Okay, I think we apologize for the wait. We didn't want anyone to come and have missed part of this very important item on the agenda. So this is actually a continuation of the previous meetings, but I would invite this Bill Gillen or a representative from the architecture. I'll just introduce if I may. Okay, that would be great because your name is not on the agenda. Okay. There was the timing. For the record, I'm Jim Laska. I'm the Executive Director of Amherst Media. It's good to see you all again. Thank you for having us back. Throughout this process, Amherst Media has listened to this commission and to the planning board for their feedback and suggestions. Since the very first public meeting, which was this past March, we have also heard the complaints and support from area residents. We are especially appreciative of the hard work undertaken by the Gillen collaborative architects in trying to accommodate those valid suggestions and concerns into a workable plan for all. That is what has made this a truly remarkable community effort. While we will defend everyone's right to voice their opinions, that does not mean their opinions are always right. What you have seen in this submitted rendition is the design for a facility that will allow Amherst Media to continue our business, the business of providing independent local media for and by the greater Amherst community. With your support tonight, our relocation to meet all the criteria of the needs we established when we began this long journey. The criteria is as follows. Closer to downtown, on the bus route, to the middle and high schools, enabling us to expand our after-school programming, and through ownership of our ability to create a permanent destination for all who see history, civic dialogue, government transparency, freedom of speech, and the arts as vital necessities if Amherst is to be a community of and for diversity through its actions as well as its rhetoric. The facility's design and plan, which will be presented by Bill Gillen, is in keeping with the nature and character of the district. By paying homage to both residential and commercial aspects, we all currently find our main and great students. We ask that you review this proposal with the balance of past and future history, and see the future as one that includes Amherst Media, new facility in the local historic district. Thank you, and now the presentation. Mr. Gillen? Good back. Sean Pritzker, myself, and Carol did say over there we're the team called Collaborative Architects. And the commission did do a site visit, and as you know, last week we all made a visit to the site, and we appreciated your staking it out. I did too. I was at the flu that day, one day close, and I thought I wouldn't be here. Bill, just a quick comment. The microphone right there, I can't tell if people have trouble hearing. Let's go over the basic design in case you forgot. This main street and Grand Street, these are offices. This is a studio and computer rooms in here. In between is a spacious lobby where public is greeted, and there'll be outreach which will come. There'll be demonstrations in that or information in that room to be shown. So that's the building. It's a one-story building. There's an attic over it here and here, which will contain storage and the mechanical equipment. There's no basement. It's a wet site. We have to provide 14 cars per the zoning by-law, and that's how many cars we have. We have an area right here with a picket fence in front of it that's concealing an area where there's the condensers and the gas propane tank. There's a retaining wall along here that separates this grade, which is essentially flat, from the hilly grade over here. We meet that grade with a new slope, and that slope is this much, one foot and three feet. It's not a steep pitch. It's generally thought to be a shallow pitch. What do you mean, one foot and three feet? One foot horizontally and... No, three feet horizontally, one foot rise. So when I show the slope, it's like that. It was alluded to at the previous meetings that I saw that it was a steep, possibly dangerous slope. That doesn't matter at all to me. That doesn't have to put your shirt there right once. We have a ramp. We have a sidewalk here and parking lot here. It's all on the same grade, so there's no need for any handicap access ramps involved at all. It's entirely accessible. Over here, the grade goes up and meets existing grades coming down and conceals a tank that's buried onto the ground to take care of storm water. There's no change in the height between here and the building. That's about 20 feet and the mansion up above. And from here to here, there's a rise of about four feet in that 20 feet. So it's a gentle plateau right there and then it's regraded gently down all around. So I think the design is a win-win-win. Amherst Media has a visible and highly respectable location and building in the center of town. 400 main street. The viewscape of Hills House is saved. That's showing you perhaps better on the model. Here's the Hills House and its viewscape and the building proposed is a modest building that fits in with this neighborhood. I don't think it's a place for dramatic architectural masterpiece of any sort to be done because it would detract from the historic building stuff above. Much as we would prefer to have a space we could show our ingenuity. Gray Street is helped because it has missing tooth ending the street in a building that fits in in size, shape, and materials as the other building on Gray Street. The roof of this building has been reduced from our previous submission of 32 feet. It's down to 26 feet above grade here. We did that in part by reducing the pitch from an 8 and 12 pitch to a 7 and 12 pitch. Would you say that once again, please? This is a 7 and 12 pitch on this roof rather than an 8 and 12 pitch. And that helped us get the roof. So does that make it the same height as 14 Gray Street? It's a little higher. This building is lower than almost every building on the site. It's not a tall building in with respect to the others. 26 feet from here, these buildings are higher than that. But they are two-storey buildings. We're only storing a half, as they said it means. It's a storage plus an attic. The parking lot, which I think is a really critical thing as far as the view scape is concerned, the parking lot is hidden behind the building and we don't see it coming along Main Street. We took that, the view scape, and the parking as a critical piece of design criteria and put a building here that would not harm the view scape and would fit into the rest of Main Street. Our intent was not to make it a fancy building. Well, I think that's all I have to say. Thank you. I think just because we... So another change from the last meeting is that you did recess that. Yes, the last presentation had the building out here. At the time I was thinking that this was supposed to become a commercial district like over here. So I was thinking, oh, it's good to put the building up close to the sidewalk. That's what the planner's intent was. But I found out differently that really, that we really should respect the residential piece over here and maybe this side of the street shouldn't become a bunch of shops or a building which we're up against, up against the property line. So we pushed this back. We got it back to 25 feet set back. We think that's, you know, that's... For us, it's perfect. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much for that. That was an excellent presentation. So we're still going to have this portion for the commissioners to ask any questions that I'm sure they may have of the property owner or probably the architects. And we're going to do something a little different for this meeting. The commissioners, we have never had a chance to really have a free flowing discussion amongst ourselves because we've... Most of the meeting has been dedicated to meetings up until now to public comment. And we can't... We can only meet in public at, you know, set meetings. So for this meeting, we may not get to public comment because after we ask the questions of the architect, we'll keep it as an open meeting, but we're going to be able to have a conversation amongst ourselves which really, you'll all be here that we've really never been able to do before. Open meeting. Yeah, open, right. Because we've always run out of time with public comment. Jen, if it's probably worth noting that this is a seven person commission and three of us are joining the commission for the first time. So the very first application that three out of seven of us are dealing with is this. So we don't know each other. We don't even know each other as a commission. And the only place we can get to know each other is right here. So even when we make the site visit, we can't talk to each other about what we're seeing. We cannot have any conversation that the public is not, you know, privy to. I mean, not that we would want to have it, but we just have never had the opportunity to really have a free flowing conversation. But so, and the meeting, you know, will be open. We might go into closed sessions. I think we keep the hearing open or, you know, and we can see how many questions and comments we get and maybe take off a comment. But I think it's good. Jeff, I think it's important for the commission to have a discussion amongst members. We haven't had. Oh, I forgot to, if you want to go through the slides and see the perspective, you can do that whenever you think you can. I don't know.  I think we should take a look at them and a quick review, yes. Otherwise, we would have spent a couple of weeks drawing them in. No, no. Okay. Yeah. Does Nate? Yeah, I can control that if someone wants to. I'm talking to them. I mean, what's next if you want to do that? I don't know. There's got to be something next. Yeah, there you go. Anyone? There are the offices, the studio. This is the way the building looks from the parking lot side, the other side of the building, from Main Street. This is the way it looks from Main Street. So that shows now the setback, that other one shows the setback. Yes. And this shows the flat. Yeah, there's a setback. There's the setback. So is that atrium come a little forward from the west wing? No, it just has a little loop. Oh, it's just a loop, okay. So that you don't get winged. But it's at the 25-foot setback as well. This is the 25-foot setback. Yes, yes it is. Okay. This shows the rating through the building. This is Main Street here. We're coming along. It comes to the adjoining property like that. This is the little picket fence. And this is the building. The section is through the east wing. Yeah. Which is the east wing. The adjacent to Gray Street, looking west. Right. Go ahead. That's just a question. That was here, looking that way. Yeah. So I think we've already said that the level of detail will lead to the future. We're doing the big picture right now. We did mention the little picket fence. And so I was trying to imagine the stone structure that we just approved being moved back. And then a little picket fence running parallel to that. Perpendicular to it. Perpendicular to that. We did submit an outline specification which gives you more than you want to know about what the materials are. Well then we say, I ask, is it so attractive that way? I wonder if you think. Yeah. I think we're the next one. Oh, could. Yeah. Can you point to where this is on that? That's this way. Looking left. Looking like that. Cutting right through this building. Okay. Okay. Ready for the next one? Yeah. Where is this one, John? Go there along. That is cutting through the lobby. This way. Yeah. And that's looking. Same green. Same west. Looking west. So you can see the heavy outline is the area of the lobby inside. There's a canopy for that roof outside. And you're looking at the west wing beyond here. And this one. The outline it was posted. There's an outline that doesn't show up in the PDF as an outline. But this is the east wing in front that you don't see or look at the west. Too many lines. Good. And that's a section through the same lobby but looking in the opposite direction. Looking to the east. The east wing is the slower one there. And the west wing was supposed to be an outline that is beyond. It always gives you the sense of all the elements even though the section when you look at the view doesn't capture it all. Because you're looking one direction. Just look at the bold line. That's the key. That's the next one. This is a section looking. Let me show it on there. Through the west wing looking to the south. Oh, I'm sorry. Through the west wing. No. This is through the east wing. This is through the east wing looking south. So here is the entry. And here is the facade that you would see. You cut a section through here. You just see the emptiness of the wing. That's what that heavy line is. Cut a section through it. And this is the one that's through the west wing looking to the south. So if you were standing... Is that the north? This is the west wing. It's looking towards the south. So if you were standing here in the parking lot that's what you would see. Which is basically the stamp entry and the entry for vehicle, the vehicular entry as opposed to the entry on Main Street. Then there's the language. Oh, the destinations. Very easy to read that way. I don't think there's any other plan. The lobby. The lobby's how many square feet? The lobby? Five hundred. But as we saw in the site visit it's only about nine feet in depth. So that accommodates two entry doors. One from each side. It accommodates the reception desk. And it accommodates, you know, it's longer obviously in the other direction. But if we went back to the plan you can see it here. And how long is it? I'm sorry, it's not nine feet. It's double that. It's about 18 feet. But in the field it looks very shallow. And it comes, this is the whole lobby area. This is a closet. It goes back to reception here. Then it widens out because there's people handling equipment in and out through this room here. And there's the conference room that's going to handle a number of people. And then the car gets a little narrow as you go to the stereo functions. The staff will always be. You would have had a question. Yes. Well, it's a question that doesn't come up here. But as I think about the project the berm is also a new structure. And I'm trying to visualize the berm as I've gone there several times to try to visualize it. This picture that we have is somewhat helpful. And what it shows us is that the sight lines from the sidewalk over the berm cut off the lower part of the Hills House so that the porch and the, you know, all... In any event. Not really, you know. It intersects the hillside about two-thirds of the way up. I would love to be able to see how the berm is working in