 Good evening, everyone. I'm going to call this meeting of the Vermont Development Review Board to order. My name is Daniel Richardson. I serve as the chair of this board. The other members from my right are... Rob Goodwin. Miran Crandall-Staff. Ryan Kane. Tom Kester. Claire Rock. Okay, the first item of business is approval of the agenda. We have three items of business. They're all the same applicant in the same project, but different phases. Does anyone have any additions to the agenda or any further comment? Otherwise, I'll introduce an motion to approve the agenda. I'll move we approve the agenda as amended. Motion by Ryan. Do I have a second? I'll second that. Second by Rob. All those in favor of the agenda as printed, please raise your right hand. The agenda. There are no comments from the chair tonight, although I do want to give a roadmap as we enter our first application in describing how we're going to proceed tonight and what looks to be likely another hearing night. I'll explain in part, we're a little bit understaffed on the board tonight because of illnesses and such, so I'll save my comments for a chair at that point. We have one approval, one minutes that we can approve, and that would be the October 1st minutes, and the eligible members to approve those minutes are myself, Tom, Ryan, Rob, and Claire. So all five of us can vote on said October 1st minutes. Any additions or other corrections? Otherwise, I'll entertain a motion to approve the minutes for October 1st. So moved. Motion by Tom. Do I have a second? Second by Ryan. All those in favor of the minutes from October 1st as printed, please raise your right hand. All right, those have been accepted and adopted. So our first item of business is 100 State Street Final Plan Review for the two-lot subdivision. So I wanted to take this in two steps before the applicant approves. I'm going to give sort of an overview of where the board process is likely to go tonight and the next meeting, and then Meredith is going to give our understanding as sort of the legal process of each silo. So I want to start off by saying the board understands that there are three applications that are interrelated. It's going to be difficult to approve one part of this without the other parts. So we have tonight five out of our normal seven board members here. We've asked those who are not here because of illness or conflict, I mean other appointment conflicting, as opposed to those who accuse themselves to review the minutes and the video that's generated from tonight's meeting so they can participate in the next meeting which is allowed where we'll have consideration. So the board does not anticipate voting on any of the projects for approval tonight or closing the evidence. And I say that at the beginning now because I want both the applicant and any parties that are here as interested parties either in support or opposition to understand that we're not shutting anything down tonight. This is just the first in at least two meetings that I think is going to be necessary to review all three silos of project. Now that said, I think the best way to proceed and what Meredith is going to outline is to keep each project separate in our review so that we're not mixing the site plan with the subdivision. So we're going to try and keep those separate so that sometimes I may act like a traffic cop trying to keep people on task and focused on the specific. But I don't see us coming to either close of the evidence or to a final vote on any of these three applications given that they're all fairly interrelated. So Meredith if you want to give sort of a legal over pick up where I left off. Yes. Thanks. You're welcome. So tonight we have three different applications. We have the subdivision application, which is the cities the applicant and they're requesting to subdivide piece of land that is currently owned by the Capital Plaza Corporation. That subdivision is is going to first step in transferring that land to the city for the city to then build garage with that subdivision. If we were to approve that subdivision without then amending the site plan, then we'd be violating the hotel site plan, the prior approval for the hotel. So the second application is actually by Capital Plaza Corporation to amend their previous approval for the hotel and garage package to pull off the garage and change the garage and put the parking needed for the hotel to offsite parking. You can't have offsite parking unless you have the place to put the cars. So we have the third application which is the city requesting major site plan approval for the garage. So really unless there's a condition of approval on one of these that the other app with other permits also get approved, none of them work. So chances are we're going to try and approve them all at the same time. But so that's the big picture overview so we can keep as much as possible subdivision discussion to the things that are outlined in the subdivision staff report. And move on from there similar with the other team. That would be great for members of the audience who did not get staff reports which have been posted on the website along with the agenda for this meeting. There are copies of the full package that the DRB members got up on the table. And then next to that there are a couple of supplements that were provided after that package was sent out on Friday, which include the third staff report for the garage site plan and Department of Public Works memo analyzing the traffic impact study. So those things are up there if people want copies. So the first applicant is 100 State Street. It's the final plan review of the two-lot subdivision. Great. You have to state your name for the record as well as whoever else is testifying on that and then we'll swear everyone in. Sure. My name is Gregory Rabbidow from Rabbidow Architects and with me this evening is David Marshall from Civil Engineering Associates of South Burlington. Also Corey Mack of Resource Systems Group who is here to answer questions about traffic at some point this evening. And James Finley-Sheris who's a part of our landscape architecture team. Okay. So if the four of you will raise your right hand. I solemnly swear or affirm that the evidence you're about to give for the matter under consideration shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth under pains and penalties of perjury. I do. I do. Thank you. Could I just ask that you pull the microphone out from the piece of paper? Oh, sorry. Not the time we get this approved, I'll learn that. Yeah. So it's your show. Thank you. The subdivision part of this is really Dave's bailiwick so I'm going to hand it right over to him. But the broad elements of the subdivision are to cab off about a half-acre lot from the existing Capital Plaza Corporation lands that will be the city's part of the city's land for the development of the parking garage. And there is a series of access easements. But I'm going to let Dave essentially explain the plat if I can. Very good. Again Dave Marshall from Civil Engineering Associates. At this point in time our surveyors, we have two licensed surveyors that have researched the lands and have put together this particular plat. That we will be updating the plans shortly to basically reflect the comments that staff has put together as well as other professional staff within the city to bring the level of detail up to what's necessary ultimately to comply with the regulations. That being the background, this plan that's behind you that the public is looking at right now and I will use a pointer at the risk of hopefully not. We're going to get larger but it's pouring any areas out. Things that we will be doing is currently the Capital Plaza property actually extends in the westerly direction. North is straight up on this particular plan and to orient you. You've got the north branch that comes down to the confluence of the Lewinowski River which flows out in the northwesternly direction. This is the Heaney lot. This is the parcel that's leased by the city. This is the church property here for again for orientation and the remaining Capital Plaza property that extends out in this particular shape here. What the future plan will do is actually show the entire Capital Plaza parcel and all of the dimensions associated with it. In this particular case as Greg indicated this application seeks to basically subdivide off approximately one half acre in support of the future parking garage. In this particular case staff has identified the need to provide adequate access to this particular parcel. And this is being shown with a series of access easements that ultimately generally are 24 feet wide. Ultimately widening out to 36 feet at the proposed lot itself. What is not shown on this particular plan are all the easements that are necessary to support the various interests that are going to be associated with this project. We have various utility easements. We have storm drainage rights that basically will extend from the Capital Plaza property through this particular property. New lot I should say. So again we have also water easements that are actually going to be needed as far as cross easements back from Capital Plaza benefiting the new property itself. Utilities Green Mountain Power we've been working with in regards to dealing with the existing high voltage conveyance that runs along the railroad tracks. Currently there's a line that basically runs out into this particular new parcel that ultimately is going to need to have its access or distribution relocated. So we have come up with a plan with Green Mountain Power to provide that particular rerouting not only of what's happening within this particular parcel but also as far as providing new services for the capital remaining Capital Plaza lot. So it's been very good as far as what's come together in the past week. We look forward to basically supplementing this plan as a way of basically rounding out the submittal process to the board. This particular plan that Greg has just put up represents the proposed parcel and what we had just barely seen was some of the components that went on that particular parcel. This is actually primarily the footprint of the garage and this shows the great change between the upper plateau parking lot area and the lower elevation heaney lot. And just again for orientation purposes this is the church building and that all being the background these are the access points. And the reason they had specific shapes was primarily because the interest of the city was not to control and access easement that encumbered some of the parking but basically had free flow access back and forth from State Street as well as Taylor to basically provide not only a circulation management tool but also access to the proposed lot. I want to point a few things out. Now Greg says Dave has forgot some things so he's going to sit on the left. I just want to draw attention for the benefit of the public because this came up earlier during the design advisory committee. Immediately adjacent to the Haney lot is building generally known as the garage. And I want to point out this property line right here because all of this the garage and the parking area behind it are not part of this application. They are an abutting property owner. We've only identified the lot for purposes for that purpose and for coordinating utilities and stuff. I think there was some discussion about what is the purpose of this parking lot and is this fully designed and everything. These are more site plan issues. As long as we have the plat up here I wanted to again for the benefit of the public and the board just point out that the lack of development here is because that's off the project site. And a couple of other things. There is an easement from the capital plaza to the city for the bike path that cuts off a corner of this lot down here that will have to be incorporated into the design as well. And also to take note of the property line here between Christ Church and the project site. When we talk about site plan there is going to be a conversation about why I think there are some people would like to see a sidewalk right here. But I just want to take note of the location of that property line. I'm sorry. You need to wake up. But I think for now we're focused on the subdivision plat part of this and I don't have much to add if you don't. I think now might be a good time for questions from the board and we can fill in blanks from there. Well when I relatively minor point Greg you pointed out that currently the city has an easement for the bike path in the back corner of what's known by the capital plaza. Yes. But if the city takes ownership of the lot itself that easement will essentially be merged with the ownership. Fair enough. I mean I want to make sure that's what the understanding is. The bike path will still be there. Right. It's just it's no longer an easement. It's a function of the ownership of the lot. One question I had and it's on this map but there's a jog in the right of way that comes from Taylor Street. Yep. It just had on the pointer. Is there a reason for that? That geometry accommodates the previously approved Hampton Inn. So the curb cut at Taylor Street essentially comes into the site a few yards north of the southerly property boundary. Once we get into the site though in order to have enough space for a building we have to put that little shift in the road. We'll see it more when we get to the hotel site. I'm curious obviously you know when you create a right of way sometimes topography requires those kind of jobs. Right. In a place like this where it may not wondering what's driving that and so it's essentially the curb up out through the existing hotel plans. Yes. Yes. Likewise the flaring of the right of way adjacent to Grace Church's rear parking lot was both because we needed to have at least 30 feet where that intersected the building. But also we're just jogging around the parking spaces which will remain capital plaza project property. I guess I got to move a cursor. These two right of ways there's going to be the primary access to this lot. Yes. We're essentially creating a private road coming from Taylor Street through the project site and back out to state. And it'll be that shaded surface will be developed at least in terms of cross section of pavement to city street standards. It wouldn't necessarily have sidewalks and curbs and it'll have curbs and sidewalks but it's going to meet city street standards in terms of the construction of the road. It means you're going to have line marks to delineate the lanes? Yes. Oh yeah of course but you know it'll also have the appropriate thickness of asphalt and the appropriate thickness of stone. And any fabrics or anything that are required by your public work standards. Just so I understand both of these right of ways will be dual directional. Yes. And so someone coming in can either come in off the state street into a garage or from Taylor Street into a garage. But somebody coming out of the garage can either take that left onto Taylor or go straight. Yes. Okay. And regardless of the incoming traffic. I mean obviously. Right it's at least a 24 foot wide pavement in all cases so there's more than enough room for two way traffic. So I'm going to move a little bit off the traffic unless anyone else on the board has a clear. Yeah I was actually curious because I felt like I was reading some different terms and clarification of. I understand you're going to have a right of way access like a legal easement. And then you refer to the actual construction of the bed would be up to the city standard. But will it be a road? Will it be a public road? Among clear on the status of the actual. I think we've been asking the city that question. I can't. Try and answer and then if I can maybe Tom can adjust this if I do it incorrectly. So my understanding Claire is that there is going it's going to be there is an agreement. That the Plaza is going to grant permission for the public to use this access. It will still be private property technically underneath there that capital Plaza will continue to own it. But that in exchange for the city agreeing to do certain types of maintenance. The capital Plaza is agreeing to let the public use that area. Is that a very general description? Tom McCartle with Public Works Department. So Tom just have everyone. So only swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give for the matter under consideration. She'll be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth under a pain's penalty surgery. So just state your name for the. Tom McCartle director of Public Works. So what we had in mind is something similar to what we had in practice for quite some time on Stonecutter's way. The portion of Stonecutter's way that passes by Sarducci's is a public thoroughfare agreement. It's an agreement the city entered into with the Pomelo family. So that's what I envision the details of that have not been finalized. What's included but it is really for the public's use and serves as a right of way to connect this parcel that would otherwise not have street frontage. So it's an alternative to that. And then with the where it where it meets State Street. Would that have to be widened for turning like a large vehicle to turn in and out. I know. So the the intersection at the curb cuts. I think it's better reflected if you look at the site plan. 24 foot roadway driveway through to the chest of the curb cut. I don't know if that shows the flares that the tip downs are actually a little