 The elevations on the west facing the street you can see the all the glass for the storefront facing the street you can see the three street trees that have been proposed for the right of way improvements. In following up conversations you can see the roof screen up above. On the north elevation you can see the differentiation of the facade, the integration of the zinc materials to accentuate that east end of the building, the changing the ground floor to accommodate those doors, the trash doors that egress doors. And then the integration of that stair tower, the stair facade and that rooftop element to kind of assist with breaking up that north facade. The bollards are against the property line on the north facade that extend down two thirds of the north elevation me. Oops, I missed some elevations here sorry on the cemetery side you can see pulling back to 10 feet. The trees proposed and have shown trees planted along that side with the red twig dogwoods on the ground. The grading is higher to be more close to the existing cemetery sidewalk, the existing cemetery grading on the cemetery side. On the south side down below you can see the the trees on that south side you can see the residential units on the east side of the south elevation. The trees roof screen and generator penthouse up above have updated the renderings to show the streetscape improvements as proposed pavers as we've used before. The grant of bollards per the town design guidelines the round tree wells tree greats per design guidelines it's the same manufacturer around instead of square the bicycle hoops per design guidelines the Pacific a bench that we've used north. And one is pleasant to allow for some seating out in the town right of way. And the only other thing are the tree guards that go with the tree greats to give a bit more protection to the street trees and they've had in the past. Upgrade I think that's up that's it on that elevation again you can you can see the trees going down the south side the integrated streetscape here's the update of rendering just, you know the only changes the tree south side is very similar to what you've seen the past the north side is very similar to what you've seen in the past. And then the change here is the corrugated metal roof screen. So the material out of that roof screen is to be corrugated with a cap and a silver color that will integrate with the rooftop equipment. I've got a landscape plan that I will show you briefly. That shows similar got rid of the propane tank, the intent is to go all electric with the building except for the generator which will be fed by existing gas line. The streetscape improvements are shadowed here they're shown more on L 2.0. The ground floor plan is is unchanged except for the fact that we've got obviously the shift in that you've seen on the architectural with the residential down on the ground for a slightly larger retail along the street. L 2 shows the street the streetscape improvements specifically outside of the bounds of our property. They show the granite ballard. The Janus country papers we do use before the Pacific a bench, the bicycle loops, the tree grates and the tree guards. And those are all integrated with the crosswalk that we've shown in the past that works with the underground ever source utility infrastructure that is on the west side of the street, Kendrick Park. I've also got two renderings here that have been done that were requested. This is the first one from the dentist parking lot. As I'm calling it which is a step back so we can get a little more of the of the screen. We've shown that with the Jones building in the foreground. You can at this point on triangle street you'll be able to get around the trees in the cemetery and be able to see the building. We're proposing to keep the trees on the north side of that. So those will remain as you can see there. And that is the gate from triangle street. And the last elevation rendering is from the north of the bike share. North of the bike share is the north elevation. So you can see the building relative to what he's pleasant. You can see it relative to the bank. The improvements have been we've done the best we can to kind of show those as they would be between the sidewalk and the curb. That north elevation you can see the materiality shifting at the west side east side of the building. And you can see it relative to the bank and one East pleasant, which would be there. And then I think I will go back to the architectural plans and start with questions. Okay. Thank you. So are there questions that we would like to present to Kyle now, before we go back to the design standards and address specifics as we go through the process. If you may, I just wanted to point out if, if board members and members of the public might be wondering, I haven't seen these revisions. These revisions were submitted today. And so they have not been uploaded to the town calendar posting or the website. I wanted to clarify that. Sure. Thank you. And I would also like to say that the, the way out of the building hasn't changed. I just tried to today submit the updated streetscape improvements that were requested and the updated renderings that were requested. Okay. Good. All right. So, board members. Do you have comments or questions for Kyle related to this recent update or any of the proposed. Any of our proposals prior to this meeting, which I don't know that you necessarily did you address all of those Kyle I don't have the. I mean, Marine, did they, did we're all of our previous concerns addressed. If you give me one moment through my list here. So, okay, so we'll just go one by one. How about that. The first one detailed rendering drawings that address the East building facade as well as the fence trees and slope along the rear. East really property line, which about West cemetery. Okay. Kyle, did you want to speak to that. Yes, I think that what we've done since is, is, I'm going to pull the building back the tent, the full 10 feet. A rendering showing the grading back there is. I think that I think the intent to, to answer that was to show it in the rendering that we submitted. In this north facade to show this to show it relative to the street and the public way relative to the cemetery itself. Is there a, is would the request be to have a, a rendering from this location from closer in on the cemetery. I don't know that we needed a rendering more your did you. I don't believe. Tom has raised his hand. Oh, okay, go ahead. No, I had a quick comment. That we do have photographs of your intent in terms of the negotiations you had about the trees on the back end of the property and how you're going to make those revisions to the fence and so I think we do have a document that shows some of those things. People want to hear from Kyle, in terms of what those discussions were, but we did hear that at the planning board so I'm not sure if the design review work for that. I could, I could recount that if that would be helpful. We talked there's a that historical commission talked about plantings on one side or the other of the fence. We discussed at the planning board that we'd like to plant the plant plants on our property on our side. And that we were open to moving the fence if need be and we would, you know, the conversation we had about the streetscape improvements as well that we would defer to Alan snow the tree warden on this whether or not he wanted to move the fence or not move the fence. So, we still think that it's best to put trees on our side of the property the historical commission felt a little bit differently but it wasn't a mandate and I think the planning board, you know that that remains an open issue. I have to say that at the historical commission meeting we talked with you in detail about that about moving the fence and about the fact that it would be better to have the trees on the town side so we could maintain them. And so they have more room to grow out into the cemetery space, as well as across the fence, you know, over the setback. We put them on your side and we put some on the cemetery side for shade there they might grow together they'll be too close. And you actually agreed, although I haven't seen it in writing anywhere with me when I asked if you'd be willing to defray the expense of the town, putting in new trees. Now, suddenly, you're saying you really want them on your side I don't really see the point of that if the fence is going to be moved to the west. We're not looking for trees on our property. But since you're taking a bunch of hours down. It would be nice if you'd help the town put new ones on the cemetery those are shade trees those are integral to the look of that particular area of the cemetery. And I don't think that will be accomplished by having them right up next to your building. Yeah, we, as we said with historical mission we would, we continue to be have the position that we would support putting trees on the town property and at the town wanted us to pay for that we would do that. I think that the historical commission proposed something different than our drawings. Discussed whether or not trees could, you know, should be on one side of the fence on the other side of the fence or on both sides of the fence. And as I made, as I tried to make clear at the historical commission we would defer to Alan snow. If they look at these trees grow up they're going to come into each other will be a problem. We would defer and and and go with Alan if Alan said it would be fine if we had trees on both sides of this fence and I see no problem with it. That would be fine if the town decided in six months not to put any trees on the town side that would also be fine with us. If the town wants. I'm sorry, did you consult with Alan to ask him what so you could put that into your later renderings. I have reached out to Alan, I do not have a final decision that that meets the meets all of the people who are looking at this everybody's, you know, everybody's got everybody's deferring to Alan I think that's pretty easy to work with we are not trying to get away from paying for anything Jan as we've hopefully made clear the historical commission and with the streets gave improvements we've we've shown. Yeah, so as I'm sort of writing notes here so I'll type in that as a suggest as a suggested recommendation about. Well, I actually wait because we, we're going to discuss that under one of design standards so it may come that we will provide a formal recommendation for that. Okay, and I would think as the applicant. Obviously, we're we've shown a rendered elevation. We've shown this out we've shown this rendering. We've expressed willingness to fit, you know, financially support moving of the fence planting trees on town property. We pulled the building back 10 feet from our side to plant to be able to plant trees on our property. We want to be able to proceed with the project, we want to be able to make everybody happy and we're trying to be able to manage that in a procedural manner that allows the project to move forward. Okay. Okay, any other on that marine on that list that we sure. Yeah, I'm just going to read them aloud. Okay. So the second one is the board had requested a rendering drawing of the proposed development from Triangle Street roundabout and from prey street at eye level. Did we get that. So, that's that's the other rendering. That's from north of bike share. And I'll tell you that I went further up from Triangle Street. I have images of those photos. There are a lot of trees from the Kendrick side that obscure the building. The spoke building. There's a street tree north of the spoke building that really starts to obscure the building. So I went further south to show more of the building. Okay. I don't have any concerns about that if not we can go on. What's the next one marine. Yep. The next one is to provide a photometric plan. Did we get that. I don't believe the photometric plan has been updated for the to reflect the residential on the ground floor. And the affordable housing. The next one is the board requested for construction details for proposed site furniture for the site exterior. Which I believe we've done with that L2 plan. Okay. Yeah, I think we might have something there. Okay. Okay. Sorry, bear with me. I'm also writing notes here. The next one with the next one. The board asked for construction details for proposed signage. I think we've we've sought a waiver for that. Yep. And I think the last one is the board asked for updated renderings showing the maximum screening to be provided for the roof equipment and mechanicals. And I think we try to show that in these in the elevator in all the updated renderings that you've seen. And then I think we've. I think the question was, are we going to change the roof screen as we've drawn on the renderings to accommodate the roof equipment. We have