relation to the sight lines. Here it is. If you want to get down and look you can kind of see right up here. I would some believe I could do that. From here to here. We can move the model for you. The picture, the slope from here to here is like tabletop to the back wall. To the back wall. That's called very gradual. Yes. Very gradual. It looks worse there. Now, if the lobby was a little narrower, is it possible... This could go a little more the whole west wall. Could be a little more to the east with that. I mean, I totally see that this is... The western wall is still to the east of the Hills House. But if there was any concern... I mean, the lobby was in one hour. We couldn't make our program. We really... After the last three or four times we've been we've been cutting and cutting and while we're in the building and we were at... It's a dense snowball at this point. Have you been forwarded the program that allocates all the spaces they need? Yeah, no, I understand that. As I said, the building has never gotten slower than 4,400 square feet since the very first presentation by the applicant. It's always been that footprint. That's what the program is. So, to make it smaller, you need to go a second story. What do you do? No, we didn't know if... Since it was just the lobby at the lobby, but I don't know... It's not just the lobby. It's not just the lobby. Outreach the public. It's more than just the entryway. It's important. It's the outreach. No, no, I mean, I appreciate you dense snowball. Can I just interrupt for a second? I'm sorry, what's your first name? My name is Maureen. Maureen, there were some photographs that we took today when the model was completed. And one of them in particular kind of gives you the scale of the berm. Put the camera's eye down as close as you can to let us get to the ground. That's sort of the pitch. If you're standing further down Main Street, maybe at Dickinson Street, looking to the east. Yeah, four of those to the commission. I mean, I will say that I find the model helpful in terms of general massing, but in terms of the perspective of Versailles view, it's very difficult because it's so rough. So I think, you know, the questions about the berm aren't really answered both in the photographs that have been mocked up from the site visit or the model. I think it's very difficult to understand how a four and a half foot high hill, a new berm, you know, it's four and a half feet high above existing grade will impact the view. So to me, this model shows roughly what it will look like, but it doesn't really tell you when you're walking up Main Street what it will look like. I get it. You can say it's a uniform gradual slope, but when we're on the site visit, you know, I took this picture from the sidewalk and then I draw a line where the string was and that's what it looks like when it's taking, I'm taking a picture from about five feet, six feet inches. And so from, if so, you know, if you're five and a half feet at this height you look, it looks like that's the top of the hill down now. So, you know, from the sidewalk is going to be a slope all the way up to this height. So, you know, it's hard to see on a model. It's hard to really tell in this picture as well. So I think it's a difficult thing to understand. I'll say two things.  So the string was only very thin. The string is probably at the bottom of your white line. That's the first thing. The second thing is I've heard various heights declared. Someone said the berm was five feet. We said the berm was four feet. You said the berm was four and a half feet. Doesn't that not make somewhat of a difference? I mean, there's a certain exaggeration here that's leading people in the wrong direction, I think. So when we photograph the model as we've done, it gives you a much better idea that's what we did it. I personally, I'm going to say that the model is very hard. These pictures are taken again at a perspective that's very difficult to read. So I think if the commission sells questions with it, Bruce had asked for a computer-generated model a while ago. Could that aid in the commission's review of this project? I think this cardboard cutout is very hard to get a sense for a perspective. I think it's helpful to see massing in general, but to then understand the actual perspective of being on Main Street, looking up the hill, or vice versa, I think it's very difficult from that model or from the mock-up images. I'm saying it's difficult if you're not, if you don't have a more accurate representation of topography in building. I'm not sure what the answer is, but if the commission sells questions about the berm, I think you need to understand what's a good way to clarify those. Yeah. I'd like to try and change that. Are there any responses? I mean, basically I would like to push for a different approach. You know, I appreciate you folks have done a lot here, and you've responded to the comments and so forth. The trouble is that there was a comment that we made in March that you haven't responded to, and I think that would have been a better route to, so I'm going to read something because I took the trouble to write it out because I didn't want to ramble on forever, and I've ended it down to four paragraphs. So I might have to explain some of this. My considered view is the route to appropriateness on this project does not run through creating a contextual reflection. In other words, a building that looks like the buildings around. I don't think that's the route to the most satisfactory solution here. I think the route to a more satisfactory solution is creating what I would call the smallest volumetric presence, and that basically means not having the gable roof but having a flat roof, reducing the massing of this building significantly. This goes against what we as a commission might conventionally think is the route to appropriateness. We're a historic commission, and the sense is that we should create something in historical context, and that's the general rule, I think, for judging appropriateness. But this go-to instinct in this place, a building that's in a location surrounded by Victorian architecture, that that approach to appropriateness is where your leading is, and that's not unreasonable, and it might actually be the best route. But it feels wrong to me in a project in this location for a parcel in close visual proximity to foreground and grandly situated Victorian mansions. It seems to me that placing another similarly scale building deferring to Victorian form and detail isn't going to work, especially when it's placed so close to Main Street. The building is 4,500 square feet, that's pretty big. And some of these, that was very helpful, John, when you put those, there's a couple more down there, I simply took photographs and linked the lines to the poles that you had. And the people standing there, because it was a site visit, actually helpful too in the sense that they provide scale, a good job, but I don't think in this case that the Victorian-esque form, particularly with the pitched roofs and so forth, is the best route. Rather it seems to me that for a building of this size and proximity to the street, something simple, elegant with a low profile roof plane, flat roof plane, would be appropriate, would be more appropriate, essentially echoing the buildings across the street that you need to echo something. I note that in March of this year, we've already given, we gave you four, well, we didn't give you because you weren't there, but we gave the applicant four guidelines to pursue toward a positive outcome. And you've chased only three of those four, leaving the third of the four, which suggested that you explore the significance of the site situated between a row of low-rise urban buildings on the south side of Main Street and the grand houses to the north and west. That was unexplored, and I think that that oversight is sadly critical because I think now, now that we've had time, all of us have had time, to think about this, that that's the best way to achieve a satisfactory result. So as we are advised by Town Council, and I think this is somewhat egregious, that in order to formally move forward, we have to deny a current application and then make, as we've done once before, some suggestions about how a successful application might be achieved. A far better way would be to, as any sensible design process proceed, you explore design options. The loyalty way of having to say no and then keep people throwing applications on the table until something sticks is kind of absurd to me, and I hope we really have to do that. But if we are to exert our influence, or at least our authority here, that's what we have to do. We could exert our influence and table this and ask you to explore what a flat route actually explore our third option on our March list and see whether we don't achieve a better and more satisfactory outcome. And if we didn't, then we would pursue this or be adopting it, or we would adopt what I think would be a better route to success. I would like to push us in that direction. I think ultimately that would be a better solution, particularly informed by when I drew the drawings that showed the mass right at the street. It just seemed to me that exercising your design skills to create a more elegant, simple, modern-esque looking building, if you like, because there would be a limited bounce showing, would be a better route.  I just think it's likely to be a better outcome, and I'm going to do what I can to convince my colleagues to encourage you to pursue that line of that design option. We should stop there. So I'm just going to respond, as our free-flowing discussion. As I say, my conversation with the five of you, to see whether I can convince you to agree with me, because if I can't, then we're probably done here. I think what... By the way, I don't think this is tragic. I just think we can do better. I would agree. I think what I'm struggling with is... The applicant went back to the drawing board and came up with something that is light years more appropriate to the setting than the initial application. I connect with what you're saying in that, and I'm just going to say it. I think what we're struggling with is that anything that goes there kind of takes away from the majestic street scheme that's there, and we don't want our legacy to be that something less attractive because of what we did. At the same time, Amherst Media, the property owner has a right to build there, so we have to agree on all of us together what takes away at least from the whole sweeping green hillside that's there now, and we're feeling like we're barring it a bit. I feel that you listened really a lot to the recommendations that you adapted it quite a bit, and as you said, it's a modest building in a place where there aren't really a space that when you stand there, you look at this and it's not, but I feel that the emphasis was on trying to make it the least harmful to this spectacular site. That's really what you're trying to do. You're trying to come to terms with what Amherst Media needs and deserves and not hurt this site, and that's, I know you're looking at it all the time. You have that sensitivity, and when I stood there with my siblings who all came from all over the country and explained what we're doing when you're looking at this, we say, it's not bad, but it's better without it. It hasn't enhanced to me the feeling of this site. I'm not sure if that's possible in a way because it is so spectacular, and we're not just talking about this site and the view, we're talking about the fact that we've got the Emily Dickinson House, which we put so much effort on. The other houses, it's a context. People come here. It's what makes Amherst really breathtakingly special, and people want to linger there. They want to walk there. We don't want it to be a drive-through place. We want people to really breathe out and take in all these things, and so I think you've done a wonderful job, but it's not spectacular. So can there be a spectacular thing? Can something with a flat roof make it less spectacular? Not that it's grand, not that it's grand, but it's sometimes in. Yeah, I'm not sure. That's something that I'd recommend. It's a route to a less impactful building. In this case, I think it's appropriate. It's less impactful. That's my point. It's not pursuing creating a building of similar historic appearance to fit in. I think this is an unusual situation, I think, and this will be a learning experience for us. I hope it's because of commission, but not that you have rules of thumb and golden rules which you follow until you don't. It's the exception that proves the rule, and I think the exception here that will prove the rule is that the appropriateness in this case is the route to appropriateness is different from almost every other thing we've ever done, and that's what I'm encouraging us as a commission to try and wrap our heads around. Is it reasonable that we can imagine that we can give a certificate of appropriateness to something that pursues a completely different logic to what we come to expect, except as being the rule of thumb, the way to go here? And I think because of the unusual spectacular in this town, I guess you could say, the situation that we have here, that diminishing the impact, diminishing the volume, making it smaller, not following the rule of matching it to the context surrounding buildings, but following the rule of making it as small and as diminutive as possible is the route, is the best route, is the route to appropriateness. So I'm just reminding ourselves and people who are listening to us that we have had no opportunity to discuss this amongst ourselves, that it's the nature of open meeting law that we are not allowed to discuss our views with each other without being listened to by the public who are invested in the decision. I need to note that again, because we are not in agreement. One of us has a very particular view. Others of us have other views. We have had zero opportunity to talk with each other because we've been listening to the applicants and to various urgencies on both sides of a very contested issue because I think it's wonderful for Amherst Media and a great pity for Amherst Media that this is such a public, visible, special place protected by local historic regulations that people have such different views about. So this makes it, this is precisely why Bruce raises to us another notion of appropriate. Now I want to speak somewhat against, because we're talking. I want to know what you all, none of you is here. So let me talk now. I want to know what you all think. You will if you give me a moment. So I notice, there's several things I've been very painfully aware of with this because I keep going back to the site to think about it. And let me just say that the berm