 And I'm John Alden, the chair of the Essex Junction DRB and I'll call this meeting to order at 633 April 18th, 2024. First item on the agenda is additions or amendments to the agenda. We have a request by Gabe Handy to swap the last items, so 227 to 229 Pro Street to the second item. So that's, so that it can be done. I was hoping we do 17 Park Street first and then the rest of them later, but I don't know if everybody's ready. All right, good, I'm fine with that. All right, any public to be heard? This is your chance for any members of the public to speak on something not on tonight's agenda. Is there anyone present wishing to speak? Anyone, do we have anyone online, by the way? We have one person online. Anyone online wish to speak? All right, hearing none, we'll move on to item three, the meeting minutes. I did have a comment on these, I think. The, in the additional conditions as follows on page two, under the second item, the applicant shall confirm applicability of Vermont fire and safety code. It left out the other piece of that, which was the energy code. So it's listed in the minutes above under item six and it just never made it to the motion. So if you can just make sure that gets added in, that would be all I have. Anyone else on the minutes? Take a motion to approve as amended. Move to approve as amended. Any further discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye, motion carries. Thank you. All right, right to the regular meeting. So if I understand the first item stays, the first item and we will look at a final site plan to construct a four story building with 39 residential units with parking at eight railroad street in the VC district. Brian, anyway. Scott, do you care which table is that? Yeah. All right. I need to swear in anybody who wants to speak tonight on behalf of this item. So raise your right hand and say I do at the end of the sentence. I hereby swear that the evidence I give in the cause under consideration shall be the whole truth and nothing but the truth under the pains and penalties of purchase. Thank you. Brian. This is the final. There wasn't that much that changed, but why don't you walk us through the final application? Yep. We received concept approval last fall. It's still said gone. Generally the same layout, 39 units. A apartment building, 20-minute parking space, about the majority of those that have been torn with three stories above it. Apartments are located as a small community space in the number of streets where you drive in through the building and access to the apartment or the accurate spaces. And then there are two smaller outside parking spots as well. Probably the biggest change to the plan, which was still pretty minor, is we did survey the line that was in question out of the concept plan, which is the separator between the multi-family unit that's on Railroad Street south of the project and the single-family home on the eastern behind them on Gaines Court. And the reason that line was important is that's where our 15-foot buffer to the single-family homes was determined that it had to coincide with. So that shift actually happened about six or seven feet closer to Railroad Street. So you see the jogs and the buildings don't line up exactly like they did at concept, but that was the most substantial change, but everything else in front of you is pretty much the same. The architecturals are generally the same that were submitted at concept, but Dan is here to answer any questions you may have. I did have some quick. All right, Chris, is there anything in the staff report you wanna highlight? Yes, there should be just, let me bring those up. So it was in my main concerns and were highlighted in the recommendations. There is the 20-foot aisle parking waiver request. I think that was kind of discussed last time, but it needs to be formally considered. There is, of course, the exterior characteristics and whether or not this meets design review, but that was also discussed last time. And there is a point about using an alternative species for landscaping instead of the gray dogwood that's in the staff report as well. So I thought most of this application was pretty complete. There are also a few other technical issues that there was a revision that was provided pretty recently and the city engineer still needs to do a little bit of review, but we have looked at it and the outstanding issues are all minor and could be sorted out after. But from the city engineer's latest review, there is a comment about proposed overhead power service and whether or not the pole at the front of the building is supposed to be put underground or if that is, if leaving it above ground is acceptable. And so they, as the power company had anything to say about that or do they all meet on site and discuss what to do with that pole? I mean, is that the pole that we've all been upset with for the last 25 years? It's just right on the corner of the street and in the way of everybody else. Right on the corner of the street and in the way of everybody and to get the whack by the plow and the garbage truck and everything else. Well, I think the applicant might be able to speak to that a little bit better, but my understanding is that that pole that there's been issues with has been replaced one time already and that was pretty recent, but that's all I know about it. But the LDC basically says if you touch it, it should be put underground, but if there are other technical reasons why that's impossible and practical and that can also be considered. Well, I mean, the power has to get to the pole and then if you go underground, you go down the pole and you go underground. So the pole doesn't go away, right? I mean, I don't know how touching it makes it go away. I think that sounds trickier. Yeah, so the pole's a real pain in the neck. Yeah, so the pole that you were mentioning, John, is in fact the pole. But so the multifamily building just south of this project used to have their power service overhead from the next pole down Gaines Court. That pole is being removed. It coincides where the jog is with the building. There's two more poles on Gaines Courts that will remain and power will be run underground north of the building along the north side, the south side, and then we'll be run back up those two existing poles. So those overhead services will remain. I think the service is what the city engineer had discussed about the existing multifamily building south of us used to come off of the second pole on Gaines Court that's being removed as part of this project. So we're proposing a, I'm still an overhead service, but from the pole on Railroad Street, that will remain. John, one second please. I want to map with Scott Fraser today before I came here, because I know that question was gonna come up. So the old pole, the one put back to Gaines Court that waiting for Verizon and Concast to take that, the power of Green Mountain already installed a brand new pole away from the other one. Did you just wait for the other utilities to take that power off? They've taken that pole down. And then it was going underground, put in this cool pole here, can you come closer? Yeah, that would be helpful. It's done on the plan too. Yeah. And it's going underground to the transformer where he told me then this transformer, and then he asked this pole, in this pole, they were coming right out, he said. Oh, okay. So he took the next two. And then he was gonna take from the back of the building with the transformer and feed Mary Jo's house in the house next to it. But Mary Jo's telling me she has about 25 feet of hedge. She wants to make sure that it doesn't get disturbing. How is it gonna get to the weather bay? Yeah. That's the layout today from Scott Fraser. So you leave the pole that's out there by Railroad Street, but you go from that pole down and underground all the way back to the new transformer? Yeah. I can walk over. I think I got it. I got a plan right here. Yeah. He did this for me. Yeah. So the pole that's out by Railroad Street though, does that still bother the city engineer? No, his comment was only about the service to that multifamily building, not the pole itself. His opinion is that since it's moving from one pole that's being removed to an existing pole that the board should consider whether that service then should be put underground. It's really close to the building. It's already an overhead line. You know, we feel that it being overhead to that existing structure is very minor. Yeah, I would agree with that. I just, I think we're all hoping that that, but I mean that pole's practically in the middle of Gainescourt, feels like it. I know Gainescourt's very narrow, but all right. Well, I'll follow the, I would personally be fine following that city engineer's recommendation on that, which I think allows power to come to that pole and then go underground and then back up again and feed the other buildings in the back. So. Okay. There were a few other issues that's where I identified. So the stormwater system that is proposed is meant to tie in to the city's stormwater stormwater basin on railroad street. You can see it right here where my cursor is, but the road was also just recently paved with federal money to, as a part of the Crescent Connector project. And it is necessary that if it has to be disturbed that it is restored as best as possible. So the city engineer recommends that at a minimum, one condition of approval being that if the pavement is to be disturbed, there's the applicant shall mill and repave the road at least to the centerline. No pavement patches will be allowed. But if I understand correctly, the applicant is attempting not to have to disturb the pavement, the limits of disturbance that are shown on this map do not include the new paved road surface. Yeah, so on site plans, we usually just show the rim grates, the structure beneath it is quite a bit wider and usually the curb's right on the rim. So the structure overhangs on the backside of the curb. So we don't expect to be in the road to core that structure. Yeah, it's, you know, fresh pavement falls, begging to get sawed off again, right? I don't know if it's inevitable. Well, you know, the other piece of it is too, that that's where the underground power's gonna be run. So we plan on running it through the same saw cut. Yeah, well, again, it's whatever the, however, whatever you're disturbing there is gonna have to be dealt with in accordance with the city engineer's requirements I hate to see us cutting up pavement that just go put in, but. Yes, it should just be a minor sidewalk. The sidewalk, oh yeah, shouldn't be pavement. You should be able to get into that. The agency did pave their parking lot, assuming with the contractors who did the Crescent connector, which is private, but that's where the underground power's going anyway. So we're gonna run the storm in parallel. Okay. So what's our take on this? We basically go along with the future language that isn't ready yet from the city engineer. Yeah, I mean, the language is ready. It is, it's not in the staff report, but it is that if the pavement is to be disturbed, the applicants shall mill and repave the road at least to the center line. And that is if, that's if it's necessary. If you're able to do the work without disturbing the pavement, then that would not apply. Okay. Anything else from the city? There was an additional recommended condition of approval that if there is excess snow that is on site, it must be, and if it can't be stored on site in the snow storage area that it be removed from the site. Okay. There was also a comment about lighting. For the most part, the lighting plan shows that there is good coverage for the site. I have it open right now, but the gist of the city engineer's comments on this is that there are technically a few spots, like over here, for example, that the lighting plan does not show what happens. And because the lighting plan numbers cut off at this circle, it was unable to tell for sure if there would be much light trespass towards the adjacent properties. I can tell you just from the numbers though, we're looking at 0.2 foot candles by the time you get to the edge of this. I don't think it's a significant. If there is any light trespass, I don't think it'll be very much. I would say we don't know how dark this little sliver of the pavement will be. I would say it's quite minor, but it is something that the city engineer wanted to point out. So the lights dropping off anyway, and the numbers just run out before it gets to zero is what you're telling me. That's what it appears to be. Yeah, so that X in the corner is the dumpster, right? So all the parking spaces are what per the center. Yeah, okay. Yeah, my biggest headache is usually is that there's, you know, somebody's got a spotlight over their garage and it's facing straight at you when you're driving in so you get clear. But if the fixtures are compliant, I'm guessing that the only people that would complain would be the Essex agency and that people in that structure. I'm sure they will let us know. All right, so that's city comments. There were a couple of waivers mentioned and I don't see where they show up on the proposed conditions and maybe I just missed them. We had questions about the 20 foot aisle requirement, right? So we actually have to decide whether that's acceptable. So I think that should get listed in the findings or the proposed condition. I get this, it's not really a condition if we accept it, but just remind us how we wanna deal with that. The screening and buffering, I don't think we have anything to talk about. There are waivers being requested, but they did mention the planting change, which is fine as long as the tree committee is involved. I'm sure that's fine. We already dealt with the 15 foot buffer to the adjacent single family uses. There's still the note that, radially, if you measure that way, it might, there might be a discrepancy, but we decided that was acceptable last time though I don't see any change there. So for me, that takes us back to the design review standards. And as I noted, there weren't that many changes. We gave them some comments on that last time, and I still kind of hold to mine. I don't know, I think we're the wrong guy, really. It feels like the