not raised the roof screen. We have not raised the parapet. We have enclosed the generator with a rooftop unit to also try to assist with the north facade. And have clarified the materiality of that roof screen shown here. Okay. All right. Is that it Marine? It is. Okay. All right, then I'm going to ask the board if you have any further questions at this time for Kyle. If not, then I think it would be appropriate for us to begin the review using the design review principles and standards. I'm not hearing any, but if you have, if you have other comments, put your hand up now. Okay. I think we can save our comments until after we've had our review. Sure. Okay. Okay. Very good. All right, then I'm going to begin. Thank you. As the public. May know and may not know. We are working from a set of. Review standards. As I mentioned, they came from 1983. And I think we owe it to ourselves as a board and to the developer into the town to. I'm going to propose that we come up with a recommendation or. Some specific related to each one rather than put it all together in one big. Recommendation. Keep things clear. And there is some redundancy. It's hard to be sure. It's hard to keep. Comments from flowing into another. Standard, but we'll do our best here. Okay. The first one we're going to. Review is height of the building. The height of any proposed alteration should be compatible with the style and character of the building structure or the site being altered. And that of the surroundings. So we're going to discuss the height of the building. Can you put those up on the screen? Can you take that control? Yep. Okay. Oh, you would like me to do that. I can do it also if you just want to tell me where to go. We're going to do the review standards. It'd be nice to be looking at them as we go. Chris, I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't have the project application report handy. If you could show them, I'm also typing notes. So I don't want to be. I don't want to be distracting to everyone. I don't just at home and I don't have that. Okay. Kyle, do you have the project application? I also can write notes by hand. So that's fine too. All right. The documents that you have uploaded for the meeting. Yep. Very true. Okay. All right. So, I'll take a look at the project application. I'm looking at the project application. There's a lot of building. And. There is some. Some comment about. Also seeing if it's suitable within. Showing Heights for surrounding properties. Located at least 500 feet from the proposed development. Okay, there you go. That's exactly what I have. discuss the height. This is a little interesting because of the fact that we already have a building hard by it on the south side. So from that perspective, the height of those two buildings is the same. When you look the other way, the building and the buildings to the north of this building are not compatible or I should say this building is not compatible with the buildings to the north. But this is something I think we should discuss and offer any suggestions or recommendations we can. So I'd like the board to make their comments or if you feel this is an appropriate height then that's what we can indicate. Katherine, do you intend to call on us? As long as I see your hand. Yeah, okay go ahead Erica. So I made some written notes so I'm just going to read it. The first thing I'd like to say is that I totally respect the charge of the design review board to address each of these issues but you know as a after a couple of days, decades of practicing architecture design and education, I find it difficult to tease them apart as independent considerations. So as you mentioned, I think there will be a lot of overlap. One of the strengths of any well-designed building is that an integrated design that uses its architectural language efficiently to address the multiple demands of its interior program of spaces and conditions of its external context, be it physical, historic, or cultural, as well as immediate and regional scales. So for the height of this building, I think that the 57 foot height is compatible with the building type and structural system. That's a response to the charge in the design review guidelines. It's compatible with its surroundings both in the immediate sense. There are other similar height buildings and building elements such as the church steeple immediately adjacent and within eyeshot, as well as buildings of similar height closer to the main intersection of town. The building height here also mirrors the height of the mature trees across the street in Kendrick Park. As is consistent with the master plan, we see infill density in the downtown area and emerald stoning permits the height of this building. Well there are also lower height buildings in the neighborhood. Additional development on adjacent sites to the north is likely in the coming years and most of this stretch of East Pleasant Street to the north of the site is currently characterized by a sea of pavement. The two and a half story gable roof buildings across the park are far enough away not to be diminished. I feel that it's sensible to see these similar height buildings clustered together in an urban gesture across the street from the park so that they don't create a canyon-like effect. This is a similar condition to the Hastings block of South Pleasant Street across from Town Common. The building here is contributing to a pattern of low, high, low, high as one moves from one end of the streetscape to the other. And any building regardless of its height will cast shadow on the sidewalk. In the case of this particular site, it happens in the morning. That's it. Oh okay, all right. Thank you. I'm looking at Jan or Tom or Lindsay. Other comments? I'm not hearing any. Anybody want to speak up on this? Tom? I'll just jump in. I think that you know I think that there weren't a challenging condition here because of exactly the point that Erica brought up and I'm sure that everybody can see very clearly that this has not been, you know, this is a part of Town that has not been maximized in terms of what the prior height limitations were nor what they are now. And so we're in this transitional state where we're trying to increase the density to meet the housing needs, etc, of our Town. And so there's a pretty stark shift from where we've been to where we're going essentially. And there's many ways to do that, right? There's full maximizing of what we are capable of, which I think this building more or less does. And from a development standpoint that makes sense. From, you know, from a resident standpoint, it's a difficult leap to make, you know, and I can definitely sympathize with people who are seeing this as a huge transition because it's very evident from the north side that, you know, we're making a big jump here. Even that rendering from the Jones, from that parking lot, looking at the Jones building, you know, it's a big transition, both architecturally from just the style to the height. And I think that over time, it will start to knit together. That's my assumption that, you know, the people's bank and the pub parking lot and all of that area that's currently so low and creating such a stark transition will start to build up and we'll start to see more of a, more of like that city block that Erica was describing where Hastings is, and we'll start, it'll start to feel more integrated into the downtown fabric, but right now it feels, it feels very, it feels out of place with the exception of the building that's, that's right next door. So, I think just from an architectural standpoint, what would help this is if, and I'm not making a suggestion here because I think it would be too, too massive of a change, but I think that, you know, if I were to just come in from the beginning of this project, I think what would help is doing some kind of stepping to create less of a, a maximized volume in terms of area and something that can really start to kind of step down in scale to create more of a relationship to what's currently there or even other forms that might go there or go next door over time. And so it would, it would be nice if this building, in terms of height and I guess all of the other components, but especially proportion coming up next, if this building could have some aspects, some, some elements of it that's stepped in terms of its, its height so that it's not just such a massive block that is in such contrast with where we've been. And I don't think that I'm making necessarily a recommendation at this point, but I think that that's my response to looking at this building with respect to height. Okay, thank you. Tom, would you like to weigh in? Sure. I mean, my comments are going to sort of, I think Echo, Erica, which I think she did a great job of kind of outlining the various different reasons why a building maximized on this site, both, you know, structurally and from its particular function is, seems like the right answer. And, you know, I had some concerns last time because of that facade. I think my, I had to think about it a lot in terms of how people think about our urban downtown. And if we go back to the Main Street North Pleasant intersection, we have very tall buildings, shorter sidewalks between curb and building. We have an urban park across the street. And I start to see an opportunity to mimic that experience further down the street in the sense that buildings of the scale of the spoke is not what we want, but buildings with a kind of urban, a more urban scale, something, you know, urban's the wrong word, a more populated, dense and active space as opposed to lower scale buildings surrounded by parking. So in terms of direction, I feel like the project is in a bad position because it's the end of the line of these buildings and not an infill between two other buildings. But from my perspective, it marks, you know, a progression towards the kind of scale we want to see in opposition to seas of parking and the spoke. So in terms of its context, when I think about the entire downtown as a whole, I see the height being on par with the expectations of what we want downtown and being on par with the other buildings that we see in the small town urban landscape that we have. Okay. But thank you. Jan, did you want to offer any comments before we make a recommendation on this? I just would like to echo what Lindsay was saying. I'm still concerned about the West facade and the retail space and the setback in front of that. I feel like the height of one story over that entire space that's in front of the doors isn't enough and it makes the facade taller by having all the floors above it then at one facing. And I'm just wondering if there's a way to lighten that area underneath so it's more welcoming. So it feels more open there. People have written to us and talked to us about, you know, crowding on the sidewalk feeling from these buildings. I noticed that the second floor does reach out all the way to the sidewalk at that northwest corner. So it's reaching really far and even though it's up overhead, it's going to be obvious to people walking under it. And I just don't know whether maybe it couldn't be two floors open there or as Lindsay said, stepping back more the entire West facade somehow to help alleviate the perception right now in Amherst among so many people that I hear from that it's going to be a dense infill. And it is somewhat similar to the area around the common, but it's much higher. And there isn't as much differentiation between each of the buildings because they're wider, they're bigger. So, you know, I agree with you up to a point. I just don't think that it has some of the same sensibilities. And certainly the retail spaces don't have the same welcoming and open and close kind of appearance. Okay, thank you. Well, I would just echo, I'm most uncomfortable. We're only talking about the height is the fact that it's the very abrupt this tall building. And then we have that little teeny weeny bank and then the spoke and the Mexican restaurant, which probably inevitably will be filled in but for the time for the time being, we don't know what plans are there. And it doesn't enhance the attractiveness of that of the building itself, because it's sort of there. And then we have this lower scape of buildings, not just the bank, but also that row of buildings that circles around to Jones reality. So it's high, I would prefer that it was lower. And but it also on the other hand, it does a but next door, a five story building. So as far as the height is concerned, I would wish it were small, wish it were lower, but I think we could make a recommendation or some vote on this, would anybody be willing to make a motion that we accept the height of the building? And should we marine want to put in some of the sort of the maybe the significant concerns that come along with that? Could