is going to be a whole other issue. I don't want to get to the berm yet. We're just talking about the building. The building has two different appropriate contexts. One is Gray Street. The other is Main Street. And we did talk about this with the applicant and both objectors and supporters at an earlier meeting. And I know that I urged the Gray Street view and not the pizza parlor, sauna tub, whatever it is, view. That is not my goal for Main Street. I think it's also true that the building faces both sides. And I like personally what's been done with the Gray Street side. I agree. I think they really nailed it on that. I'm good with that. But the problem is with the Main Street side. Now, I'm very pleased that it's been moved back because it's side from the West Wing. Yes, the West Wing has been staggered because when you go up and down Main Street, if you're looking to the North, think UMass North, Amherst College South. That's the way to kind of think about this. That the buildings to the North are all set back. Everything up and down Main Street is set back. Pizza and hot tub and one other building are really right up on the sidewalk. The sidewalk is wider. The sidewalk is wider and everything else is set back. So I am not in any way suggesting a Main Street south side view for Main Street. What I am looking at is as part of our purpose is not only the maintenance and improvement of the setting, but the encouragement of new building designs compatible with the existing architecture. Would more glass be better? Would something else that had more of a modern look do it? I'm not an architect, but I do feel still a bit disappointed with the Main Street, although I like the entry. I think the entry is a good idea. The setback is a good idea. So alas, although I agree with my colleague on many issues, I don't own this one. And I'm very glad with what you've done with the Gray Street look. And I'm just at sixes and sevens about the Gray Street look on Main Street, because a lot of the other businesses along Main Street are adapted old houses with the same roof. Like the Spanish street? Yes. Study abroad. Yes. You go down Main Street, and they're all old houses with peak roofs. I personally like Bruce's idea that one should explore. This building is a compromise. You're trying to do the side. You're trying to fit in with so many things. I know you've done an amazing job with that, but it remains a compromise.  And what Bruce is saying is, is it possible to enhance the site by something completely new that's what he's trying to explore, and you want to bring it somehow? But I'm not asking you. Yeah. Is it your view? And do you want the Gray Street side also to be checked? Yes, in that case, I would say the same. Bruce said his suggestion or his vision was to kind of reduce the volumetric. Right. What, Bruce? To have a sleek, elegant, super-modern contemporary or just let it blend in with the hillside. That minimizes it, but that's somehow... I mean, you could cover the whole thing with vegetation. You can build walls that you can grow vegetation. You can make the steam disappear in the landscapes. There's lots of ways of doing it. I wasn't getting into that. I was talking about the volumetric presence and the general approach to... Right. Which is, let's say, the appropriateness would be to link it to the landscape, to the form, to the topography, not to the buildings around it, I guess. Something like that. And to have it blend itself as a place where people like to linger and sit on benches and sort of... Link? Maybe. But... That's maybe pie in the sky. But we haven't had a chance to talk so we're throwing out pie in the sky. So we need to... And I do... Right. And then we do need to tie it back to the criteria. To the criteria. Yes. That's true. Within the regulation. Yes. So do you? Yeah. I'll start with you and we'll go down the line. I can see a little bit of what both... There's almost like two and possibly a third side being brought up here. And I can see the benefits of a little bit of each one. I personally feel... But I'm not committed to this and I think I might eventually be influenced by others on the committee. That the plan before us is one that does fit architecturally and real estate wise many of the other properties in that general vicinity. I think there is a feeling that we wish that never were a zone business and town meeting in its perhaps a little bit of lack of wisdom made that business. They weren't aware of the local historic district. Pardon? They were not aware, made aware of the local historic district implications. No, but they should have been cognizant of the fact of what business owning means and that it would allow a variety of businesses to be there. This as a design and I think Bill Gillan and his associates have done some really good work and making something that would fit on that lot and also balance the needs of the owner. I'm a little shocked when we went out there and did the site visit for the burn that's to the west side of the house that does seem to come up a ways and maybe block of view a little bit of a car coming along of one or the two hills house which is the first one that we see coming from the east. But I think with that watch there's compromises that have to be made and I know they do have a wet lot. I own one of the buildings that's across the street for a while on the other side of the street and I'm looking forward to being able to be influenced one way or another but my current thinking is not that it needs something really particularly unique there because I think as Bill Gillan brought up if it were really a unique structure it would take away a little bit from the other houses as well as seeing the hills house and the Liga Wind Voters House too. So I'll wait and look forward to getting a chance to be influenced by them. Good luck. Thank you. It's very hard to even comment. I'm new to the commission this is my third or fourth meeting I think and suddenly being partly responsible for such a major town decision feels a little bit daunting to me. I live right in the neighborhood I drive that street hundreds of times a day walking whatever I would love it to stay open but I know that things change I think that when the town when the town sold that land was when this whole thing got set in motion and that there's no going back on that that might not have been such by some of our feelings might not have been the wisest of decisions but that was made by town meeting in the olden days here we go and a great respect to the work that the Amherst media does and the role that it plays in the community for all of us I guess the best I can come up with would be the compromise would be if the building itself could be on that corner that wouldn't interfere with and I'm not sure that that's the way it's cited is it completely open past the corner do you know where I mean when I say past the corner where the grey street house comes in if you're coming up the hill when you're coming from here this view is let's face it the open panoramic view that's here is gone so coming from here it is an intrusion in that escape that certainly is coming from here I agree you've done you pushed it as far back as you possibly you tried so hard to really reduce that impact that's pretty amazing what you've come up with can it be done even more by making it a flat minimal elegant functional structure that doesn't echo anything I don't think it would necessarily detract if it's minimizing that that's the question that we're exploring I think and the other thing I'm not this doesn't reflect to me the Victorian nature of the houses in the neighbourhood fully enough it looks more much more contemporary than that and again I'm not a designer this is what's so problematic for me I don't quite know how to really weigh in having this being fairly new I'm being very open this is very new for me and so it's very hard for me to come down under this or this and stay with that I keep going back and forth the one thing that I would ask the question did the Amherst High School offer space for the media centre at some point is that still an option or is that there's no way there's no other possible other possible spaces that might not trigger this kind of controversy because the work is so important that you're doing and it's so valuable that how could is there a different way that we could be of support that wouldn't feel like it's a roadblock that we're just in the business of roadblocking it's I think that we can't we can just deal with the application that's that's for us we're not concerned with other options so quickly what Bruce alluded to the town staff had asked the town attorney not town council as in the town council you know how the commission can approach this project on an open site on a historically significant landscape and so the recommendation is to follow the bylaw on an application by application basis and so if the commission feels like there's a different route or different building we could ask the applicant to continue to keep this hearing open and move forward with a new building or say okay this is what's presented we're gonna make a decision on what's here and make our comments the commission makes their comments to the criteria in the bylaw and it would be that there's enough guiding comments that the applicant knows what needs to happen to get something that could be approved and so if you know Bruce thinks there's a different route so the question would be if the commission agrees that we want to have the applicant revise the plan again we can ask that if we think it satisfies the criteria now we don't need to ask that and so that's something the commission needs to decide what the bylaw says for you know new or existing new additions to look at the scale shape and proportions both in relationship to the building and the land area on which it sits look at the setback the dimensional issues and everything in the vicinity the criteria also then says shall consider among other things the historic and architectural value and significance of the site the building or structure the arrangement, texture and material in the relationship of all the features so everything that's being proposed to similar buildings or other structures in the surrounding area so as a new building it's not just like you're putting on an addition to a house so this whole thing is part of the review it's how the building is situated on the site how the berm impacts the landscape how the retaining wall affects the site so it's not just the building we have to look at all of it and if my thought would be if the commission thinks there's another route we would want to ask the applicant to explore that if they're not going to explore that then the option what I would see is you close the hearing and the commission can deliberate on and discuss how the current design does or doesn't meet the criteria we have to look at what's been proposed and refined so they've come back this is the third time they've made changes what about this design right now does or doesn't meet the criteria so is it, as Bruce is saying the size of the building, is it the high roof is it location on the site is it the arrangement of the massing the block of view that needs to articulate and so I think more of a discussion I think we can talk about how it relates to these criteria so we said that the gray street side works some of us have some of us have so if we have then can we articulate why that works is it why is the massing the orientation is it we need to look at the drawings and use more I think it works or doesn't explain is it the pattern of the windows is it the height of the roof the size of the roof that doesn't work is it the setback from the street I think some of what we're saying it's not a little thing that some of us are saying that we think in scale in every way it works from gray street the other houses on gray street are extremely charming and attractive but they're not ornate so this isn't less ornate but that I mean main street is a totally different look and feel then and since the entrance is on main street it kind of anchors it on main street and it's from main street that you have the vista that's cherished too cherishing the vista from gray street of the women's club and Emily Dickinson you're cherishing it from main street that is the focus of the historical sort of context that's really where tourists or we are going to be walking and cherishing this this landscape doesn't I mean I'll say something but it doesn't it's not in front of the hills house so that's why right but so I guess I'm trying to get a sense you know you're driving once it's built if it feels like it's a continuation of gray street I don't know that that's going to be so joined to the eye or is it going to look like there was a little there was a building blocked on the corner of main street I'd like to try again because we really do differ and I think we're going to have to either figure this out or take a vote as I drive in from the east I see gray street and I really admire what's been done with gray street and I see the eastern building as fitting that design so I the eastern I mean this this I think you're persuasive I'm just my own point of view I see that as fitting that design I like what's been done with the lobby I like it's being set back I like it's glass I like the entrance into it the western wing is a real aesthetic difficulty because it isn't gray it isn't gray street so you can't do that I wouldn't with all due respect to my other colleague who owns property on main street I wouldn't want to emulate the buildings on the north side former owner in any case I would not want to emulate what was on the north side of main street and I think it's impossible to even try to echo the grand Victorian houses I wouldn't even try that so for me the artistic historic significance do no harm intention well that's not built into the regulations I'm trying to say what's built into the regulations I've built into the regulations poses a very real problem for the western and another very real problem for the berm so for me that's where the problems are so I'm very happy with gray street side and the lobby although I would say the only thing I would say and I think Bill has already convinced me otherwise if the lobby weren't quite so lavish could everything be moved down a bit and could the berm be moved down too that was just what I was hoping for so I've said that well doesn't appear to be too lavish to me but that's a small thing that we don't have to deal with but I heard what you said earlier Maureen about the and I wasn't trying to soften you up but I didn't have an aid I probably should have sort of put something into it but your observation about the value of the corner massing on gray street and what it does and so forth it feels like a a