wider. The actual curb cut is a little wider. So the radius is built into that driveway. So the fencing that's there now and that landscaping that currently provides that kind of gateway into that parking lot. Would that have to change? Fencing I'm not sure. I don't believe there's a need to change much of what you see here today. It functions as a parking lot access. The alterations are primarily internal. That curb cut is served as a parking lot access for a long time. It has sufficient width. It has the appropriate radii. And there is a fence there. I just don't recall about far back. It's back. It's back here. There is a change in the curb cut design on the Taylor Street side. And that's primarily acquired by our plans to reconstruct Taylor Street. So there's some alterations and how that looks compared to what it will be under this plan. Which is coordinated with the Taylor Street project. And would there have to be any kind of crowning of that road? Or like how does all that work and interface with the existing surface area for parking this? I think that's a better question for the site designer for the flaws a lot. But I believe there's centered drains within the roadway. So it's a reverse crown. I call them Texas drainage systems. Claire, just maybe as a point of order I think. In general, we can keep in mind that the capital plaza as a project was approved with a lot of these right of ways already. And so some of the drainage that's existing in them has been reviewed by the DRB. That's not to say I think your line of questioning is spot on for what we should be asking. But just keep in mind that there was that prior review. That some of these proposals aren't necessarily brand new. So the pedestrian circulation. I know we've talked about it, but it looks like there's a sidewalk. Does that go all the way from State Street down to the parking garage? It does. It goes along the capital plaza side of the parking lot. It goes down to that crosswalk there where it lands on a pedestrian plaza. Access to the garage is from that plaza. And if you walk a little bit to the west, access to the hotel. That sidewalk extends from that plaza down between the hotel and the parking garage to a point where it turns easterly and follows the train tracks to connect with the bike path. So that entire route is ADA compliant. This plan, this is sort of, there's so much stuff on this plan. It's really hard to read. But the pedestrian way would follow where Dave's cursor is and connect with the bike path. We were asked to evaluate and did evaluate providing pedestrian access via the Haney lot to the bike path. We've run into some technical issues that make that somewhat difficult. The biggest being that there's about an eight and a half foot exchange of grade between finished grade around the garage and the elevation of the bike path where it mounts the bridge to go across the Winooski. We couldn't find a method to get up from ground level to that level without creating problems for other aspects of the engineering design related to floodway management. But we did have a conversation with the design advisory committee to explore the possibility of a bridge going from the garage to the bike path from the second level of the garage. And we agreed to explore that with the design advisory committee. The other part of that makes it difficult, I pointed out to you earlier, which is the fact that we have to maintain that right away easement from the Haney lot to the adjacent garage parcel. The overlook partnership or something like that, I think it's called by the owners of that. Otherwise, there are sidewalks connecting. There's the sort of walkways that go along the north or the edge or the center of the edge of our proposed new road to get back out to Taylor Street. There's discussion that I believe the Christchurch is talking about a pedestrian access on their property sort of running parallel to the garage right along there. I think that's all the circulation stuff I can think of. I'm going to go back because I forgot one question about the right-of-way and it says right-of-way, appropriate way of easement. That's still you indicated in process. I think they've just explained how it was. When we started this, when we submitted, we were still waiting for a read on that. It sounds like they've figured that out. My understanding and from everything you've gotten is that it's going to be a master agreement and then an easement between the two parties. I'm not quite sure what your question is at this point. As opposed to a right-of-way. Just as opposed to a right-of-way. I think it's just that these necessary haven't all been updated for consistency between drawings as my understanding, if that was your question. I just pulled this drawing up from a previous hearing. Let's talk next about some of the stormwater drainage. Simply because we may have a map, right map up for that. But how is the stormwater going to be handled not only on this lot, but presumably it's going to be incorporated into the larger stormwater system that's been approved for the capital pause a lot as well. Give a shot. So I'm speaking on behalf of online from Dubois King and they have developed a plan in which there will be a number of stormwater management facilities, some of them very mechanical in nature that will basically collect and treat the stormwater prior to leaving this particular development area and ultimately being conveyed in a common pipe that ultimately will tie into the currently approved and soon to be under construction stormwater management line that discharges to the north branch. And in this particular case, keep in mind that all of this existing parking lot and there's basically a low spot right particularly here. All of it flows to those low spots and drains to the river without any treatment today. So anything that we do is going to be better. Just basically taking off the current parking lot surface and substituting it with a building roof is going to be a significant improvement over what we have out there today. But nonetheless, as part of the program for the development of the hotel component there will be additional stormwater treatment and likewise for the proposed garage, the top level basically becomes a replacement of the underlying existing parking lot below it and all of that stormwater will be collected and treated prior to discharge to the receiving waters. So again, we expect a big improvement in stormwater quality leaving this, this is going to be subject to a state stormwater permit operational permit is what we call it and that will all be subject to the technical review of the state as part of the redevelopment of this particular area. That's a very general answer to your question but nonetheless it wanted to get started and reduced with that aspect. What particular type of treatment are you proposing for the parking garage? Well, the parking garage itself, we're looking at a swirl separator or a vortex unit and what it does is uses basically centrifugal force that takes the water and basically sends it around and around the circle just about like you are a dryer when you're trying to basically take those drops of water out of your clothes and rip them to the very outside or specifically even your washer when you're in the spin cycle it uses the same type of technology where you're taking centrifugal force and you're taking those particles which have a higher density than water and it forces them all out to the outside of this particular unit. They coalesce on the outside edge of the treatment unit and basically fall down into a collection area within it and these are required to be maintained the city has indicated through their vector trolleys provided that we can cite these in a manner that allows them access that this is something that they can regularly monitor and basically pump out on as necessary basis as part of their management of this particular property. So we find that in these particular redevelopment projects where there isn't a lot of area available for what otherwise would be wonderful bioretention areas or rain gardens or large open water ponds that these particular subsurface treatment mechanisms especially when infiltration is not an opportunity because of high groundwater table or poor soil characteristics that these particular swirl or more technic type of treatment units does a significant, does a very good job providing treatment compliance with the state storm water rules. So is this driven by gravity? Absolutely, so it does require a certain amount of elevation change between your inlet and outlet and that amount of energy is used to basically create the centrifugal movement of the water ultimately it leaves the unit at the lower elevation but in the meantime there's a sump below the normal location where the water is moving to basically collect the sediment that again is forced to the outside or inside and settling out. Now are all levels of the garage going to have that same system? I think there's going to be a different one at the top and the second and first one is ready. Excellent question, great segue into ultimately how parking garages are managed as far as drops of water hitting each particular surface. So we talked about the top and that's the one that basically is subject to the majority of the precipitation that falls out of the sky needs to be managed in a way consistent with federal regulations that basically say anything on top is considered to be storm water. Anything that's inside the building is actually a cemetery waste. So even though you've got some drop the water or snow that comes in the car melt off and hits the ground and basically slowly trickles into the drain anything inside the building is considered to be a sanitary waste and has to be handled accordingly. So in this particular case the mid levels of the garage the one below the top but also below the very bottom above the bottom I should say all have their own collection system that go into an oil water grid separated before basically gets introduced into the municipal sanitary collection system that then goes to the treatment plant. The very bottom level is one in which we have found our clients have different approaches as far as management. Some basically acknowledge or basically state, gee Dave you really don't really need much in the bottom primarily because we don't see a significant amount of water getting to the drains a lot of it evaporates before it actually gets to the drains it will sit on the surface you'll see a wet surface but actually what gets to the drain is a very small amount. Some people will say gee I'd like to have a pump station in there and we'll send it up to final treatment and then to the sanitary system and other people simply say I don't want to spend money on a pump station only because they work so infrequently that the seals will dry up and that I would just ultimately just like to have a holding tank and I'll monitor its depth and pump it out when it's necessary. So some people will throw in an extra factor of safety where there's a monitoring component as far as a float level inside that particular holding tank and that's the one the city has chosen to proceed with in this particular case because there's a secondary benefit and the fact that what we want to do is that we know that in this particular corner this is an area that probably annually does have some higher water levels sometimes associated with ice back up and the city doesn't want that backing up into the bottom of the garage in a way that it's actually using the internal drains to only send it back to its wastewater treatment plant. So in this particular case we separate the entire bottom level into a holding tank, a water type, water protected holding tank and basically anything that gets in there stays there if there happens to be a program keeping in mind that our entire... it's not my downtown, it's your downtown is all within the floodplain we need to plan for those particular contingencies so the city at this point in time has chosen to basically go with the holding tank option for the very bottom floor and to basically provide monitoring or automatic monitoring so that when it does approach, if it does approach a high point that they get the signal to send the back of the truck down there and to clean it out. So you did dip a little bit into the site plans which is fine but I think it is important to understand how these tubes relate because the storm water for the creation of this lot is going to be accepting a great deal of water and other amounts by the time. Right. So I want to ask about... so my understanding is that you've met with the Fire Chief and with the Chief of Police in a technical review of any capacity. That is correct. Yeah, both during the previous approval period and as a part of this effort. So one thing and I'm going off of the notes the staff report is the idea of security cameras right in place and you could just explain what the function and purpose are to those cameras. The hotel folks will have security the normal security we would provide which is cameras on operable exits and entrances and then on significant features like this backyard patio here or for instance the front, this whole drop off area. For the city, the most important area is this area back in here on the backside of this. Along the tracks and adjacent to the railroad bridge it's better place where people have kind of congregated to party and stuff. So from the police's point of view is they'd like to have eyes on this area back here. There's a lot going on the bike path that's coming through and you've got the parking garage. So we would have billing mounted cameras on the major corners and at the major entrances and exits, there's a pedestrian exit down here and then we'll likely have them on each level of the elevator lobby and we'll probably have a set on each set of stairs. That can be monitored at the police dispatch. The cameras would be remoted to there as well as there's going to be some communication between this facility and City Hall as well both for the security management but also to manage the actual parking garage equipment. So there'll be a link between the garage and City Hall and the police department on back. So this area here that's on the south side of the garage will someone be able, you're saying there'll be an exit here from the parking garage? Is it going to go to the south or to the east? Well it's currently shown on the drawings going to the south. It's been, this cross hatching here indicates a setback from the river. So the actual setback line is here. The shading is just sort of to show restricted to development. We've also been asked to provide some kind of pedestrian access out the side of the garage going this way. So finish grade down here is all significantly lower than the bike path. There's a retaining wall that kind of comes along here and separates the train tracks from that depressed area. And that's an area we're going to want to keep an eye on from a security point of view. The lighting plan reflects that as well. I'm just trying to understand as well. So someone can come out this back door into this area because this will largely be this southern part all one level right here. So someone can come around here or come back from here access the bike path. The bike path access is tricky because that exchange of grade. It's actually going to be up above. It's about eight and a half feet above. This is it nominally at 518. This is like 525, 26, 27. 