we do that? Sure. So, well, let me if I just want to understand what you're saying. So are you asking the board to make make a motion and vote on their finding regarding the height? So I've heard a couple things, such as perhaps stepping the building height back. So lowering lowering the front facade, the west front facade facing East Pleasant Street. I've heard, Jan, not Jan, sorry, Catherine Yousaf had had suggested lowering the building. I don't know if you were referring to the whole building or stepping back. I was more or less thinking yes. Yeah. And I've also heard members say that they're fine with the building height. So does the board want to take a vote on on your on this finding and provide a specific suggestion to the planning board just on the height? Can I just clarify something really quick, Maureen? Are we is that the process that we're following to to make a recommendation and have a vote on each of these standards? That's what I was thinking. I thought it would be simpler to go through them rather than put them all in, you know, or we could combine them into one big vote. But I thought because things may be different as we move forward, it could get more confusing. So I was proposing a vote on each standard. But I'd rather see us discuss each one and wait to see what the Gazancon stack is at the end, because as Erica said, it's an integrated process. All these elements are relating to each other. All right, good. Let's move on to the next one, proportions. Proportions and relationships of height to width between windows, doors, signs, and other architectural elements should be compatible with the architectural style and character of the building or structure and that of the surroundings. So that brings us to one element with the windows. And I don't know, I offer my thoughts on this. I'm not sure, Kyle, if the north side changed very much when you added the, when you took away the parking garage, I'm not sure, did you give us a rendering of the new north side? Yes, we've got a rendered elevation, and then we've got the two other renderings that show that north side. That show the windows, like I'm not sure if this is a new one or an old one. The one that Marine sent out on Friday is accurate. Okay, all right. Okay, good. On that north elevation? Yeah, all right. Well, my interpretation, and I may not be clear on this, is that there are a lot of windows. And in some respects, it breaks up that sort of the big wall in one way, but I don't think it's the window placement is compatible with the building next to it. And I think that was one of the considerations we were asked to make about this. So, and while I'm thinking about it, Kyle, on your other buildings, you have, I think, wisely had draperies or blinds on those. And now with all these windows, are you going to provide draperies or blinds on each one of these windows, the big ones, the little ones? Yes, all the same. Okay, all right. Front and back. Okay, good. Because I have to say, I come down that way a lot. And you didn't ask me to be the person who checked windows, but I'm always looking at your buildings, see if all the blinds are closed. See who's messy and who's clean. Yeah. Okay, that's off the subject. But okay, so now we're talking about proportions. And I'd like to hear from the board what you're thinking about. Okay, I'll go with, did I see your hand up, Tom? I did not see your hand. No, but I'll comment. I mean, I think the, in terms of proportion, I see a lot of continuity between obviously, the previous archipelago building next door and this building. And on the ground floor, I see similarity in terms of, you know, stack height and proportion of the storefront glass with the solid material of the bank, especially looking at the new rendering provided by Kyle from Kendrick Park, where we're seeing the bank in the foreground and we see that continuity. So, I mean, in terms of its relationship, you know, the proportions of that glass to solid given its adjacencies, the proportions feel appropriate. I mean, I think they're scattered somewhat on that north facade in terms of being irregular. But from my perspective, that's the architecture and the dialogue between the solid and the void, or the proportions of the glass to, you know, opaque seems again, compatible proportionally with the other buildings in the area. And, you know, always from an interior experience perspective, I think it's, you know, promising to have more glass, more views, more light. And so, from that perspective, I think it's appropriate. Okay. Any other comments, Jan? Do you have anything you'd like to add on this? Talking about proportions. I have no problem with the proportions. Okay. And Erica? Yeah, I just, you'll have to forgive me because I prepared notes and trying to address like specifically what was in the design standards. So, our downtown is an eclectic mix of building style, size and materials and the portion proportions of this building are appropriate and reference the rhythm and pattern of apertures and shallow brick detailing in 19th century buildings nearby. This is a contemporary interpretation and is appreciated here in this traditional, transitional lot between high and low and oldish and new. The design creates a first floor plinth, kind of a reverse plinth with a higher ceiling and increased openness at the street, which is suitable to commercial scale. And it carries the height of the adjacent bank. It then stacks smaller scale openings above, which is appropriate. I feel that the use of materials, brick wood and zinc to create a variety, shadow lines and patterns is nice. The variety generated within a limited palette of window groupings is restrained but dynamic and emphasizes the horizontal axis as do the horizontal reveals of each sill line. The generous windows project the residential program of the interior and serve to lighten the mass of the building. In addition, the cuts in plan at the East Pleasant Street sidewalk and on the north and south facades helped to break down the overall length of the proportion into proportional segments. My earlier concerns about the overwhelming gesture of the north facade elevation have been addressed by the creative use of materials and wall plane manipulation at the East End, which breaks down the 200 foot body of the building. The zinc clad gash that separates the head from the body of the building is, in my opinion, still not significantly wide enough that only two feet seven inches on the other floors. Okay, thank you. Lindsay, any comments? You know, I actually think that the proportions are really nicely done. I think that as I mentioned about the height, I think that there could have been some interesting moves to articulate kind of some different scales within the skin, peeling some portions out or bumping them or, you know, that it could integrate stepping in an interesting way. But in terms of at least just, you know, addressing the fenestration and the window rhythm, I think that I think it's really, it's come a long way from last time. I appreciate the integration of the zinc and the while it does relate strongly to the building that Archipelago did next door, I think that it's, you know, it's different enough. In some ways, there are a lot of nuances that are creative and, you know, there's a similar, you know, certainly a similar scale to this building, but I think that the use of materials and the kind of window patterning is unique with respect to, you know, the building next door to it. So I think it's done well and also I could imagine some interesting ways to articulate the skin with respect to proportion that I'm not seeing specifically on the north side. Again, it's probably a little late in the game to suggest that, but just from a design standpoint, I think that there may be some other ways to break that down and keep the density that you have. Okay. All right. Any other comments? If not, we'll move on to relation of structures in space, which seems to be a very important topic for people. Okay. So this really relates to, let me see. Outdoor plaza concept, I believe, as one of the things that probably needs to be flushed out. The renderings give the impression that this area, quote, the plaza is very big, but I'm not convinced that the renderings are accurate as to what, to the size, particularly in front of this new building would be. And also there was some concerns about pavement. I think that probably could fall in here. You've done some revisions of the landscaping, which gives a better impression for the front, but what exactly are, Kyle, are you all thinking about as this quote plaza, this, how big is it going to be? I mean, what's going to be there? They're going to be benches. People want benches. People want this. People want that. What realistically can we assume we could expect to see there? What was your vision of that particular space? Sure. Maureen, is there any way to show the rendering from above that shows the south side and streetscape improvement? Sure. Let me pull up what you sent earlier today. Thank you. Bear with me. Let's see here. Today's the 19th architectural rendering or landscape? Architectural, please. Architectural, please. And it's at the back end. It's probably the plate 12 or 13. Okay. I'm just going to pull this up. Thank you. Pull this up while you said something like that. There you go. So in terms of scale, this is the Revit model that the basis of this rendering is the Revit model that the building would be built off of. So the model is the building. It represents the dimension from the one he's pleasant property line accurately. It represents the dimension from the north property line accurately, the east and the west. So this space that is at the ground floor in front of the retail that is open goes from the sidewalk on the north side to a much larger dimension at the end of the triangle on the south side before it turns into an eight-foot walkway that walks down to the leasing office, the entrance to the residential and everything else. There are granite wall, site walls, the first of which butts all the way to the street and is the height of a seat, a height of a bench. So there's seating available undercover at that location for that public space that we've tried to do a whole bunch of things in that area. We've tried to bring all the non-residential as forward as we can, push the residential far back as we can. We obviously have to maintain egress. We also want to integrate some plantings on the north side so it can't all just be pavers and then obviously have to accommodate at least a 60-foot building up above to have residential. And then what we've shown here is the spaces out front, again, which are all accurate from the sidewalk to the curb, the existing curb line, those round tree guards, the tree grates, the benches that are the same, you know, a landform Pacifica bench that we even installed 100 feet south of here. So have tried to accurately show exactly what that space would look like, which hopefully this rendering does. Well, one of your renderings showed, and this, so we're going to accept this as the official one, showed the pavement from the building to the south lending and with matching up with the pavement to this new building and it looked like a huge big plaza. And I think you have changed the pavers. You're not going to have the same paver from one building to the other. Is that correct or am I getting confused on it? It is the same paver. The paver on one east pleasant is 24 by 32, if I'm correct. The paver on 11 east pleasant is the exact same manufacturer, the same paver, same spec 18 by 24. Okay, but this is on the, as I'm looking at the photo on facing on the right here, that's the driveway. So you're not going to, there was one rendering that looked like everything was one big plaza, but this is actually a driveway to the garage. And it looks like you've separated that. So it, that no longer gives that same impression. Am I correct? Yeah, if we were unclear what's one east pleasant, what's 11 east pleasant, the path, I apologize. That's all one east pleasant, that's all in place. There's no change to any of that. That's egress, that's circulation. Yeah, okay. Nobody's going to stand there and think they're going to put a bench because car is going to drive in. Okay. There's going to be a bench right on the north side of that landscape area and there's two benches out in the right of way. Yeah, okay. All right. All right, that tastes good. How about the rest of you have questions about this? Erika, did you have notes on that? I do. Okay, carry on. Okay. So I think a particularly strong move here is recessing the first floor retail space to create a generous extension of the sidewalk at the west side of the property. This pushing back receives the line, receives the line of Halleck Street and creates a plaza space for gathering in front of