back end of the building, maybe this is just me, I missed something, but it feels like the back end of the building had more colors, like there were two colors going on, and now there's only one. Maybe I'm just wishing there were two colors back there, but that looks kind of monochromatic and bulky, that. But my real issue was the gambrel roof on that, I really like to see it go back another bay because it just looks skinny and tall, and I think that would really help the building if not to look skinny and tall, if it, I mean, there's nothing wrong with the massing on that building, it's a nice four-story restores over the parking building, but the proportions of the front piece make it look awkward because it's not in the normal proportion, so it looks like somebody took the back end of the building and brushed the front of it down until it's too thin, at least that's just the way I see it in it. Anybody else wants to comment? I'm only one person, I just think that color-wise, we need some more color there, I would do something else, I would do something on the front to reinforce the nice, we got kind of a three-bay thing, three bays split into the fenestration that you might wanna pop something out there and at least do it with color if you didn't do it with a little trim to reinforce that, I think layering some visual effect there is really gonna be helpful to keep it from just looking like a tall flat surface when it could be, especially with that style of building, you're often seeing a little bit more trim, so that would be my recommendation to maybe add some color on the front piece that's doing its own thing and go to a two-color scheme on the back where even if it's one chunk of the building because it's kind of in chunks, one is one color and then you've got maybe a pattern going there, I would just break it up a little more and see if we could get that gambrel piece to be a little bit deeper. Anyone else have a? How there was group was like a gray and it's the first iteration, and I am not answering, like in the back. And then maybe bringing like a, or something from the back to the front. I don't mind the front being a little subtle, I mean, I'm not saying you got to bring those colors, but I think there'll be, if I'm looking at this building from the outside, I think you've actually done a really nice job of breaking up the massing, but then you're gonna pin it all the same color, it takes away some of that. I think just with some color treatment, you'd take care of that piece pretty well. You know, it's not brick building, it's not supposed to look like a brick building, it doesn't need to all be red. Just seems like a pretty easy fix on the back. The front, again, it's just, I'm not saying I've never seen one like this, but it's a little, it's just a little pinched up there. I like, but I'm monochromatic. Anybody else? There appears to be somebody that was trying to speak up. And I'm not sure, you know, like I'm a little bit interested that it shouldn't really be a, I like it, I don't like it kind of thing. I think, you know, we're really trying to be a little more objective about, you know, how it fits into the outer of the village and those kind of things, although it's hard not to be a little subjective. So, you know, everybody gets their own opinion, and then we try to boil it down to, okay, how does the, how do the regs play into it? So, you know, I look at the overall style that it's trying to be, and I look at whether that's appropriate in the village. And I think all of those things are generally true. And so, you know, the building itself doesn't really seem out of place, but just a couple of minor architectural suggestions. John, there's somebody online with their hand up. Okay, you can call on them. That's Eric Hancoe. We can just barely hear you. On the TV. All right, Eric, can you say something again? That's as loud as it'll get. Turn it up on your laptop, maybe. That's better. Yeah, go ahead, you're on the floor. We see you. Okay. Looks like a bit of a political illusion. I guess the windows makes the lights with the, it does look like it's doing stuff together with it. I agree with the sense of the idea. You asked it to my loan up here, and I'm agree with the sense of the idea. It looks like it's a bit strange, but there was a design at one point that I thought that pretty much everybody was in agreement or it was like a really nice design, and it looked like it was easy to do that thing, so. Yeah, thanks. I mean, doesn't it at least seem like they're doing a historical Burd-Geltshire style in some of the other buildings that the guys made say that it was just a building? I look at it. I think the first iteration was Brick, like the idea of Brick, I thought it was the S6 agency, that's got a nice facade, and it's quite a natural style, but yeah, I'm not clear on the exact guidelines of the town, but yeah, that's what it was about. Yeah, I agree with that. To be enough, I mean, the design style is very prevalent around the area that's been in New England for a long time, it was brought over by the Dutch, hence the name, Dutch colonial for most of those things, and you know, they have certain proportions, and I'm just saying for doing that, that's fine, but let's try and match the little bit more of the proportions that that style has. Typically, you see mostly it's a barn, right? So barns in Vermont, they almost always have that framing style, but it is used on a lot of residential structures and other similar structures, and I have no objections to it, I'm just trying to add enough architectural detail to it, to make it a stronger player in the village in the city. So those are my comments. Was that, can I just ask what was in a previous iteration, was there some different shading on the back and rather than Vermont just making that up? You are not making it up. Oh, okay. I was just thinking for the side that is gonna face the neighbors on Gaines-Court rather than seeing all, sort of. Yeah. It would be very natural in my opinion. Absolutely. A little to make it less like, no, I like that previous iteration, I guess, but. Good. Tend to like your idea of structuring it in the form. Yeah, I don't, I think it can be done without changing the massing or the, well, it'll change the massing. I hope you can do it without having to change the plan at all. I think the plan works fine. All right, so what else? Anything else? So I was wondering if we can talk about the waiver request, so that's the entrance to the building to the parking underground. It's not quite. And that's just the dry vial. There's really no parking on it. And then it widens out quite a bit where you have one-sided parking and then you hit the. Right. I know when the trash pick up, the base comes in there. Will they come in there? That entrance. No, the ceiling height won't allow us. Yeah, so we have an easement across the agency property. Okay, so there, that's my question. So that. Right. So that is, so they'll go through the trash, we'll go through the joint parking area which you're building in the Essex. Yeah, the parking area is for the agency, but we'll have access for a trash pickup. Okay. And then they'll go that way to get back in. And then I was thinking, so then anyone who is parking underneath the building can only go in, only one. Well, only six feet. Yeah. Well, I mean, I'm just saying. Like, that's the idea is why we want to do it. Why we have it is 24. I mean, I, so personally, I think 20 feet is entirely sufficient for a small park, urban parking lot like this. But it is, that is a deviation from what the land development code stipulates for two way, for two way travel, but I think given the size of the parking lots and the traffic volumes and the speeds that the lowest speeds that should be encouraged anyway. I don't see 20 feet as a problem. It should be noted that it's probably actually a little bit narrower than 20 once you account for this column right here. But even if all the cars are to take turns, it's probably not a big deal. And I guess my feeling is that it's a straight shot nobody's backing out at you from the sides, which is usually where you get into trouble is when your parking aisle is less than 24 feet. Because then you have people trying to back up and you know, they can't, that's tough. I was more thinking you're coming off a rail or like people coming in and then coming out. I think they have plenty of room that they, you know, you've got 20 feet going out to the street and before you have to think about which way you're going. So you're, you're coming in and you're pretty straight. You can see what you're doing. You're going slowly. You've got those nice stone facade pieces next year. You don't want to hit them. Your car get all scratched, you know. The cars are getting smaller. Well, it's in both directions, right? They're getting bigger and smaller at the same time. Big car. No, my, I guess I would continue to push for, for the parking management to deal with what happens when somebody has a big car versus somebody has a small car and you know, try to allocate parking in such a way that you don't have the trucks with the extended cabs and the plow on the front and the tow hitch on the back in the, you know, compact space because it won't fit. So I think with parking management, just common sense, you'll sort that out. But yeah, I don't have a problem with the 20 feet. So I think we're going, I would suggest that we're waiving the 20 or we're allowing that 20 foot entrance is fine and then we don't have to change where there's no, nothing gets written into the stipulations because you're just saying it's okay. Right, that's right. Anyone else have a different opinion? All right. Do we ever close the public hearing? We probably should do that, too. If that is what you want to do, I think the, if you have comments about the architectural design that require basically the plans to be changed, I think there's some complication with that. It's a little bit subjective when you describe what changes you're looking for, but if you plan to approve this, it would be, I'd leave it up to staff that it's, you see what I'm getting at, there's a- We've been known to do that. Bit of a challenge there. So one option is to leave the hearing open for one more, for a revision as a kind of cleanup item or if you have a very, if you have very clear instructions, very clear direction staff can attempt to deal with the changes as a condition of approval, but there's always a risk with that. I'm finally leaving it up to staff. I think I can be, thanks. Anyone else? Right? Yeah, I'm good. Okay. I'm gonna go ahead and close the public hearing then, unless anybody else, anyone in the audience have more to say, by the way? Yeah. No, I'm just on the phone. It's true. So my main concern is entry points to put to staff. Basically the poll that everybody does it like, so no one needs to move, but there's power lines that are being used currently on both of those polls. You're just trying to understand why the poll that we all don't like needs to stay there. Feeds the whole area as far as I can tell. So the new poll, Brian, maybe you can just walk us through it again. The new poll is actually on the north side of the proposed building and they're asking where the new poll isn't solved. The new poll isn't solved. Yeah. And the old poll is still there to the contacts and the rise in the data, move to the new poll and then take that right out. So are there two polls right? Yes. Right together now. So there's that one and then there's one in front of that one. Yeah, so there's one just to the north side. Yes. Yeah, so it'll be overground or above ground in the general location, but it's a replacement poll. And it's, but it's not, not right there. It's a little bit farther over. Then move it away. Oh, all right. Well, that's great. So they can move it away and open up the entrance. Yeah. Oh, really? Okay. So the power lines. So the poll that we don't like is actually about to be removed and the other poll that's just to its left, if you're looking from Railroad Street into Gaines Court, so to the north, will be the one that stays. Yeah. Okay. So the goal is to the vote that's been lined up. Okay. Yeah. So the situation gets improved and that's a great, that's really a good thing. Oh, that's great. That's great. Yeah. For what it's worth, my house is being interviewed. How are the traffic safety breakers are being interviewed like they're in the beach? And then that poll is going to be kind of unseemly. My brain is going to show me this thing. We're going to take a poll thing that we're going to do. That's great. Well, thank you for your comments. Any more comments? Very gentle. And we have one more. More comments? There is still a question about the configuration of the power down Gaines Court, which Gabe told me he had the conversation with Scott Fraser at Green Mountain Power. And that Eric, who was just speaking and my power is going to now be going through the poll. So I'm going to take a poll. I'm going to take a poll. I'm going to take a poll. I'm going to take a poll. I'm going to take a poll. I'm going to take a poll. My power is going to now be coming from the poll that feed the fever and the triplex at the end. Yeah, Brian, maybe this is where you help again, but there's a, under the proposed access and utility easement, you've got a transformer pad way in the back by the dumpsters. And then you've got another line going from that. And it's all underground from, from Railroad Street, it goes underground to that transformer. And then it comes circles around the back of the building and there's a new transformer that's on the back corner of Gaines Court. That's correct. Yeah. And that one that's all the way back around is going to be the one that refeeds. Right. And I do have concerns about that, but I need to discuss with Scott because my electrical panel is on the left side of my house. So I don't want to have any additional cost to move my entire electrical panel to the right side of my house and to accommodate. Is that different than the, what the drawings showing? Cause it shows from that new transformer that's all the way around, that transformer goes and feeds the existing utility pull that's right in front of your property. And then. Yeah, that's going