525 at the tracks. Right at the tracks. So we've got that little bit of grade change there. So this will still be sort of like a bridge this far on the bike path? Well, we're thinking, yeah. It's currently designed to have its own retaining wall basically allow it to be up at the railroad track elevation and then the remaining area just to the north of the bike path would go back down to existing grade. They did that primarily to minimize the amount of fill being placed within the flood plain. But it does create this dynamic of significant elevation change between existing additions and the new bicycle path. And so what is the city's plan to have these cameras set up? And I believe I've read that the cities that use cameras more as an after the fact evidence gathering device as opposed to an ongoing sort of monitoring. Yeah, I can't talk to it. Yeah, I mean, this is obviously a third hand information. But nonetheless, as part of the technical review committee, the chief indicated that they don't have the staff to basically just sit there and monitor cameras all day. But in this particular case, it would allow for after the fact review of what is what occurred on the property, whether it be to gather evidence or otherwise, how active it is used to basically monitor. I think it is again just depending on who's available to sit down at the chair at that particular point in time. But as far as a constant monitoring, that was not the police department's intent from what I understand. Were there any concerns expressed by either the fire or police department about this area here or the design as far as either fire safety or a public safety concern? The fire chief had a list of conditions that he wanted to have included in the approval of the project if it gets to that stage, including things that we had already planned on doing, but making sure that there was a fire suppression system, a sprinkler system basically in the building. They wanted to stamp pipes in each of the two stairwells, which is fine. And I think it's in the staff report. He had enumerated some bullet points. But it's a type one or noncombustible kind of building. It's a low fire hazard type of structure because they will have car fires. They will happen, but for the most part, you don't have a lot of contents here compared to a cotton warehouse. So the police didn't express concern about the location so much as just wanting to participate in whatever kind of security arrangements we had there to have the ability to look at what's going on back there. The hotel will monitor their camera system from the front desk. And the city's staff or however they manage the parking equipment, that'll go to the line that comes to City Hall. It's all done over the internet now, so anybody can bring up one of these cameras. Those are the discussions we've had today. If I can just add one thing, as far as working with the fire chief, we did ask him specifically whether he was comfortable with the parking garage. He says, well, it's no different than how we respond to other parking garages specifically up at One National Life in regards to what our capabilities are and how we approach these particular types of incidents. So that gave us a level of comfort that we weren't creating a new expectation on emergency services in regard to this particular parking facility. There was a concern expressed before at one of the meetings about the public safety ramifications, but in part because we're transferring, this project proposes to transfer ownership and oversight from the hotel as a vested interest in its own security. It's on site. It's centralized to the city that's going to have to manage it within their existing public safety services or expand the set of services. So for subdivision, it sounds as if the police are comfortable with the existing proposal. Is that accurate? Yes. Objection. Your say. This is evidence to not have a place in the same way as that he was. And just a quick note, my comments in the staff report that are based on the Fire Chief and Police Chief's comments, they have reviewed. A lot of the questions I had are with them. Is the expectation that this master and easement agreement will be executed prior to the next few weeks or review? Or is this something? I think some of my concerns are just simply in defining what is the scope of control for the city taking this over. I see. Well, it took us to this point until last week, really, to sort of figure out all the plumbing issues. Now that we have those figured out, I mean, the primary issues are water, sewer, and electric. Yeah. Now that we know where those lines go, I think it's probably a relatively easy thing to sort of put a description of an easement over the top of them. I should be clear. I'm not looking to scrutinize the lawyer's work or look at the actual documents, but just have an understanding in general how we're the relationship between the parties being proposed through these documents so that we have an understanding as to responsibility rights. I think there's been statements made before by the city that ultimately they would like to see these as public streets. Well, is this agreement such that that precludes that or allows for that just so we can understand really what we're approving? And I think that that's just something that it may not be there, but it may be something. I'm just trying to get a sense of whether that's reasonable for us to expect more clarity. A sewer bill? Yeah. So same thing. Do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give for the matter under consideration? Shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. To the recommended, my name is Bill Fraser. I'm city manager. My earlier, I think those probably weren't the already questions for Greg. I would say we have dropped a agreement. It's been prepared. I actually get it too, a capital Plaza as early as tomorrow. We've already done two, Boston's term, all the terms we have. I think some of the final lines. So I actually, unless there's some surprise, I expect you have it signed by next week. by the time of the vote. Great. And is it, Bill, just does that include things like maintenance, used to maintain the roads, snow removal? We actually have three-part agreement. There's a master agreement that describes all the relationships. Then there's a specific parking permit agreement for their use of the garage and the lay and that sort of thing. And then there's a lease agreement with us for the service parking that we'll be leasing. And then actually in the master agreement, it describes the road and the relationship in our permanent public access and maintenance. Who's going to do what? And none of that would preclude, in the future, as Greg mentioned, it's all being constructed to city standards. So in the future, if we were to move in the direction of it being a city road, we could. In the meantime, it would be a private road where the permanent public needs to be covered. Thanks. Thank you, Bill. So let's talk about the traffic impacts at this point. And this may be where the RSG. So essentially what we're doing is we're proposing to put a new lot here that's going to have great. Can I make a suggestion that we? Yeah. I mean, as far as the subdivision itself is concerned, what we're really looking at under the subdivision regulation is the traffic impact of the creation of new lots. Right. Not the development on those lots. The creation of one additional lot in this location, I don't think. So usually if you had a 26-lot residential subdivision, that subdivision is going to create traffic impacts. And that's what you would consider under the subdivision regulations. If it's a two-lot subdivision of an existing parking lot and an existing developed lot, I don't see the subdivision as raising any traffic impacts. So I'd suggest that we. Right. And I think it's just going to be easier to get into the traffic impacts of the proposed garage when we look at the site plan. That's one board member's perspective. Just one. No, that's a fair point. And I mean, I don't think we're precluded from looking at traffic under subdivision, but I think it's a well-taken point that it may make sense to wait till the site plan. Sorry to make you get up. You can stay here. Unless there are, I'm wrong that there will be impacts of the creation of one additional lot in this location absent looking at the development that may occur on that lot. That's proposed. I think in this case, I mean, I don't think we can look at this separate as they're just creating one lot. Maybe they'll put a one family bungalow there. I think the cat is out of the bag as to what's going there. It's intertwined. But I think that's a fair point to put that in further. And we can certainly hold off on that. But at least from traffic circulation, earlier there had been a proposal to put some of the entrance ingress and ingress on the heenilot. Is that off the table, or is that still part of the proposal? We have provided for a secondary access point to the garage exiting out to the heenilot. But our understanding operationally is that that is only there as a sort of failsafe in case something happened at the main entrance up above. And I think that came out of consultation between the city manager's office and St. Albans, who recently constructed a downtown parking garage, and they thought that was an important feature to have. We have not assumed that significant flows of traffic will go through the garage and out to the heenilot because Elm Street is dysfunctional at the moment. But there's an entrance there, but it's not meant to be used on a regular basis. It's there as a failsafe. So in the other portion, since we're over here, is this dedicated as access then along this eastern boundary towards the parking lot and by the overlook? I believe there's an easement. There's some kind of agreement, but they have a right to the access to that parking lot that we have to preserve. And will that be preserved through the construction process as well? The sequence of construction on an urban lot like this is pretty difficult. I think the best we can do is we have a terrific construction management team in terms of DEW is to make sure that they know the contact information for the people who own that building and that parking lot and that if there's going to be any activities that might preclude them getting in there, like excavation for a water line or something, that they get plenty of notice. Because it's hard to imagine building a structure where we wouldn't have to cross that line at some point or at least impact that easement to some degree. So I think that'll be a construction management problem to solve, but we've had this issue on every project we've done. It's a communication matter. For purposes of this, we want to acknowledge that that exists and we're going to maintain that access. Can you just hand me the subdivision? The only thing that we haven't talked about is the fact that the distance between the garage's access to the easement is closer to the, quote, unquote, driveway for the Christ Church than technically it's supposed to be if you consider them both driveways. It's supposed to be a distance. Hold on one second. Yeah, I think the minimum is 50 feet and it's less than that. But it's one of those things that the board can approve is less. So just to make sure that you guys have had a chance to just ask any questions you had about that. Well, do you know what is the distance between the, and so Meredith, just for clarity, we're talking about from this point to this point. Yep. And I estimated that based on the plan as just, it looked like it was 30 plus feet, but less than 50. That's really determined by the geography of the name. Exactly. So it was just calling it out as something that when a final decision is made on the subdivision, you'll have to make it allow that to happen. Well, do you know what that number is? I'd want to measure it accurately to have something in the record, but I think your sense of it is right. It's probably somewhere around 36 to 38 feet. It'll just need to be something you approve. Which would mean it's 12 or 14 short of that. But we're connecting to existing features in both directions, so. Exactly. Is there a plan for some sort of internal signage for traffic flow, stop signs, or yield? Yeah. In the project site in general, I'm a little unsure on how that fits in with the sign ordinance, because we're going to have to have a kind of a master plan sign thing going on for commercial signage. But traffic signs, they're separate and apart, right? When they're in the public right of way, and honestly, I haven't looked to see if I'm assuming that kind of flows in the public access isn't it, but I'm not 100% sure. And I don't think we've had time to discuss how that all is dealt with yet. But I know that there have been discussions about internal signage. So just to fill in the blanks as far as what married this recollection is, there were basically just two minor discussions in regards to the way fighting component. We think it's an important component of the project, but nonetheless, at least on the traffic management and a stop sign at this particular intersection, basically, or both, actually, for that matter, to basically keep people from rushing out into the public rights of way. And then the other thing, as far as management of the hotel guests within the garage, they wanted to make sure that when they were looking for Interstate 89 that they didn't go right out to State Street, that actually they tried to find the path of least resistance getting out in that particular direction, again, just as a way of trying to minimize additional conflicts within the already challenged areas of the city. So there has been some very preliminary discussions as far as that. I think, ultimately, the way finding sign package is going to be an important component of the project that we envision that as a separate application so that it can basically be a good standalone component, ultimately, of the project prior to an occupation of any of the proposed improvements. Right. But it directs me to one of the reasonable conditions that might have to attach because of the shortness of that and because of the fact that we would have, this would become this intersection here, and I actually wasn't thinking of this until we started talking about this, but because it's essentially a four-way intersection there, some sort of signage to create a four-way stop or similar proposal, and I guess I'll put that out now since we're likely to be continuing this, if that, if something like a condition of a four-way stop sign would be counterproductive. So I think we do need to discuss with public works what their goals are with regard to the flow of traffic and whether this truly becomes a four-way stop or a two-way stop as far as controlling access into the main travel way. So your points will take in the fact that that will be a traffic management component that maybe are not on subdivision plan, but on site plan, we need to basically make sure that we have those details included. Any other questions on subdivision? Claire. Is the creation of this lot creating any non-conformities on the adjoining lot? No, in terms of minimum lot size, the Capital Plaza parcel was large enough to cab off a half acre without falling below any kind of minimum thresholds in terms of lot size. I think the only non-conformity is the one we've already talked about, which is the frontage requirement, and we've talked about what the workaround is on that. But otherwise the lots are big enough, it's a no setback zone, so creation of new lot lines isn't going to impose any new restriction on anybody else. So no, I wouldn't think so. Anything else? All right, wait till the end and then we can consider motions to either continue the board to however the board feels. I mean, my feeling at this point is that there's still some open parts to this and it may make sense to continue it to our next regularly scheduled meeting, but given that these are all interrelated, we may have a different disposition after the next two applications. Yeah, let's actually do that before we move on to the next one. Does anyone have public comment on the subdivision? Go back to the subdivision. Lights on? No, no, that's okay. Lights on. And so let me just swear to you. You really would occur. Okay, do you solve the swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to get for the matter under consideration should be the truth. The whole truth is nothing but the truth under Pennelly's Mercury. Yes. All right. Am I to understand that all the grounds that you've discussed in this session are available for across, so to speak? Even if they spade into site plan, they were subdivision. Yeah, I mean, obviously if it's heavily into site plan I may pull you back. That's fine, I expect as much. Just to keep the meeting moving. The site plan fundamentally impacts the setback requirement. If in effect you're approving a site plan with the intent of building to the absolute limit of the setback, you are in effect creating a congestion that runs directly counter to the goals of paths interconnecting and pedestrian transit, et cetera. Similarly, the site plan divide. Currently there's no vehicle access from the Bashar al-Lah into the Haini Lah for better or for worse. But in effect, this is in effect creating that and the implications of that are far reaching because in effect you're going to be narrowing the right of way for the garage parcel to I'm told 10 or 20 feet through that little canyon, as well as providing emergency, if not full ingress, ingress from the garage, interconnected. Can I ask, I just want to clarify, when you say the 10 foot canyon, you're talking about the pedestrian? No, I'm talking about the canyon between the Jacobs garage and the proposed garage. Oh, okay. So we're in problem. It's down into the funnel. Correct. The site plan division is creating these new issues of the traffic coming into the garage from the Bashar al-Lah and exiting the garage through into the Haini Lah. Those are, I'm not saying I have a solution for them but I'm saying that these are issues that, but secondly, what occurs to me is that you're creating a new intersection in the middle of a private lot that the city has a vague or soon to be defined easement to but that intersection, that fundamental intersection is curb cut is supposed to be 30 feet but then you're throttling that down to 24 feet in order to go to Taylor or to stay. So you're defeating the very purpose of a 30 foot frontage by allowing it to be throttled down to 24. So moving this fast with this project under such pressure is creating more problems than it's solving and I'm just calling that to your attention. I don't have a solution for it other than to slow down, scale back and consider our other options. I'll try to rein into the, there's not only Green Mountain Power in there, there's Sovereignette and level three, I believe. There's two fiber carriers along that same high voltage line. One of those is gonna need to be accessible and accessed in the garage in order to provide the connectivity to get this video over to, but that video won't work in a power outage in a result of a flood zone if we don't put back up power into the design. I did send an email, I'm happy to forward it to Meredith to Chief Fakos over the weekend after reviewing the staff memo calling his attention to the need for not only above floodplain utility vault access, but possibly backup generator and transfer switch so that the elevators could work in an emergency situation. That may be getting