 Good evening and welcome to the City of Montpelier Development Review Board our meeting for Monday March 19th 2018. My name is Dan Richardson. I'm the vice chair and acting chair this evening. The other Development Review Board members from my right are Jack Lindley, Kevin O'Connell, James Lamonda, Sarah McShane staff, Roger Kranz, Kate McCarthy. Okay first item of business is the identification of the five voting members who will be participating in this evening's decision. We actually do have to decide that because there's one member I'm happy as chair to recuse myself and just simply shepherd the meeting but let the other voters members vote on the proposal if that's okay unless someone else had a conflict. That's fine. Okay. Next item of business is approval of the agenda. Does anyone have either an addition to the agenda or a motion to approve the agenda as printed? So moved. Motion by Kevin. Second. Second by Jack. Any further? All those in favor please raise your right hand. We have an agenda. There are no comments from the chair. Next item is the minutes from our February 20th meeting. Those present were myself, Kevin, Jack, Roger, James, and Kate. Do I have either a motion for the minutes to be approved or a correction or addition? I move approval of the minutes. I'll second. Second by Kate. Second by James. All those in favor please raise your right hand. Minutes approved. So the first item of business is for Spring Street. This is the jailhouse commons. This is a nine car parking addition. My understanding is Sarah that they wish to have this continued. Yeah you should have an email on your desk requesting that it be continued. They're still working out whether they can gain access to the side yard through whether it's whether they can gain access to the side yard for the parking area through the two existing buildings. So they've requested that it be continued to April 23rd which isn't a regular DRB meeting. The regular DRB meetings coming up would be April 2nd, April 16th, or May 7th. It's a pleasure of the board. I would say let's let's go with May 7th rather than trying to second yes moving it forward. Acceptable to everyone else? Yes. Yeah I'll second that motion. Okay. I motion my cabinet and second by James to continue the for Spring Street application until May 7th. Any further discussion? May 2nd. Sorry. Sorry. Is it May 2nd or 7th? 7th. Sorry. Sorry. April 2nd. May 7th. Sorry. Okay. Thought I had that right. Sorry. I apologize. Okay. Hearing no further discussion all those in favor of the motion please raise your right hand. We are moving along at a swift even pace. The next item of business is 1012 and 16 Main Street. This is the Thomas J. Moat revocable trust in the city of Montpelier. Gentlemen if you'd like to step forward. Is this under the new rules or the old rules? This is our very first application under the new rules. The chair is showing his daughter a good time tonight. You can never start off with your civic obligations too soon. So this is a continuation from I believe two meetings ago and everyone here was put under oath. Steve you're a new a new face so why don't we why don't we put you under oath to begin with. You saw and the remainder will you all understand you remain under oath. You solidly swear or affirm that the evidence of testimony you're about to give for the matter of your consideration shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth under a pains and penalties approach. Yes. So Sarah do you want to just update the board as to where things stand actually sorry let me just for the record if you could just go around and introduce yourselves at the table and who you represent. Jeff Tucker of engineering. Steve Rivlinity and I'm working with Jay on this project. John Riley I'm an attorney here from the city. Thank you very much. So Sarah if you want to just give us a quick update. Sure. So if you guys remember this application was first on the agenda February 20th and it was continued pending a few a few revisions to the site plan and then continued discussion of the major site plan criteria. We went it is as Jack mentioned Kevin it's the first application the boards reviewing under the new ordinance. So on February 20th we went over the general standards and major site plan criteria and in your in the staff review I tried to rather than repeating everything that we reviewed on February 20th I tried to highlight in in red the items that were kind of left as potential discussion items for tonight and things that had questions. DPW has provided comments and you should they're incorporated their comments are incorporated in the staff review as well as I think they should make you print it off as an email form too. So if you want we should we go through like the yeah let's let's start off with the unless the applicants if you have have you had an opportunity to review any of the staff comments if you'd like to make a presentation to start off and then otherwise we'll just make sure we hit each of these particular area we won't have to march through like we did last time in rigorous format I think we can focus in on the specific areas. Perhaps if I may as Eric just said we sat down with with the staff including Sarah public works department people and something we went through all of the review comments the big ones were landscaping, accessibility, parking space, lighting, there were a handful of other you know more more money we talked a little bit about the bike wrap and what we've done so suggestion made with this board. We feel that we've been we were able to successfully address everything so we updated the plan for like so we sat down for a good hour or two and went through things in detail face-to-face updated plans and send an updated package in a couple of weeks ago and staff was as I understand it was able to kind of back check if you will their comments and I guess we feel that we've kind of kicked the nail on it and addressed everything. Sarah's got some things here I think I have a couple of questions from our perspective we should be pretty close that's certainly we're looking for proof. Everyone always is. So one of the things as I learned the new ordinance