the building, which could be used for sidewalk sales, seating, etc. The new cross work is appreciated here as well. Well, I like the gesture of creating an extension of the sidewalk. I think that the 424 square foot plaza space does feel small given the use and density of this building. And I would again call for an extension of the plaza to the south into what is now the planted area kind of closer to the property line and maybe moving that granite site wall back on the south side. I think the building is well situated and makes the most of the setback space and creates a visual link from Halleck Street to the cemetery. It will be planted and will also create a soft buffer between the adjacent one East Pleasant Street property for those apartments. I feel like the north side of the building, you know, with just now five feet, I don't know how you can plant that efficiently, effectively to soften that buffer edge, certainly not enough space to plant a tree adjacent to the building there. So I'd be curious about what others have to say. But overall, I think the solid void relationship of the individual facades is well composed and dynamic. And I think that the solid void relationship of the building to the site is also nicely done. Okay. Lindsay or Jan, any comments or Tom? Okay, Tom is none. I just, I'll just add that I do appreciate a lot of the gestures that have been made with the outdoor space. I think the paving is especially well done with the kind of two different sizes of pavers orientation. And I think there's a lot of, like I said about the fenestration, I just think there's a lot of nuance that is subtle, but really well thought through. I know we're not talking about officially landscaping, but I wanted to ask you, Kyle, there's an island right there now with plantings. And are you taking that out and replacing it, or are you leaving that island that's there to the north of the existing building? Yeah, when we did One East Pleasant, we ended up, you know, improving a bunch of Laird's property because that parking and the property line kind of melded together. So the intent is that those landscapes are integrated. Okay. Okay, whatever is there now, it's a strip of, you know, it looks pretty solid, but I didn't know whether you were going to take it out, do something else. Okay. All right, Jan, did you have any comments on this? All right, I don't understand what you're talking about, Councilman. What strip to the north of this building? Well, no, it's to the north of the existing building. It's in between the new building. Oh, okay. Well, he shows that in the rendering. Yeah. I think, Kyle, you accidentally said you were talking about a row of trees on the north. I think you've been on the south. I did be on the south. Sorry. I think that's what confused people because actually that would help soften the view from the north of the new work trees. And that, you know, what are we talking about here? Relation of structures and spaces. I mean, this is almost there were a lot line in some cases is all the variances and pushing, pushing to get the maximum coverage. And so one thing that would help probably a lot of people feel better about the building and would help that expanse of asphalt and then the sudden straight up wall would be to have some plantings on the north side. But you know, you've gotten so close to the edge. Yeah. Unless you use part of 15 after construction. And I, you know, I still have a question, which I've asked before about what is the eventual disposition of 15 East pleasant. I mean, maybe there you could soften at least half the north facade by having trees and some sort of green space, you know, used. I don't know what you need to do. Okay. Any other thoughts about this? If not, we can go on to shape the shape of roofs, windows, doors and other design elements should be compatible with the architectural style and character of the building or site and that of its surroundings. So what are your thoughts on this? Erica, did you have some notes on that? Yeah, I'm making me go first every time. Yeah. Well, you're you kick us off and we know what where we go. Okay, so I, my notes, my sketches to myself say that the east side of East Pleasant Street is marked by flat roofed commercial and mixed use buildings. As I mentioned before, in our proportion section, I think that the overall building window and door proportions are compatible here. This is not a recreation of a 19th century building, nor should it be. And in fact, the DRB standards are quote not intended to discourage creativity invention or innovation. The building's overall character is well composed as an individual structure and as a neighbor. The flat roof allows for location of mechanical equipment and I feel like as long as screening is provided so that this equipment is not visible from the street. It's fine with me. Okay. Other comments? Tom, anything from your perspective? No, generally speaking, I think the shape is, you know, seems appropriate for the site, for the scale and the proportion again is in line with a large percentage of the buildings downtown that do have a flat horizontal top edge without extraneous detail also in connection with the bank building next door and the building won't need to close them on the other side. So from a shape perspective, I don't see any particular outstanding issues. Okay. Very good. Lindsay or Jam? I think I generally agree with that, although as I pointed out a couple of times, I do think there could have been some interesting ways to articulate the skin that just are a little bit lacking on the north side. I think that the south side was done really well in terms of the reveals, but the north side is just lacking a bit in terms of finding interesting ways to break down the length of that plane. Okay. Jam, did you have anything you wanted to add? No, I have no problem with the shape. I mean, I said last time that I actually kind of like the look of this building that it has a cleaner, more bowhouse look than those other two buildings they built, but I still think that it's just pushing the edges of the available land too much. Okay. All right, then let's go on to landscaping. We've touched on that a bit. I'm just going to say it is really a pity that the north side, there's no room because that would give such a different look to that building if they're the plantings that are facing south could appear on the north of number one for me. I'm not sure. First, you've changed from a Norway maple to another kind of plant. That's fine, but I don't know, Kyle, if and maybe Mr. Snow can talk about this, there isn't a lot. You've got 10 to 12 feet between those two big buildings. How can anything grow back in there? I love the idea of the illusion. I thought that was an extremely attractive proposal to have the walk go back, although people then want to know how they're going to get the cemetery. They got bigger and bigger and didn't have to be, but so the effect, but I don't see enough room in there to have as many plantings as your design, your landscape designer has proposed that can grow healthily in between two five-story buildings. That boggles my mind. I'm not a landscaper, but I know sun does matter in having healthy, and I'd rather nothing worse than having a bunch of scrawny trees after a few years because they've been deprived of sunlight, and that to me is the biggest question about your landscaping. I don't know if it strikes other people that way. That's my concern. It's a real concern. Katherine, if I may, I was kind of curious on this topic myself. I reached out to the Tree Warden, Alan Snow, about the shading between the proposed building and the existing building at One East Pleasant Street and said it's shady there for a certain amount of months in the year, and his response is that the trees would do just fine and compare it to trees in the forest in shady forests that they do fine, so he did not have any specific issues. I think I forwarded you. That was from the previous landscaping plan, but yeah, trees grow in the forest, but if you notice they get tall and scrawny and at the base there's no... This isn't a change in tree variety though, is it? It is. No, no, no, no, no. It's Armstrong Maple. Norway Maple is actually an invasive plant, so we don't like planting those. I thought that was originally proposed. Didn't I read Norway Maple? I've never heard of one until... I love the idea of a lot of landscaping. Sure, okay, whatever, but definitely a tree will try to get to the sun, but that doesn't mean that it's going to look good on the ground, close to the ground. I'm just trying to get the best look for that possible landscaping, and so I know you reached out to him, and then they've changed the plantings, so that's just me. I just love landscaping. I love healthy landscaping, and I respect the way in which the developers have tried to provide that. I'm just not convinced that in that little narrow space of 10 feet, those plants will survive. Catherine, Ms. Christine Brestrup would like to speak. Okay, sure. Hi, thank you for letting me speak. Chris Brestrup, Planting Director. I just wanted to note that Armstrong Maples were in the first set of drawings that we received, so the type of tree hasn't changed. The tree is a columnar version of a maple, and so it's well suited to growing in a narrow space, and I think there will be enough light. I'm trained as a landscape architect, and I practiced for a number of years. I believe that the trees will grow well in this location, and I do think that they will be well cared for, so thank you. Yeah, I think my comment to follow that up would be that if you look at the shadow mapping that was done for us at the Solstice, it's in full sunlight all day, and then obviously it would taper off as you go further into the spring and the fall in either direction, but it would get full sun during peak growth season based on what's shown in this particular mapping. Okay, all right. And then just one of my other comments was that this revision to the plan is coming also from some of the feedback I think Kyle got from the planning board in terms of imagining the space between the sidewalk or between the edge of this property and the curb, and I think continuing the kind of landscape elements in terms of the hardscape that it's building has and bringing that all the way out to the curb, providing benches, providing plantings starts to mimic the kind of language that we do see downtown where we have buildings, and then we have this sort of way to move through that space, and then across from that is a place to sit, you know, I'm trying to imagine outside of Antonio's or places like that where you have a storefront, you then have a path, and then you have a resting area, and I think that this landscape that proposal that's been provided for the street front is really mimicking that as best as can be done with the, you know, the public space out there, and I think it's well integrated into the storefront with your pulling back. I do think that I agree with Erica, it'd be nicely a little bit more space pulled back, but again, I do think that it is well integrated on that street front facade, so I'm happy to see that change, and I think it made a big difference for me in terms of how I imagine that streetscape. Jan, would you like to... Is there a chance that those, I think it's three trees you show on the western boulevard next to the sidewalk, but those could be maybe a different variety of maple that are more of a branching shade tree than the tall columnar would offer a softer, you know, shade, just to look different and to have less of kind of punctuated verticals and more of a kind of welcoming, softer look at that side, would that be possible? Absolutely, and we would plant whatever tree Allen snow told us to plant for the streetscape. It'd be a great canopy there to cover the scenery areas around, it'd be great. Yeah, well could you put that down as something to ask Allen, somebody, Maureen? Well, and I think that, I think, sorry, Jan Glenn. No, go ahead. I'm just going to say our intent with the streetcape out front also wasn't to solve the whole thing, there's a lot of committees, there's a lot of people that need to talk about the right-of-way, it was to show we're willing to do all this if people don't want the tree guards or a different tree grate or a slightly different paver or get rid of the concrete or the granite ballards or a different tree species. We're open to all of that and do not have a strong enough opinion to push. Okay, and then the only other thing I would add is to go back to what I said before, I still would like to strongly ask the planning board to not grant the variance and to keep us at 20 feet and that the trees be on the cemetery side after the fence is moved and to just open that space up more and not have a continual wall along that side of the