on into the third phase of year. A private road to city standards is not gonna allow perpendicular parking backing into it. In effect, this perpendicular parking along this so-called private road fundamentally defeats the pretense that this is not gonna create a huge traffic problem. I'll call your attention to the origin of the waiver back when you granted the hotel of the five or six spots that were required for loading and to not have given the hotel a waiver for loading zones and yet all this laundry from 80 something rooms is gonna be wheeled across this private road with all the perpendicular parking and the traffic for the garage. You're engineering a cluster floral arrangement. Christchurch pedestrian access was mentioned. Design review I said through earlier, it was represented that there's a 40 foot stretch of the proposed garage, which is gonna be blank, as I understand directly what Christchurch does not wanna have affordable housing built staring at a blank wall 10 feet across the canyon. So again, these are problems that I don't have solutions for. Well, you know my solution. Groundwater, stormwater, what about washwater? The green walls do not live or thrive in areas where the brake dust and rubber particles from a concrete garage are not power washed out every several weeks. So you covered stormwater from the top deck and then you covered sanitary waste from the lower decks. Neither of those systems are designed to accommodate power washing this garage and the cost of such and the water flow from such treatment. And how are those pumps gonna work in a power outage situation? That's something that has to be considered. Which pumps are you talking about? The sump pump that they mentioned. The sump pump and then the other is a vortex gravity. Yeah, that's the one that wouldn't require necessarily a gravity still works in power outages. Oh, it does, I've heard. Laura, I believe that whole dimension of this needs to be more thoroughly examined either in the technical review, I'll be asking for the minutes of the technical review committee. That's enough for now. Thanks. The power washing question that they'll see. Is there a plan to have power washing? James, are you still here? Can you go up to the microphone? Absolutely. A microphone, any microphone. Is it right here? You were supported. I was, yeah. James Finley shares landscape architect Wagner Hodgson. I have not actually thought about power washing the plants on a regular basis. We've been working with a company called Greenscreen that provides these armatures for training vines on buildings across the country. I can check in with them and see if they think that's something that's necessary in our discussions that was never brought up by the rep or the technical people on their team. They actually also gave us several case studies where they had these screens on parking garages and the plants seemed to flourish. So I'm happy to check in with them and I was gonna also check in with some sort of, to get their recommendations on general maintenance. And so I think we could provide that absolutely and be sure. At least for the subdivision portion, I understand that to be a question of are you increasing the storm water as opposed to rain events now, regular watering or power washing events where the system would be used. Yeah, I'm not ready to concede that power washing is an appropriate way to treat plant life to begin with. I wasn't talking about power washing the plants. I was talking about power washing the garage to make sure that the plants survive. Step in for just a second, Dan. So if we're power washing the garage, my understanding from Dave was that that would mostly, except for the top floor, that would be internal. So that wouldn't go through the storm water system. That would go into the large tank at the bottom that eventually gets sent to the water treatment plant. Correct? It's all the stuff on the top, it's only the stuff on the top top that would end up in the storm water system. Very close. Middle levels would go to by gravity to an oil water separator that then would go to the sanitary system. Bottom level is all enclosed with an holding tank and then the top is storm water, mother nature's water, basically all managed through that particular swirl technology. So the power washing would not in any way increase storm water flows, it would increase potentially sanitation flows. That is correct. But that would be done on a choice by public works based on what times make the most sense for them, both from a maintenance standpoint, as well as whatever's happening at the treatment plant. So let's move on to the site plan amendment for the Catholic Laws of Corporation. Meredith, maybe just give just a brief recap as to what we're looking at for this, this particular portion of the application. Okay. So this is the hotel site plan amendment. So here we are dealing with an amendment to a previously approved permit that is still open. It has not been constructed. And so it was approved under the previous 2011 regulations. So those are the regulations we have to deal with for all of the substantive issues and the board is limited at this point in what it can question about the hotel site plan amendment to the changes being proposed. And in this case also impacts from the garage because the reason we're changing the hotel is because of building, changing where the who owns the garage and how big the garage is. So in general, the big picture for the hotel site plan is converting on-site parking to off-site parking. That's the big reason that this was filed. However, in developing the garage site plan application and dealing with traffic flows and pedestrian access, my understanding is that there have been additional amendments discussed that may impact things like how parking is dealt with on the access route to State Street. Maybe discussed today that aren't actually in the application, but they were discussed at technical review committee. Big picture though is conversion to off-site. So Greg, maybe it'll be helpful to go over what you understand the changes to the site plan. Do you have a different presentation of what we have to do? No, I think for just to explain how that previously approved site plan would be amended, obviously it's the fact of the subdivision. So the size and shape of the parcel is being amended. It is the, as you pointed out, the fact that the parking now is off-site, which according to your regulations needs to be within a thousand feet. And I think we're substantially below that. And then the imposition of these easements that we talked about to create the access roads to the subdivided lot. As we move through the process, there may be some smaller, detailing things that end up a part of this. I can think of a couple of ready examples. There seems to be an ongoing discussion about a second sidewalk from State Street back to the parking garage. It's been brought up a few times. By the time this whole process is done, that may have worked its way into the process. We've been resisting it on technical base, on technical reasons, but it's still a live issue. And the only other thing I can anticipate might be some minor revisions to the, well, it could be minor, they could be substantial, revisions to the grading plan around the hotel to accommodate the change in the design here. So right now I think the only things we anticipate are the subdivision, the off-street parking and the imposition of the easements, unless you have... Just to clarify, since technical review, committee hearing or meeting, where you're no longer considering a second sidewalk on between the Christ Church and parking along that route there, I know we had discussed that and maybe changing some of that parking alignment on the access route to State Street. I'm sorry, say that again, please. We talked about potentially putting in a sidewalk there and adjustments to the parking spaces. Is that still part of the potential? Well, that was one of the things I said could get folded into this as we move forward. Okay, yep. Just quickly, I think that the problem has always been that the pavement goes right up to the property line. Putting that sidewalk in its simplest form and tail, putting it just outside the existing parking, but that would have an impact on a pretty significant plantation of white cedars that form the enclosure for the Church's Memorial Garden. So the only way for that sidewalk to happen is for it to push over onto Capitol Plaza land, which is gonna adversely impact the parking. Okay, I know that we had had a discussion where Dave was thinking about trying to find a way to make that work. We can continue to look at it, but those are the issues and that's the source of the resistance. Thank you. But other than that, no, I think if grading plans, if the grading plans do transition over time, we'll make that part of the application. So maybe kick off with something that Mr. Whitaker raised, which I remember from our original review of this, which was the laundry. Yes. That the proposal is that the laundry from the Hampton Inn would be carted across this parking area to the Capitol Plaza, because they have the large industrial washing machines in their facility. Is there anything about that that's going to shift? Because, and in particular, before what we were talking about was a large sort of central courtyard parking area, whereas now they're gonna have to cross this right, so... Well, they have to do the same things they were going to do, but as I understand it, I think they're gonna get like a Cushman cart or some kind of golf cart type of thing to put this laundry in. Okay, so we're not talking like people with like a giant... The four wheel canvas thing with the wheels on it. I don't believe so, because the dirty sheets and towels from 84 guestrooms is gonna be more than somebody's gonna carry in their arms. The other thing is I think operationally is the hotel's gonna be looking for times of day when guests won't notice this happening. Could be very early in the morning or late at night. Oftentimes in hotels, the night staff does laundry while they're keeping an eye on the front desk. But it didn't make sense to us to have two commercial laundry systems running on the same lot. To consolidate that into one activity is efficient for the owners. There's a fairly substantial room in the building that's created to hold that laundry. So it doesn't like, it's not gonna be like in bags in the hallway. So in understanding, my sense is that the big shift really is that we're talking about changing the nature of these driveways to be now shared with the city, with this additional traffic that's gonna go to the larger partners. Yes. Just understanding from a capital-positive perspective, are there any changes that are rendering to their traffic flow or where they expect guests to arrive on load that is going to be affected by this change? No, as the design team has tried to take care to maintain a decent sense of a back door here for the hotel, which is right about there. Typically, I think guests that arrive at the hotel now are coming in the front door once they've checked in, that there's a 208-space parking lot back here, right? It's all parking now, 100% with the exception of this little red building here. And no, I don't see that changing. I think it's just channeled more because right now, when you go in there, it's somewhat chaotic. One of the first things we did, I think it was one of the things that got us hired was we said, create a sense of the streetscape here so that people coming to this hotel feel like they're arriving someplace and not just landing in a parking lot. And so that's always been the operating theory of this design. All we've done now is sort of said, well, this is no longer a private road, Fred's Way or whatever we're gonna call it, but now it's got a larger public component to it. But there's still gonna be a 220-space parking garage here with all that traffic going to it. The real difference is we're going up to 348-spaces now, or 349. So, and just right here on the proposed hotel, there's a little bump in that it looks like, and that's still going to be the loading and the loading for those. For the new Hampton Inn, that's where guests will pull out of the traffic line, and that hatching pattern is intended to be a stamped concrete pattern, a kind of cobblestone thing. Or, well, it may be saw cuts or, but it's meant to be a special pavement. Number one, because, you know, cars stopping at the, you know, the tripping oil and stuff, they don't want that in front of the hotel. They want something they can scrub and it's gonna hold up. But it also tells everybody to slow down right here. And so, even if like a large tour bus of full of leaf beepers stops and pulls in front of there, there's still gonna be enough room beyond that. To get around the traffic to flow around. Yeah, the canopy will be mounted at an elevation that's high enough that it shouldn't be a problem. We did, in the process of doing this site design, have do truck overlays on the major turns, which is really that big turn right in the center of the site. But we did verify, because the hotels don't use a lot of truck traffic, but the restaurant in the Capitol Plaza gets a lot of deliveries. And they get deliveries from Cisco and Black River Produce. And generally those are high-cube trucks, 30, 40-foot unarticulated trucks. But they do get the occasional Cisco truck as a full-size semi-rig. And we also had to show that we could get a fire truck in and out of there. That is kind of where that curve came from. And the large buses, they aren't going to go into the, parking lot garage. Wouldn't even be possible. No, there's a fairly limited head height in the garage. With 10-foot-two floor-to-floor area, we're going to end up with between seven, six, and eight-foot of clear head space through most of the garage, with the exception of the very lowest level. And so is there a plan for where those will park? Right now, they disgorge and they leave the site completely. They don't stay. I would have to ask Mr. Bishara, but as I understand it, there's a lot out underneath the bridge or something where they go, but they don't stay on site now. Okay, so they don't park in the back as the existing parking is configured? Yeah, somebody might have parked one back there at some point, but operationally, my understanding is they go off site. Is there any proposed anything like speed bumps or anything like that on the right of way? Just a special pavement I pointed out to you. Yeah, I don't think we would want them honestly. I think traffic is gonna, anybody who's experienced that parking lot as it is today should concede that this arrangement is much better because we sort of channeled the flow of traffic to a definite set of lanes, and the parking is definitely segregated from that. Even in the cases where we've got the perpendicular parking on either side of the main access road, there's a clear sense of a driveway there, whereas the rest of it is very much a meander. The question is, is it just an earlier, that four-way intersection? The intersection, yeah, right there. Yeah. So that's, there's not gonna be any specific there as far as no right turn, no left turn, it's all gonna be two-way, no restrictions. You come out of the grove, you can go straight or left, come out of the church, you can go straight or right, sorry, and you come around. There's not gonna be any restrictions in that four-way intersection. No, other than the possibility of like a four-way stop or something, but maybe our traffic engineer can add something. I think the goal from Public Works was as people come out of here, if they're heading north, if they're heading back to the interstate, we'd really like to see them come out via Taylor Street and get out to Memorial Drive as quickly as possible, as opposed to coming out to state and then further straining either the intersections at Taylor Street or all the way down to the other end of state. But yeah, we're anticipating these to remain as two-way traffic here and here. There's probably gonna be some restriction on who can park in here, because that's church property. And as it stands now, they have signs on all their spaces saying church parking only, violators will be towed. So somebody could come out of the garage, but if they pulled in here, they're gonna have to turn around and get back out. So the width of the right-of-way going out through to the north. Through here? And the width in front of the hotel. Here? There's the same 26 feet each year. I don't know, I think I'd have to verify, I think this is 24 feet between the backs of the stalls. Yes. This may be a couple feet wider. I just, I would have to measure it. Right, to provide clarification again, Dave Marshall. What's depicted on the plot plan right now as part of the previous review was actually 24 feet in both direction in support of basically the city reserving the right for the travel ways without encumbering the adjacent areas for parallel parking or perpendicular parking. So that was the intent. And that particular plan you were just looking at was an older idea in regards to what the width could be or might be. So at this particular trace, our job is to make sure all the plans say the same thing. Meredith says, geez, I've been saying that for a while. But to basically bring them all together this week to basically get all the stories straight in regards to exactly what the latest agreements are as far as the project is concerned. So do we have a width, a continuous width? It's