is everyone becomes more familiar with it. Last time we had a discussion about the setback requirements for parking areas and the figure in the ordinance requires that parking areas in this district be set back five feet. I kept researching the new some provisions and as you if you remember this so this parking area is this continuous parking area that leads directly into the adjacent parking area. So there is a provision in the ordinance that I think addresses this section that I didn't highlight last time or so if you get to it's section 3011-J it talks about sites with non-conforming parking and loading areas and how they're how they need to come up to conformance to the maximum extent feasible given physical characteristics of the lot and the existing development when there's going to be an increase in the amount of parking or a change in location and such. I think this section addresses this situation since it is a continuous access serving not only this parking lot but the other adjacent rear parking areas. And so that's something we can discuss. So your understanding is that 3011-J essentially addresses this type of non-conforming because if the board remembers last time we were simply concerned because it talks about a five foot side yard setback. It isn't the rear it isn't the front but it's the side yard setback so 3011-J really talks about existing non-conforming parking allowed being allowed to remain and since none of the changes that that are being proposed really affect that section of the parking area. Yeah I think given the existing conditions I think this this provision I feel comfortable that this provision is intended to cover these kind of situations in these kind of existing conditions where it's a shared access. It's not necessarily a shared parking area but it's there's other parcels have access through the lot. Right I mean there's first of all there's the sort of land use obligations with the access and then there's the sort of contiguous parking. Cars are allowed to pass through. It's not as if on the other side of this boundary line there's field and yard. Any questions from the board or concerns? All right and then the next staff comment is about the channelization. Yep and I think the board felt comfortable last time based on Jeff's testimony about the river being channelized at this location and that the regulations don't provide any guidance definition or anything like that and so if it is considered channelized there the remaining provisions of that section don't apply. Yes I'm willing to go with that interpretation because as I said last week I think this is a functionally channelized area but I am left with questions about the original intent of this area of the river and how it was meant to be treated you know our job is to interpret not to rewrite and so taking your testimony I will go with the pleasure of the board on this one while flagging that for whatever that's worth. You know I thought about this after the meeting and it really is one of those things where I mean the first rule of interpretation is to the plain language and you know when you have an ambiguous term like channelized that I don't think readily resolves to a dictionary definition I think we we build upon it so what we're saying here now is where something like this where functionally the river is controlled on its banks we would consider for these purposes channelized not strictly a stone wall against the side of the riverbank but I'm sure we'll be faced with different challenges down the road where there will be other circumstances which will cause us to be more nuanced. Okay moving on so the next is about the the next staff comment is about the the pavement so the revised site plan talks about new bituminous concrete pavement. That was an item just flagged during the last review that we weren't where we're unsure of the material. And is bituminous concrete and I apologize for my ignorance on this so it is how is that different than asphalt? That is asphalt. Okay. That's one of the signs. The next item is about snow storage and where is the snow storage to be located on this site? Well there's on average approximately looking at the site plan from the edge of the pavement back to the top of the bank is approximately or on average with about 20 feet narrow it's 19 years a little over 20 so you know we've got some some very highly tolerant salt tolerant species and plaintiffs with that whole bank proportion that bank and it's either going to be going there or trucked off and that will be a decision really by I mean that will be an obligation you wouldn't have a problem with the condition in the permit that requires storage at the site or once it starts to overflow especially given that there's a passage the requirement that the snow be trucked off I'm sorry you're envisioning the snow being pushed in between the trees by the plow or is there there gap there in the middle the larger trees are not right up tight to the space there with some of the smaller shrubber things that's potentially who owns the land city parking it will be a private private parking this is so he has no responsibility for snow well that may be part of the major city will be plowing the right of ways so we may reach agreement so do so but it'll be a combination city and by then I have concerns I'm not sure how to articulate them we don't often approve a snow storage area that I don't think when there are trees in the way the shrubbery I'm a little less concerned about I do hear that it is salt tolerant I read the memo from Sophie it could others remind me if this is a typical location for snow storage amongst trees and shrubs I'm the newest I mean you know we get two types of snow storage one or you know places where you're gonna store the snow all winter and then a big area like this I mean realistically I mean how's it being plowed now it's is it being stored on site or is it being trucked off you know it's the current combination it's plowed immediately and then usually cleaned up later because you know when it once it starts building up it usually becomes a function of there's only so much you can you know see with our parking lots up