiency. Well, and that's these new design review regulations anticipate that so that there are changes to certain things like adding heat exchange systems, depending on where you install the equipment. Sometimes it's completely exempt from design review or it's an administrative review process and it doesn't have to go to design review depending on what face of the building it's on. So those things have been anticipated in these new regulations. Good. We're trying. Again, it would be really helpful to see what other communities have done is everybody's starting to look at approaches to solving some of these issues. Yep. Well, so at this point, I mean, we have the regulations so now we need to get the illustrated guidelines that help applicants and help the design review committee implement them and administer them. So your thoughts on what, if you go through the regulations and there are parts you just don't understand what it means, those are things where we definitely wanna focus and make sure that the guidelines explicitly lay out what should be being looked at. Okay, thank you. You're welcome. Does anybody else have anything to add? And again, we will put off the minutes until another meeting when everyone is present who needs to be. I think the only other thing is to anybody who's out there listening, we do have, it looks like we're gonna have two vacant design review committee seats, one alternate, one regular. So if anybody is interested and lives in Montpelier, please reach out to me, reach out to the planning department because we would like to get your applications in and get you attending meetings. If there's nothing else, do I hear a motion to adjourn? Of course. Second now. And I'm assuming that's a motion to adjourn. Yes. Do I hear a second? I'll second that. All in favor, speak your names. Liz says yes. Eric. And Steve says yes. So meeting is adjourned. Thank you all.