the 24 foot number right now. 24 foot. Yes. So no narrower than 24 feet. That is correct. Yeah. One thing we want to make sure we touch upon. So how many parking spaces will the capital plaza have within the parking deck? I'm going to ask Sue or Bill to talk about that if they're still here. Well, Fraser, the capital plaza, no, we will have reserved parking spaces, but they will be purchasing 200 permits. And so they will be allowed to use up to those on this meeting and long flexible system which I'm happy to explain to you. But that's the same 200 that I think they've identified. Okay. We just need on the record that they're having the same number of dedicated offsite spots as they had with their prior plan. And I'm seeing the nod of Bill Fraser. Yeah. Yeah, that's the intention. Yeah. Okay. Let's just simply put it on the record and stop. Okay. No movie traps in that question. No, it's just, I know that originally that garage was approved as having 220 spaces in it. So. I can't answer that about the original size. I just want to be clear for the record that they will have two permits. One, it's important to state that in terms of dedicated spaces, they'll have access to them. They will not have reserved spaces. They reserve four capital plaza and on days that they don't need 200 spaces, those spaces may be used by other people. So I just want to make sure there's no confusion in the record, but they will have access to 200 as they need based on the equipment. It's an automated system. Don't try to confuse matters, but I just want to make sure that there's no misunderstanding that there's 200 spots of nobody else but capital plaza can park in any property. Right. Well, but that, I maybe just helped me to clarify. So I understand sort of from a gated mission point of view that they'll have 200. So if somebody has a capital plaza ticket, presumably they'll deduct it from you. They'll deduct it from that up to two, and they'll have a credit of up to 200. Any given time. If there's, and we're getting to sort of parking the management and I'm not sure that, I'm happy to talk about it, just not sure it's going to be productive for this use, but they will help. There's also the ability to reserve and release. So there's only half occupancy, no conference that they might only need in 75 or 80, which means they're remaining 120 will be released to the public and can be sold to the public for general use. So I just want to be clear that since it's testimony that there's not reserve spaces for capital plaza. I appreciate. That's a very important distinction. No, I appreciate the distinction. It's just, I just want to be clear. So I understand. You know, we really are, it gets relevant to this particular part of the application is, and just. So they have first dibs essentially at the 200 spaces. I think it's probably the simplest way to put it. Whether with me for a hypothetical, which is, you know, say there's a legislative event on a Thursday and capital plaza is a mean demonstration because you get a bunch of people parking overnight for this legislative event. How does that then clear out if the capital plaza needs their 200 spots the next day? Is that, is there not reserved? Is that something that would be worked out? Yeah, we have, there's a whole bunch of parking management strategies that work with this and it's all based on software. And, you know, if I suppose it depends where the legislative event is, if it's at the capital plaza then. Well, then I guess. Yeah. If it's elsewhere, you know, overnight parking means different demand than daytime parking. Hotel guests come at different times. So there's a whole bunch of algorithms that parking garages use and the software manages. And we've gone through all of those with the hotel and we're all pretty comfortable that it works. But on a normal day, what it would be is, you know, beginning of the day, they would have first dibs up to 200 spots unless they had released them. Yeah, or conversely they would, they have to reserve them one way or the other. So if they know, you know, for example, someone books a wedding next April, they could go in the system and say we need 200 spaces on April 14th because that's going to be a full day that day and they could just reserve them at that point. Okay, I think I understand that a little bit better. I don't know if anyone else has any questions. I just want to know. Sure, as opposed to placard on a spot saying. Definitely be double-used. Right. It'll be sort of like Southwest seating. First come, first served. Something like that. And the boarding pass is the key. By the ordinance, the demand for parking is 174 spaces or something like that. It's in the previous approval. And that sweeps up the capital plaza, the Hampton, the Newton, the Post Hampton Inn, and the various and sundry commercial uses that are on the ground floor of the capital plaza. 165. 165. So just to put those numbers into a context relative to the ordinance. Right, and that's simply what I wanted to confirm. That's actually very helpful. I appreciate it. De-explanation. Anyone have any other questions on this modification to the site plan? That was a question about timing and sequencing of how this goes through kind of a city committee approval. Because there was a committee that was sitting here earlier and there's been reference to a technical review committee process. And I was just curious on the timing and sequencing of them rendering their decisions and then when that information comes to us. So the technical review committee, it's a zoning administrator function to pull together comments from department of public works, public safety, buyer chief, tree board, whoever may have comments on an application. And then I pull those comments into the staff report or as needed forward you larger reports like from department of public works. And so that's the flow of the technical review committee for design review committee, which was the meeting before this. That was actually their second review of the garage site plan. Because so far none of the changes to other things have triggered design review. So the design review committee typically tries to meet a hearing head of development and review board and then their decision gets folded into the staff report. However, so far they have made no decisions. So if they had made a decision tonight, I would have reported on that at this hearing so that you can have it. But at this point they're gonna continue and we're gonna be trying. I haven't gotten to my report on that because that's for the next application. But I can tell you now that they haven't made a decision and we're gonna be scheduling a special meeting, we just have not been able to look at our calendars just yet. I had another question from the particular application that we're looking at right now. Is it a waiver that we will be granting for them to park off-site? It's not a waiver, it's just a change because they're allowed to have off-site parking. It's just that it has to meet some different criteria to be allowed to have off-site parking versus onsite under the old regulations. It's an amendment, so. Just an amendment. They had come at the initial, it wouldn't have been necessarily a waiver, but it would have been, we would need this information that they're giving us now. That's what we're seeking. Okay, so let's move on to the last of the applications of this evening. Same cast and character. Oh, sorry, public comment, I apologize. Thank you, this is why staff isn't valuable. Mr. Whitaker. In discussing this right-of-way easement, et cetera, it occurs to me, and this will come up again in the third application's public comment as to the adequacy of the traffic impacts, that if you're gonna consider this a street that every one of, not only the four-way intersection that you just referred to, which has not been analyzed, the only thing that's been analyzed in pieces is the Taylor Street and the State Street intersections. But in effect, you've got a four-way intersection, and then you've got 26 parking spaces which are each an intersection, perpendicular parking spaces, are each creating traffic impacts on this street. So I can't overemphasize that point, that the volume of traffic and the interrelated complexity of traffic flows from Northfield Savings Bank customers, Christchurch overnight guests in their cars, et cetera. The number of complex interactions between the transit center, the hotel, the parking garage, and the Haney lot, which still has some open issues, unresolved issues, is gonna necessitate a more rigorous approach to analysis. I'm glad to hear about the, no plan for speed bumps on our new street, but the more than one guest or more than two guests often apply, I've stayed at the Hampton Inn in Brattleboro and White River Junction, those loading zones typically accommodate two and three guests unloading at once. And keep in mind, this is still only possibly 30 feet wide. So these guests are opening car doors, passenger, driver's side doors to get luggage or kids out while there's two ways of traffic passing by just a few feet away. So the reassurance is about, based on software that all this is gonna work. I think recent news of algorithms in software should pop that bubble without me having to emphasize it. That's enough for it. Okay, thanks. Okay, let's go on to the last application. Meredith, would you like to give us an overview? I think this is the big finale. Yeah. So, yeah, we have a new application for a city-owned parking garage. There, is this back here what we're going for? Right, so that's the dated October 14th staff report for the major site plan review. It's application number Z 2018-0117 and the development application should list city of Montpellier as the applicant. What do you mean by that? That's the staff report I emailed, yes. And it goes with the development application of the staff report cover in your packet. The staff report. Yep. I'll take one also. Yeah, I can take one. Thank you. Let's frame up. So this is basically the site plan review for the parking garage. Yes. It's the whole thing. You can discuss anything in here that anybody wants. That includes traffic. That's good. I was gonna ask if we could go to traffic because we dragged these poor guys out here for tonight. He's pinch-hitting for another co-worker, so yeah, maybe if we could... I actually, I think that would be great because I think a lot of the stuff we've that's applicable here we've discussed we'll just be looking for sort of nuance on that but the one piece that we really have to talk about is traffic. Absolutely. So, can you just... Move that little microphone over to the other side? Yeah. So we can put... Okay, so another one in front of you, David, comes to the other side of the table. All right. And if you just ate your name for the record and I know you were sworn in at the beginning. Yes, I was sworn in. My name's Corey Mack with RSG, Traffic Engineering Consulting and Firm out of Burlington. So the way that we approached this project here was we basically took the difference of, well, trip generation, I should just start a little bit. A parking garage in itself doesn't generate traffic. It's really the adjacent land uses about how that's all being used. So the traffic generation from this, what we basically did was we determined the difference in parking spaces that are being provided in the new garage here versus the existing lot and what's being replaced. And then applied that to the land uses that are being kind of backed our way into what the trip generation would be with that. So as we were talking about before, there's the 200 lease spaces for the capital plaza there. Got my notes right over here, if you'll give me a second. So 200 lease spaces for the capital plaza. There's some multifamily housing that's taking up 30 spaces there. There's some monthly spaces for office buildings. Those are 80 spaces and the remainder is open to the public if that's 38 spaces. That total there, we have for 348 spaces that represents 163 new spaces. So basically we're saying those 163 new spaces aren't so much generating traffic, but they're going to represent sort of a demand in this area here, so coming and going that wasn't necessarily there to begin with. So those 163 spaces, the difference there, we then applied trip generation rates based on the parking that's providing there. I can go into a lot of detail on this or I can go into a little bit of detail on this. And really what it comes down to is the whole report there kind of outlines where trips were coming in and going out. There is a certain number of trips that we calculated as being what's generated, not so much by the parking garage but by the land uses surrounding it and how that's distributed into the transportation network and what kind of impacts that has on the network. So I don't know if I didn't cover anything or what you'd really like me to get into it. I mean there's all kinds of nuance and I love talking Excel formulas. Sure, well I think it may make sense and I'll let the other board members redirect if they feel otherwise motivated, but to start with the exterior of the site and by that I mean really the State Street, the Taylor Street, and obviously the impacts that are gonna be felt on the public streets as a result of this development. Yes, absolutely. So there was a lot of thought given to how we were going to analyze these and what intersections we were gonna analyze. So really the primary intersections that we analyzed were going to be the Taylor Street and the State Street intersection to the west and Elm Street and State Street to the east a little bit. We didn't analyze in specifically like to get delayed and all that at the driveway entrances because those are stop control that's really only gonna impact the people that are driving in and out of there and as really only be going in and out of there if it was as like a parking lot. We don't typically look at parking lots unless it's a large generator. But we reviewed the volumes, it gets complicated. We used the 2013 volumes to analyze the traffic on Taylor Street. And there's a reason why we use older volumes is because they were the highest volumes. So we took this very conservative estimate of the traffic volumes that were there. That was based on another study done by another consultant DNK who was I think had been involved with the project in a number of other ways. So we used those 2013 volumes. We escalated that a number of years so that we raised the traffic volumes there 3% for like the background traffic. And then we rooted all the enters and exits onto the site through those two different intersections. And what we found was it's going to operate a little, well, I should back out off a little bit too. DNK's previous study that I was referencing is some recommendations on State Street and Taylor Street, specifically some realignment of intersections so that there's going to be a different approaches to the State Street. So there'll be a separate right turn lane and a through left lane on the northbound Taylor Street approach, the removing the eastbound right on State Street. So that's going to have some improvements and we modeled that as being an existing characteristic of the intersection in 2022. So it'll be better than what we're seeing right now without those improvements. But when we add 3% of background traffic growth to it, plus some, I would say relatively minor increase in traffic and with this the proposed garage here, that will have a negative impact on the Taylor Street approach. State Street is a free flowing movement. So, and on both of these intersections, actually I'm not sure about that on Elm Street. On Taylor Street, it's a free flowing movement. So it doesn't impact State Street but it does have a small impact on Taylor Street. In both situations, the Taylor Street approach with or without the parking garage is not operating at what typical traffic engineering would give it a, not failing, F, an LOSF, meaning that the delay is pretty high. Generally considered unacceptably high but in a urban environment like downtown Montpelier, there are often cases in which LOSF is either the best you can do or good enough for what you'd expect at peak hour conditions. What is that level for this? What is the unreasonable delay? Yes, so I've mentioned LOSF, that's a level of service. That is essentially a measure of delay to an average motorist. For a stop sign, that's gonna be greater than 50 seconds of delay. So that means that you're waiting in a queue. You've reached where you're trying to get out through that intersection and you've had to wait 50 seconds or more to get through that. That's the highest level of impact that we really quantify. Without the proposed parking garage construction, that delay is 62 seconds. We've modeled it as 62 seconds and with the parking garage, it increases to 73 seconds. So it's not too far above, I've seen much higher above that threshold of 50 seconds but it is increasing there. And that's entirely because we're adding some trips to that. And let me state also, that's in the PM peak hour. So that's gonna be like the worst of your 30th highest day. And what is the PM peak hours range from? I'm not sure in this specific intersection what the PM peak hour is. It's typically 430 to 530. You have a lot of office traffic here. It might be a little earlier people leaving to go home after a day of work. But there's also the whole places that you go out to eat and stuff. So typically it's around 430 to 530, that kind of thing. And these, so these numbers