back here we might plow them up against it but then you've lost parking esteem so then a couple nights later we come and clean it out so that we can talk to specific details but it's got to support access ways through and private parking means it seems to me that it's got 20 feet if I understand this plan between the trees that's a lot of sort of yeah well I thought I heard you say 20 feet between the edge of the parking in the edge of the bank taken 20 feet between the edge of the parking in the edge of the bank but they're not 20 feet between the edge of the parking in the trees well a tree I don't have my ruler so I'd ask the engineer to tell me that these little circles with big circles with trees I'm not shrubs it looks like I don't have my ruler either tonight but I would be a little more conservative and probably say there's up to about 10 feet or so from the edge of the asphalt to about the large trees yeah I think the there's two obligations as I see them there's a snow storage obligation that they're making representations that they'll still store it in this site till it becomes unmanageable and then move it move it away a trucked off with front loaders and dump trucks and then the other obligation is the landscaping obligation so if they recognize that the applicant has an interest in not ruining the landscaping having to kill everything so you plan it in a year that's not very cost-effective it's a trial to see if it can handle it sure would be looks like there's should not be any concern that's being dumped it's there and it's well taken care of well I appreciate being able to look at that a little more closely with the group thank you okay I think it just would be helpful to demarcate that in any final draft so that it's marked well obviously in a written decision have that as a condition and call that out but we generally tend to want to reflect where I was mentioning earlier well where it shows up on the plan in this corner we hear coming right off the bridge there was discussion on you know with staff and owners and such as that where it makes sense and that's certainly one place that's where we had thought we discussed at the meeting with your last time perhaps out closer to sidewalk and stuff and you know so we can speak to that a little bit but I think what I recall putting it out as an obstruction of the sidewalk city sidewalk so we ended up putting it here I think as I understand it we're open to different locations I agree with Cory staff advisor the bike ped committee's recommendation that it should be in a more obvious location and that's consistent with an observation I made at our last meeting as well it looks like the sidewalk in front of the building is is it up to 12 feet wide in some places yeah so I I'd be really I believe that the city sidewalks are narrower in many other places and other cities as well but managed to accommodate very simple even very simple bike racks like the ones that look like this can you see it it's an upside down you they take up very little space so even if there were just two of them I think that would send a really great signal and if it were possible to save money by doing it at the same time as any other and the other sidewalk restoration that would be really ideal and hopefully make it palatable I think our message is we're happy to put bike racks in and I think the DRB had suggested this location for lots of reasons they weren't as obvious and actually not concerned that creating an expectation that this is where you park to use them this is private parking so I think city had on one now I think my senses that my concern was that there be a bike rack only because there was just likely to be bike traffic where it's located may change over time and they may be driven by you know the the building owner it may be driven by the city it may be driven by you know the citizen uprisings any of those will probably be more responsive than we can be at this point you know how people are going to behave on a bike path that hasn't been built yet I think you know if we get so I I agree to a certain extent with you that it makes sense to have it out front but I think that will come I think I'm happy I'm satisfied for the purposes of the application that there is a bike included that there's been some planning about it and it's it may not be in the best location but it is within the plan and then the applicant understands that you know that they need to move over time they're not that easy to move though they're they're in the ground with concrete you must have a bigger pry bar than I do no plowing issues look I walk the bike path I don't remember a bike rack the whole length from the high school down to the to the bridge there aren't any amenities between the high school and the bridge there are places people would want to stop in town I think is is my sense they get hungry that's my own experience biking through communities I mean if you're going to mess up the the snow plowing and the sidewalk plowing if you put it in concrete we already put parking meters in front of it in the concrete in front of the snow plow doesn't go over the parking no it doesn't but how are you going to get by the bike racks I just going to collect I mean it's a disaster I guess I'm seeing them as analogous and thinking that there are probably solutions for the placement of the bike rack comparable to the parking we should that should be part of it that should be part of it there's all kind of the creative solutions I've seen towns where they will actually weld the bike rack onto the onto the parking meter there's the bike rack I'm thinking of is more like it but in front of us the outdoor swimming pool here the metal one that can be moved around oh yeah I see what you mean as opposed to the the permanent one I mean I mean I think these solutions will in some ways be market driven you only comment that I can make is that the distance from Main Street to the back part is 200 feet yeah so within this 200 foot range once the bike path is constructed I think we can kind of figure out where the best place to put it just hard to look at this and try to actually make sense where that might make sense