cemetery. I guess that's not something that fits in with your maximization of square footage on that piece of property, but I don't think that variance should be given. And if I may quickly on that, to be clear, everybody understands we are not seeking a variance beyond the by right site coverage that is called for in the zoning bylaw. So we are not looking to cover more of this site than is allowed by right in the zoning. Pushing is set at 20 and you're asking for 10, right? Am I correct? The approach with a 20-foot setback on that site makes a significant part of North downtown undevelopable that I think is a that is suboptimal from a planning standpoint. I think that what we've shown is the existing building is much closer to the site. We've shown five feet. We pulled it back to 10 feet. I think going to 20 feet means you lose residential units. You lose apartments. And in this case, it would end up losing affordable apartments because taking another 10 feet off the site would do that to the mass. Also, Jan, as you brought up, that we're maximizing, maximizing, maximizing, we're doing it by the bylaw. This is what the town asked for in zoning. So I think that the town allows for a zero setback on the North and the South. We're trying to accommodate an 80-foot wide site that is very narrow and still provide the housing and the mixed use and trying to do that within, like I said, an 80-foot site and integrate the landscape as best as we can. No, I understand you have a very small lot and you're trying to get the most out of it. If I may, I just wanted to clarify that regarding the setback, the rear setback, the applicant is asking for a special permit under section 9.22 of the Zoning Bylaw to allow a setback of 10 feet on the east side, the rear side of the building adjacent to West Cemetery as a reconstruction of a non-conforming existing building. I just wanted to clarify that. So that goes to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Since the permit granting authority for this by-right use of mixed-use building that all associated modifications would be grouped together with the planning board for their review and deliberation. Okay, okay. So Kyle, how did you get the extra, you move, you provided 10 feet in the back. What did that mean for the building in general? Did you have to cut back on the size of the apartments? We did that all at the same time when we revised the design to include the affordable housing. So all of the units were diminished a bit. Okay. All right. Any other? Yeah, sorry, Catherine. I think that a lot of great points were raised, but a couple of things that we haven't talked about. I am really intrigued by the identification of the large, bolder art feature in the plaza area and would like to make sure that that remains. And I think that lighting fixtures are consistent with your design language here. The DRB had requested additional information about lighting levels to provide a safe environment. I think that may have been a comment largely about the pedestrian pathway when there was parking and that's gone. But as you've pointed out, you're aiming for LEED certification and that demands that you minimize light pollution. So there's a balance between providing a safe environment and a low pollution environment. And I'm wondering if we need more information about not what the lights look like, but what the light levels are. And while the sidewalk width is only five feet wide here, I do appreciate the extension of the hardscape on either side. And as Tom mentioned, that's a good way to accommodate the use and density of the building. I do think that the street trees should continue the town's plan for street tree integration. So that would be like a nice continuation of what is found farther to the south and tend to agree with the argument from the historical commission about shade trees being planted on the cemetery side of the fence rather than competing with trees on your property on the north side. But maybe there is kind of a lower level, a lower growing tree that would appreciate kind of an understory that you could consider there. And I left Jan's earlier idea of using the 15 East Pleasant Street lot for planting if you could to mitigate the north facade. Okay. All right. Any other thoughts? Anything from Lindsey? I think everything's been said. Okay. All right. Okay. All right. So we've addressed scale and now we're going to directional expression. Seems like we're sort of got ourselves caught in a gerbil wheel here, but go on. Building facades and other architectural and landscape design elements shall be compatible with those of others in the surrounding area with regard to the dominant vertical or horizontal expression or direction related to use and historical or cultural character as appropriate. Catherine, I think you skipped scale, but I'm sorry. You already talked about scale already because you're very redundant. I mean everything in scale we've talked about. Directional expression we've kind of talked about. So yeah. Okay. Well, okay. So I missed, if I missed scale, I'm sorry. I thought we, I thought we were sort of on scale with all that landscape. If our chart, I think that you could, you could ask, I suppose. Okay. All right. Good. I'm sorry. I was going on to directional expression. Are there any other comments that we should have included? We did talk about the plaza, I think earlier, talked about pedestrian furniture and I think Kyle had included that lighting. We just discussed that. And I think other, I think really much a good fact to how does it fit into the its site. And we've discussed that before, unless I've left something out. Anything else? Yeah. My notes are really about the part of the standard here that talks about the scale of ground level design elements. Okay. And so I wanted to just address the human scale of the buildings or the relationship to the pedestrian, which is always primarily at the first level. And here I think it's appropriate and even a little bit playful. The overhang creates a recess retail facade and creates an extension of the narrow sidewalk. It's a covered outdoor space that opens to slightly larger paved plaza. And it provides a welcome gesture for residents and retail shoppers. It's shady in the afternoon. It's covered in the rain. And I think that the maple trees, once they're mature, will start to create a soft ceiling in a visual break between the adjacent buildings. Good. Okay. I'm sorry. I didn't want to step in other people's toes if you have more comments related to scale. I don't know where this really fits in, but I wanted to ask Kyle about you now have two retail, you have blocked out two retail spots. Is that correct? And do they do both doors face out onto East Pleasant or is one on the side? What we've shown is the 1700 square feet and then 500 square feet back of house. And those are those would be one tenant. And those doors as I think Maureen's pulling up on the plans and exit in one to Pleasant Street and one to the egress path on myself. Okay. So one's off to the side. And is there any, I'm guessing no, but any way for these retail establishes to have awnings or signs posted out closer out beyond the overhang so that they can attract some attention or are we relying on signage to be on the window or the door, which would be slightly recessed? Good question. I think we have a couple options here when we figure out the tenancy and the required signage is it could be behind the glass, it could be on the glass, it could be hung from the overhang that is projecting out, it could come off of the storefront. There's a number of different options. Okay. And you said one was 500 square feet? We see this as one tenant. One tenant with two, okay. So it's not two. With two means of egress. Okay. So it's one retail space. I thought we had added another. I'm sorry I'm getting a little confused here. No, it's fine. There's one space that occupies the whole thing. Okay. You've added more. It turned around. It got bigger because our lobby used to be here. We got rid of that and made that retail and pushed the lobby further. I understand. Okay. All right. And that space, could you give me an idea of another space in Amherst that might be similar to that so people listening tonight could get a sense of what kind of space you're providing. In terms of the square footage? Yeah, yeah. I mean, what store, what restaurant in Amherst, what space in Amherst? It's a little bigger than the IA Sushi space. A little bigger than the IA? IA Sushi. Okay. That's a deeper space that's skinnier. This is obviously wider and wraps around. Okay. That's helpful. I think people need to understand what we're talking about here. All right. Anything else under scale? I think that the scale is well handled, especially at the street edge and the stepping of that overhang. I think that was a really nice gesture. And I think it lends itself to some interesting lighting and signage. So I look forward to seeing what you choose to do with that. Okay. Anything else on scale? Then we'll go to directional expression. Somebody like to start a discussion on that. It seems like we've sort of discussed this. But if you think we need to touch on something, let's hear from it now. Yeah. So I mean, I think we addressed a lot of what remains here. But I think the horizontal expression of the facade, which is emphasized by the sill line reveals in the diagonal line demarking the shift from brick to wood that characterizes the first floor on the north and south is nice in the recessed expression of the ground floor retail and its treatment in glazing in brick also increases the hierarchical expression of the first level, which is consistent with adjacent buildings. Any other comments? If not, we can move on to architectural and site details. I just had one quick comment. Do you think that there is a pretty strong mix of horizontal and vertical elements within the landscape of downtown? And even adjacent to this building, I think one East pleasant has a much more vertical expression, especially in the lower levels. Whereas the bank next door is entirely horizontal in terms of its expression. So again, it's hard to say what's right or wrong, but I do think it doesn't feel like it doesn't belong as multiple directions going on. So it has an appropriateness based on the context. Yeah, I mean, I think somebody needs to speak for all the people who are concerned about the relationship to those on the west side of the street, the two-story houses. And I realize that this is a completely different animal and it's a drop in the pool of what we're talking about. But there are a number of people who feel that the contrast between one side of the street and the other is just increasing with more of these buildings. That said, I agree that this has more horizontal articulation, which goes better with the older houses than the other archipelago buildings. I would like to have seen it four stories instead of five, but this is where things are going. I do think that we need to continue to value the difference though between the two sides of the street and allow the fact that that's very well loved that streetscape on the west side and that any further densification, if you will, shouldn't occur where those structures are. But if anything behind them, I'm just sort of previewing fears I have that that's next. Okay. Any other thoughts on directional expression? I do, I have to say, I do agree that we have to, yeah, the other side of the street could be unparalleled because just because this may encourage people to think big and people love the Kenvig Park area and they love what it looks like now. Okay. Architectural insight details. Actually, I wanted to bring up one thing here. It's interesting the cedar siding. It's a new departure from anything we've seen in Amherst. Maybe that's good and maybe that's bad. I think what concerns me, and Kyle, I know you're favoring this, is the longevity of the siding. It's going to look good the first year, maybe the first five years, but what's it going to look like in 10, 20, 30 or 40 years? I've envisioned a building where the finish is just worn off and it just looks like a skaggy old building. How can we be sure that this cedar siding with its coating will hold up so it has a, so the building has a dignity to it for as long as it is alive. Brick is one thing, but this is very different and it's a very, very big building. And if it goes bad, it's going to, we're going to have a problem. So I'll hand it over to you to just assure us that in 20 years or 30 years, it's going to look the same. Sound like a web building on Cape Cod. Well, I appreciate that. I think that using wood as a natural material means it's a natural material. If we wanted to look the same today as it does in 25 years, we'd use cement or plastic or type of tracks or something that was going to have less of a