good thing I can I can get behind it at the canal but I mean you may have thought that what I'm suggesting is a wholesale redesign and so forth but it's not really I mean it's simply the root form it's the location how it's been the plant shape has been developed in relation to the main street and all of that well that seems fine so Maureen what we could perhaps ask of the applicant would be to treat the western block differently from the eastern block we have to make sure that we don't ask the applicant and then say gee we don't like it would you go do something else well yes that's true we certainly want to try and move the ball forward in an orderly way but from my point of view I'm probably able of course because I would be trying to do it imagine what would happen easier than the rest of you that you would probably be more reliant on growing produced to fully absorb the conversation and that's to be expected and so forth but I'm thinking if we have these drawings in front of us if we were to if we were to flatten the roof of the western volume and in terms of the design concept is an approach for my idea to treat them differently to pursue the line of thinking that I was advocating or I am advocating but solely with the western volume and not with the eastern volume because you persuaded me that there is a logic and an intelligence and a sense of appropriateness which is the key word of course here about this eastern volume now I know because I've been listening to your program I think that that roof has an important function in different ceiling heights so if we were talking about flattening that roof it would be it would have a wedding cave effect on it and the wedding cave I think if I look at the plans further to the north which is good so it's not stacking up the slope to some degree so it feels that that might actually be a satisfactory formal solution but I would ask whether I could persuade you to imagine that that might be more appropriate in the sense of the word, in the sense of the use of the word appropriately would it be more appropriate than the current matching if we were to flatten the roof of the western does that appeal to us as a commission? I wish it did well I'm just I wish I do have a small dog at this time but only a small one I want to make sure that we looked at everything and that we didn't come back and think I remember when we looked at another house we were kind of seeing how visible it was and there were two different roof lines and we had a lot of discussion about that and finally we said we don't like the two different roof lines but it makes sense and they got a somewhat of a pitch not that but they got somewhat of a pitch it was just a little porch it was a big porch but in any event if we were counting straw votes I think we'd have to I'm not opposed in any way to the building my problem is the burn just to make it clear where I stand my concern a little is the devil in the details the devil could come back right is well I have the gods in the details yes the gods, no but since it is kind of a residential looking facade on main street if you know if the applicant and architects when they refine it more you know if we could really get to I guess what the windows the kind of windows if they're going to have any trim if there's going to be you know because I think if the concern is we don't want a grand but it may be too plain for main street entrance that that could be a grand with molding and I've actually found myself driving around like in North Hampton as you go into town they're building I guess apartments and I took pictures because they just added like nice trim which give it a you know I know you're not in that point yet or something my wife thinks I'm looking at some woman but actually I'm looking at the trim on the building you know so it doesn't look like it's you know we wouldn't want to like it's a more than it's in a subdivision but just so I think that I might feel comfortable approving it but with some stipulation of coming back and letting us have some see what it's you know ultimately actually going to look like when you get to that point I'd certainly like this afternoon or at this meeting to get clear the commission on the essential product that we can say that could be that's a personal goal I think we would do better about ourselves and I'm sure I mean we have to be but we do also have to remember that we have an obligation here and we we can only defer to the needs of the applicants to the point where they impose they pinch on out duty to the yeah well no I just said where I it's very daunting responsibility and of course all of us probably everybody wishes it could be open and it could be a part of that it's kind of so we're fighting that but hurt that much that's how I feel it's not going to hurt that much do I think it would be better but that's sweet that's outside our that's outside our perfect um no but I do have a question when you talk about the roofline being low view on the way right not on the west wing to not completely go back to the drawing board but if there's you know I had a real issue when it was all five feet from the from the sidewalk that was just but now that's and it's 25 feet not 20 feet back from the sidewalk or from the street from the edge of the side from the edge of the inner edge the near edge I mean is there I don't think I'd want to see it just but it's I mean I don't get what I'm hearing is that from that there is no way to lower it any further that they've lowered it from 32 to 26 as with a gable roof I think we've seen the best solution now if it didn't have a gable roof it would be a box I don't want a box um let me let me address no you don't agree let me address the kind of box that you might like now I'm getting into a design but this building here is you said ties to grave stream this could be this could be a box but it could be designed in such a way as to have vegetation growing up so it was not the kind of box that would I'm not you want that it's all we need to say I don't know how to get a lawnmower up there oh you have a guy on the ladder I know I'm not the owner of the building I'm sitting here but you don't paint it it's not what we usually do that's true I did it on University Drive the office building University Drive was a box and the owners put Arbovite in and made an Arbovite wall it's a you could put your vines there you could just trust the stream from your office that's done before you were born it's way better and what do you think of that here what do you think of that here oh I think it would be fun and is this something you could look into I don't suggest that we change the roof that's captain's don't at this point as far as I'm concerned but if you want if we could do something with a spellier or trees in front of it that would be fun I'd love it I'll make them fruit too so you can eat it tree you can use that material the building is not going to suffer by having vegetation going into it I think we'd hold vegetation off the building we have a different idea of how they could have it we're asking questions the commission doesn't regulate landscape or plantings so it's really about the built form I think there's been a number of views expressed here I'm not necessarily hearing a consensus right now from the commission I think built to your point that your applicant has a program and it needs to be met I'm not sure I'm satisfied yet that we've explored enough options to know how the program can be met in a different design and so what we've seen is really a change in one design so Bruce had said could there be other designs I'm not sure we haven't even been shown what a two straight building on the corner would look like and so if the commission has these questions again it is if what's here does it satisfy it I think the local sort of district has a lot of legal precedence to have design guidelines and regulations imposed on a structure and so if an applicant is saying well we have to have this program we're not going to change it the commission can say well you need to if you want to get it approved and so they have that legal precedence and so has it been thought about enough to have to say this is appropriate and so you know I think some people might say yes right now some people say half of it might be it might be in part and so I want to make sure that we're comfortable with saying that what's being proposed here is appropriate on all levels and so if the grey street side works I still haven't heard why it doesn't work is it the massing the proportion what is it that we can relate to the bylaw if the western portion doesn't work again is it the height is it the map you know what are these the criteria is it the impact of the view shed is it the setback the arrangement, the texture and so I don't want to start going into well we can address it up with landscape because that's not really what the commission looks at it's really what's the built form look like and so you know I've heard it might block the view it might be too big people don't like a flat roof so is there if it's not a flat roof how do we make that that less impactful to the view or to the site is it a change in shape so you know the roof is so high because it's proportional to how wide it is so if you want a lower pitch roof and that you know like Bill said it's going to look pretty odd if you get down to a four pitch on a really big building like that so Bruce is saying let's try to go with the least volume because then that's the least visually impactful you know Maureen's saying that's not appropriate because it does need to relate to the buildings around it so is that what does that mean for the commission does it mean do you have the same size roof but you pull the building a little closer to Gray Street and you make the lobby smaller is it you don't want that roof I want I think I think you know I think because I'm not hearing a consensus I think I'm hearing people saying well maybe it'll work I want to make sure we can relate it to the criteria and we can say okay I mean I'd love for everyone to say why Gray Street works I want to hear you know I think it's getting there is that what is it you know why do we like it is it the height the scale the setback is that all those things you know add something to it that I'm not saying because I think that can help the applicant understand why the other math scene may not be working and understand why the other math scene isn't working from the comments but I feel like we haven't provided that kind of grounded discussion yet in terms of the criteria I want to make sure we are we want to like I mean if more you know Moran said you know it works on Gray Street I think you've heard a few things I also make sure we we can say why you know I mean for me it works on Gray Street because it fits in with the Gray Street progression of not ornate you know what we call it colonial farmhouse labored houses and also the setbacks the way they are setback you know as a progression of Gray Street I think works very nicely so that for me fits and it doesn't although it does interrupt the openness from here that for me is a given given the sale of the lot and the zoning of the lot I mean when that happened it was given away because something was going to be built so I have to say I'm not considering that anymore so all that I'm considering is yes the corner fits Gray Street and I don't see much on Main Street I would want to fit so I have to figure out what would work adjacent connected to the part that does fit and for me this is about the best that my limited imagination can come up with the way it is now so that as I said before my problem is with the burn not the building if you are if you cannot find favor with taking that black roof and putting it down and recognizing that would have to be tiered because of the ceiling height obligation if that is something that you can't abide then then I would agree with you because we pick up the box like block on the north side that I don't like I'm certainly not I want to make sure and I recognize that for two of you this is really difficult because this is a complicated discussion when you've had very little exposure to the processes that we're going through I don't even know it's that this is the first time we've had to in addition to that this is a brand new, we've never had to approve a brand new structure where there wasn't one before I'm not going to I wouldn't vote against this if I thought that we had explored amongst ourselves what we think and it wasn't I don't have to agree with what we think to vote for which sounds a little odd because I want to make sure that the committees of a mind the commissioners of a mind to pursue this we spent a lot of time looking at this and as Bill and his colleagues have progressively improved this we've been kind of going down a funnel if you like or a tunnel or a process usually with design there's conceptual options at the beginning you choose one and then you develop it this process doesn't invite us to do that in quite the same way and I think we have disadvantaged by it and I would suggest in a whole other conversation at another time that this commission will mandate in that regard because I think we have a constraint here which is leading us to sub-optimal solutions and will always lead us to sub-optimal solutions so I have a problem with that but that's a problem for another day we are now exploring an option ourselves and if we think we can explore it in our own imaginations right here and it feels like we might be able to then and if we come through and this is the scheme that we prefer and we would like to further and refine it to maybe a little further then I think that's great I've been frustrated by the fact that we've been let down this funnel and that all of our conversation has been leading in one direction and I think we've been leaving other options behind we've had this conversation today and we have agreed because I think when you look from the main street that's what bothers us it's a little bit of a hodgepodge of roofs the line is not something that you would have done if you weren't told that has to go back further and all that things I think so aesthetically I don't think it looks great from the front at all and that does bother me and I do think that in our mandate here it's not that we just have to have something that fits and echoes the environment the mandate is to also look at something completely innovative if it's going to enhance it so that's why I like the idea maybe it's too late, I probably came too late in the game because I agree at the beginning there should have been this is the first time we've been having to do this at the beginning there should have been somebody that said give us these three radically different sketches don't put all your time in it you went on one