I guess I just the last thing I'll say it and I will be a little bit of a pest about this is that people value parking in front of their stores for cars I think valuing parking in front of stores for bicycles may also be something that business owners value but I'm not a business owner that is just my sort of experience with planning and with being a resident of a downtown I guess my question so I like I said we on staff also agree that closer to Main Street is better like the real question I have is you know if we are talking about moving the bike rack around we or they have to come back for a moment to site plan just to look right at it give you total flexibility yeah as long as you have a bike rack yeah I well I mean there's a couple of it's a very good question and I mean we could frame it in that way that means is there for any particular reason I'm just looking at it right here why this this green the sort of greenscape area underneath the tree by the front towards the front of the building why that where the bike path ends at Main Street why that couldn't house a bike rack are you talking about this spot are you talking about over here I'm talking about so if you look just in this spot yeah that's a city question near the big tree there near the big tree I mean it ready Jason yeah I mean I say we get final say I think that makes that makes sense and it may be again it's not this is maybe where I go I don't know if I don't want to necessarily micromanage there but at the same time I mean it seems like that might be a good spot may not have a huge bike rack there not have space for it but something that is there is more likely to be used for the reasons I think we've all been articulating than something that's further back here understanding that the ideas to discourage people from parking and using this is a launching area for their bike adventures just as a condition the bike cited as bill in consultation with DPW and the city's bike and just leave it at that that way we're not trying to share yeah well that actually is not my next question and I did not read the Times-Argus article on the bike committee but is this is that is the bike traffic committee that are they looking at this question actively or are they in the future I don't believe they're looking at exactly where the bike falls on this project they're looking in general at bikeways throughout the community and having more bike racks and strategic locations the only reason I asked is they just happen to have a picture of this very intersection on with the company article which the whole intersection certainly right I don't think I think Kevin's suggestion is a good idea to have give it give some flexibility to this given that this is sort of an on that they may be looking at these issues and that where you know we're looking I think that the feedback from the applicant is not in front of the building for a number of reasons including the space in front of the building would be a city-owned sidewalk another area that you see I believe is raised so it's a raised so we'd be hard to put a bike rack up right so we'd have to go on city sidewalk so it'd be back to the city question see how all our proposed areas for the bike rack so far on the property right but I'm in the city city as applicants are saying DPW is telling us not on the sidewalks I think there is plowing issues I mean obviously everyone wants to get this right we are also functioning in the public interest and want to have a bike rack in the best possible place search the most utility what in common yeah I think the example that Cade's getting towards which is the idea of you know a city like Burlington feel that their bike path there are clear areas that people have started to develop use and this is where they stop and so you know the city is responsive to that by putting bike racks there but it's really determined by use is you know yours as you noted that stretch from the from the public sort of public utility commission building all the way back down to the high school nobody stops there because there's nothing to stop and see but if we suddenly put in a bike path right into the heart of downtown Montpelier people are going to use it to stop and they're gonna stop to get all kinds of things refreshments shopping whatever and so I think that's that part of this will work itself out because it's gonna become a problem if there's not enough bike racks at certain areas people are gonna be piling things up and there's gonna be complaints and there's gonna be parking meters exactly exactly front doors who knows but you know I think what we're looking for is just that given our our ability to look at this this particular project at this particular point I think we're all in agreement that we like the bike rack it's just matter of where it's to be located and the question is do we want to go with Kevin's idea or does how does the board feel as far as Kevin's idea for Kevin's idea this is this is a question build it will they come and where will they come and I think the city smart enough to be active to that but I don't think it should hold up a project of this magnitude which is a entry building into the city of Montpelier we just have faith Kevin could you repeat your proposal please once we have an as-built representation that the bike rack piece situated after consultation with DPW and the city's bike committee sounds great let's move on to the next which is the location of the pedestrian walkways connecting the proposed rear parking area to the building entrance so we're so I see that the addition has been to add the walkway from the bike path to the parking lot area highlighted yellow and then how do we think that the flow of the people coming out of the cars in the parking area to go to the building is going to go is that going to be delineated any type of crossing what I think that was the other part of that right and that was centered on accessibility we sat down and Sarah please correct me if I'm mischaracterizing this but when we had sat down together by putting the second accessibility parking you know right here under the building and having separate walkways and stuff in the parking