away. There's no easement for that one. The plans. On this, it says existing until you pull to remain and then. And it does. It's not going to. Overhead power to your house is going to remain. Yeah. So is that different now? Yes. That, that pole right in the center of where the green rendering is, is going away. There's no easement for it. And it can't be accommodated with the closeness of the. Hold on. Oh, yeah. So. Your house is right here. Yes. This is the new transformer. And all the way around here, this is the existing pole that says it's feeding your house. No, it's not. It's being overhead. It's not. So that's not right. That's not right. And the next one over. Yes. That pole. Which says that it feeds Eric's house is going away. So there's going to be a power line that's going to. From that pole all the way over to Eric's house across my house, across the front of my house. And then what it says that is currently happening is not happening, but will be happening. But that is a problem for me. Because my panel is on the left side of my. Yeah. It shows it coming to the right side of your house. And across the Peter bushes, which would have to be chopped in. Well, how does it get to your house now? From that. The other pole. From the middle pole. But it goes across your head, but it doesn't. Doesn't touch anything. It's just me and Eric, just a V right from that pole. So. Gabe did explain this to me before the meeting and. Do we have to leave another pole there so that they can? So they don't. What was the problem with the easement? There was no easement for that. So it's a case of all the, now we have an easement pole. So, but one end of the corner. That's what I gave him the easement. And he proposed it. I mean, he showed me on his little map on the screen and that's the paper I just showed you, John. Yeah. He print the draft. He already looked at it. He determined how he's going to do it. He knows how it's going to be done. And he said downtime is going to be 20 minutes by time one hour. So they don't start them. What if you left them? It's a shorter run. You also told me this is a shorter run right now. Coming from that pole to that pole then it was. Actually right now, that run comes from the corner of the pole we've taken down. That's what meaning was to house it. You have to go to that pole and then go to that. The feed comes out of the corner of games court and Redwood Street. So they're going to have a shorter run from that pole. But how is he going over maybe Joe's pushes and the back. And my porch. Yeah. I don't know either. I know he already designed it in his computer. I mean, he gave him the paper to bring it over. Show you. I saw that and it sounds like if you didn't touch their power line at all, they'd be happy. I'd be happy with it just the way it is. We're going to put everything underground for the people engaged. Well, that's what I thought too, but that's not going to happen. But the previous meeting, and I don't know if we have the minutes, I think Gabe said that doing this project, you would ensure that games court had their power put underground for them because of this thing. Am I misremembering that? No, I went back and looked at it. It was the July minutes. Okay. Who would be moved underground? It was what it ended up being. So I don't know what the second one would be because I was trying to figure that out. I know. Yeah. But why can't we put them underground? Well, then games court gets torn up and then the power has to be run under the paved road of games court and repaved. I don't know if that's an option. We'll have to focus on that. I told you earlier, Mary Jo, I told Mary Jo that we bring Scott Frazier to her site. So we've explained to her exactly how it's going to be done. And if she doesn't like the idea, then we have to do another solution. It's going to be difficult to resolve it here. Yeah. Yeah, I figure you got to, I see three options. One is it looks like what's drawn. Two is one more pole gets left in place and you backfeed it from around the back instead of coming down the front. And the third one is you got to do something underground. So one of those has got to happen and you need to pick the, or you know, somehow we need to agree that. You're going to meet with Scott and talk and maybe Eric as well. But yeah, having a line from that corner pole near the triplex all the way over to Eric's is going to run right over my cedar bushes and over my front porch. In addition to, you know, regret, I don't know how it's going to work. So, and we can't resolve it here. I just want to raise this issue. The building issue, I think the satellite's 15 feet. So I don't know why they wouldn't leave up or leave up. Yes. That would not be the best resolution to do that. You do have a 15 foot set. So I don't know what the span is. That's fine. That's fine, they just need everything. Well, yeah, I mean, I think there's a, there's at least one, there's at least two solutions I think would be okay, but I'm not the one that's worked up about it so much. How do we get out of this one, Chris? Can we? Well, you could make a condition of approval that that's the applicant submits updated, like updated plans for utilities that are satisfactory to the two adjacent homeowners, I suppose. And then I would check with Mary Jo and the other homeowner to make sure that they're happy with it. Yeah, and it is a private utility. So it obviously has to be approvable by Green Mountain Power as well. Yeah. So what happens if GSD comes out, looks at the site, gives the options and none of those are amenable where we left them. There's still a conditional approval and there's no path forward. Well, I think you would need to also specify default position. Could you condition it as the landowner will make a good faith effort to work with the homeowners in Green Mountain Power to come up with that's factory power service? I mean, do you, that, everything has to be moved to build that building? No, so there's four polls on Gaines Court. We have to remove two of them was my understanding. Sounds like maybe, yeah, it sounds like today maybe Scott Frazier was worried about easements with the last two polls. But I think that's something that can be worked out. GMP is always gonna try to get an easy one. Okay, any way that they can. The other way, the game, whether they're working or whatever they want to do. Even if they're trying to do it, the GND giving the opportunity will try to go in whatever the service is, and it probably will work. It should all go in. But she might lose more of her hedge that way than going up, right? Because you had to. Yeah, yeah. All right, I need an answer for how that works. Well, I think the suggestion about wording it as a good faith effort is perhaps possible. I don't love that. It feels very great. Well, we don't have an answer. So we have three options. So what are the other two then? Go underground. Oh, I thought you meant our options. It's a faith effort. No. Would you do conditional approval, but we have to figure out what a default position would be? Yeah, it just seems like this has been, like this was brought up in July. That's what are we gonna do. It was brought up again at the next meeting. It's what are we gonna do, and now we're back. And it's still, what are we gonna do? And Mary Jo's bringing it forward. So I would rather have a stronger stance on seeing it happen, so that it's not just like, oops, out of our hands, and she has to move an electric panel or not her project, not her, yeah. So can we ask the applicant, having heard some of the board's position, what would, I mean, I don't think we wanna, I don't get the sense that I'm on the board or before the neighbors wanna stand in the way of the project being able to move forward, but it is important that this is addressed, so. That being said, Mary Jo, the people, since they're here, they're okay with a good faith effort. I'm not gonna demand something different. I'm okay with the good faith. I'm usually there. I mean, they've collectively changed to tell me what plan was, and they're on board with it, but I mean, I agree that we could talk whether we stop to demand it. And Eric is not online at the moment? So what we're saying is we're expecting a good faith effort by the developer to work with the two residential properties affected on Gaines Court to find an acceptable solution. And can we get a request to report back on how that's going, how that's resolved? Sorry, can you say again? All right, can we get a report back on how that ends up being resolved? All right, well, they'll have to submit paperwork to finalize the plans and everything, so. All right, I'm okay with that. I've been over here doodling on the elevations. I'm not sure I'm tempted to withdraw my request, but I'll accept another good faith. All right, so are we okay closing this meeting now, or what's the board's plan? You're ready? I liked the idea of recommending the alternate plant species. That was fine, that was all fine, we were moving back. We are, so we're okay accepting the alternate plant species, that we're okay accepting the 20 foot entry aisle or we're okay accepting the proposed staff comments. We have the overhead power service item that we're now, we've got a good faith effort to work it out with the two residence properties. Stormwater, we're okay accepting that additional staff comment with respect to repaving if they get out into the recently paved street. And we're okay with the snow storage. You know, if you hit the capacity of snow storage, the rest of the snow would have to be removed in a timely fashion, although I'll say I drove by a big lot parking lot, saw a giant mountain of snow out there, so it's, I know that we can say that it may not be the top thing on the list of things that have to get done. Parking is probably more important. And then, so then we had the two questions about you, the gambrel roof element being widened a little. And I wanna add the term if feasible to that because looking at the elevations of certain symmetry to the way it actually reads now, and I can see that it's not gonna be as easy as I want it to be. So I'll be happy to add the words if feasible will make the gambrel element appear wider. And then I would like to add some additional trim to the front side from the stone to the first roof. John, can you just point out, just to make sure I understand what you mean by the gambrel element and what you're looking for on the screen? Yeah, yeah. And I think it works better on the other side because but where there's a jaw here. But this whole thing wants to actually get wider to come over to Bob here. It probably wants to go to about there. So it may not actually work, but it really looks thin right now. It may just be a quirky building. I mean, I've seen lots of quirky buildings where there was something that ended up happening and people kind of wonder, usually they're more industrial buildings and they ended up housing some kind of a equipment in them or something, but. If I may, so, yes, the board brought up these two same comments last time and to address the back portion of the building absolutely, it's no problem to add some more colors, to add some variety there, no problem. And I'm certainly more than willing to explore, re-exploring the front piece. I, you know, that screen also squishes it and makes it look a bit more out of proportion. This screen that you, the board can't see, it looks a bit more proportional. But having said that, I do understand the thrust of your argument and will certainly give it a good faith effort to improve it. And I did my doodling on the elevations, not the perspective, but I think I'm accurate in it and I'm much happier with how it looks on the north side rather than the south side really is a problem, just geometrically trying to get that to work, so. I'm okay, I'll be perpetually amused by the narrowness of that, probably if it stays that way. I would love to see it get a little bit wider, but I'll leave it in your capable hands. So I'll just change my comment to, you know, if what I think possible, if feasible. If feasible, yeah, make it a little wider, if feasible. Thank you for your flexibility. All right, so do we think we have proposed conditions? I'm gonna close a public meeting because I think we know what we're doing now. And we've kind of been thinking about these final conditions, do we, do you think you have them written out now? I have them written out, but I just wanted to confirm where did you have any, did the board of any concerns with the lighting plant? No, no. Okay. I have what I need. All right. So can I get a motion? Motion to close public hearing. Seconded. All in favor? Say aye. Aye. Can I get a motion to approve the final plan with amended proposed condition? So moved. Seconded. Any further discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right, motion carries. Thank you very much. We're gonna do number two and are we staying in the revised order or how are we doing this for, we swap? Yeah. All right, so thank you. So I'll read this, did you guys elsewhere in the last time with this? I did it, I wasn't part of that project. All right, so anybody who is giving testimony on this project, but did not throw in before, please enter I do after I read this. I hereby swear that the evidence I give in the cause under consideration shall be the whole truth and nothing but the truth under pains and penalties of furthering. I do. Thank you. All right. We are on a conceptual site plan to construct a new building with 39 residential units and parking at 227 to 229 Pearl Street in the MFM UI district by handy hotels and rentals agent for my real estate. Yeah. So I think the board might remember that I was here for my lot, maybe the end of last year for a building that looks pretty similar. The biggest change for this project is that the building has sort of swap sides. And so instead of being kind of along the property line with the single family home, which it was before, it is now more in line with the multi-family on the other side. Obviously the building has also changed architecturally. There is some parking under the building, which is now being shown sort of in the back. But a lot of the nuts and bolts and engineering wise is pretty much exactly the same. It's the same amount