natural material to it. I think that our previous discussion about the finishing of the cedar, the intent of that is to pre-gray it. The selection of the Alaskan yellow cedar is such that it ages gracefully. The pre-graying assists with that. So the intent is that this is a natural material that does reflect itself. It reflects its time. It reflects when it was, you know, it's a natural material. So obviously the intent is also that the building remains elegant. If it's not elegant, it doesn't work for anybody involved. If it doesn't stand strong and tall in the center of town as that natural element gains age, it's not going to work for anybody. So that's why we've chosen a very robust Alaskan yellow cedar as the base material and the water-based cabbage bleaching stain that we think will get us, will provide the best overall finish. So do you have any examples of buildings with this siding that are older than, you know, that have aged gracefully? Well, I mean Kendrick Place up the street is five years old now. One East Pleasant opened in 2018. So it's almost two years old. I think we've used the exact same product in both of those. So I think it, okay, they're the Alaskan yellow cedar in particular with the exact same cabbage bleaching stain on it. Okay. So as far as you as an owner of a building this way, you don't anticipate that I can't imagine how much of a cost to have to go and restain a building of that size. So I'm not looking, I'm not sure how you're saying that the buildings you've built are aging gracefully with the currently aging gracefully and that's what we should expect from this building too. Yeah, I would say that the Alaskan yellow cedar we've used at Kendrick and we've used at One East Pleasant is the same material we'd use here. The finish is the same and we've settled on that for a variety of reasons, one of which is longevity. And it's going to be the color you showed us, which seems to be a little more not as bleached out as your other two. Is it going to be a little darker? The intent was to show, you know, it's going to be identical. It's the same material, same finish. So the intent was to show that. Okay, because it's a little misleading with the renderings. It looks a little darker, a little creamier. So we're really going to get a fairly white, off-white building from the get-go. Is that what you're saying? I think we've done a pretty good job of representing the color of it, but I could be wrong. Yeah, I think you're wrong. I think you're rendering and what you've shown is a little darker, which I'm not objecting to, but it's not as light as the paneling on your other. Well, and we've got a picture of the Alaskan yellow cedar on the last slide that is an exact product. That's the color we were trying to match in the rendering. Okay, so that's what you're putting up. Okay. All right, that was my concern. And just real quick on a different point that Erica brought up. Erica, the granite in the exterior as you come into the lobby is the same granite that has exceedingly been put in across the street at Kendrick Park Swenson Granite. So all that stuff has kind of showed up over the last couple of weeks and has been set in place on the new playground. And it's the same manufacturer, same quarry. Okay. Any other questions about architectural and site details? Did we come to a conclusion about signage for the building or is that something you're still thinking about? I'm still seeking a waiver on that to come back in what time it is. All right. Okay. All right, we're moving on to signs. The design of sign should reflect the scale and character of the structure or site and its surroundings. Signs should simply and clearly identify individual establishments, buildings, locations and uses while remaining subordinate to the architecture and larger streetscape. Okay. All right. Anybody have comments on signage? I think Kyle's sort of given us an idea. I don't know much to respond to since they haven't made a presentation. Yeah, I don't know that we have anything more to. I believe Ms. Brushtop has raised her hand. Sure. Chris? So usually the planning board, if they don't receive a sign package as part of their application, they will put it in a condition that says the signs and the sign system need to come back before the planning board for review, before installation. And that would also include review by the design review board because you all have to review. Right. All right. Any other thoughts? So if we are, Kyle, go ahead. This might be out of turn here, but I think that that is similar to the conversations we've had at the planning board about the east side of the building and the west side of the building in terms of public improvements in the cemetery that in a condition that satisfies if, you know, this needs to meet all of these different committees on the streetscape. We're willing to commit the resources to improve it. We've given an idea if people want four dollars instead of three, so be it. And it could be, you know, that could be caught up in a condition. Same thing on the east side with the cemetery, whether or not we want the trees there. If Alan Snow doesn't want them, that could also, you know, we could see that being reconciled in a condition that gives the DRB and the planning board in the town an ability to come back and finalize it prior to us getting our certificate of occupancy. One other thought on the north side is that where your delivery and your trash will be handled? Yes. Okay. And now, and you have all those ballards and then the rest, then that's not your property. So who owns that strip that would have to be used for picking up trash and UPS? The parcel we're buying, the property we're buying is five parcels. The northernmost part is the one with the easement. Yeah. All right. Okay. Okay. All right. Catherine. So it seems that you are concluding your discussion over the design principles and standards. If we are following with the agenda as written, would you like to open it up to public comment? Yes. And if so, so if we're all looking at the time, we did say that this meeting would end at seven o'clock. I don't know if that's possible or how folks are thinking. How long would the board like to keep the public comments open? Would you like to give them, you know, three minutes each or perhaps a total of 15 minutes or 20 minutes? It's hard to know. How many do we have, do you know? Two so far. Okay. All right. Well, maybe keep it to two or three minutes. Three. The council and the planning board have been using a three minute. Yeah, that's right. With just a handful of people. Yeah. Okay. All right. I don't have the snazzy technology that the town council has with, they have a, they pull up a clock, but I will start my clock and we'll start with Hilda Greenbaum. So let's see here. Hold on, Hilda. I'm going to press a couple of buttons. Wait, let me hold on a second. So we're going to hold on. Okay, Hilda, if you could state your name and your address. Yeah, Hilda Greenbaum, 298 Montague Road, and I'm sitting here listening, especially to Erica, who is obviously a professional architect. But I think she's looking at a different building than the rest of us. I just don't see any of the things that she thinks are so wonderful. And I'm especially astonished by the view from Triangle Street, Prey Street area, looking at this huge, massive, what is it, 200 foot block? Seems to me that there could be a 20 foot step back to the cemetery. After all that is, I keep saying, what draws people to this town or tourists who come to worship at Emily's grave. And that border along the cemetery has to look presentable to tourists if we want to keep them coming here. I think that there could be a 20 foot step back. Why not count a lever, the upper floors to 10 feet, and have the 20 foot step back on the first floor. I think the long uninterrupted row along the north side needs some kind of articulation. You can't have a thing that long that just looks, it reminds me of driving along Boston landing on the Maastrum Pike by Exit 18. You think that these buildings are going to fall over on you as you're driving on a road as wide as the Maastrum Pike. That really to me looks horrendous from the Triangles Street lot and needs to be softened. It needs to be cut back. As I say, you can't a lever the back, the east end, like you can't a lever the front end. It might look a little bit better. And certainly some articulations along the north wall that everybody's going to see coming down East Plushman Street. I happened to be in the driveway of the Boatwood Garage the other day and I looked up at a building that's now, I think four years old. And the sedum on that building is all black and warped and it looks moldy. That may be the natural color of it, but I don't know if you can put a condition on the permit that the exterior has to be kept painted, stained or whatever so that it doesn't look like the building on Boatwood. The other thing that bothers me is the huge shadows from these buildings on these on Cundrick Park that we now are investing all this money in. And I'm worried that the other side of the streets going to end up being a canyon if we put in the BL overlay over there, which is now putting 50 feet on it. Anyway, okay, I've said it. I think something needs to be done to break down the mass of that building from the north. Thank you. Okay, so next we have Pam Rooney. If you could state your name and your address. Sure. Hi, Pam Rooney, 42 Cottage Street. Thanks for letting me speak. I would ask that we strongly adhere to some of the table, the dimensional table requirements, one being that we keep the height at 55 feet. I would like to remind people that the total height of the building in this case will include mechanical sheds. It will include, I don't know how high the mechanical screens are, but in fact the screens cast as much of a shadow as the building itself. I sit from my window and can see Kendrick Place, and I will say that a half hour before sunset during most of the winter, my upstairs window is in shade a half an hour earlier before normal sunset time, so it really does affect the places and people around it. The reduction of the setback along the north side, so the setback on the north side, which is this massive wall that everyone's been talking about, should be 10 feet. It's then requested for five, and it feels like one of the, I hate to say it, because as a landscape architect, you know, you don't want to just have to plant shrubs to cover up an architect's mistake, but having a 10 foot setback on that side truly would help ameliorate some of the massiveness. There is a laziness, there's a texture, there's a character that is immediately sensed by a pedestrian at the ground level that, and also a sort of a variation and a stratification that is seen by people coming in from Prairie Street, and these are all very important aspects to just initial impressions and character of what we show people as they drive into town, as well as, oh by the way, the people that live here at Cottage Street and Prairie Street are major pedestrian routes, and I think we, you need to impose some capability of softening that very, very large block. Windows are one thing, but they do nothing to in fact break up that scale, so I'll stop there. I have lots of other ideas, but I think my time is up. Thank you, Pam. Okay, so next we have, let's see, Ira Brick. Ira, if you could state your name and your address. Hi, I'm Ira Brick. My address is 255 Strong Street. As you can, as you discussed the proposed changes in the plan for Lebanese Pleasant, please consider what is best for the current and future generations of our Amherst community. People have moved here and enjoyed living here because it's been a town that is life-sized, designed to meet neighbors, make people relaxed around attractive architecture, provide the means to get their errands done, and to enjoy the character of a livable New England college town. When I looked at colleges with my children, there were college towns that made that college more appealing. It certainly was a positive attribute of downtown Amherst that attracted me to raise my family here, and as the most appealing college towns have also evolved to attract retirees and transplants, the downtown is more than ever needed to be a resource to the community. So I'm quite concerned that future downtown Amherst, if there are more of the five-story monolithic dorms built in our center and this one, will even hurt our beloved main industry higher education. If town committees like the Design Review Board hold to the standards that have made Amherst successful, our future is bright as a healthy place to live. But if you don't, if you allow tiny setbacks in theory of design, no parking, few places to do business, an inadequate nod to affordability and inclusion, variances galore for the Midwestern hedge