lot itself went away so I know and Sarah if you can correct me on the comments that DPW has provided it's just they would like to see an accessible connection that they call it it's it's STA 21 plus 75 there's a walk at the other side of the building but would need to see the Moat site plan to ascertain whether crosswalk is needed preserving judgment on this so DPW had two comments they had one about the the highlighted gravel walking path the five-foot walking path connecting the bike path to the parking area and their comments on that that would they would prefer that it be paved and that the curb removed on the parking area side just to allow accessible accessibility for that and then their second comment and dealt with and and Jeff you might be able to correct me but I believe it they have it referenced as station 21 plus 75 which my understanding is at the rear of the building and whether and I think they wanted to see a break in the landscaping and a break in the curb to allow accessibility from the rear of the rear of the building to the bike path and and to the parking area as well is that putting in a crosswalk in a way here off the back end of the building my understanding is the way that we left that was it was an ongoing conversation that wasn't directive you know on this and it was something that could be added in that because it's a city-owned street city and public works couldn't add that in so now what was I didn't take that is what is this crosswalk serving exactly at this particular area the thrust of the conversation was you know if you had people in this area and similar to here the reason that we put just coming back to the little five-footer you know back to the back end of the parking lot was if you had people you know kind of walking this way main street behind the buildings and such that there's a defined place for them to go so we had a we all concurred with that so we got a nice little five-foot wide paid make sure there's no curves and stuff then the conversation went well what if you got people down here on this side how would they get across the street and onto the bike path you know it's kind of helter-skelter perhaps or do we put in a defined crosswalk and accessible crosswalk and I mean there is one right here main street it's accessible there is a defined crosswalk you can get from here crossed and then on to the bike path so this is like a hundred feet or so down the road or up the street rather than the back end so it was discussed and certainly you know there was no reason not to just the way that I guess I left the conversation as I wasn't sure if that was final decision it seemed to be something to talk about but I didn't Sarah what was your type was it a conclusion that DPW wanted something in there or something they were going to consider more to be honest I'm not quite sure I know there was discussion about just making sure that there was an accessible route to the building and the part of the accessible parking areas and making sure that someone can have clear access to those areas and we do but and maybe a way of just me making sure that that rear that rear sidewalk the corner of that is ADA compliant maybe in case in case someone needed access there as well as that in that general location a break in the landscaping because I do I'm not sure if they thought that a crosswalk was warranted at this time or but possibly in the future but maybe if it be designed to be accessible and then if a crosswalk is needed then I guess DBW would address that at that time or something what are then there let's take up the first issue I think the easier one which is the DPW is suggesting that this five foot gravel walking path be paved and curved so that it's accessible is there any objections to having that incorporated I think that makes sense so the real issue is is whether this sort of what I would almost call a midpoint crosswalk given that we're only talking about 200 feet this is about 100 feet back having having some form of a crosswalk to the corner where the dumpsters are located I mean that's that's already going to be is that or that's gonna already be a low curb right because of the how the trucks would come when you're not gonna have a high curb where the dumpsters that's not so really almost what we're talking about is from the city's point of view from their side and then the possible painting of a demarcation of this is a crosswalk more than anything else just as a as an extra point and it seems like it's something DBW is not necessarily wedded to but what's the pleasure of the board it's this is this just the crosswalk that's proposed yeah there I mean what's what is it I mean is it just kind of some lines on the road or would be lines in the road and it would presumably be a break of lowering of the curb there and a break between the shrubbery or trees you know so it would be yet another access point along this which well it would either be the bike path it would either be you know and I'm not necessarily up and I fully follow but I think it would be for people coming either from here or you know that end up at this point they could cross over into the onto the bike path over people on the bike path but we're too lazy to go all the way down to Main Street and had forgotten to turn off earlier here that may not be the most telling of the reason using the building that want to go for a walk it's just it's a break it doesn't seem to be I think it helps with the circulation would there be any safety concerns because of the corner there that goes into the parking lot so for example and this is an honest question an engineering question for those of you who can answer it if a car comes out of the parking lot like this is this too short of a sight distance to be safe was that probably me stop sign here so the sorry the pattern will they'll be going in this way okay I missed the flow diagram okay that answers that question thank you my inclination is not to allow this to simply sort of linger as a possibility but to either say this is something we're going to require or or not if we don't require it it's not that it closes the door on this as a possibility it just means they don't