are actual numbers, they're not theoretical. These are modeled numbers. And there's a number of reasons why I would say that this is a very conservative model. First of all, we're projecting out to 2022. So there's that whole unknown. But like I was saying, we were using 2013 volume estimates, which are a lot higher than what we've observed these days. We're using an old number, but to be consistent with old previous studies and to be kind of conservative and say that this high traffic volume is still out there. We'll use that as our baseline. Then we're gonna grow that at 3% to 2022 to try to estimate what the future is gonna be. Although, traffic growth has not been at that level for that's a statewide average that we're trying to use for traffic growth in this one particular case. So I think that we're kind of escalating these traffic volumes. So no, those are not delays that are actual delays. In fact, I think DNK did a delay study where they actually like monitored individual visual vehicles and how they went through. One day, you can only really look at discrete periods. And they were seeing delays in the 42nd range. So actually in a range that would be, I think LOSD, I think I heard cited, but it may have been a higher LOS, like an LOSD. So that's gonna be less seconds of delay in an actual observed condition versus what we're showing here in our modeled condition, which has so many of these conservative factors of safety or whatever you'd wanna call it into the traffic analysis. Traffic analysis, was the redevelopment of the multimodal transit center with the apartments above? Was that included in the study of the Taylor Street traffic? No, it was not. And there's a specific reason for that. This also adds to that conservative analysis. So I keep mentioning DNK, they were the ones who did that traffic study for the multimodal transit center. And their ultimate conclusion came to that the amount of traffic following the implementation of this transit center would actually decrease on Taylor Street. So by not including that, we are being conservative by having this existing level of traffic that when the transit is complete, that existing level of traffic should decline based on the previous study. So by including the transit center, we would have dropped the existing volumes. So we kept it as in its current. Yeah. Okay. So let's talk about any other questions for the external, for any of these. You know, I guess I wanna make sure I understand for traffic coming out of this area onto State Street, either turning left or right, particularly the PM peak hours. I wanna understand what impact that's going to have on the level of service under estimate. On Taylor Street? No, on State Street. Oh, just from Taylor Street or from the driveway. Is that your question? Well, specifically from the driveway onto State Street. So that was one of the intersections. We did not actually study that intersection. We studied Taylor Street and we studied Elm Street for this level of service. You know, I can tell you that the existing, the existing demand, you know, had a certain number of vehicles going through it. We're, you know, increasing, there's 57 exiting trips in the existing demand. We're adding 41 to that. So it's gonna be an increase on that driveway. Our observations had indicated that, you know, it doesn't operate, you know, when we put it in our model and it shows that, you know, there's just a street here where people can drive and do whatever they need to. It doesn't show the downstream effects of queuing. It doesn't show, you know, if a pedestrian crosses the street, everybody stops on State Street. And that actually opens up gaps for people to exit. Because, you know, people are generally pretty nice drivers around here. So it gives, in the real world, our models are usually kind of conservative because it doesn't really look at those external gaps that are provided in real world driving conditions. Well, I guess I'm concerned, particularly on State Street, you know, there is, as you say, a lot of not only just pedestrian traffic across State Street, but along State Street as well, which I know interferes with both people turning out of that driveway onto State Street as well as turning in from State Street onto this driveway, because of course the pedestrians, we all yield to pedestrians. Yes. And I'm just trying to understand or wrap my mind around, you know, what impact that's going to have because that becomes one of the two major ingress and ingresses for this site and to understand what impact that's going to have. You know, particularly in PM hours, I know there's a number of employers across the street that will discourage employees into that stream of traffic then at that time of day. They obviously are able to meld into the flow of traffic, but what does this add to that or those existing numbers? So the majority of traffic exiting from the project site onto State Street, most of them are going to be turning right. I'd say 80% perhaps, it's going to be a large number. I have the exact number in here if you want it. No, I mean, where does that estimate come from? So if you're looking at our memo, it would be on I think the 60% of the site traffic is exiting to the right. So it's going to be figure three there. It has all the kind of the enters and exits as a percentage of the two driveways. But we have an overall volume, an overall volume of exiting traffic, the majority of which is going to be turning right. So it's going to have, you know, it's not trying to cross and turn left, which would be a much more difficult maneuver for vehicles. So it's going to be trying to enter the State Street traffic stream turning right. There will be the pedestrians crossing. So yes, that is an issue. And frankly, a very difficult one to model. It's a challenge. Yeah, urban environments create a lot of difficulties and so really all we can do is, you know, do our best with the models and kind of ground truth it with what we see out there. And that sort of goes to what we had mentioned with the D and K, their observations of the actual delay being less than what they had modeled in the existing conditions. Well, I was going to say that we didn't specifically look at this intersection, like the driveway entrance onto the State Street as a, like an intersection for analysis. The volumes are lower than what they are on Taylor Street. So it should operate better than that. But, you know, there will be, you know, there will be delay there than probably in a similar number. If there's signage internally directing people to go to Taylor Street, if they want to get on 89, if they want to, you know, other directions to get them to go that way to avoid the State Street intersection, or two questions. One, is that signage going to be effective in your expert opinion? And two, is that going to create then, are we overloading then Taylor Street from people pulling to Taylor Street and moving and turning left? Well, a wayfinding is a very important thing. It gets its own section and, you know, federal guidance on how to design signs. And I do think that if it's done well, it can be very effective. You have this one exit from the parking garage, the bulk of the spaces, where everybody's going to be driving through, and you can have like 289 left, you know, to route two left, you know, that kind of thing. So I think it could be a very effective tool to direct people to where you want to go. When we did these traffic distributions to say that, you know, I was just saying 60% are turning right or something, that's all based on existing conditions. That's all based on when people are already leaving these driveways, how they're leaving. So an effective wayfinding thing that has them going exactly where they're going, that might change sort of that. But again, that's something that's like very difficult to model or to assume it's going to be different. You know, all we can really do is say it's going to operate in the same way but on a different level, or you know, only so many variables we can adjust on this. So again, we didn't study the driveway of the Southern driveway there onto Taylor Street. So I can't say if that's going to be overloaded or not. I know that the traffic volume on Taylor Street is pretty small. So I would imagine that that can handle some volume turning left on it. You know, I can't say we didn't study the route two intersection or you know, there's only so far that it goes. Right. Well, I'm just, I'm obviously building towards the idea of conditions that if there were conditions for signage to direct people, oh, you know, especially those turning left that would otherwise be heading for 89, particularly because we're talking about hotels. So we're almost, well, I think we have to expect a number of people who aren't oriented to the street map of Montpelier and how we want to get them to even think about going out to this traffic and whether it would make sense to make that a condition for some directional signage, you know, from a traffic point of view to put people and whether it would make sense to put them in on Taylor Street. So for example, you know, people exiting the parking garage that are headed to St. Johnsbury, do we want them to turn left onto Taylor Street and then another left onto Memorial Drive and head out that way? You know, is that worth doing, not St. Johnsbury itself, but I mean that kind of directional signage, is that gonna have a real impact on the traffic as opposed to putting them into State Street, putting them then into Main Street into these very, these higher traffic areas when they're not really headed in that to that particular location? So the typical threshold for when you would evaluate that kind of thing is if the number of trips going through these intersections reaches a certain threshold. It's from the agency of transportation's perspective, that's 70 trips. And the two intersections that we did study didn't even meet that threshold, but you know, it's generally just something that you do to review how your project will go into that. So I mean, you're talking at least, and correct me if I'm wrong, but you know, taking the, I think it was 51 onto State Street and adding another 80 one, so whether or not that would cross that threshold. So the existing North Drive adds 66 trips, so that's under that 70 threshold. It's kind of separating into these two intersections. So I'm not exactly sure what's the question. We lose the third question. I think I might have followed. So I think that the trip generation, the 75 trip number is the additional trips, right? Not the, you take those additional trips and add them to what are already there, right? So you have 60 some odd trips exiting onto State Street, you said, as new trips, and then there's again, less than 75 new trips at peak hours exiting onto Taylor Street at the current level, right? But not necessarily the 2025 level, or is that the 2025 level? What I was trying to say was that the amount of traffic that has kind of generated from this new proposed parking garage doesn't really follow or doesn't meet the threshold for a lot of AOT traffic studies for like further analysis into like larger upstream or downstream intersections. And I guess, you know, and my question, while I'm trying to dovetail it into that, I think is really coming out of a sense of having walked in downtown Montville here and on State Street where Elm Street dumps into State Street and then that next block into Main Street and East State Street where there is a lot of traffic and you're getting it from a lot of different sources. So to the extent that we have something like this, a large project that's funneling a lot of parking, you know, to the extent that we can avoid adding that to that downtown intersection, whether or not we meet the AOT threshold or not, I'm trying to just suss out whether that's a worthy goal to pursue through signage conditions, whether it would make sense to direct that traffic and also not shifting one problem, which is what I'm envisioning onto Taylor Street that creates then a whole another set of problems of unanticipated consequences and to what extent, and maybe this is the larger question, which is what are your recommendations? And we're sort of moving into the internal traffic flow a little bit, but what are your recommendations for how traffic should be entering and exiting? Should we be exercising any control over where cars are going or trying to get cars to go in certain ways, such as my hypothetical where somebody's headed out of town? We want them to go Taylor Street if possible as opposed to coming out onto State Street. Absolutely, I'd say do you want to direct them the clearest and most efficient route? So I think that wayfinding would be an essential part of all that. You know, I think that there's a lot of benefit to having this garage in a place with some amount open to the public. That provides a place for people to find parking that they know that they're going to have to pay for it, but there's going to be parking there, especially if it's a big bank that might be open to the public for whenever the hotel's not using it there. So rather than having people like hunting for parking throughout the city streets, they'll be coming to one centralized location. So I think that there's going to be a big benefit for that. Then the other benefit would be just when you are directing people using this wayfinding, they're not hopefully not getting lost on their way out of town or to their destination. Whether or not we send people down Taylor Street to get to St. John'sbury that direction. The route to, yeah. Part of it too is fighting when I go east, I always want to go east as opposed to maybe more efficient for me to go west and then back around. But I think that's, I don't want to necessarily beat a dead horse. I think that's been very helpful, at least from my mind, on the signage issue and the direction. Any other questions on some of the traffic? I do want to ask a question unless not hearing anyone else jump in. Internally, there's been some talk about how traffic is going to flow through in a stop, either a stop signs or some type of traffic control at this four way point. As part of your traffic recommendations, are you making any particular recommendation about the internal flow and circulation? This study didn't really look at traffic circulation, it was mostly just traffic generation. Dave does a great job with that kind of thing, so I'm sure he's doing it a lot of thought. Okay, so yours is just largely surface street. Mine is mostly just like parking or trip generation based on the increase of parking and where those vehicles are kind of going and how that interacts with the existing intersections. Any other questions? Thanks. You're very welcome. We don't want to have to keep you running a bill either unless, I don't have any other questions on traffic. Okay. I don't know if there's gonna be public questions that we would want answered or. I don't know. Mr. Whitaker, do you have any questions about the street traffic? It's fine, it's not a question. Okay, then it may make sense, just, I. I'm happy to stay a little longer or. It's strictly up to you or more importantly, it's strictly up to the people paying you. Yeah, that's true. And I know that you said that there's a follow-up meeting too, so I mean we might be back and. Yeah, well hopefully your co-work won't be feeling better, but. Yeah. No, I'd say just stay until this breaks up. Okay, I'm happy to. Well, and I'm just gonna make note of the time. It's 9.30, I feel comfortable and rest of the board, depending on how you feel, I had coffee before I came, of pushing through to 10 to try and get through this, but I guess I'm a little bit leery of pressing too much further on. I think we lose focus and given that we do have another meeting, but again, I'm also, I can go to midnight. I'm happy to do that, but I'm also conscious that other people can't. How's the board feeling? Are we ready? I'm done at 10, that sounds nice. Okay, 10, okay. We're gonna have another hearing anyway. Exactly. We're not gonna close the evidence so there's no reason to kill ourselves, but it would be good to get as much as we can done tonight. So, Greg, we're gonna let you rest your half hour filibuster away. Okay, well, I think that it may be useful to just turn our attention to some of the red letter comments in the staff report, because as we looked at some of these, I think we've addressed them, and I just want to kind of go through those as kind of the pieces that need to be correct before we come back. The first general red line comment is sort of a process one. We've sort of covered that. This'll all have to somehow come together in the end. But starting on page five of the staff report at under district standards and subparagraph B, this was the conversation about frontage and all of that, and I think we've touched on that planning tonight. The 30 foot frontage at the access to the lot. On page six, there's a pile of red line comments. Again, talking about frontage. Also talked about the setback along the river. I'll get with Meredith on this in the interregnum, but we read the regs to say in this district that there's a 20 foot setback, and that's what we've observed. That's what we've put on the site plan. You seem to be indicating that that it could be less, although I don't. So do people want me to discuss this right now? Sure. Okay, so the reason that this came up is because we have this issue in UC1 where water setbacks are actually zero feet when you're dealing