page and we said but you've got to put this back and you did all those things what we've come up with is this compromise which is not bad but is it something that I'm going to feel like whoa we did a wonderful thing to Amherst and now Amherst Media is beautiful no, I will not feel that way unless you cover the whole thing with vibes and it disappears I mean what if that was something else, would that make it look less could there be could there be any or something that would make it look less massive a little more transparent if it couldn't be graffiti I think that might be it I'm speaking on a lot of people I don't know I'm just trying to think of it we did a mass model which was before you were on board specifically to explore different options for where we would put it how high or whatever we made models, little blocks Nate wasn't on board either so we met as a group at Time Hall to go over the very concepts because we had such a short timeline because it was such a long period before we could meet with you as a board because it was vacation time so we went through that phase that's why we built the model the only reason was that we could participate with you a concept and this is what we selected now if you're looking for a reason it looks the way it looks and why I like the way it looks being a farmer you could tell this is the house and that's the barn and you do something with the barn because you're a business like you manufacture tombstones down the street and what do you know, the barn becomes a business, a business where they make TV shows, belongs perfectly and it's not Victorian architecture but it's a little bit like 40 years before that so Bill just suggested that the treatment of the western volume could be simpler and different from the treatment of the east does that land well with this group? not really I think the idea of flattening that roof would be just a mistake it would cheapen the property itself I think particularly with the higher gable peak if you lowered it down like a ranch house it would look like hell yes, I agree with you there I just don't quite know how you really do a flat roof and make it look good I think there you're probably talking about a flat roof or a tiered well it would have to be two flat roofs because the ceiling height in the studio was 14 feet and the ceiling height for the rest of the space is less than that so we have to do one flat roof that was like inside it would be like a tray roof inside the ceiling I mean from just to listen to their program the ceiling height in the northwest corner there is where the studio is has to be higher than the ceiling height which means in this case of a flat roof the roof height would have to reflect that difference so it would be two elevations of flatness on flat roof I think that would be it just gets away from the architecture that's in the neighborhood exactly you're suggesting to make it less massive my feeling is that the route to appropriateness here is to diminish the mass to diminish the volume and to make its presence less that sounds great but you're going to do an awful cheap trick to do that by putting a flat roof there that's what I wanted you all to engage with and you've done it I think there are very elegant flat roof structures it's not going to look like that cheap claw foot hot tub thing necessarily it's reducing the mass and making a place where the land and the other buildings are speaking loudly you're reducing your presence in an elegant way I understand your logic and I just say how are you going to do that what's it going to look like what's it like so Dave I I'm here and they say that you don't feel like it's totally they are launching right now so how do we what I'm going to say is so Morian did it with the eastern part of the commission to use the bylaw in that criteria to say okay well what would work here so the applicant hearing still open the commission hasn't voted so Jim's saying he thinks the flat roof isn't going to work and so Bruce said maybe you would vote against this so is it fine now or are there still these lingering things where the commission could say we want to explore a few different options that might make it work better I'm not saying one way or the other you know when you were discussing it earlier it wasn't a relationship to the you know that to the criteria and I think we're starting to get there so we're starting to articulate okay how are things working or not working I think we're still exploring how it can work on the western maps and so you know if the commission feels like this is the design we're going to get and we can say okay let's take a straw ball and close the hearing or do we want to continue to talk about are there other options here that could work for the you know keep hearing open are there other options that could work and still talk about it so since we're not architect I mean we could say we'd like to see the western wing not be maybe so massive but then we have to defer back to the architects if that could be and ask them that now time for do we ever get to talk among ourselves as it could be an open but this is very hard situation in which to have have real conversations it's the only opportunity we have how do we we're legally bound to hold it this way we could always have the table up differently but you know if we want to continue it until next week and set up we have to do it you know in a public setting you need the public here was being said so either we can you know mic everyone up or it has to be in this type of setting and also is it possible to do a straw vote and a decision on the building separate from the berm you know because we haven't talked about the berm and the location and size of the berm is related to the location and size of the building particularly the west wing it's related to the number of parking places that are required by bylaw but there could be a waiver on that if we could convince everybody if I could convince everyone to have fewer parking spaces in order to move the berm over more since the bus service is right at the front to where the building so the difficulty for me is these are different issues they're both structures they're both new structures and we have to think of the visual impact on an open field of a complicated multi-structured building and a berm which is a separate structure so I don't see how we can do that in one vote but we don't see how it doesn't matter well we can do it in one vote and I would suggest that we don't close the meeting as a consequence we just know the direction that we see and because there are Jennifer you asked me by the way we're able to communicate one to one so I email Jennifer and I copy Nate the other way around that's allowed like for others to do the same you are not allowed to cue us into your email we are not allowed to see things if you have your own discussion of two or three people we may not participate in it what I'm saying Mariana I have the question I email Jennifer and I said I have a point of view I have thought about it I want to tell you as chair because she has to run this meeting it's going to be helpful to her if she knows that some of us are going to be in that moment so I email Jennifer and I tell her the nature of the bee that's in my bonnet that's as far as we can go so so this content is the first time anybody else is here so in that exchange you said you would ask or maybe it was about a conditioned approval in other words I said to you but I said to myself you know I would really like to have this discussion before I vested time and effort into thinking about what about this could I if anything I could suggest it would make it better or more appropriate I didn't really want to spend time on that until we had this discussion but if the discussion yields a commission preference to this direction then I would like the opportunity to respond to that request if it was just a question there are a couple of things and the burn would be in that category they're essentially in the greatest scheme of themes details, somewhat small details it's a small detail that's important to you and I've got a couple of other small details maybe that would be important to me and they can be relatively quickly dealt with once we know where we're headed so I would say a straw vote or something would be helpful to our process and Nate would you like that straw vote where we're each at by in relation to the bylaw yeah, always but articulate that right, I think to the point about the berm it could be a condition that it be altered with but in a future meeting but I think it is sized because of the amount of impervious surface so you know if there's thoughts about it and you think that it's an issue there and so the question for me then is can the berm be reduced in height, could there be more than one big detention basin, could there be a linear system that is shallower and so you know we don't know and so to me that's the question right and so I think to say that it could be dealt with later and could be or may not be so that's the question that's okay so I think that's been raised so how do we ask that question and get a response that's but it is detailed is there going to be more ultimate for public input? our engineer is here, he can respond to those questions could we then after we with the engineer go to open because we people can very patient we haven't had a chance to talk we have to have a chance to talk you had to sit here and listen to us because that's our we'll do 630, we'll do public comment so we I mean if Bruce had you in some small details if you go to take a strong vote and then see where people feel about certain elements of it that's how we want to go I mean if that's well let's do we want to start at the end so you don't feel like you're left out of the conversation well no I think we're going to take a strong vote first before we public comment or we won't get back to we will you'll say we're done here strong vote meaning are we ready to say okay we take no no just where we generally stand on how to be strong you know how we feel I mean I would say I I feel like we asked that well at the first meeting what in back in March what was the public comment was requested that the building we put to the south east corner of the lot should not be in the middle of the two parcels obscuring the Amherst Women's Club and the Henry Hills House so that was done and the you know the public that commented said that they had envisioned based on the town meeting vote that the building would be a continuation of the homes on Gray Street so I think that we we've done that I would you know yes I would like to see it set back anymore from Main Street but I don't think that that's possible and I appreciate that they have recessed the west wing 25 feet and they you know it's not actually in it's not in front of either of the two mansions you know I have to acknowledge that I think that once any building goes there it's not it takes away from the landscape that's there now but the owner has a right to build on the property if there was a way to reduce the the roof line of the west wing I think that might you know preferred but I could live with it the way it is I would want though the applicant to come back and I would want us to be able to see the details of the facade so that nothing is a surprise to the commission when it's built I think we have to we have an obligation to the town to know exactly what it's going to look like when you say details of the facade do you mean that they would change it with different window patterns or more about in terms of the treatment of what's there I feel like I don't I'd actually want to see the let the people come to us with an addition they actually bring in the kind of wood they show us what lights are going to be there they show us what trims are going to be around the window they'll literally have an example to bring in the window we can see so I would want that level of detail well this is a whole new building so they wouldn't have a direct entry level of stuff first I mean if we proceed that the way we do it yeah well I think we'd have to see some you know I just want to know that it didn't look like a subdivision house that it looked like you know the quality and care it's something we want them to sort to we had that in written form I have no idea that's just my point but are we spoiled by being here? yeah we're just saying what so that's where I put you down so you're saying you could live with it I could live with it yes I would like to see if there's a way to reduce the height the math on the west wing I would like to see that but I think that we I do think it's responded to the major requests that came from public comment during the meeting at March I'm also not sure when we vote like this isn't the majority that we have to all seven if we do a formal though we have to have a majority majority it's unanimous just majority and if we were to vote because one of our members is not here today it would have to be four yes 34 out of 6 3 to 3 I wouldn't necessarily you're with me I was going to say however I'm holding back because I would like to know when we get to the moment from the engineer whether there can be multiple tanks or holding vessels whatever is needed it would not rise to the height that goes right when you're standing and looking up as I was to the edge of the Hills Mansion I don't I just it doesn't work visually for me so that's my problem I would of course want to see the detail about the plans for the the you know the gables whether there was any kind of decor in that particularly the one facing Main Street I'd like to know the kind of stone work or whatever work is going into the entrance of the I'd like to know much what you do about the entrance the retaining wall I'd like to know what it's made out of because that great coming from the east you're going to see that and then you're going to see that stone wall it was there and they could really be in odds with each other so I'm going to see how that plays out visually what I would like to do is have us have a basic agreement tonight if we can with then a follow-up that really looked very carefully and detailed so basically you're with Eastern? yes I am because I don't see where else to be and I don't given the rezoning of the land like the ownership of the land the requirements of the owners to build what they need to function as Amherst media I see no other options I think you can own land and have certain requirements and unfortunately those requirements are not going to apply on the particular land that you purchased I think that's also an option so this is something that I wrote and I would say honestly I will not hold up this building if you feel that way I see the work that's been here I feel at a loss that I haven't been part of this before but this is what