of impervious surface. I do believe we added a few more parking spaces, but we also added a few more apartments. So I believe the last one was 34 units and this is now 39 units. But stormwater is all the same. A lot of the utilities will be the same. Very sort of consistent with the last go around. The one waiver we are asking for, which we asked on the last project was cutting the road to 22 feet from the 24 feet. That was accepted on the last project, but this is technically a brand new project. So we are asking for that waiver as well. All right, Chris, can you call up the site plan? I don't need to see it right away. Oh, here. And we made it through final before on this, or do we? Yeah. So we're coming back just to say, hey, we got a different idea. We're going to check it. So this is conceptual. But you're pretty far along because you've had most of your engineering done already. Yeah. We have an accessible front door on Pearl Street. We do, yes. So the accessible spaces are right sort of in the front there. You can see the two there. You can go up a curb ramp and then over into the door. And what are we going to do with that lovely transformer right there in the front? You'll have some screening. This is all in conceptual solely. Yeah. So we have not pulled in the landscape architect at this point. Staff had asked me to do my best. I have no idea about plants, so I just put a bunch of green. But if you remember from the previous project, we did screen the transformer and intend to do the pretty much the exact same thing. And is there a back door or a stair entrance or something? I don't have the architectural in front of me. I can throw this up on the screen in a second. But I do believe there's sort of like a hallway that connects the front door to the sort of that back parking area. I know we've had some issues with parking and getting back and forth, you know, from the back to the front of the building or the lot. But it doesn't look like we have that issue here. I think there were some other comments related to amenities or other things that might be offered on the site plan for the residents. I know you've got the kind of ravine in the back, and there's not a lot going on back there. But I think some projects we've seen picnic tables or other ways you can integrate with, you know, the nature or space or something, right? We do have a little bit more space in the back than we had on the first go around because of the switch of sides. So I do think there's opportunity to put picnic tables, barbecue area, something like that in the back, which I think would be more than amenable to do. Is that why you switched it? Because there's more space? I mean, the big switch is mostly also because it's a similar owner. So, yeah. And also we could get closer to the property line because it's multi-unit, multi-unit. So I can now get 10 feet from the property line, whereas if I... Oh, no, that was next to the woman with the nice big tree. Yeah. We are still proposing the fence there. And a lot of the changes are pretty similar before. The curb cut would get shifted. Kind of just flip-flopped. But again, I pretty much have all these details ready to go. A whole lot is changing at the nuts and bolts. And I guess my comments are more architectural. How far apart is this building from the adjacent building on the left? Is it 25 feet or something? So I think it would be... Because I do believe that building had to follow the same 15 foot. So I think you have 15 foot and then 10 foot. So I think it would be 25-ish feet. Somewhere between 25 and 30. Is it a parking lot, but a backup area? That's a building right here. So you're kind of waving at your neighbors. Okay. Which building is that? It's another apartment. It's another multi-unit. Or a similar entity. Yeah. I guess that would be... My concerns... Just the narrow little channel between neighbors there that you're kind of looking right at each other wouldn't be my favorite thing, but... This is the building that will be beside. None of the existing buildings on site exist anymore. They were removed. Do you feel like a green space because there are enough rooms to do something between them? There will be 25 feet of green space. I mean, it's not not substantial. It doesn't require any buffering because they're both similar uses, right? It doesn't mean you can't put any buffering in there. It just means you don't have to put any buffering in there. So I think that would be... Well, it's only 10 feet. Anyone in the audience have a comment? Better than Chicago. I guess I'm kind of interested in the stuff that's happening at the front, although it looked nothing at all like the surroundings, so we all have to be kind of ready for that. And then as you go down the side, though, the side with the open space probably has kind of more going on, but on the other side, maybe I'm just... It looks a lot flatter on these elevations than... I mean, it just looks super boring to me. What is the kind of gash at the front? Is that an elevator shaft or a design element? Unfortunately, I'm not the architect. I do believe it is the elevator shaft. I think that would probably make a lot of sense. And then that's the main entrance there. Yeah, that's the front side. Yeah, I guess I'm only sensitive because the hotel that's going up next to the good stuff store is much less elaborate than it was originally presented, and we did not have design control at the time, so we couldn't really do much. The building that was presented when the site plan got approved was a lot more interesting architecturally in what's gone up as disappointing, in my opinion. And I really don't know that we have an interest in perpetuating that type of thing. This is actually more interesting, but I just want to make sure as you're driving down, you're not just looking at the front. You barely have time to really see the front, but you're watching the sides, and I think we owe it to ourselves to have a little more design going on down the sides. I'm not sure these look more interesting than the flat elevations do, so I'm having trouble kind of lining these up and knowing what to expect. I don't think the back that faces the woods is that critical. There are some neighbors back there that can look up and see this, but for us, and the reason that the Planning Commission tried to change the rules and did is that as you drive up and down those major arteries coming in and out of the city, all of those buildings are important now because that's where you come in. That's what you're seeing, and we wanted to say we're expecting a little more out of these big buildings. I think the people that are working closer to five corners are doing a great job of trying to provide a higher level of design there, and so then when you get kind of this, it feels like we're a step or two down, and I'm not sure I'm happy about that. So taking some quick notes, maybe we're feeling kind of okay about the front facade, sort of that development, and maybe add additional components to the facade that you see as you go west on 15 out of town. I don't think you really see I guess it would be the western side because you'll be 25 feet away from the other building, but I do agree, you will see the side. One, because you're driving in that direction on 15. I guess the front for me seems a little bit lacking. It feels like there could be more built around the front and freeway. It's very modern. As a contextual composition, it's very modern. It could be really interesting. I think the way it's rendered and the materials that are proposed in black and white, loses some of the power that is possible with a strong geometry like that. And then as I look around the street, though, I go, well, does anything else have a similar strong geometry in the building next door that we got a brief glimpse of on the Google shot there with totally different characters. That's one thing. Is it okay to be a different character? And I don't see why not. We're not saying they all have to look the same. But some of the main issues like, okay, where is the front door and how do you treat it and why is it so plain like the building geometry is strong, but the functional elements are, you know, there's not much going on there. So I can say keep working on trying to create the context that makes this building look like it wants to add something. I believe there's a lobby that sort of connects straight back to parking in the back. Sort of just there. That's good. Everybody scream, we need affordable affordable. You're absolutely right. I appreciate what you're saying. I know exactly what you're saying. $1,500 $1,600 Please both sides of the table. Yep. And I think that's where you and your designer can look at ways to provide inexpensive tailoring to this that, you know, like I'm not saying it's got a all of a sudden start having a wiggly facade that gives you all kinds of headache kind of feeling. I don't think the building itself is set up as something else, but those surface treatments and the elements that are important, like the front door want more you know, you could do this like if you did this in marble, everyone would go, oh my god, this is amazing. Right. So you have to figure out how to treat it so that that luxury feels appropriate for the design. Even if it doesn't have you know, marble you can do it. Shouldn't be. I mean everyone deserves a place to live whether it's like expensive or not it should. The aesthetics can still be nice looking even if the rent might be different. It's possible. Yeah, I think these are all good discussion points. We're at conceptual, so I think we can go back to the drawing board and I took some notes that I can share with Dan. Like there was a building on North Wynusky that has a big red stripe in it you know, that's kind of like that doesn't do a lot of fancy stuff but the big red stripe is a eye catcher you know, it has a similar ability to you know, act a little differently than the other things on the street but seems to have been welcome. Even those buildings coming into place because those are really interesting to look at and have no idea how very interesting to look at as you're coming into Wynusky. There are 75% tax credit bills. They're so nice looking. They're cheap to build. No, and I don't get me wrong, I really give you guys all the credit in the world for delivering affordable housing in a way that is in my opinion is doing a better job at it than the heavily subsidized other buildings that we're seeing by some of the larger developers because those are not cheap to build and the only reason they work is the way they're financed. This stuff barely works. This stuff doesn't. Whether it looks like that or Wynusky. Yeah. This building here on the corner how many years ago then? Eight years ago? Right now, yeah. I completely understand it's our job to keep pushing. We're going to keep pushing. You guys are going to do your best to see how far you can make it work and still deliver the housing that you're hoping to deliver. It's really, it's a great thing that you're doing it and everybody we want housing at all different levels. That's all good. So, I think we're we'll figure it out. I think you guys are on the right track, you know, on a track that will work. I just want to see if we can make some minor adjustments. Anyone else? No? So, I think it's pretty clear that this is subject to design review, but I will just reiterate that this was the last version of this that had been approved by the Development Review Board which was this. At that time, the design review was not in place yet. So, this is the first time a design review is being applied to this property. It sounds like the the board has some direction for how they want to see this be updated, but I will say that if this is if you want major changes it may be a good idea to consider not closing the hearing and seeing revision because otherwise if you close the hearing and if you approve the conceptual plans, the applicant will proceed to do additional engineering and get it to final plan and then if you don't like it at that point it will be more expensive to make any changes. On the other hand, if the changes are simple. You might be able to add a canopy, a suspended canopy out over the front door that says okay we're giving you some more protection than just a two or three foot piece of wall there and all of a sudden I have a feature and it looks more friendly and inviting. It's the one thing I wrote down. So yeah. I'm listening to you. I know. When you say it and just you push it off a little further a little further and just took over a year and a half to get railroad street finally tonight thank you for doing that. But I can't keep dragging these projects over they can't carry on it you know it's not cheap and if I could I'd go into the trades for you and learn how to build them all so that you know we it's really a problem that we're all facing and I feel your pain I would like us to be able to deliver reasonable housing without the challenges that we have right now and I know you guys you've done a great job over the years of doing that so I actually the longer I spend looking at this the more I like it I just think it's really going to come down to how those materials get executed you know how do you actually do that and keep it from looking overly flat. This is better than the hotel just my opinion. You know if that was changed you start putting the siding on. That's what makes the final discussion. So two more weeks then we'll be here next month. Yeah good. Alright well I really I don't I mean fundamentally this has it has kind of all the right stuff going for it and I think we're just talking about the shell now and how do you pull that together so that you know what I'm happy to walk in the front door know where it is and understand that it's protected and you know if I'm waiting for my bus there am I under am I getting half wet or all all wet you know that kind of thing. Now it will lighten me down. I know that. I know that. I'll never let you guys down. You did a good job. We're working in this area and doing a very good job trying to improve and add housing we just need some time just a little bit of flexibility. Alright well I'm I think I've run this. The picture you put up just a second ago was