have to have it no I understand but they're coming in as co-applicants I don't feel the need to require it okay just because I don't have enough information if it becomes useful later I agree with Kate I don't have enough information I rely on my imagination well I don't think this isn't some bike look just put a waste of ember and it doesn't turn out to be the right place I mean let's not try to make a guess as to what DPW can expose into the big place yeah I mean it's a city I think it's largely the city's property given that they're already gonna it's not gonna be a curbing issue follow the go paths after two years of use you see where people cut through and then you'll know and you'll know whether to pave it or whether to keep a crushed stone in order to get water penetrated you know who knows what the issues are we're getting pretty close to the birds out all right now let's move on to lighting I know it's a landscaping sorry so there's a landscape and lighting plan let's take up the lighting first because everyone had an opportunity to look at the Du Bois and Kings lighting plan as well as the foot handle in fact they answered some of the questions that we had specifically Du Bois and Kings asked you know whether the the light post could be shorter and they're saying well it won't match the one Taylor Street if we do and not being able to place poles along the entire length of both northeast side of the parking lot if we lower it lowering luminaire mountain height but just a few feet significantly reduces the distance and light covers resulting in the need for more fixtures use 18 foot poles benefits the site by adequately lighting the lot with only three poles for the owner to maintain and operate I think we have the first time a virtual reality version of what this will look like and the the light poles along the bike path that's a separate project that's not anything we're considering tonight correct we're just looking at these three light posts one on the one on the backside one next to the island and then any questions about the light but how about the landscaping we've got the plant schedule non-invasives some service berries and witch hazel paper birch choked berry and a good old beloved foxwood you wouldn't have any problem if we make as this explicit condition that the maintenance and care of this landscape is part of the obligations under the permit it's a standard condition that we put in obviously I don't think you want it but we really don't want you know the the sort of misused or abandoned island of uncared for it was the last plant yes Keck circle was like that a few years ago any question on that Sarah we've had another question about the about the planting of the trees I'm looking at page 17 yeah so the only outstanding thing that in the landscaping provisions are that I think the the location and quantity all satisfy the requirements we're just unsure at still the overall size the ordinance requires they delineate the difference between shrubs and small trees and medium trees and large trees and this one particular provision regarding parking lot landscaping or specifies that they need to be medium or large trees and so we just that information is still unknown it could be written in as a condition to require that the trees be medium or large I think it's their overall like a mature height and the caliber that they're planted at it's a pleasure of the board we're being too picky okay we also have evidence from the landscape architect that it would be challenging to plant the trees as required because of the overhead lines I'm sorry did you just say that well the overhead lines I think are good because it just based on the over the height of the utility lines that it allows for small trees but the one that I had a question on was just the parking lot requirements and it explicitly requires that trees be medium or large and we're just unsure because depending on if they're medium they're presumed to shade this percentage of the parking lot and if they're large they're presumed to provide a certain square feet of shade so it's just unknown how the parking lot is required to be 25 shaded or presumed to be shaded and it's just unknown what that percentage is and maybe you have the information so you do have all of those sizes and that that our landscape architect has worked through so certainly having the condition to show those sizes on the site plan is easy enough and acceptable and we have some large trees some of these are 75 feet 60 to 75 feet they're so medium size they're so small so there's a mix of the trees in the size absolutely good that one to find the subject anything further on the trees I think and I was just skipping through the staff comments I think we covered most of them as far as the lighting goes with the with the memo but there was one other outstanding point that on page 21 about the dimmable function which according to the electrical designer fully dimmable and we had a question about this this is one of the representations that these lights were fully dimmable and the testimony from the electrical designers that fully dimmable is meant to convey to the reviewer that these fixtures have the integral feature of being dimmable this manufacturer has indicated on their cut sheets integral that the integral 20 120 volt through 277 volt electronic led driver has zero to 10 volt dimming typically what is meant is that these fixtures have the ability to dim down to 10 percent of full output so they become activated when there's motion in the area is that the idea the way that it was explained to me as I asked her for some plain English I was just going to ask for a translation of what I just read so big picture is this the lights are connected through the building circuitry and there'll be a small programming box within the building and so these these lights you know can be and will be programmed so they turn on and off in the normal fashion of the dimming of the sun and stuff like that well when they're programmed we can we can program them to at certain times one o'clock one a.m. midnight something like that to go from whatever we like brightness that you know is deemed appropriate