I wrote because this is the way that I feel my obligation on this community as it says does this building on this site physically or aesthetically enhance this important and one of a kind site indeed one of the only open vistas to a historically important and visually spectacular combination of houses the two Dickinson houses the Hill's mentions are a truly spectacular combination to be seen as a whole and indeed one of our most treasured attractions that sets this town apart from all others or does it just do its utmost best to minimize negative impact and that's what I said that I feel it does does it encourage a vital and inviting downtown or can it be summed up as wrong place and when I wrote that I talked to my brother about this and he said when you read this be sure you bring a bowl of feathers and some tar too and say the other people the problem because I realized this is not a popular way but that's the way that I feel I feel that if I can somehow too late in the game but somehow stir something so that we don't make a detriment to this space that would be good on the other hand having heard Moriam who's been part of this for so long and agreeing that if anybody deserves to be there it would be Amherst Media I'm not going to fully guess it but that's my feeling I would add it's not even to me so much deserves to be there but something is going to go there and we can't keep something but we have a say if it's aesthetically going to enhance or hurt that area I agree yes but if I think there's some agreement that anything that goes there that's good unfortunately space so anything that goes there takes away some of the open space but that's we can't we can't our decision can't be keeping the open space I'm not sure I have much more I can say I'm so torn about it on the one hand I love the openness and just the sense of historicity that I get coming into Amherst and driving up that way and who lives there and what those houses are it never doesn't move me and it's just so unusual and I just feel so gifted to live in such a beautiful place but as I'm listening and thinking and just trying to envision all this I'm also a city girl and I really miss the activity of life in a city but suddenly it occurs to me and it's the first time I'm really having the thought of the building in use and that wow there'd be young people coming and going over there and wouldn't that be fun and maybe there'd be another cafe and maybe we'd have a little so I can see how it could bring it could be seeding a new chapter and a change in Amherst that might who knows what it might do I can't say what it might do I can fantasize all sorts of different directions so how will I vote? but the conversations have been challenging to hear and to think through and come to grips with I'm not sure I quite have yet in terms of a vote but I'm also feeling the positive energy that could come out of it and not just a resistance to changing that open space so it's how do you balance the open space with contemporary needs and life and energies that need to be shaped and grown so I think we're a couple of minutes late for um I know I've had so I yes at this point I would with all my for appropriateness I would ask the applicant to I would try and cause the applicant to explore creatively something that the rest of you are not interested in which is to do a a flat a delicate functional appropriate however it's key I'm sure it can be a G as I've done it and I know Bill he's gone but I know I've worked for him for five years a long time ago I know he's a very smart guy he's been doing this longer than I have so I know it's within at least I think I do so I would like to push the applicant to do that but my sense is that I would be outvoted in this it seems as a commission we have a very weak endorsement of proceeding but weak though it is it's a position so what I should do now I guess when I go home tonight and beyond is to look to do what you asked me to do which I never did because I needed to know that I needed to do it and it feels to me now that you all are pushing us to explore the considerations and so forth the name that staff have put in their report because it's a long list of questions and and levels that you are suggesting that the commission pull in order to satisfy everybody that we've done that right but it seems to me that we're telling the applicant that they're despite what I say that they're that we shouldn't move forward with this scheme is that correct I think we need to be clear why don't we have the open and then yeah I mean we said that we would you know be open to softening or doing something with the western way we also feel that we do have to respond to community I didn't forget we've had three of these meetings this is the third and this is the first one that we've actually taken time for ourselves but we shouldn't feel defensive about that we just cannot afford to feel defensive about that this was our time and we are not rushed on this application we have to do it thoroughly okay how many special hands people would like to speak okay should we give everybody a number okay three minutes see sure we'll come up in a three all my thanks thank you so much for the opportunity to speak to you all again thank you also for the seriousness with which you're taking this I want to remind you that the decision you do make is permanently for all intents and purposes going to affect this historic district and I remind you that the entrance to the historic district and the sign announcing this historic district is right there on the corner and we'll stand right in front of this building I also hope we a bunch of neighbors on gray street all on gray street eight homeowners most of which are historic homes submitted a letter today one additional homeowner most of them are here today but one additional one signed it after it was submitted so I do hope that you got to read that and fully consider it you know I I heard one of the comments that Nate said I hope you can elaborate at some point a little bit more I don't think from what I understand you are not under an obligation to approve something here you are under an obligation to adhere to your guidelines and if you came up with a set of design guidelines and a building could not meet those I don't think that you're under any obligation to approve something regardless of the applicant I think everyone is sympathetic to who this applicant is and what their mission is but I don't think it is you have an obligation to consider who this applicant is back in March you did lay out those four guidelines that you wanted this project to adhere to and while I totally recognize and appreciate how much they have clearly tried to do to meet those the one in particular that leaves out at me that they have not been able to do is to to design a building that is more consistent with the pastoral landscape of the district and that I think should not be minimized either because of this berm which seems incredibly significant and because of the view that is going to be cut off for Main Street and approaching from the east I think I would just conclude again by reminding you all that the bylaws clearly state that the purpose of the commission is to aid in the preservation and protection of the distinctive characteristics in architectural buildings and places to maintain and improve this district not to do the least amount of harm possible and there is a big huge gap between those two things doing the least possible harm is not what your charge is it's maintaining and improving the historic character of this district and I hope that you decide to do that tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Did you want to speak? No. Welcome to Springside 717 Good evening. I'm Felicity Hardee I represent Armsway which is the owner of the House House property and I Ms. Wilkinson said it really very, very correctly which is the commission is not under an obligation to approve something that the members think will detrimentally affect the historic district and I've heard now two members say that they think that even though the applicant has done you know a very good job of trying its best to come up with a plan that would satisfy the comments of the commission and the comments of the public that it hasn't done it I've heard two members say that I've heard two members say that this project is going to detrimentally affect an historic district in the town of Amherst a reason to vote for an application because other members disagree that's not the basis by which the members have to make a decision what you have to do and you're going to be very ably guided in this by Mr. Mulroy what you have to do is figure out whether this project satisfies the criteria of the bylaw and if you think it doesn't then you must vote to disapprove the request for the certificate of appropriateness that's your job your job is not to redesign it or to try to ameliorate a bad situation we all recognize it's a bad situation but that's not your task your task is to look at this project and figure out whether or not it meets the criteria of the historic bylaw and then you have to say no so I know there are lots of other people here who want to speak to some of the things that have been discussed tonight but I don't just observe I've heard now two people on this commission say that they believe that this project is going to detrimentally affect the historic character of this location and I would urge you to listen to those feelings and try to apply what's in front of you to the bylaw and render a decision on that basis. Thank you very much. Thank you. Second row? Yeah. You? Ed Milford, living at 48 Gray Street somewhat a historian or house historian of buildings in Amherst looking at the long view if this compromise building doesn't in the long run fit the needs of Amherst media it becomes a liability for them if they have to get riveted it becomes a liability for the town what to do with it compromise compromise compromise compromise that's how we divide and conquer Barry Roberts is the person who divided up the Henry Hills property into all these little lots and that started the wall rolling toward commercializing the possibility of commercializing the property of building rather than leaving the land open as it was as it was meant to be that when the Hills acquired the property in the 1860s we're looking narrowly at the present there's a longer view to be taken for the benefit of Amherst and what you see Amherst become thank you thank you yes Robert Spicer on the 38th Gray Street which is the Henry Hills the suggestions made by the Dickinson local historic district commission have greatly improved the design of the building that Amherst media proposes to build but rather than the design details the question that the commission has to ask is whether building the structure will significantly adversely affect the character of the local historic district clearly it will that being the case the project cannot be deemed appropriate if Amherst media proposes to construct a freestanding building other land can readily be acquired without the constraints of building on a wet lot within a historic district this of course would require money although it would certainly cost less for acre than the land they now own but Tony Brackett and I are prepared to provide a solution to that problem as the commission might be aware we previously offered to purchase the two lots that Amherst community television owns at Gray and Main Street lots 14B-250 and 14B-251 for $260,000 we hereby may concur to offerings to Amherst community television and Dickinson local historic district and or the town of Amherst we offered to purchase the two lots for $275,000 without contingencies with the ability to close within 14 days of acceptance of the offer this offer is of course somewhat negotiable although that might be difficult for Amherst community television since it has already advised the superior court that the lots are not worth more than $290,000 simultaneously in the event that Amherst community television accepts this offer we hereby offer the Dickinson local historic district a gift of the larger lot 14B-251 to be used as a park or public garden subject to an easement or other arrangement that would enable the owner of 14th Gray Street to make some boundary adjustments with 38th Gray Street and to leave alleged encroachments by 14th Gray Street to the lot 14B-251 intact both lots will be restricted to ensure that no structures would be built on either I'm prepared to present a horrible offer to both Amherst media and to the Dickinson local historic district immediately thank you I'm Demetria Chavaz and I am the president of Amherst media not usually addressed by Dr. Demetria Chavaz I've worked in oral history along with my husband we have created two nonprofits that looks at and helps in the preservation of African American built environments in both Alabama and Houston, Texas I have a deep respect for history but I do feel I must say personally and professionally as difficult as I see your job is and I think it is difficult but it's not the end of the world in trying to make this decision things will change it changed when we purchased the property in 2013 that Mr. Spicer and his partner are well aware we own that property since 2013 with the intention and you can go back historically in the Gazette and other mass live and you will see we have always stated we plan on building on these two lots that is not something that we have hidden we've been very transparent now your job of course is to I agree as their attorney has specified look at the bylaws and follow the bylaws what I am hearing as a resident of Amherst is that you really value not only your position of course and you're trying to do your best in serving this community in this community there's the children that you talk about that we serve yearly from elementary school middle school, high school and college students teaching them media skills and giving them an outlet to learn and that they're able to go and do broadcasting have leadership roles etc. in the community we do that for free I spent my summer for two months creating a program for elementary school and middle school kids on the environment and the use of media to tell that story for free I am a college professor I do it because of the work that these folks the staff and the volunteers are committed to and the role of democracy and transparency in this town that is the jewel in the crown of this community you can argue and I'm not discounting Dickinson I'm not discounting these homes but it's what we do in this community that is the jewel and we have been doing it for 44 years and we work for every dollar and so that $340,000 that we pay for that property those two lots $340,000 is now worth because we had someone an outside person come in to