that the original this was the approved this was the final site plan architectural drawings from the previous version. I really liked that and I mean it's more traditional the other one's energetic though. What you see from the side just had a little bit more the side the side here has more interest. But you know I actually like the other one better. There's some real energy to work with right there. Alright so any further comment? Engineering wise I think we're okay. We heard our comments it's just more about you know how do you satisfy the amenity part of the project and you know as you get into that a little more with the landscaping and just finessing those features I think you'll be fine. We have we had staff recommendations for this. Thank you for all the basic stuff. I don't have any other proposed conditions except I think treat you know some kind of a canopy or treatment at the front door and maybe just a little more study on the sides as you go down the building just to make sure that that is being treated so that it doesn't look flat and you know like I get part of it's supposed to look flat. That's okay but now how does that transition to the next piece and what are the materials this may be one that's better suited for panels than siding so further my comment alright so do we have to close something? I never understand when I'm opening and closing. So just like the other ones you this would require the or an approval or denial of the conceptual site plan. I'll take a motion to close the motion to close the hearing. Any further discussion? All in favor? All right. Hearings closed. I'll take a motion to approve the conceptual site plan with amended motion. Motion to approve the conceptual site plan with amended There you go. Second? Any further discussion? All in favor? All in favor? All in favor. Hearings closed. There you go. Thank you. Nice. All right, last item on the agenda, and if we, you know, this goes, we have, do I have to read the swearing-in part again, we have new, did you swear in there? Last time, not tonight though. All right, I, anyone giving a testimony, I hereby swear that the evidence I give in the cause under consideration shall be the whole truth and nothing but the truth under the painting penalties of purchase. That if. There you go. All right, thank you. This is a final site plan for proposed mixed-use development to construct a five-story building with two commercial spaces on the first floor and 53 apartments on the upper stories at 17 Park Street in the VC district by a mine lot real estate age of for handy hotels and rentals. Who have we got here tonight? So my name is Greg Rabidou from Rabidou Architects. I'm the project architect and also with these I'm Greg Dixon with Krebs and Lansing the engineer and Breck Robowski our applicant. Hey, off we go. We've seen, I think we're all pretty impressed with the first version of this that we saw. It looks like it's been finessed a little bit more even this time. So maybe you can describe the major changes that you are aware of and and there were a few comments on staff review that if you want to address that would be helpful. Well, I'll let Greg speak to the site development issues of which there were a lot of just tiny details to sort out utilities and curb cuts and the like. When we last talked about the building, I think there was was just a desire for a little bit more refinement and there's there's sort of two main areas of work on on this building. There's the sort of corner portion of it that faces Park Street and then there's the extended wing in the back that that floats over the parking area and that's that faces the parking lot going up to the school. So, you know, the corner rendering. Yeah, if you could do on it looks like. Yeah. Let me I'm gonna put up what I have up for which is relevant, but it's the perspective and then I will find the file. Yeah, I don't mind working off the 3D images. I think that's preferable. All right, I've got this right now. Oh, you want it? We really need to find the color images. I will find it. You're welcome to continue. Well, working in black and white for the moment on the front portion, we adjusted some proportions. We kind of looked at the patterns of windows and got to try to reconcile what was going on on the top of the building with the layout of the store front on the ground floor. There was sort of refined application of those large bracket elements at the top of the building. They were a little chaotic in the previous elevation. So we kind of try to try to find a common denominator that would set up a pattern or rhythm for those. They do stand out really well in this image because you're, you know, you're not seeing them in shadow, but those are pretty substantial. I mean, those are a story tall kind element that will really cap this off. The thought process has been there to be a strong through line going going across the top of the fourth floor. That kind of ties into the other four story buildings as we go up the street. That's reinforced as we go up to the school by by a pretty substantial setback, which gives those units kind of some deck space and also makes the apparent height of that particular. Oh, thank you makes the height of that particular side sort of step down relative to to the school's parking lot. On that back wing, you'll see it's intended to be a vertical shiplap siding with a clear natural finish. It's a cedar look, but the product we're most likely to use is made out of rice husks. But at any rate, it's a very nice looking wood finish. And then we took the living rooms from those studio units in the back there, and they got these kind of pop out frames with a large slider inside of them and and cable rail across it. Not a deck as as such, but a way to open up the end of that unit and get a lot of light into there. On the front portion, which is meant to be a little more traditional, we're using the bay windows in the more traditional sense, which stop at that fourth floor through line and create some outside decks for the top floor units there as well. So so the penthouse units, if you will, all through the building have some way to get outside. And then you know that that's again, you can see this in context with the other buildings in the series as they come down how this plays with those themes. But you know, we've worked hard to try to not repeat anything too too much from building to building. So the color palette on the front is a palette of warm grays starting with a kind of warm gray tannish brick at the ground level and then increasing scale down the warm gray scale to for the primary siding body and then the bay windows are dark in this instance. At the very top, you see just a small use of a plank, a Nietzsche hop handle to just step that fifth floor aside from the main body of the vault, you know, and give this thing sort of a base body cap look. The screen colors are close, you know, we always refine these by calling for a field panel. But but I think both in terms of the sort of calming down on the composition both front and back and dialing in on the colors away from the darker blacks and cool grays to warm this up and give it a little more street appeal. Very happy with how this is landing, both in terms of, you know, continuing the pattern on on Park Street, but also come up with something interesting on that side parking lot, which will end up being a fairly major experience for a lot of people because of all that parking up there. So anyhow, I'll turn it over to Greg and he can fill you in on where we've come with engineering landscaping and lighting. Yes, I mean, a lot of the civil side hasn't really been changed too much from when you guys last saw this. It's just been really heavily engineered at this point. So we have gone through and got the we applied for the state storm water permit. This project will actually amend a storm water permit because they're together with 11 Park. So that project together will be a storm water amendment. We are still overflowing into the city sewer, but that likely wouldn't happen until the 10 year storm and above. Pretty much everything will be infiltrated in the infiltration tanks under the parking right there. I worked with city staff quite a bit to develop a lot of sort of, I think minor changes from what I would see, but it did add a lot of different things. One of the other big changes is actually the area, the space in between 11 Park and 17 Park. When we were here before you, we were un-conceptual. We were actually not interconnecting. I'm going to call it like the patio spaces or that walkway that is raised walkway to 11 Park right now. So now that raised walkway will stay continuously raised and will be sort of filling in the area between the two buildings and that will kind of become an area where the businesses on the first floor could use for outdoor dining. It could also you could just put benches out there and it could just be kind of a sitting area. It also interconnects well with the rear parking lots both above, below and at grade because there are all three on this project. I think some of the other aspects where we were asked to look at a lot of bike storage, we did locate quite a bit of bike storage underneath the parking on the first floor that is covered bike parking. We kind of located it with the parking of the cars which made sense to us. Chris has sort of asked that we discuss with the board about possibly putting additional bike parking up in the front of the building. I don't think we're opposed but we did want to have a conversation with the board that sort of the area in front of the building and in between the building is more of a pedestrian walking area similar to like a church street where bikes are not, we're not really looking to have people speeding with bikes down this area and bringing your bikes into this area where people are eating and sort of congregating. Our thought is to kind of keep bike parking similar to car parking, you know, drive your car right to the front door that's sort of the same aspect we were kind of thinking is you could park your bike in the back with the cars and you could walk sort of pedestrian through up to the front of the building and use that as kind of a pedestrian throughway. So we did want to bring that one aspect to the board to discuss because we had had quite a few conversations about that. Trying to think of some of the other things, Chris. Yep. We talked about before we had the area in between the buildings drop down so now we raise that up, now we provide the ADA access through the south end of the building and there's also ADA access on the north side of the building. So when these are all connected you'll be able to access the sidewalk from, you know, the upper tiered sidewalk from either side and then as you can see now also we've, you know, we've figured that sidewalk slightly in the south end so now you do have actually a, you know, what would you consider a, you know, an adequate bogey area for businesses that are up-standing. Yep. So on that south side we are gonna have that entire curb be flush so there is 11 feet where a truck could park in there but it will kind of be dual use also with a sidewalk that when there's not somebody dropping something off somebody can also walk that way back to the back parking lot. There are rumbles here for some kind of a detectable warning there or is that just just pavement change turned into a curb? Right now there'd just be a, right now there's just a flush curb in there. I mean I think it's a great idea because there's no point in not allowing some kind of mixed use there but you want to give everybody the sense that, hey, you don't actually belong here, you're kind of, you know, this better be temporary and you better be careful because you're half on a sidewalk. Yeah. But, but we've seen that before, I think that works out pretty well. Yeah, you guys don't remember but actually the original design did now, how many years ago, he did pretty much the same thing on the south side of the Antipode. That was about six years ago. And I know Chris had brought up in the last minute and then I'll discuss that with you about the curb out front that he didn't need. I haven't, I haven't brought it up yet, no. Is there a significant sort of the blue line there? Sorry, that is the storm water, that's the limit of the storm water. Yeah, so that is the entire area that we are capturing, treating to Vermont state storm water standards. And then obviously the larger storms, the infiltration will get like the hundred, fifty and hundred years, you'll have a little bit of water going into the city sewer, but drastically less than what's out there because currently this, if you've ever been to the dominoes down the street, the parcel is nearly a hundred percent paved currently. So where, and there is no storm water treatment right now, so right now everything goes into the city sewer, but this one, a majority of storms will be treated on site. Go through the other staff comments or the boy would want to jump in. The one that seemed to be a thing was the free one thing or the dollar. Some of them work, some of them don't. I guess we want the ones that work, right? So that's. So what we are proposing is exactly what was proposed on 11 Park for that. It's actually interconnected with my storm water system. It's called a C.U. soil. It's a similar product to the cell cells. It just has more void spaces in it, but also has sort of the soil aspects that still have the root growth in those areas. So I would say they're pretty consistent. It's trying to do the same thing is to provide that tree with enough roots to grow in water. So this is a prepared or conditioned planting material. We loosely call it soil, but it's actually an engineered soil engineered for plants. Yeah, we're actually doing that somewhere else in a very similar setting to enhance a 100 year old sycamore tree that is right next to construction. So in order to maintain it, it has to be pampered. And so that's part of the solution is to do a lot of soil engineering. And then what I mean, an additional reason to use the same product as 11 Park is these systems will be combined. So all of a sudden, if you introduce a completely new product that hydraulically acts different, you're going to