from 100 percent full brightness down to something to 10 percent so you know these plans don't indicate what that program would be we're just saying that they have that ability and it will be set up in a controller with a cp that will be mounted somewhere that's not a motion sensor it would be more of a program program yeah it's not motion so saturdays different mondays different mondays in december correct it's exactly july i mean i think the the i don't mean to speak for the board if your thought has changed but i got this up last time that we were at the mind that this was not necessarily one of those areas that we were really concerned with as far as the lighting and brightness given that it's in the downtown it's not necessarily near residential well we're doing a great job of renovating some apartments up above that you need to call across the street and the other showing stuff right light bothers you on and on really you can go talk to the others that gives the flexibility i think that i think it's true that once again you know i don't think we want to be making conditions as to the situation that we can we can't really anticipate fully but the fact that the technology allows for modifications is some assurance that jackson could be addressed they're giving us everything that a normal person around can solve the problem and that's what the lighting does they do propose so right solve the problem you know as opposed to like the department labor or the yeah illuminate sign out on river street um or kody chevrolet or i mean that that is likely to shine directly into residential this doesn't seem this seems like something where yes they can do it on an as-gooded basis based on feedback from either neighbors or the city or other issues as opposed to having us say it must dim by a certain hour it's relatively new technology probably nowhere else in the city you require this to occur but now right that's that's that's what the manufacturer the fiction is saying because you just talk to me i think you know we were looking at it in the context of the truth you know whether we should have any shut off time or you know it's great if i mean this is a great technology for some of for another project that faces a residential we could require dimming at a certain hour you also have to look at the neighbors what's around this particular area if you've got other businesses with umd lights that are on all night not going to have much effect but i think the kody lights over at char's okay i think that's it chevrolet is there anything else yeah those were the only things left out so what's what's the pleasure of the work we've got just for review we're looking at the site plan review design review demolition and vote on the yeah it's coming to you as a package so we've essentially got four four issues to vote on sarah is also conditions of approval and i think we've discussed the one addition with the kevin's words for the bike rack i don't know if we vote on everything one voter we can we can do it as one vote we can break it down into the four components we can also take it under advisement i mean i think this is something we'll probably have to write out anyway given the number of conditions so we could just simply take an under advisement let these good people go home um and have a decision forthcoming we do have time for your decision i would support that as an approach so we could be more deliberate in our decision making so i'll take that as a motion to kevin to go into the deliverance to close the record go into deliberative session i'll second looks like having second james any further discussion bring none all those in favor raise your right hand for disclose we're going to deliver a session obviously in the deliberative session process is the very reason why we should well you know i'm already anything from the conversation about to the extent that we can yeah no i i mean i think you've heard the board i i don't in in past experience when when there's been an issue it's usually been very well articulated i think it's just that this is a new process yeah no i don't think this is this is being driven by either the complexity of the application overall or by any particular challenges i think we just simply want to write it out under the new zoning bylaws if that gives you enough of a weather report mr chair when you say write it out do you mean the specific conditions that will be attached based on and most likely based on the staff report that we've all seen right and what we've discussed here too for um you know i i think jack's accurate we as a board don't tend to throw curveballs we don't tend to hide issues um if we have them we brace them my only suggestion is if you can make it clear to what the city will control and what private will be controlled so that you don't mix um requirements on us on city property and vice person that's that's a that's a fair um that's a fair suggestion i think that's that's a good one yeah but j j's j's suggestions that i think are well taken and and augurs towards writing it out as opposed to sort of throwing it back at you have your delivery tip as part of this meeting here yes we'll so so just from a process point of view what will happen is we'll we'll go into delivery of session um discuss it take a vote um and start to write out a decision in the next couple days um that will be signed and then issued um that will contain our findings conditions conclusions and if presuming that the permits are granted then that would be your permit and the 30 days would run from the the time that that permit is issued is is it the practice that all the board members sign that or just the chair just the chair just sure um reflecting the vote taken sure anything else well thank you all very much for i will um hear that five minute break and um why don't we do that why don't we do the motion to adjourn and then um i'll just simply make as a note our next regularly scheduled meeting is monday april second 2018 at 7 p.m um and i'll take jack's motion to adjourn second second by roger uh any further um discussion hearing none all those in favor please say aye or raise your right hand we are adjourned