look at it it's worth over $350,000 and so when you talk about $275,000 and we should be grateful we're working for every dollar begging and literally having to beg for ever source to keep us there where we are now renting it's an insult and so yes I do ask for you to do your job we have tried to meet everything you have suggested you were happy that you did not echo the business district and now I hear today that maybe we should so we're betwixt in between and we have been trying to be very diligent so if you could come with some specificity in which we can create a structure that will be a part of this community that's what we would like to take back to our architects who have been working so hard to make this happen we're about history and we document that history daily and we'd like to remain in this community but we need a permanent home in which to do this thank you thank you my name is Vera Duongen Cage and I'm the Vice President of Amherst Media I think I'd like to speak more on a personal level at this point I live in, I think under Dr. Kahn's leadership we've comprised of the most probably the most diverse board ever in Amherst Media's history not only racially but class women you know are on our board so it's a whole different board than what people have known over the years and I also as a mentor I live at butternut farm apartments and if you know the struggles in Amherst around affordable housing that was a complex that struggled for a long time to exist on Long River Drive by Hampshire College so it took about 10 years for the building to actually break ground and welcome families so it wasn't the end of the world for our neighbors who resisted the building and I'm really I think for the first time hopeful got a little bit inspired by your comments I think that if we can imagine change as transformative as positive I think that may be the exception for our existence here on this corner of Gray and Main I brought my son out here because we debriefed with him at our last meeting and we talked about whose races are missing from this conversation and I think it's the young people and I thought it was important for him to come here and to observe the process and for him he mentioned it was about location it's ideal for our middle schoolers, our high schoolers to just walk down as the doors close from their school just to come to Amherst Media and to get in front of the computer or get in front behind the camera or get involved in a program it's about location for them they're not you know with vehicles within walking distance right now Amherst Media is located on College Street and it's not as accessible as it would be at this particular location and it's right near downtown so we would really benefit as an organization from their energy from their creativity and produce because that's what we do and I think that's something to be considered for our community so I try not to jump out of my skin when I hear people talk about this not being the right location, great project wrong location I try not to get offended when I talk about well it doesn't fit in it doesn't belong and so I you know I'm very respectful of the deliberation that you all have to make in terms of your decision but I ask you yes it's a beautiful open space I appreciate it too but I'm just hoping that you all can make an exception for Amherst Media to exist here and really try to help us exist here instead of fighting our existence here so time is of the essence right? I'm sure you don't want to be in front of us doing this forever but we have our own limitations and constraints about where we can be and so it's not like we're going to disappear either so we're just I'm asking for you all to work with us to believe that we can exist in this space and to help us imagine and push us forward to being in this space thank you how many more more okay so I'm going to really limit it to more and more people no I mean a couple of each I want everybody to be able to speak I'm not going to limit the number of people age before night on Elsie Federman I live in Amherst and I was very encouraged tonight that you were all willing to take a straw vote to see how each of you thought and I don't think any of us knew I didn't know the legality that you couldn't about it my big concern is what is the criteria now now that you've had your discussion and so on what is it that you are looking for the criteria to make this happen and you know the rules of the road I would drive accordingly and so I think the job now is you've all had an opportunity where you're all willing to come what is acceptable and can we move forward these are the criteria that we now need this is what we need from you this is the next step thank you thank you and I will respond to that after everybody's I'll just take a couple of minutes first of all I'd like to say that my name is Niko Gidero I'm at 446 Main Street first I'd like to say that I am a fan of Amherst Media I very much support what Amherst Media does and I think everybody else here does I don't know that anybody does not I believe that supporting the mission of Amherst Media doesn't necessarily mean that yes we have to push for having Amherst Media in this particular job and other spots should be looked at I just want to point out really one thing as you do your job whatever whatever that is at this part of your different things when you look at these pictures I live at Gray Street and I walk down and I look at this every day and it's hard to see in these pictures but this is the view from when you're walking down to Main Street and this is the corner of Main when you're standing here you're about this big just like the little top on my pen here basically this roof is not colored in that is not invisible that roof is solid and when you're standing here that's blocking the view when you're walking all the way down here as you're looking up this way well I think that it's important to see that not only that but when you're on Main Street as well and you're looking straight up toward the houses that are behind the project this roof here that's not transparent that should be filled in and that just illustrates a little bit more of the mass that will be visible when you're down on the street and as a neighbor that stands out to me that you know I'm hearing people talking about going by there and talking about the east side of the building looks okay and it's acceptable and so on if you look at the west side from the east side what you're seeing the big bulk is the west side it's that big building it's not the smaller one so just keep that in mind as you're doing your deliberations as well that I ask thank you did Dr. Shabaz no no no have you read anything? Milka Shabaz Chapel Road here in Amherst I come from a perspective informed for many years of concerns such as you're embarked upon in the fourth largest city Houston, Texas I served for a number of years on the Houston Archaeological Historical Commission which had essentially the same responsibility as you have here in state of Alabama for a number of years I served on the state review board that all applications came through for an historic district of the state level I am very concerned with I've never seen an owner of a property coming in to build in an historic district undergo quite the level of of scrutiny and abuse really as I've seen in this in the case of this project with 30 more than 30 years of active involvement with historic preservation it's amazing it's astounding I think the real question is this is new building and the question is has work been done from the original proposals to make this a design compatible with the existing structure doesn't say enhance it, doesn't say add to the aesthetics, doesn't say beautify doesn't say any of these things it simply is it compatible with am I not reading this paper am I not reading this correctly am I not reading this correctly this was put out in the front you can certainly rescue me if I'm wrong I'm reading right here Amherst local historic district bylaw application review criteria so with that understanding I think a great deal of work has gone into making this something that will be compatible right now as I drive through I think it really looks rather ugly if something doesn't come in if this doesn't happen if something like a part something that can beautify then to me I think this is really a loss because here is a beautiful compatible structure that's going to be doing something really important for this town continue to do something important for this town being driven off from this area and then left the way it is that's that would be totally irresponsibility in my view so I do hope that this can move forward I think you've done a great deal of work in aiding in the preservation and protection of the distinctive historic district and I hope you can now move forward to bringing this to a conclusion thank you make it brief I'm attorney Matthew Massing I represent harm's way I also live in Amherst I feel for Amherst meeting I do and the way I feel for them is issued in the rise tonight this issue arose the day they bought the property I'm a convencer and attorney parties are a land use planner if we were ever to represent Amherst meeting the purchase of the property it would have been stated very clearly that we would not purchase the property there will be contingency that all permitting would be in place unfortunately didn't happen and it's very sad because now we're stuck in this position some of the board members feel we have to let them build there however a property is only as good as it can obtain the permitting you need tonight is one step the historic commission and after tonight whatever decisions may we can come back here then they have a whole new set of um obstacles to go through other planning to the planning board and other boards can permit it's a I just it's very I'm sad because I know for a fact that if it was presented to me this would we would still be in the offer we begin a purchase and sale agreement waiting for you guys to approve everything so when it was approved they can purchase the property at this point they have a property that is not permittable and you're not required to bail them out on that now if you choose to do that that's fine but you're not required to do that and you shouldn't feel that we have to let them do that okay thank you thank you was there one other okay thank you so um my name is Chris Gidera I live at 219 Strong Street I manage 14 Gray Street my family owns that as well as 446 Main Street with my mother lives I have to say uh we also own some other buildings that are include some very large very historic buildings we've constructed buildings my house that I live in we built that and we built it to look like a happy barn so that's how interested we are in that we have a house in Spain that we built in uh up in the mountains in some rocky mountains where stone houses was the way they were built we have a stone house that we built had a stone there so that's why I have a background as far as my appreciation for historic preservation of my family's background I have to say that you know I'm not going to get into how much I do myself as well appreciate everything that Amherst Media does for the community but um the fact that I personally have done many nice things is not a should not be a criteria for me getting a permit to do something here according to the rules of the historic commission so I'm basically shooting down effectively what Ms. Chavaz says about the great things that they've about all the great things that they've done for the community etc. I think that is not supposed to be a factor I'm quite convinced of that and I think that as well as far as things like what I've done for the community what background I have and how diverse my family is and our businesses are I may not look it but I am not what I appear to be I personally have lived as a minority and as a majority I look or I look wealthy I have been at each end of the spectrum but again so I have all that background and that understanding I am not the Caucasian I appear to me at all but my point is I understand all that and none of that is relevant to this it is absolutely not relevant and it's being brought up again and again and I think that's inappropriate and that's the only reason I'm bringing that up about myself I'll just have brought that up you know I think that the point that was said that something is going to go there something has to go there something will be built there I don't agree with that I don't agree that that's inevitable I'm not saying that it shouldn't be but I think the way it was presented can imply that it's inevitable and therefore let's do the least harm with him to the I disagree with that point one perhaps minor point but that may affect some people's view of as a factor is that bus stop there's a bus stop there already well there's no bus stop there the bus stop is actually in front of our building at 446 Main Street so that's just to be clear there's no bus stop there there's no gathering accumulation so that's open the bus stop is in front of the power building at 446 Main Street so that should not be a factor as well now as far as the purchase of the property this property was purchased for $340,000 in 2013 my brother Jerry sold it I can say all I want about how I think that was a mistake of him to sell it I can say all I want about how I think it was a mistake of Amherst media to purchase it for that price I can say all I want about how it was a mistake for basically certain people to be hanging out at my brother's house drinking beer and coming up with a deal like this and never looking into the ramifications nor even looking at the property lines nor any other things that are so important the drainage all these factors they were completely ignored as my mother did when she bought 14 Great Street from my brother Jerry people did this and you know what in certain ways it was a big mistake so that should not be a factor for your decision of how much somebody spent how much it was worth and I can tell you yes we have a lawsuit going and Amherst media their attorney has they have presented in Superior Court that this property legally have presented that this property is not worth whatever is being said now about 275 370 360 whatever they did present in Superior Court that this property is not buildable and they're suing my brother Jerry for the $50,000 that they say they lost because the properties only were 290 but they paid 340 for it that's what they're suing my brother for selling them that and that big mistake that all of them made so that also should be considered the fact that they should I mean should not be should not be considered as a well we spend so much money we listen to that you know I'm going to move on fast that's not really that's not our alright