load that area a little bit more than the other areas. So it actually might reduce the amount of water that are around the other trees. To me, the real impact of all of this is to provide a stable and suitable environment for a tree to grow in an urban setting. And I'm not going to pretend I'm an expert on that. I just want the trees to be growing and not suffocate and fail and however long. Yeah, I mean, I spent $100,000 on the building on the corner of the cell. And some of those trees are going to be on their third requirements. So I think the whole thing has to be that. Unfortunately, the underlying soils here are very sandy. So I think the amended soil option is a good option. We're not trying to sidestep the issue. I think leaning into one particular branded solution is, you know, just makes it very hard to kind of negotiate a good deal for it. And I'll let the experts duke it out. But, you know, essentially the requirement is to provide street trees that stay alive. That's it. That's what we generally want. Right. So if you're replacing your trees three times in five, eight years, you already know something's not working. So I keep doing it. That's right. You had to replace the ones on park or just on park? Well, the parks are just, we'll see how they do this. I think they're going to... There's a saying, it's like the first couple of years they creep and then they start to grow, you know, it's just, it's slow to get going and then they take off. Right. So the one soil, this will be the third summer, third summer on a lone park. And as a last fall, none of them dead. So we'll see how it helps. And what was the name of the soil product? It's called CU Structural Soil. Now, so whereas, you know, four perl across the street, three I mean, three of them are doing great. They're big and we'll replace a couple down that way and it's geared at those that have caught. But I think two more we're going to have to replace this. And they have to self-aggrill the ones that are. It's been, it's been a struggle. Yeah. But I'd rather take a hundred thousand dollars and put it into the building, something that you see in the facade and the building itself and to put it in the ground on a technology that I don't think really is, is brilliant. So yeah, I'm, I'm swayed that way myself. Can we talk about the bike parking next one? We got a lot on inside. I don't, I think we're just like, I mean, yeah, I don't think we're worried about the protected parking that's Yeah, we can provide if we're looking at this site plan again. Yeah. I'll just give you my two comments. One was it seemed like there was some part bike parking that was part of the previous version part project that isn't there. And people were commenting on that. And, and there's, I think they're, it's hard to have a building with a public component to it that doesn't have some public bike parking. And, and I, I'm sensitive to the notion that you don't really want to encourage people riding through the pedestrian areas there. But, but something we, we got to figure something out of it. No, I, from looking, from looking at the site plan, I think it's a very easy solution. Which one do you like? Oh, just, just the site, just the one zero. Oh, here we go. And we can have fun. Yeah. If you blow, just blow up the, the pedestrian, the, the whatever we're going to call it, the pedestrian area. So, so we can, we can certainly, there was two things and we can talk about another one of the comments that Chris made. And if you look in that area, Chris, you talked about, so if you go up a little bit farther, like you want to, you want to see this. I'm going to see both buildings. Oh, I'm not sure. So, so the, oh, it's not, it doesn't go up that far. The drawing doesn't. Oh, it doesn't, doesn't include, yeah, right there. There we go. Okay. So we can, we can provide some, basically some bike racks on the, that the northeast, northeast corner. There's some room that we can put it. You mean like right where my cursor? No, no, not there. On the side of the building. I don't want to. Oh, like here. Yes. Right, right on that corner. And I think there's enough room in there for basically some, for some bikes to be parked. That way, if they're down, there's say they're riding down the street, they can bring their bikes up off the side of the steps that are right there and the bikes can be parked right there. And then that will wrap also into Chris that you talked about basically delineating a pedestrian way that would come all the way down through. And then I agree with that. And basically because the sidewalk from the back area comes all the way down next to the ramp, if you guys are familiar with that. And we can continue that to be concrete all the way out. So as people are walking, you know, it's a delineated area and we can actually make that as concrete. It'll be, you know, the sidewalk will continue. And then the rest of the area will be kind of the brick pavers that we're proposing. So I don't think that's very difficult at all for those two comments. And I think that it, by doing that, the bikes, the bike racks that we can put right on that corner, I think are in a very visible and centrally located location. And then we'll still keep some bike racks in the back. I'm fine with that. The biggest headache is when the bike racks aren't used and they end up, you know, collecting trash or stray bike parts that get blocked to them forever. There are 15 new bike parking lots in the, if you just pan to the left of the screen, there's right here. Yeah. I mean, we'll just move some, we'll move some of those to the front. No. So this is the, this is the under parking, basically consistent with the first order built. And this is right next to stairways that go up to the second floor. Never bring my bike back there. I was just checking out the front of the store. Yeah. I mean, yeah, we could, like I said, we'll move some of those. I'm parking in front of the store I was going into. That's what I do now. But for the most part, you don't, you know, if you go down to church street, they, you can't ride on church street, right? So yes, there are some, there was a few bike parking at, they're at the intersection of college street or bank street or cherry street. But there's, there's really no bike. I don't think there's hardly any bike racks in the middle of church street as you go down through. Right. No, I think that's fair. Yeah. So, so like I said, so this, this we can, just like there's a couple up on four pearl. I think we can add, and I was actually looking at there, if you guys are familiar with the, the lone bench that's right on the corner of park terrace and four pearl that's right there, the single bench. I think there's certainly room there that we can add a bike rack or two on either side of that, you know, the bench and just trying to figure out where we can include them so then the bike hangs out. It's not, it's not, you know, interfering with the travel lane. You've had some buildings there for a while now. Is there a demand for bike? See, this is the other thing. It's like, we all worried about we're over parking for cars, but are we also over parking for bikes? And I know we want to encourage bikes because that makes us feel good, but if. Yeah. And I mean, we have four racks over here by McGillicuddy's and I honestly, I rarely see bikes tied up there. I'm not saying that we shouldn't provide for them, but I'm just, I'm just saying that they're, you know, I, you know, we will provide for them. I think though in the new code, you know, 50 bike racks in the basement for, for the units we have, it's, it's, it's, it's excessive. Yeah. I, I, if it's intended for the residents, then I don't know if it's excessive. I think, you know, it may be okay, but if they're not going to use them because they're not where they want them or they're not secure enough or whatever, then, you know, then it's excessive. All right. So there was another comment Chris made and it was more about, you know, how does the sidewalk versus the terrace work? And I'm actually pretty excited about it. I think it works pretty well now, as long as the public feels comfortable going up there and using it with relationship to the stores and restaurants or what, what have you that, that are up there. I think that's a really cool and desirable amenity. Like if I'm just walking down the street, I don't really need to be in the space. I can enjoy it from the sidewalk. If I want to be at the store or participating with the, the storefront, then I can be up there. So doubling, you know, kind of a pedestrian thoroughfare is, you know, in this case, it's like having the main street and having a little side pull off so that, you know, things slow down and you can park or something, you know, it works like that for me. I kind of like the separation myself. It's, this is a really busy road and that's, you know, basically people, it's providing that separation and actually people like to be up higher. You know, it's a, it's a different perspective. Well, in a way, like if you drive through Wunuski around the circle there and you've got a lot of restaurants that are around that and they have created the little patios out in front, but there's not that much separation. I mean, they have really wide sidewalk and so they've got to create a separation feature there to make the patrons that are having, you know, lunch or something feel like there's an adequate buffer. At least that's my opinion, you know, away from traffic. Yeah. So I, I, I really like it. I've walked up and down that sidewalk a lot and, and I feel fine, but, you know, if I was actually trying to sit down on the bench or if I, you know, it's a little coffee shop or whatever you're going to put in there, I think, you know, I would feel a lot better about being separated. Well, Boxcar bakery thing, you have to kick the people out every day. Yeah. So I've seen a lot of people just hanging out on, you know, like on the wall or on the bench there recently, it's gotten a lot more attention. So that seems to be working. So anyway, I'm, I think it's a feature that's already in place and it gets extended. I think the rhythm has been thought about carefully. I think there's a lot of opportunity for that. You know, that's not really an alley, but the wider pedestrian gap between the two buildings is going to be really special for the people that are in that area. We don't have anything else like it around here. I mean, no, we're excited. I'm very excited about that's part of the whole project. I said, only comment I had and it was from the colored rendering going the other way. I think, you know, we've done a nice job of taming the fifth floor there because it was maybe a that overhang was a little aggressive before. It really seems to be more modest and tasteful and yet definitely a wow factor. But what I liked about on the other side of the lighter wood paneling, which you mentioned might be a rice product. I mean, it's funny that you're going to get a wood grain on a piece of rice, but you know, a lot of rice. But, you know, the husks are actually pretty interesting materials and they're doing a lot with them now. So I'm just I'm thinking that there's there's a lot of fun happening back there with those lighter panels. And it makes me wonder if that front corner is too somber, you know, like it's just a question like maybe maybe there's a place where you take a little piece of that and and, you know, slide it in somewhere. And, you know, but I don't dislike it. I'm just pretty excited about that stuff in the back there. It looks a little more. They read like two different buildings, but that's very much on purpose. You know, we're trying to create a district here and it's starting to come to critical mass. So yeah. And you've got a little you've got some real balconies that are hanging off right on the corner there. That's yeah, the two bedroom units on the on each end of the building get those facing the street. And what I'm guessing that's going to happen up on the top there, because I know I see this in Burlington and other places is that the people that are fortunate enough to have those units end up bringing green outside, you know, so they put plants and they end up getting some really nice, you know, from the street, you can look up there and see, see that. And it's, it's nothing you did because you're just getting an opportunity and and and people use it and it's really, really nice. So. And then on the back wing, those are actually full sized decks on the fifth floor. But you don't need a lot. I mean, I see, you know, you get into the city somewhere. It doesn't matter where you are. And on those upper levels of people are out there watering their plants and they just love taking care of it. It's just a little, it's not really a greenhouse, but, you know, like Vermont, it might be a little trickier than Washington or something. But it really works well. It's a great feature. And you get other people sort of making nice green spaces for you on the building. I noticed on the fifth floor we've got a roof top there. At the very, at the very end of that, the back corner, so there will be an outside. Who is that for? No, that's for the building. For the building? Yeah. Oh, nice. Who is that for? Who is that for? You're just gonna. That's me. I think it's gonna be an interesting place. It's gonna be an interesting place for a perspective. Back there, always. Based in Southwest too. So that's gonna be really nice in the afternoon. So anyone can go up there who's living in the building? Yes. Yeah. So we're we're gonna see what we can actually buy code, what we can put up there, but there'll be, it'll be functional outdoor space. The four UB chargers in those level twos? Yeah, whatever. Yeah. Well, yeah, it's sooner or not level three, but I've seen some people although I've yet to have a tenant in any of my apartment buildings ask me where VV chargers are. You just haven't seen me sneaking around, plugging into your house. Well, the new code is the new electrical code. They're coming in July is crazy. I was just. It's it's borderline insane. Yeah, there's a there's a number of efforts to modify that, but it's I mean, to talk about I mean, you basically have to even if you don't put them in, it has to be ready. It's like