fund that owns them, and a character assassinating blandness, we will fail. Eleventies Pleasant is the latest incarnation of what 900 people clearly stated they do not want in this town. The town government rejected that call for a pause or moratorium to make a plan before changing numerous zoning bylaws in shockingly random fashion. This is while they admit that six months isn't nearly long enough or that they will quote, never get it right, unquote. I am urging the Design Review Board to consider what it means to protect the design integrity of this town. Be a strong board, thinking independently and collaboratively to uphold the standards of the town you're serving. Please push back on the expedience with which so many unexplored changes are being made so that Amherst gets to grow and improve, not be sold to the highest bidder. Thank you. Thank you, Ira. Next, we have Dorothy Pam. Dorothy, if you could state your name and your address. Hi, Dorothy Pam, 229 Amity Street. I have two questions. I still am not clear how we got to have five-story buildings in the BG. Again and again, people refer to the older buildings around the North Common. I think those are four stories tall. So somehow, all of a sudden, we get one, now we get two, and now we're going to maybe change our zoning so that all the new buildings in the BG are five stories tall. And you've heard again and again from people that that is not what people want. Again, looking at the older buildings around the North Common, they have interesting windows. They're just very interesting and varied. But I noticed I looked again today, and I do realize that you've been making a lot of changes, but you have these floor-to-ceiling glass windows, which are not places that they're not livable, so that people end up keeping their curtains drawn the whole time. And so what the public sees is curtains that generally askew. I mean, there are buildings like that in New York City that don't look good. They're not inviting. They're not attractive. And I don't think I'd want to live in one where I have to keep my curtains closed all the time so that I'm not totally on view. So I really have a problem with the windows. I think if you didn't make them so floor-to-ceiling, that would make a difference. If they had more interesting architecture around the windows like some of the older buildings do. And just think about living in that place yourself or having window seats. I think that would be very nice. Obviously, we're going to have some new buildings, and they're going to be taller than what's been there. But I'm just saying once again, please let's keep it four stories and let's make them reflect some of the interesting variation in architecture that we see in the other kind of urban-ish part of our downtown. Thank you. Thank you, Dorothy. That is all the, no, I don't see any other raised hands. I guess we'll close the public comment. Would the applicant like to respond to any of the public comments received? I could respond to when the town voted for five stories in town meeting. I think that in terms of the height and the location of the building and so on, I think we've been pretty clear on what we proposed and trying to revise things as we've gone forward to accommodate requested changes with the board. But I'm open, if the board has questions, I'm open to obviously answering those. Well, I had a question as the public was speaking. It occurred to me, you said you own that property to the north of your proposed building. And if so, what would prevent you from landscaping that side and make it like a really beautiful assortment of trees, which would make such a difference to the quality of that whole of the building and of the location? Because this building is going to stick out like a sore thumb. The parcel to the north is part of the five parcels that we would be buying. A significant portion of that is an easement that serves our parcel, that parcel, the bank parcel, and is tied up in the history of the place. The back portion, as we've said before the planning board, we don't know what that will be yet. We obviously see that as part of future development efforts in our very small BT. Okay, so you're saying there's no room, you can't put trees there because that would make such a difference. Go ahead, I'm sorry. I was just going to say that a big stretch of that is an easement that serves other parcels. Okay, I understand. Eric and I both mentioned the back section of 15 East Pleasant could still, once construction is complete, have some landscaping. Just soften the eastern end of the north. I think that the eastern end of 15 East Pleasant is to be determined. We don't know what that is. We don't know how that relates to adjacent properties. Yeah, it'd be the south side of 15 East Pleasant, but it would help the eastern end of 11. You see what I mean? Yeah, it would be the southeastern side of 15. And that's only the stairs partway back, doesn't it? 15 doesn't come all the way to the street. 15 goes all the way to the street. So when this parcel included the bank on the corner, that was broken up in the spur, the pleasant spur of prey was retained. Okay. So that spur that goes out from where that highway barrier is, where the pub deck is, out to the street, that is an easement, a full easement. And I think that the future of the site, there's a lot to be determined what happens to where the pub is, what happens to that relative to prey street, what happens to that relative to other properties. And that is, we don't know the answer to that today. Well, my overall impression is I really regret that the architects did not give a nod to Amherst with the understanding that how Amherst responds to has, thinks about its downtown. And this building, I think, is really an impressive building. I think it would look perfect on the UMass campus, the Hampshire College campus, the Amherst College campus. I really don't think it fits on East Pleasant Street, Amherst, Massachusetts, USA. It's got a lot of interesting pieces to it. But, and my greatest fear was that we were going to see one red brick building after another, one big clunky building, so we would have them the Amherst Office Park. Well, this, having this interesting wooden, wood siding building breaks up that nightmare that I hold in my head. But I think it's a real jolt to where it is. However, I mean, we've had the discussion, I just wanted to, we have to be sensitive to people with Amherst and what they, the comfort level, what, I'm not going to go on anymore, but I just wanted to throw in that last piece. It has a number of interesting features. I just wish it wasn't there. So we're coming at seven o'clock right now. All right. And I just want to check in with board members of where they are with time and whether you want to continue with this meeting tonight with making your deliberation. I think we should because I think the planning board, is that right, Kyle? Are you going to planning board on Wednesday with this? On the 28th week from Wednesday. All right. Okay. So we should collate our recommendations while this is refreshing our minds. Yeah, I agree. I just want to just verify. I don't think we want to put this on to another date. So we have to frame a recommendation that encompasses our comments, both concerns as well as positive comments, so that we can pass it on to the planning board. Does anybody have an idea of how you think we should approach this? Or should we recommend that from the planning board that the project go forth with the concerns that we still have after this discussion? So the board, although you all individually have great thoughts and ideas, the intention really is for the board as a whole to make a motion on the findings under section three of the zoning bylaw regarding the design principles and standards. So and then also make specific suggestions as they relate to that. So I don't know if it makes sense to sort of go back to each of them and make a motion on each of the standards or if someone else has a. We could say one thing would be we recommend acceptance of the project after review of the design standards. And then that's one way to do it, I suppose. And then if we have specific concerns that we still don't feel have been addressed, we can add those in. Okay. Did you want to start with the design standard regarding height? What as a board? I don't think you should break it down by standard. No. It's much too ponderous to do that and they overlap so much. Yeah. The general sense that we have after our discussion and going over each of the standards, do we have any major concerns we would like to place as conditions if we were to suggest that the board move forward? Yeah, that's it. Yeah. Make the recommendation and then pull out any specific conditions. Okay. All right. So let me hear from the board as to what specific concerns or conditions you would like to have included in this recommendation. I don't hear you yet. Any concerns or shall we just go straight forward and say we after a full discussion of the design standards, we are recommending that the project go forward. Is that sufficient? No, I think that the planning board should know that we talked about a number of concerns. Okay. Well, that's what I'm looking for. I know because we're thinking. We're processing here. Oh, you are. Okay. Okay. I'm sorry. I thought you would all fall to sleep on me. Oh, it's a lot to bite off on. Yeah. Well, I have been jotting down some notes if it's helpful. Okay. Why don't you give those to us? So I heard folks talk about that, you know, members talk about that. If it makes sense for the tree warden and for the town to have trees located on the, on the cemetery, that that would be the ideal situation and for the applicant to pay for the, the plant things themselves. Well, how do folks feel about that? On town property. Yeah. Yeah. Definitely. Okay. Another suggestion would, would be to provide drapery or blinds for all windows. I don't know if that. Yes, he said they are. Yeah. They, they already are. So that maybe would be a suggestion for a condition of the, for the planning board. It's already in the plan. I just, yeah, Kyle said they are slant on that, that if they could be shades, I feel like that would be much cleaner. I think, think I harped on this last project. Okay. Okay. You're a shade person. What's with the drapes? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's okay. Okay. Okay. And then let's see here to make it can recommend that the planning board make a condition that the bolder art feature as proposed is to be installed and maintained. This, the Alaskan feeder shall be a remain in good visible appearance for the life of the project. You can do that. That would be good because that's a major for me. If we're going to have this building and it's not going to be red brick, it's going to be something else. I really, I would like to see how far we can get with having some assurance that it will, its appearance will remain. Suggest a, oh sure. Suggest a different variety of plant species located on the west side of the building, which is along East Pleasant Street. Yeah. I think there was some concern that it wouldn't match with the, somebody mentioned that we would want that, probably want it to match with the overall Amherst plan for plantings in there. Although I think we favored maple trees. So I'll shade trees. And Maureen, maybe there's some language that differs to tree warden. Sure. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Tree warden. Okay. I didn't jot down. I'll have to now start at the top here. So those were the specific items. Did folks, there was a discussion about the building stepping back. The building height from the front is that a something that the, as the board wants to comment on or no? I don't know that we, I don't think that is a realistic expectation at this point. I'm only speaking because I voiced that concern. But I do think that some acknowledgement of the kind of general remaining concern about the North facade should be addressed in our, in our notes. And maybe it's a matter of, of trees. I, you know, I heard Pam's comment about not wanting to rely solely on, on shielding of landscape for, for dealing with architectural matters. My ultimate guess, and again, it's, it's not totally fair to say this because we don't know what's going to come, but it makes sense to assume that our, you know, the next development is going to make that North facade much less visible. And I think that if I were looking at this, the design of the North facade, from that kind of like future standpoint, I would imagine that the way that, you know, the architectural moves that have been made to kind of peel away at the, on the street side, were done so strategically because that's probably the portion of the building that may be more visible once that development occurs on the North side. So I have less concern about it from a long term standpoint, but I also know that, you know, from a resident of Amherst perspective, that's not really a fair response because that project isn't, that future project isn't happening now. So I think we, we do need to find a way to tow that line of making a recommendation that something is done now to try to soften that facade without expecting it to be redesigned in some kind of overhaul way. So are you thinking, I'm going through everyone's notes and seeing different versions of this topic, some members say soften it with trees along the North side. I've seen some members say play with the building skin. I don't really know what that means specifically, other than maybe adding more zinc plating. So do you, as a board, have specific recommendations of how to soften that building facade? I don't think we need to list specific ideas. I think we just need to make that concern evident to the planning board and understand that they're being very cagey about 15 of these pleasant plans because they probably plan to fill in as densely as possible there. And I think if we allow variants and setbacks on this building, it's going to happen again at 15. And so yes, it will change the view from the North and it won't look as monolithic on this building, but then there's going to be another one that they're building right next to it. So, you know, we're setting precedence and the planning board has set a lot of precedence that we're now dealing with the fallout and then we just need to keep this in mind. Okay. Thank you. Some members talked about the rare setback and the distance. Does the board want to weigh in on that and provide recommendations to the planning board? You mean to increase the, from the cemetery to 10 to 20 feet? Is that what you're talking about? Right. Yeah. Okay. I don't know. I may have a strong feeling about that. Well, you know I do. Is anybody agree with me? Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I share that same concern. I don't know that the planning board will take it up seriously, but... Well, eventually they happen to listen to us. They haven't paid any attention to a lot of other buildings that we've made recommendations on sooner or later. You think that we exist for a reason? Okay. So, am I hearing that the board wants to make this recommendation or not? I don't know if I'm ready for a recommendation. I mean, I too would like to see a greater setback on the rear side of the building, but recognize that that would result in the loss of what? 10 units and that might... 10 feet. 10 feet. Not necessarily 10 units, right? Well, the addition of 10 feet to the setback then shortens the building, right? And so that... Right. But it may be that instead of a two bedroom, it's a one or it, you know... And it affects five floors. It affects five floors. I was multiplying out. So, it might not be a total of 10 in the end, but we can imagine. So, I just... I'm concerned that it... It might kill the project if we were to demand that. They did up the number of units considerably since the last design. They're in the number of units, right? I mean, I think, you know, one of the questions is when you're standing in the... You know, you're standing in the cemetery and there's a new line of trees, whether those are built on either side of the fence. 10 feet is not that much from a visual perspective when you're 40, 50, 80, 100 feet away. That distance is so small. And that's why I'm not voicing an opinion about it because I agree it would be respectful to give that space in the cemetery, but in terms of when you're standing in that cemetery... But Tom, you're not 40, 50, 80 feet. You're five feet. I mean, the graves go right up to the fence. If you're looking at those graves, you are right on the property line. Yeah, but I mean, that's why the tree line is there and there's already buildings there now. And, you know, I guess... Yeah, but they're not five... They're not five stories high. They're not going to be looming over, you know. You can't see up because the trees are there. So the perspective that is different when... I mean, I'm agreeing with you, but I'm saying that I think from a certain perspective, that 10 feet is not that... It's not going to have the kind of impact that I think that we would want to derail the project because... And I guess that's where that's my position. Okay, I'm just more concerned in terms of setting a precedent and retaining the few trees that might survive if the setback variance weren't allowed. Do other members have comments about this? I hear, Jan, about the precedent and I think we have to be careful of that. And at the same time, I think that there has been an effort made to create some shielding and separation that's showing a certain amount of respect to the cemetery. I would be inclined to accept that for this project, and keep in mind that, you know, we need to look at it critically again if it surfaces for the next one. That's where I stand. Yeah, and I think, Jan, the issue that's going to come up is about whether or not we want to accept the legal argument that this is a rebuild of an existing site. So I think the other conditions that are at work are from a planning board perspective are more in terms of our acceptance of a legal argument. And I think there's going to be a lot of debate about that, rather than necessarily the nuance of the number, whether it's 10, 15, or 20, I think it's about the legality and the approval of that waiver for that particular site. Okay, well, you know, maybe we can just say it to them so that Archipelago knows when they come to us with 15, it's pleasant that there isn't a precedent of a previous building that close, and we're very critical of this now. Yeah, I mean, I do think that the non-conforming existing building kind of makes this one possible and gives us an argument for not doing it in the future. Okay, Kyle, did you still have something to say? No. Okay, cool. All right, so we'll move on. So I'm going to delete that as a suggestion and we'll move on. A member did suggest it as a recommendation that the applicant provide a photometric plan that indicates the light levels of all the proposed exterior lighting. Is that something that the board wants to recommend or? Well, we should have one, shouldn't we? Yeah, I think we should. Pretty straightforward. Yeah, we've got to submit that for the planning board. As the previous comments made, I mean, we've got to meet down lighting. You've seen other projects we've done that are not too bright. The concern was, are they bright enough? That's a building code issue we have to satisfy. So hopefully we can bring the photometric plan as required to the planning board. All right, give me a moment as I'm just sort of scrolling through my notes here. And here's that is all that I have. So to recap, the suggestions are for the applicant to provide, based on recommendations of the tree warden, the applicant shall provide plant and maintain trees on the cemetery side. And for them to the applicant to pay for that installation, provide shades for all windows, suggests a different variety. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. What did you say that archipelago would plant and maintain trees on the cemetery side? No, the town would do it, but they would help defray the expense. It would belong to the town. Okay, thank you, Jan. I think that's clean and yeah, we pay for it and executed by the town. Yeah. All right, thank you. Okay, and let's see here, provide shades for all windows, provide a variety of plant species on the west side that matches the town's street scape planting scheme in coordination with the tree warden, install and maintain the border art feature as proposed on the cemetery site plan. Ensure that the Alaskan cedar be in good visible appearance for the life of the project and to soften the appearance of the north building beside and lastly to submit a photometric plan for the planning board's review. I would not totally delete our comments about setbacks. I might just say that it was a topic of long discussion and that we are still concerned and would like the planning board to look more carefully in the future at proposals that we maintain setbacks as the town has to create or something. I don't know how you want to put it. Jen, I can also voice that opinion as a wrap from the great it doesn't you know, without it being in writing, I can express that I have other notes too about comments that were made if there are questions about that from the board. So I'll be sure to I guess I just want us on record because you know the public looking at our minutes and I want to make sure that they understand that we did discuss this and we were concerned. And speaking of that I think my comments about the size of the plaza and from the building were also response to things we heard from the public and so I don't know how the rest of the board feels about that interest that I have and others share about expanding that the plaza size. We also don't have anything in our comments about the positive things that were said by everyone about the building you know and I think that should balance. It should also be in there I would add what Erica said about the plaza but I would also pull from a lot of the nice things that were said you know so that the planning board knows what we do like about the building and not leave it all to Tom. Right. And so getting back to the Erica's comment about expanding the front plaza is that something that you would like listed as a specific suggestion or is that sort of a side note what does what does that mean? I believe this is equal with anything else right. Okay so I'll include that with the suggestions expand the front plaza. So I just have one concern because now I'm on this thing about the siding. It's very nice to put this in now but this building changes hands there's no guarantee that the new owners are going to pay any attention to the siding so I think we're sort of trying to help ourselves feel good about this but long range you know that siding is going to do what it's going to do and it may be beautiful and it may not but longevity and what we're recommending is probably questionable but I still want to put it in there. Okay thank you Catherine. Anything else that we should add to this? Can you go through Maureen and pull out some of the positive comments when you write up our recommendations? Sure yeah Erica you could email her some of the things you clearly wrote down with the rest of us were just talking out the top of our head but they were nicely articulated. Especially one of my notes is saying ask Erica for her notes. Yeah she definitely hit the yeah and Lindsay if you can write down anything that you said to you know well both you and Tom I mean you you you have more architectural disaster than I do I'm a historian not a helper protector and I'm just a person who checks the blinds as I drive by so very important yeah well I mean I definitely would I'll send you a couple of comments I I'm all about landscaping I admire what they've done I like the fact they're covering the windows those two would come for me I guess. Okay well so if there isn't any other suggestions or comments to provide regarding this application is the board ready to make a motion and vote? Yes jammed do you think you're good? Let Tom make this motion. All right Tom. We are going to move to approve or recommend the approval of this project to the planning board with the comments and recommendations noted by Maureen at the end of this meeting. Okay very good is there a second? Okay moved and seconded I'll do a little roll call Erika yes or no? Yes. Okay jammed. Yes. Tom. Yes. Lindsay. Yes. Catherine. Yes. Okay now leave anybody out? All right. Okay I think that takes care of our major agenda item today and Maureen should we put the minutes on another agenda or? Yes. Yeah okay all right. I like to put them on the agenda just so we don't forget even if they're not prepared. That's right okay all right. Is there any other business? Oh yeah well let's see here so according to the agenda general comments from the public which are for items not listed on tonight's agenda yes yes so if anyone from the public has a comment on items again not listed on this agenda they can use their razor hand feature. I'm seeing no hands all right and there I don't have any other business not anticipated within 48 hours so it looks like there's just one more motion. All right well do I hear if we adjourn. Is there a second? To adjourn. Anybody second? Okay second all right. Moved and seconded adjourn all in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. All right well thank everybody for Yeoman work. Thank you Carl and David, Kyle and David and everybody go pour a drink. Right. I appreciate everybody's time very much. Thank you. All right. Okay. Thank you.