with channelized sections of river. Now, the only reason I went further into this because there's no definition of what channelized means and the regulations. And we didn't have any testimony on this or evidence in the application, but I have been informed by the planning director that last year, the directly opposite side of the North Branch was determined to be channelized by the board in a decision on the 10, 12, and 16 Main Street parcel, which is all being changed as part of this One Taylor Street project, the Moat Properties. So in theory, this directly opposite side may be channelized as well. Like I said, there's no definition of channelized, but in the prior decision, the board decided it was channelized based on testimony from an engineer that the river was physically controlled at its banks. That was what was quoted from the decision. So it was just something that I figured we needed to be aware of that there was that possibility and whether or not the board even feels like it needs to dig deeper into this and ask for more evidence as to whether or not the current side of the river that we're dealing with is channelized or not, or if because the site plan complies with the 20-foot setback, just leave it. But it was something I didn't feel like I could just leave out there in the ether since I was informed about it. So I can tell them a little bit more. That might be good since I'm on the board at the time. So there is a term about setbacks from a river and there is a term channelized. So normally it's 20 feet back from a river if it's a natural free floating river. But obviously if you have, for example, in the Necky classroom building, sits on the North Branch, zero feet back on top of Granite and the river doesn't go anywhere but between the stones, walls. And so the question is, we were faced with a year ago was what does channelized mean? Does it mean strictly the sort of that sort of Amsterdam on the canal stone wall channel that's established? Or does it mean something where there's clear man-made boundaries that the river can't meander within that largely keep it within a channel? And at the time that the city made a determination, that this board made a determination that the evidence was that at least on that side of the river, it was channelized because there was rock. There was very little that the river could do to move against that. Now, I think this is a fact-based determination and I think the applicant would have to put forward evidence that it was not channelized and they may not want to do that. They may be happy enough with their 20 foot setback. We have other constraints because of the geometry of the lots involved that would prevent us from meaningfully taking advantage of that. The only exception I could think of would be if we were trying to get a ramp or something in that area but we've already talked about how we're trying to avoid that. So from the applicant's point of view, I would just say that we're not claiming a zero foot setback and so I think that renders the issue more. So I just asked a question on page six is up top here talking about how high is this building the highest point on it? Well, it's labeled on the elevations and that would probably be the stair tower adjacent to the hotel. So notionally, it's 10 foot floor for four floors or 40 feet but then we've got parapets and stuff. So I think for a small part of its footprint, it would probably be like 48 feet or something but I just would have to bring up the drawings again to look but it is labeled on the drawings in your package. Okay, so the next comment on page seven is a housekeeping one. It's basically telling us to do our homework. We, on page eight, there's a comment again about the frontage requirement. I think we've covered that pretty handily. The, at the bottom of page eight, there's some discussion about vegetation in the 20 foot setback. So, I mean, for other reasons, we're still treating this as if it's not channelized and we plan on vegetating that area like crazy. So. Would you say vegetating? For the landscape architects earlier comments, there's gonna be river birches and wisteria and all the stuff that's on the planting schedule, occupying that space. The red line comments on nine are a little bit arcane and I'm not gonna drag you into it. It relates to erosion control stuff on steep slopes. As it works out that the drop between the back of the Capitol Plaza and the Haney lot is a steep slope, but we're already planning on doing the required erosion control planning stuff as part of our state permitting. So from our perspective, it's not a big ask to just provide that. That, and I think Dave's done the math and it's been explained to Meredith, but. Yeah, it just, it needs to be on the record because it was explained to me after evidence. So Dave, could maybe just talk to the staff. So the project will require authorization from the state of Vermont under the construction stormwater general permit. So we'll fully have to do that. But we also offered to provide an erosion control plan as part of this application package to be delivered to staff this week to basically just cross the T's and dot the I's if there's any issue in regards to how to deal with the specific wording within the regulation. So we have no issue either way. But the one concern and this is just to flesh it out is that if I'm looking at the map, it looks like the boundary and that would be that sort of grassy area between the Haney lot and the back of what's now the Basher a lot. Yes. The capital puzzle is a steep slope greater than 30% is that? Actually, based on the topographical mapping we provided staff what those particular numbers were. Okay. Very close to 30%. Absolutely. So we have an odd feature in Montpelier zoning which is steep slopes which has nothing to do with erosion but has everything to do with the limited restriction on development. And so if there is a steep slope of 30% of greater technically the rules talk about a strict interpretation of the rules talk about no disturbance whatsoever. And so just understanding if we're talking about that restriction or not. Now, I think there's another issue because this is arisen already in the context of the school application and there's a statute 4413 that talks about governmental uses not under title 24 that this does not apply in such cases that would prevent a public use and it would be helpful to have that fleshed out only because this is a it isn't, it sounds like an erosion provision but it's not. It's just strictly a development prescription. It was basically, I mean other communities will adopt the same type of rules and the intent is 30% slope on the side of the hill we don't want you there because of obviously whether the site or erosion issues are just inability to develop in an appropriate manner. Here that we have basically a very narrow strip that happens to be manmade that often in other communities has also been basically they said if it's natural greater than 30% the intent of the rule was not to develop in that particular area here in this particular case this was specifically manmade in order to basically maximize one particular parking lot adjacent to another. So those are all things that other communities have used as outs if necessary. I mean right now the numbers indicate that we're right at the 30% value or just slightly under. So taken at face value it's a non issue but do appreciate your thoughts relative to statute 4413 as far as what municipalities have as far as basically opportunities not to be reviewed under specific issues. I think on 10 that's a continuation of this conversation that gets more at the heart of what you were suggesting but if I'm not mistaken isn't that slope 29.7% Right. And we do not have more than 4,000 square feet in disturb area we have about 1,497 square feet. So we can come back with this in a memo and we can put it on the plans but it seems like we're below the threshold at the 25% slope and we've fallen just short of the 30% slope. But unless you have anything different you want to say about it the item on number 10 is a continuation or sort of expansion. And I'll say I certainly understand and I think I agree that when other communities have promulgated such rules they've clearly been clear in their intent for what those are. Unfortunately ours haven't developed that nuance yet. I mean, I think there's ways and we'll certainly look carefully at it and the more help you can give us the better because it is a function of our of our bylaws as they're written and they do not make that nuanced distinction between what I would agree the purpose of such provisions are as opposed to this small man-made. Right, but based on what I know now we walk up to but we don't cross the threshold. I mean between now and the next time we see it we can obviously do some kind of demonstration to explain why we reach that conclusion. The other thing that becomes a dilemma for the board is we, a project may design a slope to be a three on one which is considered to be a stable slope but a three on one slope is 33%. Are you saying you can never come back and redevelop your lawn that was sloped off at three on one? That's the way it's written and that's what we're struggling with. And again, we know the answer. Well, you know, the board's not insensitive to that fact is that that doesn't make a certain amount of logical sense to the extent that we have the rules we have. It's a great rule for what I think it was meant for which is to preserve the sort of hills around the city and not turn this into Los Angeles but I think we're gonna rely on looking at the mapping and just seeing if we can't follow within the ranks. We'll just have to see how. That makes it easy. I just wanna flag that for you because that is an issue that we've been wrestling with as a board. Okay, that slope isn't one consistent thing over there. It's got footpaths all over it and stuff. That's kind of what complicates it. GPW had comments on page 11 and we've been talking about various agreements between parties and stuff and I think this all gets swept up into that as well as our ongoing dialogue with GPW on a semi-daily basis. I think there's been a lot of communication there but at the top page 11, it's talking about do we have to have permission from any of our neighbors or any of that stuff and we'll come back with that. Again, I think 12 is a conversation we had earlier today which at the top of page 12 is a discussion about how far apart the driveways are supposed to be. I think this is in the staff comments because we're going to be asking you to grant us a waiver of that or use whatever discretionary power you have to waive that away. Also on page 12 towards the middle is talking about the master agreement which I think Bill, William Frazier laid out for me earlier this evening. We talked about the traffic study. I think it's a red line comment here because stuff was going back and forth right up until the day of the hearing. The number of accessible parking spaces in the parking garage, that's a labeling issue. I think that they're shown in the plans. You can see where the offloading areas are. They just need to have that handicap symbol on them or the accessible parking symbol put on them. But we do have the right number. They just need to be properly labeled. Snow storage is a conversation that we've had on a number of occasions. There are two halves to this. The conversation related to the garage part, snow is going to be melted rather than stored. We had recommended a mobile piece of equipment to do that. But I think DPW wants us to explore the use of district heat to basically put snow melt on the exposed part of the garage. We're going to look at the technicalities of that. But in any case, I think snow from the parking garage is going to be melted. And when we're talking about snow, we're really just talking about the top floor. Yeah, pretty much. In our experience, the intermediate levels are not going to have a significant amount of snow on them. And so this would be, you're not pursuing any thoughts about dumping the snow, like they do in national life where they open up the gates and they just push it over the side. To have it drop four stories. Well, I mean, the thing is, yeah, I mean, apart from the hazard that might cause, when it gets to the bottom, it's got to be piled up somehow. Sure. No, I'm not proposing you do this. I'm just clarifying that you're not going down that road. I am not doing that. And what happens today on that big lot is it gets shoveled into trucks and then it gets hauled to another part of town where it gets put in big piles under the bridge. So we feel like that's pretty inefficient. It's putting additional trucks out onto the street at the worst time of year when traffic is competing with piles of snow. Yeah, so our recommendation is for the garage is to melt it. We did, on the original approval for the hotel, have a couple of designated places to pile up snow and that will stay unchanged from the original. So those were mainly for the surface area, not the garage. They were for the surface area, yes. But now that we've done this subdivision, that's the whole of it for the hotel. Right. Yeah, I expect that we'll have to do a little more work with the city to sort of figure out really how effective the heating system could be, but we're gonna explore that to rule it in or out. How about the electric charging stations for cars? Is that being included as well? That is being included. In fact, if I didn't notice in the new ordinances, isn't there a requirement for that? But so I believe I calculated we would need 20 electrical vehicle charging stations. I reached out to a vendor to get us cut sheets and come up with a power plan for those. Unfortunately, it wasn't available for tonight, but hopefully we can fold that into the application being made this week. We are also making sure the garage is solar ready. What about the idea Mr. Whitaker brought up about the backup generator for some of these services or? Well, generation is one way to do it. I think for the equipment that runs the garage, the computer systems and the like that will have a small server closet, we would probably rather go with a UPS type situation. I have basically a battery backup for that equipment, but I don't see us putting a large scale generator in this project. We don't, our power demands aren't that great. Whether or not it's a Tesla power wall or some variation on that. I mean, power needs are gonna be for the lighting system, the gate system. But it sounds like the elevators as well. I mean, could that be run off of a, but there'll be a stairwell as. There are stairwells and the entirety of the garage is accessible. I mean, a person in a wheelchair is not gonna encounter excessive slopes if they had to just wheel their way back down. I'm thinking in flood surface conditions that the elevator might be shut off. So that's the reality of that. Yeah, so there's that, what about just general power outage with somebody in the elevator? During a general power outage. I don't know, I haven't sorted that out yet. I'll go find information about that and come back to you. I mean, that's probably, there are probably issues for any building that has an elevator. What kind of backup? It's not a matter of building code or Vermont State Law. It comes up for us most typically as a requirement of the franchise organization. Like Hilton will require the elevator in the hotel to have a backup. But. I'm even thinking from the elevator installation people, I'm sure they face this issue and what. It's just a big electric motor. It's, they're really big electric motors. Providing backup for something like that is a pretty substantial investment. As far as the lighting goes, it's all LED lighting. We're trying to work with our solar vendor to made up the power demand of the lighting circuits with the output capacity of the solar array. So, that will have some kind of battery backup system on it as well. At a minimum it'll be the battery ballasts and the individual light fixtures to come on if they think it's power for, it'll last for a short period of time. But if we, if the city does pull the trigger on installing solar on this, then. We didn't get a chance. We ran out of time today to talk with the AC to talk about fences, but there will be a fence along the railroad right away. We wanted to. Is that something the DRC is reviewing as well? They, it's their purview. So for, yeah. And retaining walls as well, which we didn't get to today, but we do have a retaining wall system that we need approval for. But just in terms of ticking off the red letter items. At the bottom of 15 there's discussion about landscaping that's came up earlier today. It'll come up here. Your ordinance requires a certain number of trees and shrubs. Meredith had calculated 22 trees and 129 shrubs. I think she's looking for guidance we're looking for the board to agree that the vines and stuff that we plan on a growing wall count that shrubs. And I don't know if they do. I mean, shrubs have a particular definition, but we've interpreted that provision within the context of that section. And there's actually very good language along the lines what Dave was talking about with other steep slope regulations, which I think allow us to modify that requirement within the context of the purpose that's stated fairly clearly, which is screening and provide some break and to ensure that there's natural resources at the site but not to obscure the site itself. And certainly if you're planting a bunch of river