almost the whole you have to almost have enough electric cards to the whole building and the service upgrade is just gonna be so insanely costly. It's just if you if you do one of those lease agreements with somebody like ChargePoint, though, they have a way of dealing with that. You know, they you end up getting some money back. I know, but this is like like I said, it's, you know, they want you to have the whole building ready for 100% electric cars. Yeah, most of our projects where we're seeing somebody even contemplate that or the electricians are saying, you know, that's more power than the rest of the building needs. Yeah, you're doubling your service because you have cars. Yeah, you know, it's it's we just went over that did we had a call about it yesterday with efficiency Vermont. Yeah. Oh, weren't they thought just it's yeah, it's more than double. I had there were a couple other things in the staff report that I think we should just touch on the string lights. The what string lights that including the string lights. I was back on page four. And there it really, it really starts on page two, but it's talking about design standards for the Village Center, including two or more of the following or similar amenities with the pool from the DRB. And then I started counting them and I wasn't sure I got to two but pedestrian access directly from the building to the public sidewalk. I thought it was, you know, including the terrace and the others was, I think that counts as one. And then pocket park benches, I would sort of argue that the the little strip between the buildings is a pocket park. I mean, who's that you can go in there with your cup of coffee and something or anybody can write. So this I just want to make sure that we have satisfied the requirements here. So, you know, public art murals. Yeah, I don't I don't know if we are identifying any specifically, but kind of almost that whole, the whole raised thing is, you know, it's, I kind of make that that's a quasi, I mean, it's a very urban installation on the granite and all the steps that I would consider that art. Yeah. There's a mention of shade trees and I don't we haven't really talked about the planting scheme yet, so we might want to just review that while we're here. I didn't see that we I think the loading space issue was gone away with the treatment at the south, right? So I think we're okay with that. Unless I don't know that that was it says no loading space is shown on the plan, but I think I heard you had to talk about it. Sorry, that must have been a carry over from a previous from the last one. So I'm saying we're okay with that now. So I would my notes said is there a plan B, but so that we don't need it now because we have have a plan. And off street parking requirements, the DRB should determine if planned parking is acceptable. In other words, that whole thing sounds like it's the code requirements are iffy, so we can decide if it's okay or not. More or less. But this is this is where the Village Center Zoning Districts has says it has no minimum parking requirements, but it says that the DRB can yeah it should be appropriate and the DRB can so they have yeah, so I'll just the history of the development from four down to whatever the next one is 11 and right. So we all knew that that four was under park, you know, they didn't have enough park, but you address that with the next building and now you've got a lot of parking in this continues that though, you can tell us whether you think you've got enough park in there now and based on your your own experience. Yeah, no, I mean, we do. I mean, because like I said, we are we are going to continue that. We are putting a deck behind this building as well. So that's adding in, you know, 1918-19 spaces there. And so no, I think I think the the the flow of how mixed use parking works is certainly working, you know, it's working much much better in regards to what we did between with the addition of 11 park and the additional parking. Yeah, and I'll just my own experiences when I've been back there that looks like there's always parking available. And I'm, you know, I think there's still a little bit of a, you know, crunch around four in the back of four of Pearl. But when you realize that other parking is there, I think a lot of people once they figure it out, it's there, you know, no problem. And I think what you're going to add as the whole five corners area is redeveloped, you're going to and one of the one things that I do like about the addition of this building is there is now connectivity all the way down to the public parking that is down by the school, because that is kind of just nobody knows it's there. Just like a lot of people don't even know the parking is here behind here with the public parking. So if you look at the way these are designed, people can basically, they could be parking, you know, at the busiest times all the way down there is public parking and they can be walking all the way up through sidewalks, even in front of the building or a continuous sidewalk, all the way up through behind the buildings as well, to get all the way up to this, you know, of this section of the town. So, you know, as these buildings are built, you're looking at this connectivity that's going to make the entire five corners area. Because there's multiple ways in and multiple ways out and circles and now you don't have to get stuck somewhere. I think that's good. I'm up to, well, we talked about bike racks already and it sounds like I'm not really sure what the considerations or the, you know, findings are going to say, but it sounds like you have ways to comply and provide adequate bike racks even if it's not exactly what we asked for. I'm not sure we can waive the requirement, but I'm satisfied that we believe you're putting in enough bike racks. And I'm kind of feeling like it should be sort of an ongoing, I don't like to say this, but it's an ongoing negotiation with bike usage and the city keeping an eye on, you know, what they think their requirements are because we can make you show them. You can show them. I can't make anybody use them. And, you know, I can't decide whether you have, I mean, as far as I can tell, you've already got too many. So, I don't know what to do with that. I think we just have to say you need to show them. But the multiple entrances need bike racks, need them in the front. So maybe, so you're gonna, you want more, you know, one or, you know, smaller groups, you don't want to see 20 all in one place. I think it's for the idea. I mean, we're talking about, like I said, where you're saying, like that satisfies what I had been saying, but just the like, because I wouldn't think to put my bike in like, where the apartment people are parking because I'd be like, I'm not allowed to do that. They'll take my bike. Yeah, I wouldn't disagree. So, just part of that parking your bike is having it relatively safe and in a ridiculous location. Yeah. That's what I need to like ride to the bakery, put your bike, go out, it could be, come back and your bike is right there. You don't want to walk, walk far. So, I'm up to this notion of string lights and lighting now. Meg, you seem like you're ready to. I'm not the one that has this one. I mean, I love string lights. I feel like that shouldn't really, well, I love them. I also think easily vandalized or something can happen to them. And then I don't know if that should be the only source of lighting in that area. Oh, it's definitely not. I think you're going to get a lot of just both light from the, from the street. You got street lights in front, you have the windows and you have, I mean, there's a lot of, I don't want to call it light pollution, but there's just going to be a lot of just light from all the other uses around the area and these string lights. Yeah. Yeah. Mike's not here tonight, but he, you know, we're talking, you know, I mean, they're so. Yeah, the luminance is kind of negligible. I think the, the idea was that that's not a necessary part of our lighting scheme. But if we end up putting dining out there, we know they're going to want it. So we might as well come to you now and say, if we end up with outdoor dining there, we'd like to have it. And then, you know, it, it's true that it's not shielded or downcasted, but it's also contained in a sort of four story tall canyon of buildings on both sides and a parking garage behind. So the only place the lights leaking out to is to the street. I, it's, it's not something we need to have on all the time, but I think when we want it, we'd like to have it. Well, they're festive and they're inviting and welcoming and it's all the stuff you want from a space like that. Yeah. Makes you feel enveloped by just the right amount of nighttime stuff, right? And, and there, I'd say they're a lot more personable than kind of the normal, you know, lighting that you get unless you spend a lot of money on your old decorative fixtures or something. But yeah, I, I guess what I was trying to say is I don't, I don't mind them, but I don't know if that sort of satisfies the strict definition of what the code requires, which I'm sure is some number of wood candles, you know, relatively uniformly. So the existing, the current land development code does, requires all lights to be dark sky compliance and directed downwards and shielded. But I would note that I am working with the planning commission at the moment to make the next round of revisions to the land development code, which they're considering allowing string lights during open hours, open business hours. I think the, the important thing to note there is that that also means that when it's closed outside of business hours, they must be off and then you still need to be able to see. So, so the important thing is that it's there, there is sufficient lighting once the string lights are turned off. So like, what does that space look like at midnight? Those are recessed pox underneath the bay windows. So those will, those will be capped from above and they'll shine light down along that storefront so we don't, you know, nobody's tempted to go back in there and cause trouble. Yeah. And do you have those on the other building too already? So do you have both sides of the thing done? We just, I mean, I don't know if the values that I'm reading on the, on the ground there are including the string lights, but you're in the threes and the, you know, the twos of that. That's pretty bright for a, pretty bright for a, you know, nighttime. You, that's more than you need to walk around. Those, those DSFs can be dialed, can be dialed down too. Midnight, when everything's closed, is there going to be, seems like with the, with the downcast. Yeah, for safety. I think they want light. Yeah. Oh yeah. No, I mean, for safety. And they'll be lighting that connection, I think with the non-garage, the state of, now. Uh, how does it work now with your other garages that seem to work fine? Everybody's, we don't have any, yeah. No issues. Yeah. There was one request that we, they thought the stairwell was, the stairs going up to the top was dark because we actually put a, the glass, it's a glass top on that stairwell to get the upper part of the deck. We did that just for the purpose of letting more regular ambient light in, but we still had some requested at night. They still felt that that stairwell was dark. So we actually just added a, you know, and a light within the stairs. So, so that was, you know, more adequate. All right. Yeah. I don't have any other, I didn't find anything else that jumped out of me. There's a lot more information in the material here. There is a nice landscaping plan, but nothing that rose to the level of comment by staff. So I think it's a great project. I'm really pleased to see how it came out. And so there are a few things that I just want to make sure I'm clear on whatever direction you choose to go with. So there was, so you were discussing the fronts, the design of the front, the front entrance. And one thing I mentioned was that, you know, perhaps if there's no continuous, if there's no flat entrance from the sidewalk to the, to the storefronts, I mean, there's, it's also possible as an alternative to walk along the, just along the raised path completely. Just to avoid the street sidewalk. And I mentioned that that is likely a pretty nice walk and you would be right beside all the storefronts. But would it make sense for it to be a conditional approval to keep, to maintain a through zone? And what makes me think about that is the McGillicuddy's building where, in theory, this would have been possible, but because of the design of the restaurants and the patio space over here and this being blocked off because they're serving alcohol, it's not actually possible to just walk along the inside over here. Not as important for this building, but you know, with the, with the more confined space over here, if we're asking pedestrians to just walk along the raised path all the way or if we're offering that as a feasible option, does it make sense to have something to make sure that that through zone is maintained? I guess the only question would be, well, what are you envisioning for that commercial space there? No, I mean, as of right now, it's it's not, you're not going to see a duplication of McGillicuddy's, right? Even though I think what McGillicuddy's did, I hear, is extremely important to the two to five corners, right? So I think the benefits of what McGillicuddy's did for our way, the building to, you know, continually walk around the building itself, but with, you know, and I, but I also think that it lended itself over here because it was such a large area, whereas you don't have that here. So if you look at Boxcar as an example, as soon as it started getting nice, they put out a couple little tables, but they keep them out of the way because they know that that's, that's a common, you know, that that's how people basically walk all the way down through. So, you know, to put in that condition for this building, you can put the condition and it's not going to really affect anything either way because it's just common sense that they're not going to block that area because it's just, it's pretty limited as far as being able to access all the statements. Yeah, I'm, frankly, the