so now the model there is off scale it's completely deceptive those pictures these pictures I mean if they're supposed to make it look like it's not intrusive well you know what look at where this perspective is from it's effectively from the upper part of the second floor of my building at 446 Main Street that's what you're looking down as a bird's eye view will make this image of that white building look smaller one the other is that there is an image that comes up here I don't think it can be brought up that shows the perspective there's only one perspective perspective image here all the other ones are side elevations front elevations, north, east, south it doesn't matter cross sections and all that but why don't we have an actual perspective view that shows it in relationship to the rest that's what should have been presented a long time ago because I believe that that would show our building blocked at it would just show how everything is blocked if you get that from different angles that's not hard to do I've done lots of drawings like this and to basically piggyback that this here this image I think says so much it says blockage, blockage, blockage block your view it's gone it might not be gone from everywhere for everybody but that says everything is blocked this, whether you can make it small building or not, whether they need 4500 feet or not I think is beyond the purview of the mandate of the historic commission just to recap I think that you should not be considering the kindness of their hearts thank you thank you for the comment I did indicate that I would respond to what you had said because I just need to reiterate that the only thing this commission can look at is the architecture it is the building itself nothing else lawsuits between owners what the use of the building is the only thing that we within our mandate to look at is the physical structure the criteria that we have is that we shall consider the historic and architectural value and significance of this site the general design proportions, detailing, mass arrangement, texture and material of the exterior architectural features the relation of the exterior architectural features to other buildings and structures in the surrounding area the appropriateness of the scale, shape and proportion of the buildings or structure both in relation to the land area and the structures in the vicinity that's it we do not go beyond that but each of those are subjective I mean this is ultimately a subjective decision and we can all have differing opinions about what we think is attractive and not attractive, contextually appropriateness but that is that's our purview it's not it's not beyond the architecture it is really a late, late hour so I think maybe not to help me with this but how we and I this is just me but you know we heard that we we don't have to we don't have to approve any structure that's I mean that some of the public comments said that we we don't think it's we can't see the property or the historic district that we don't need to approve a building but I don't know that that's what that's what town council would advise us I mean we're also in a position where we are a body of the town what the town council said is the commission can't make a sweeping declaration about how a thing can happen on this property to take application by application so if this isn't appropriate it is okay well through the recommendations or review of this application is it going to get something that is more closer to being appropriate so to me what the attorney is saying is we haven't explored all options to know what is or isn't appropriate the commission may think this is appropriate and if it doesn't it doesn't and then the applicant is free to come back so maybe after so many tries we can say nothing is appropriate but we haven't reached that point yet so that's what the attorney was saying we're not under obligation to approve this but we're not also under obligation to say nothing can go here we can't just make a sweeping declaration that this is going to remain an open part plan we have to go through the options of what could happen here before but so in terms of this process you know the commission had some ideas about changing the mass of the western part of the building you know the question for me is would we want to keep the hearing open as a continued hearing we don't need to continue it for a month we could have another meeting next week on this we only need 48 hours to post it so we could move it along if we wanted to keep it going you know so we don't have to push it away I mean I think we'd like to keep it going I would the last time what we did was we looked at that calendar what are we going to we're asking for some of us are saying what we'd like to see the west wing reduced and then some are saying we'd like to see a different concept there's no point in repeating ourselves what we have to have and they can see it's unfortunate for you two who have just arrived but there's no alternative we have to stand up and we counter that's our job we can't avoid doing that we have to do it now we've had a strong vote which is I think indicated where people's heads are I think I would like to ask has anybody changed their mind substantially after hearing what the votes have said I agree that I cannot vote I feel that I have been convinced that my feeling is that this is not something that I would like to leave as a legacy so that makes two of us do we have because it's the four of us that do have been our job as a commission you've never voted on this you're just looking at conversations I'm trying to three days it'll probably be three to three right now is there any chance of having a meeting to process what we've heard from the community well we could continue that next week we need to do that in a public right so I wouldn't I don't know that we can ask the architects to come back with a whole new concept in a week sitting in this format doesn't lend itself to the kind of conversations that we need as a board as you're saying I was completely convinced by the talk of January before that this has to be that something has to be that you own it and therefore you have the right to build and that's that and now I'm hearing that's not necessarily the case there are things that we're saying that we cannot we can't come into it saying we like it the way the open green space the way it is we have to get this and we've sought all possibilities if we oppose this we have to have some reasons that are rooted in this and we have to be able to articulate that that's our obligation okay so let's work to get closer to that so we what I mean it said the engineer is here and I'd like to know about the burn could we have a few minutes on the burn engineer is here I think that would be okay maybe just so she does want to wait a week to ask questions can we go back to the second time please this is a commercial development this is not a residential we don't worry about storm water there's two lots right here and here we could have two homes being proposed here which would also be masses in front of the buildings in fact there's a lot of advantage of having a commercial site that has the whole thing because they can keep being void space which wouldn't be the case if this were a residence here and a residence here there would still be big homes and we are with this design being a commercial site needing to do various types of storm water mitigation now the majority of that is deep underground tanks that are over here fairly expensive but we can pull that off what we can't do in this part of the site to move the building down is soak the water back into the ground when you add a pervious area, rooftop, parking lot we have to create a way to get the water back into the ground so if you are familiar with septic systems we need some type of drain field a way to take water and soak it into the ground and these systems are level because that's how water works so what we're able to do is collect the water and so we're not sure yet but we'll do it with pumps bring it up hill and this way leave this as free of structure as possible however there are certain rules that the state has and basically because there is high groundwater that's a feature of this part of the world groundwater is about 2 feet below existing grade the bottom of this drain field has to be 2 feet above the ground water so the very bottom of our system cannot be lower than existing grade at the highest point on the hill and as the hill drops down our system remains level so this is what is creating this slope if the sidewalk and the road were here we create a little slope and we're little fixed by physics, by the requirements necessary to build a commercial site and considering how much we're hearing about this slope being maybe not but I would like to see it if we keep a low that's great I can probably get it down a little bit cut the corner back a little bit I think the photo that was presented earlier was from the least advantageous perspective the slope the sidewalk comes up and the height of the mound decreases when you go to the west so eventually it disappears into the ground and at one point right here is the strongest, the highest slope that you are so the reality is you actually can see past the slope in this way you can see past the slope in this way and if you're not 6 foot tall like me then at the worst point, the most disadvantageous location there may be an impingement on the viewscape so I can cut that back a little bit and diminish it we're not into the final engineering design of this so can I take back this 9 inches, 15 inches I am not sure yet but I will definitely try and I know I can do at least some better than what's now presented I did realize that the mound was going to be such a big issue so I can shave it back is there something you can do with the sticks that indicate that so that when I go wandering down there again I can see how you change things I can look into that part of it is far down the line in the design there's a lot of work in the previous area in grading final everything, storm line is the last thing that happens in a site design just because everything else has to be set prior to that so I can make guesses and right now I have a guess that I'm sure will work and I can make people refine guess that will probably work and we can reestablish a string line or something like that I don't know if you're in the site plan or showing one detention area but is there a way to have a dispersed system with more tanks it is already a dispersed system there are at least three tanks in this system most of which are down here we can't do any tanks here this has to be an above ground system that's just required by law so that is just basically a drain field it's basically a drain field but it has to be above existing grade houses have the same problems you've got French drains and cut they're managing water too they're residences so they're not required to do the detention system we could replace that field with a house if we're a residence and we wouldn't have to worry about it you have to get in our approval it's true but right to this point commercial use triggers differently thank you so I think the question is do we want to continue the discussion I don't see the way around it and we if the commission is available we could do it in a week and a date soon do we want to ask the architect do we want to continue the discussion then and then maybe perhaps make the request to the architect as we should do it now I would agree let us not make a request to the architect we just want to continue our discussion I do have a question though one of the architect or maybe two I don't know one of the architect is it possible to do line drawings of ideas without committing yourself to the whole nine yards so there isn't a huge commitment to visual ideas but you give us something to work with again we don't want to mislead you it's a line drawing that doesn't necessarily work so the thought that's put into it is what if we do this this way and then we could show them as a line drawing but the first reality is kind of making looking again back at the program and the plans and everything else and seeing where those lines are going to be that's that's a short answer I mean when we go to the Museum of Modern Art we can see these great line drawings by Corbusier and Mies van der Rohe which are just simple one and two lines we don't know if they were built maybe done after the work was completed after the work was completed so yeah I understand what you're asking and it would be wonderful if it was easier to do it than not just share the difficulty that we had amongst ourselves and trying to visualize or imagine sure and that it would be great if you could help us sure those poles they had we were able to do those white they were I think very helpful accurate to John's point he doesn't want to mislead because the problem of presenting drawings to a public group like this becomes a matter of public record and then you can be grilled with it anytime and even legal you know in the court of law so you have to be careful that process that you supervised last week was very helpful in that regard was that the simplest thing is the back of the napkin sketch that's really easy and a lot of wonderful ideas come up from that the practicality of it isn't necessarily going to work with the solution that's maybe it's hard to envision but we're required to we are required by law and our role to envision what's going to go there before it goes there that's our only role even when we get pretty exacting it's questions so I don't know how much you're going to gather from a line sketch of what the final solution is like so today's Tuesday can we meet today not for as long that would be on Thursday that's okay a 20 second I'll do I'm 100 years old can we do the 21st or 22nd no no no do the 22nd that's fine are you sure does that work for everybody if it was for everybody else would it be here would you like to check we can do it start at 4pm 4pm same time same place easier we can say same time place if it changes I'll let you know and it will be posted at 4 o'clock 4 o'clock what date is it 22nd and this would be the only item we do it can be at 5 so it can be here at 4 yes so it will actually appear as an item on the agenda not like because we weren't on the agenda you were so there's a public hearing notice and then as a continued public hearing there's an agenda then posted prior to 48 hours so this would just be one agenda you know I just want to note our name and I was here it said continued public hearing so there's a public hearing notice and then an agenda for the meeting and this one is just going to be an agenda so then we don't officially close this meeting we we say the hearings continue to October 22nd at 4pm