birches, I think those would count towards any total as well. So I mean, I think there's ways to look at that based on the needs and Meredith can certainly give you guidance on that. We're very close to having the right numbers if we can find a way to look at it like that. My problem is I spend a lot of money on those. I don't have a whole lot of real estate left to plant shrubs and we could do it, but it starts to get silly. Sure. I mean, we just dealt with the clothespin factory that's completely paved. So finding a place for 40 trees is even more difficult. Okay. At any rate, that's an issue of substance we'll have to talk of as we look at the site plan review for the garage. And a similar comment on page 16 relating to some trees planted on the north side of the garage. So because of this conundrum, Meredith wasn't sure that as proposed, it met the minimum planting requirements and it really comes down to that issue. And so since the board is yes, we can probably figure our way through this as one thing. If the answer is absolutely not, come back with a landscape plan showing us 60 shrubs. We don't know. I mean, I would commend you to the language surrounding that particular subsection G that talks about the purpose of these plantings for screening effect. We've cited them in our prior decisions on this particular, you know, a strict application of subsection G can lead to irrational results if it's not put into the context of the site and the purpose of these plantings. So that's what we've, and so the more you can point us to and especially since you have a landscape designer who can talk to those particular features, that's important and that helps us. Especially explaining why, you know, it's either practical or possible or would actually go against the state of purpose of the statute to include an additional 140 shrubs or whatever. Well, we're not omitting plant material. We're just, we're looking for flexibility in one shape or another. As an example, another applicant was able to show that they had a large specimen size tree in their front yard and to plant other trees around it would approach that and cause damage to both the existing large tree as well as, you know, the plant and trees and so it made no sense. So those kind of senior landscape architect not has had. I anticipate that a permit if issued will include a condition that the landscape materials have to be maintained. If they die, they get replaced. Just anticipating a public comment on that but we expect they'll have to be made as planned in place. Chief of police chimes in on page 11 at number two and under D and he basically goes over where they want lighting and cameras. And it's in keeping with what we talked about earlier this evening. And to clarify what outdoor lighting will be provided, I do have lighting plans for the whole site and lighting plans for the interior of the garage as well, which were reviewed with the design advisory committee. If anybody here wants information about any of that, I'd be happy to show you. But we'll just make sure it's included in your packages for the next. Did you get some of the, I think some of the cut sheets? Yeah, I think there was some concern because you got the cut sheets for the guts of the garage. You had gotten three of them, but there were like five or six more for the site lighting. Yeah, so there's some additional stuff that he presented at design review as part of the presentation that we'll just make sure is incorporated before the next hearing into updated packages with updated staff reports. And it's all a continuation of what was previously approved and what's currently being used, I understand as a sort of design standard in downtown, sort of a gaslight looking street lamp set. I'm just wall mounted security lighting. So I think with that, that takes me to page 18. Those are the red line comments. We, at design advisory, we were challenged to look at a couple of areas of the design of the building, but it hasn't changed substantially from what you saw previously, which I think the one change we made that was a request perhaps from this board or the city council was that the tops of the stairwells have a new roof design. So showing the curved roof. We didn't talk much about the buildings tonight, but the size, shape of it, you know, the basic material patterns are there if you want to spend any time talking about that, but it's after 10. It's after 10 and I think it would make more sense after you finalized it with design review. Which hopefully, that way you're not proposing, and I see you've brought, well, I would love to touch and feel the bricks. I think it may make more sense after those are finalized with the design review. They take obviously a more intense cut at it than we're going to. I have one question that I just want to forget and it deals with the internal circulation and it's really a question of the threat of the, right now that parking lot is an infamous cut through for people. My concern is that, you know, is there a risk of that continuing, especially once you get rid of those speed bumps, straighten out the roads, and are there countermeasures to discourage people from using that as a cut through to the intersection? Are you talking about people in cars? Yes, I don't think we'll care unnecessarily. So people who want to get over to Taylor Street Bridge but don't want to go through Taylor Street Light and be, or the stop sign, I mean, in the name. Vice versa. You know, I don't have a solid answer for that. I'm just reacting off the top of my head. I guess we can talk about what kind of internal directional signage and stuff we can use to try to discourage that. I mean, if it becomes a sort of quasi city street, people may use it. To me, it feels a little bit like cutting through the corner, the gas station parking lot, cutting the corner, skipping the light, but. Without a light, it doesn't, I don't, it's like, do you think it would be easier to turn left at that spot versus turning left a few hundred feet down the road at Taylor Street? No, I don't think it would be much of a difference than in the behavior you're currently seeing now. If you formalize the whole roadway network system there, and I'm not exactly sure what the internal traffic control is, if it's a four-way stop or what, but if there's a stop sign there, and they know that there's traffic coming out of the garage that they might have to contend with, it might discourage that kind of thing. So until you see it, it's hard to see how people are going to use it. So that'll all go back to that internal circulation of four-way stop component review to, again, try to address that concern as well as just what's practical at that particular intersection of all the different land vehicular uses of the area. So I think that's the opportunity that we have as far as the traffic, the signage plan. And I think that needs to be reviewed sooner than later. So we're at this point in time, putting together at least a traffic management signage plan that will help at least provide a clearer picture as far as how we would be guiding people and managing people moving through this particular property. In a well-engineered site, well, we'll not necessarily keep that from happening, but at least control it. So it'll be a slower environment, a safer environment, and especially now it's probably a free-for-all out there. So especially if there's not a bunch of cars parked there, but with curbs kind of directing people into a specific path, the texture pavement or whatever treatments in front of the proposed hotel, it'll be a different environment. Right. I mean, I've just, this is total anecdotal, but yeah, I've seen if somebody's three cars are taking a left on Taylor Street, so they'll jog back behind the hotel to get on the State Street. But yeah, I appreciate it. It may not be something you can control, but you can stop, but you can control. Any other questions? I was just wondering as far as timing goes, and it looks like there's items still to collect to get the input of the design, the view. So we're gonna, yeah, and I think, and I feel it's only fair to give Mr. Whitaker five minutes to make his comments that he wants to make, and then what I would propose, the board must be feeling differently, is to continue this to the next, our next regularly scheduled meeting, which is today's the 15th, November 5th, where we would take all three, continue all three until then, they wouldn't have to be rewarned. The evidence is still open. That gives an opportunity for DRC to complete their review and bring that material along as well as some of the other sort of holes that we touched upon tonight, that makes sense. May I just make a slight addition to that? Sure. If we could, if everybody here agrees to have a deadline for materials from the applicant of the end of day this Friday the 19th, so that there is a two week window for the public to review those materials, there might be some discussion from the design review committee continuation hearing, which is probably going to be next week. Some of those things might have to get folded in, but other than that, to have that be the deadline for new items from the applicant. Is that something you can live with? Meredith already made that shot across the battle a while back, so we've been all pointing in that direction. I think we'll handle the DAC stuff by just having both or any alternatives in the package. Okay. Sounds good. So we'll be taking from one of them. Yeah, I mean, Ryan makes a good point, which is, I don't know if we can legally require that, which is that the applicant shows up, it shows up with the material, but obviously. If we can try, let's suggest that. You know, this is something that, and certainly, you know, if the applicant shows up with a bunch of new stuff that they have the public hearing and the public, this is the first opportunity there, see it, we're much less likely to close the evidence and say, we've got a full picture. So if you want us to be able to reach a decision sooner, what moves you to have that out there to the public in advance so that everybody comes having reviewed it? So can I make a clarification then? This Friday would be the drop dead deadline for getting things and submitting them to the department of planning for my staff report and for public so that we're not, so that the public isn't going, oh wait, but you added something two days later. But that the applicant, just like they did tonight, has the ability to bring additional information to the hearing that can then be added in. So we don't have a running every two days, something new comes in, but we have a window and then does that work? That sounds great to me. Which I would hope at this point, you're starting to narrow your changes. Yeah, the only saying in our gears is that we're reaching out to third parties to collect stuff, you know. And that's been what's sort of been the drag on this, is getting input from various state people, all of that. So. This is an interesting, this is a fairly complicated project that you're putting together in a short amount of time. So, I mean, the fact that we've found this far, I think it's, you know, certainly the professionalism at fault has been high caliber. So it's, I think it's more just simply because we're dealing with a public notice and we're dealing with a public process to be as complete as early as possible and as, you know, the fewer sort of contradictory pieces of information easier it is for people to understand unless you have, you know, counter narratives going as to confusion over what was and what is. Okay. So, Mr. Whitaker, you had some comments. I do. I will not speak to this, but I'll enter into what I gave the designer here. It's from the 2000 master plan on the preservation of the River Greenway, et cetera. It should guide your deliberations. I believe fundamentally that the traffic, what you've heard tonight and seen is a kind of cumulative agglomeration of various trip generation estimates but some of the questioning has also revealed that you do not have a traffic impacts analysis of this project and especially you don't have a traffic impacts analysis of three projects, three under construction projects at once, two of which are going to significantly displace existing surface parking. Haney lot parking is going to be displaced, capital plasma lot parking is going to be displaced and the transit center lot has already been displaced but to have the construction, the excavation of hundreds if not thousands of cubic yards of soil and asphalt to be removed from the capital plasma lot to bring it down to the Haney lot, those dump trucks, those excavators, those workers, those are not factored in here. You are actually wrestling with gridlocking Montpelier for the next year in this decision but more importantly, I guess I'll cut to the chase and say you need to hire this. You've been a fact inherited Mr. Bashara's traffic consultant who now has become the city's traffic consultant who admits that we've not done circulation analysis. So you really need to order your own traffic study, traffic impacts analysis, new guidance out from VTrans dated September 2018 and I had it copied and was meant to enter it in with the board's permission I will email it to Meredith and ask you to take administrative notice of it. I've also spoken to a traffic analyst who does this kind of work on behalf of communities and he has seen and reviewed much of this and he has some thoughts. I had printed that letter and meant to end it but the copy shop failed to include it in my package. I will send that. Michael Oman is working for Hinesburg has worked on several projects but Du Bois and King did for the transit center do a more thorough transit traffic impact circulation analysis. Interestingly, the bus circulation analysis is still in draft form dated 2017 and yet it's being relied on as a finished product in the recommendations you've just received. So my point is that the DPW memo saying that it's all wonderful is hooey and that you really need to look at what you heard tonight and order your own traffic analysis. Similarly at the last meeting there was discussion about doing a balloon validation with by independent observers of this because a 25 foot bridge does not, these poles are 40 feet. Those, these poles are lower than the garage. So this garage rendering is dramatically under representing the garage and yet the architect is refusing to release a 3D model so that an independent analysis can be done. Those are in my opinion, work made for hire paid for by the city and we've got a public records issue which might delay approval of this project. That's a civil issue, not for this board. I'm gonna take exception to that comment. He thinks he owns the work that we've paid for. Well, I mean, yeah, no, public records are, I mean. My point is, I understand your point. Think about, we need to do viewshed analysis from various perspectives and we can't rely on the work that they've produced. He's alleging that we've somehow falsified our application. This is my comment period, I'm sorry. Go ahead. So I've noticed you used the word filibuster. So, I'm gonna try to wrap it up. Conditions are not remediation condition. What are the consequences to misrepresenting or poorly offering incomplete due diligence? The garage gets built and we suffer the consequences for the next three or four decades. Signage saying no-through traffic is not gonna solve the problem that you're alluded to. We've got multiple projects. We've got existing traffic which hasn't been measured from the Northfield Savings Bank, Salons, Capital Plaza, offices, Capital Plaza, rooms, church, the new hotel, short-term city parking. And we've got 38 new flexible parking spaces for the city. This project is being rushed through, you're being encouraged to, in fact, potentially vote to approve it the day before a vote on the 10 and a half million dollar bond. That's just totally untenable. This is not the way to spend the public's money or to make informed public decisions with such long lasting consequences. I'll stop there. Okay, thank you very much. All right, so I did entertain a motion from the board to continue this. That was the consensus of the three applications to the next meeting. So move to continue all three until the next meeting with the pending additional information from the applicants. As discussed tonight, we submit it to the narrative, hopefully as hoped would be by the end of October 19th. Push by Tom. Go ahead for a second. Second that. Second by Rob. Any further discussion from the board? All those in favor of the motion, please raise your hand. All right, so we'll continue on November 5th. And obviously the record is still open, so applicants interested parties are free to submit additional information. You heard the warning from staff, which is the person you should always make captain in any of these processes. And we'll see you all in two weeks. And that's actually the only thing we have on the agenda next week. This was likely to happen, so we kept it open. So hopefully we won't be here till quarter after 10. But I appreciate everyone's professionalism and civility in this process. Thank you. Thank you for your time. I'll let you move to adjourn. Okay, just before the, go ahead. Just the other business, our next regularly scheduled meeting is Monday, November 5th, 2018, 7 p.m. I'll take that motion from Tom to adjourn. Seconded by Ryan. All those in favor, please raise your right hand. We are adjourned. Thank you all very much for coming. Thank you.