whole blocking off thing is more of a function of the alcohol regulation than anything else. And I kind of find that obnoxious, but that's the way it is. So I guess I would be, I would also like to know that we don't actually cut that access off. I don't know if it needs to be a through way or a four foot wide or anything, but it's not wrong. But anyway, so now you have to be able to get up on that and get through and down in it. And again, I'm fine if it's a little wiggly because you're supposed to leave slowing down and interacting. And it doesn't have to be a straight shot, but I think it's important that it doesn't get blocked. Yeah, I almost think that it would be a bigger problem if there was more space, right? Because then it would give the perception that I can, as a business, I can do more things out there and I may block more of it. Whereas right now I think it, you know, and I only say this because if you look at what boxcar will do here in the next couple of weeks as it gets nicer, they have a few small tables and chairs that they put out. They're small enough tables. Yeah, they're right there against the table. They're little two toppers and then you got to sit that way and that's what you get. Yeah. And so you can see actually the way that the stairs and everything and the same thing is designed farther down, the way that lends itself is people get the businesses tuck the tables all the way up in just like the benches that are already there. They're all the way up in and they basically stay out of the way. They're pretty, for the most part, they're very considerate to the accessibility needs of everybody. And I think even, you know, where you have the wing walls for the stairs, you could probably tuck some on that side too. And, you know, again, you're not creating a thoroughfare because that's what you've got the sidewalk for. But yeah, I think that as long as it doesn't get blocked off with some fencing or some kind of a yeah, that's out there. If you want to put a condition in it, it's fine. It really won't affect it. Yeah, and I was only asking because for some reason you were expecting it then where they might have a liquor license and would therefore necessity. Yeah, the only place I see that happening would be the area that we're just creating in between the two buildings. And then and then on top of that, then obviously with Chris's idea is actually delineating a separate, you know, four foot wide walk so that you can actually come down between the space so you wouldn't be weaving in and out of tables and it'll be kind of be a little bit more easily delineated. I think that was a really good idea. On Church Street, they can do it with, you know, a chain and things that can move, you know, McGillicut is a little more formal. But, you know, if you ended up having to create a small little location where it says, you know, I'm in, you're not, that's the way the drink goes. Maybe that's fine. If you have enough space, it can work. Yeah. No, I would like to see a condition that says, you know, I don't want one of your penance to say, hey, I'm taking my whole front piece, you know, I would like to see a condition that says we can't block off the path of travel from one end to the other. But that doesn't mean you can't use it. Yeah. All right. Any other? Yeah. So I received, this was actually the thing we discussed this morning. I received some comments from Green Mountain Transit. Unfortunately, they came pretty late. But fortunately, it sounds like there's a solution to the issue that I'm about to raise. I just want to make sure that's the board here is about this. So the way, let me just make sure I get to the right thing over here. One more. Yeah. Okay. Here we go. So I'm going to zoom in right here. Yeah. So if you look really closely here, you can see where the curb used to go currently is. And this is where the version that I have up is proposing to have the curb. And there's a bus stop that exists that is right here. As it's drawn in this drawing, if a bus is to lower, there's not enough space for the bus to lower its wheelchair ramp and for a wheelchair user to get around and board. There needs to be, it was an eight foot clear width between the curb and any obstacle behind. So this is actually a problem with the city's lack of urban design standards and about related to this. But we're lucky there's an easy way around in this just to replicate the existing curb to bump it out a little bit. I think it makes sense anyway, because the road curves a little bit, it tapers to the east as you can see over here. Towards the tracks, away from the gates on the tracks. So once you bump that out a little bit, there would be enough space and the applicant has indicated that that is feasible. Yeah, we're just going to put the curb back where it is. Whereas before we moved it in, it's more of a straight shot. And now if we just put it back where it is, because if you go and look tomorrow, if you go look, you'll see it tapers out there. So actually you can see it purposely tapers out so you didn't actually, the car didn't go straight and then like run into the tracks because the road shifts for the track. And the redesign of that was, it's been in place for 10 years now and I think people still kind of, I haven't quite figured it out yet. So yeah, so if we just put the curb back to where it is right now, then yeah, you get more than eight feet. Yeah, I did see that. Easily feasible. Yep. All right, that sounds good. So in terms of engineering comments, most things are pretty straightforward and have been addressed. I think I should mention that the traffic control plan is going to be, staff will need to receive a traffic control plan when you have that available. There has been concerns raised by the public and members of the city council about prolonged closures of sidewalks and prolonged lane closures when there's not visible work being done that requires it. I think it's just important that it's limited where possible and so it's phased to attempt to limit this. I recall when Ford Pearl was under construction, it took what was perceived to be a long time. Now that means a lot of different things to people, but I think that it felt like that building was under construction for longer than people were happy about. So I don't know what your plan is for this or what. I'm sure it's a duration issue and since then, it's gotten even harder to get crews to work consistently and not, it's been harder. Things take even longer now. So we have a preliminary, but that's on the last page of our details that I do think Jeff wrote that. We're more than happy to be in conversations with City Department for final further budget. I did have a note on there open the kind of the front side of it as soon as possible. We also need to realize safety is an issue during construction having to walk next to a building that's going to buy store this. Yeah. The most recent example I think that we had, well, one was Maple, the one building that went up on Maple there, I was at 4 Maple, right by the rail tracks as the bagel place and stuff. So that was, I don't think that was too bad, although it's disruptive because it's, you know, a busy place, but it was really the one, the buildings that went up right in the street in Manuski, right? So though they had kind of things going on both sides of the street and they actually took a whole lane out of the road for a long time to build those. And it seems to be back to normal, everything's fine, but it's just, there's a lot of traffic there and there's a, it's going to be noticeable when things get blocked off. So, so look it out with the city engineer, but minimum, the goal is to minimize the disruption and have safety. Right. And yeah, I brought this up originally because I think it's just important to consider actual human behavior. Sometimes if there's no viable alternative, in this case, I think there's a pretty reasonable alternative. But if people perceive that there's no viable alternative, or if they just look at, look on the street and take it and decide to take a risk, like people would just be on the street if you don't provide an alternative that they find acceptable. So you're talking about like a pedestrian walkway? Well, this was, that was not proposed and the city engineer did not think that was warranted in this case, but that is something that is provided in some urban areas where a car lane space for cars would be converted into a temporary sidewalk when, you know, during the duration that the sidewalk is blocked. It's a little bit complicated sometimes when you're building so close to the street, because that may require overhead protection. And that, I don't think that was, that was proposed for, for this project. And the city engineer did not think that that was warranted in this case, although if it was provided, I'm sure the pedestrians would welcome it. I just think you maybe could take them around behind and give them a little tour down through the that's precisely what the applicant has proposed as a detour. Yeah. I mean, I think most people wouldn't even know all that was back there and, you know, might be it's a little out of the way, but it's not unheard of, you know. But you may want some of the back of that, depending on how your construction sequencing and staging goes, you may be trying to use that area too. So maybe the point is you can't use them both at the same time. You know, you have to allow traffic one way or the other for pedestrians. All right, that's a those are all good points. There's there's a lot of stuff that happens during construction and it's awkward for everybody. So I'm sure it helps that work in the in the city ordinance today. Are they required to sort of get a plan approved by the by the city and the city engineer for how they're going to do that? Well, you're just so the applicant would just be required to submit a traffic control plan, an updated traffic control plan and a construction phasing plan when it's available. And that would be reviewed by the city engineer. All right, so we don't really have any purview over that. We're just agreeing that it's going to be tricky. Yeah, okay. Any comments from the audience? No, nothing. Yeah, didn't want to sit there all night and not get a chance. He's on the clock. Board members, anything else? Chris, anything? I don't have anything else. Applicants, you know, Seth? I just want to thank you for the patience to get us to this point. I'm very proud of how this whole thing is knit together over time. And a lot of that has been a kind of relationship we've been able to have with you guys to pull that off because it's been transformative for the for the Village Center. And we appreciate your time and hope you give us your full support. Wait until we come back and start talking about across the street. Yeah, it's so exciting. Plans for the things going on over there have even more options for creating unique and more urban spaces than we've ever seen before. So we we were all very impressed with the conceptual master plan for that area. You know, can't wait. So all right, I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing. I need a motion from the motion to close public hearing. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Opposed? All right, let's close. We're now deliberating and I think this went really well. I think we're ready to stay okay. And I think we have identified the only couple of things that might be added to the proposed conditions. Is that a fair statement? Yeah. All right. Do we anybody want to kind of wait for Chris out there? So the only extra items that I have on my list include not being it not being able to block off the raised pathway like completely. So you still need to be able to traverse that whole raised path that we understand that a revision to the sidewalk at the south corner to accommodate the Green Mountain Transit drop off bus station. Is there still a bus station there by the way? Will there still be a bus stop? Yes, there would be. I mean it would have to be temporarily moved during construction obviously. But the Green Mountain Transit if there's a workable space they would like to have it there. It's not a shelter though, right? There's just a sign? There is just a sign. Actually the city has put a bench there. The bench would have to go. But the applicant does propose a lot of plenty of benches just up on the raised path. If this curb gets moved to where we're talking about moving it, it may be still be able to keep the bench there if you want to keep a bench there. It's up to. It feels like there might be a little more room, right? So as long as the bench doesn't interfere with that drop off process, I guess they're okay. All right. So with that being worked out with GMT and I'm guessing wherever the actual bus station, bus stop ends up will find the best place, right? I'm even wondering if it's probably can't go across the Park Street entrance because then you're too close to the tracks or something. You'd be basically right on the tracks. All right. Well, that's good. And then I don't know that I need a note about a traffic control plan because that's already part of the requirements, but there's a note about bike racks being placed as discussed. I think if the board agrees, we did seem to come to an agreement that they that there's an area that would work. So put that on the bus. Wow. Oh, and they said they have to use the whistle. Whoa. That was the. So, well, let me just demonstrate though. Staff made some comments about that, but it's not actually included in the conditions, right? No, no, right. We were just supposed to, we were going to recommend. Talk about it. All right. A motion to take a motion to approve the final plans with the amended proposed conditions. Seconded. Any further discussion? All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Same motion carries. Thank you very much, gentlemen. Thank you. Thank you. Great project. Sign. Just got to get it built now. What's that? Trying to put a restaurant on the other side, but he's having a hard time getting money. All right. A couple more items on the agenda. Any other development review board items? Updates on anything? Oh, no. All right. Take motion to adjourn. Motion to adjourn. Seconded. All in favor? Aye.