►
From YouTube: Aug 25, 2020 Planning & Development Board Meeting
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
D
Right
are
we
ready,
yep
excellent,
so
this
is
the
august
25th
meeting
of
the
city
of
ithaca
planning
and
development
board.
Why
don't
we
start
with
introductions?
I'm
rob
lewis
and
I
guess
we
can't
really
go
around
the
room,
but
mackenzie.
Would
you
mind
introducing
yourself.
D
H
H
D
H
C
H
Thank
you,
lisa
anya,.
H
D
Is
the
game
if
you're
seeing
this
you're,
probably
watching
this
on
the
city's
youtube
channel,
which
is
the
place
to
watch
it?
If
you
want
the
only
people
who
will
be
let
into
the
actual
zoom
meeting,
are
members
of
the
public
wishing
to
speak
at
a
public
hearing
and
to
do
that
you
communicate
via
email
to
the
planning
department,
clinic
staff
and
then
people
who
are
actually
applicants
before
the
board?
D
If
you
are
an
applicant
or
a
person
waiting
to
speak
in
a
public
hearing,
you'll
be
let
in
from
the
waiting
room
at
the
appropriate
time
and
during
privileges
before
we'll
read
any
comments
that
have
been
submitted
in
advance
and
those
comments
will
have
a
normal
three-minute
limit
with
that.
I
believe
we're
ready
for
a
gender
review.
Lisa.
Are
there
any
changes
to
the
agenda.
D
H
Well,
that's
nice
and
simple:
next
up
would
be
public
comments
lisa.
What
do
we
have.
C
I
have
one
public
comment
to
read:
anya.
Can
you
time
me
it
looks
like
it
might
be
longer
than
three
minutes.
Okay,
it's
from
paul
fairbanks
on
behalf
of
the
friends
of
newman
golf
course
concerning
city
harbor,
the
friends
of
new
of
newman
golf
course,
as
friends
of
newman
has
been
closely
following
the
developments
surrounding
the
city
harbor
project
as
city
harbor's
nearest
neighbor.
The
golf
course
has
a
vested
interest
in
seeing
how
this
plan
will
ultimately
be
implemented,
along
with
preserving,
promoting
and
enhancing
the
course.
C
We
hope
to
make
newman
more
useful
to
our
citizens
and
more
profitable
to
the
city.
As
many
of
you
know,
friends
of
newman
was
instrumental
in
calling
attention
to
the
fact
that
the
turnaround
plan
for
the
project
encroaches
on
the
ninth
grade
to
such
an
extent
that
it
necessitates
the
relocation
of
the
green,
approximately
70,
to
80
yards
north
of
its
current
location.
It
is
our
understanding
that
developers
have
agreed
to
cover
the
cost
of
those
relocation
efforts.
Although
we
don't
know
if
that
agreement
has
been
formalized.
C
Perhaps
this
is
something
for
your
committee
to
consider.
We
know
the
golfing
public
would
like
some
assurance
about
this.
Is
the
city
taking
formal
steps
to
secure
an
agreement
about
this?
A
larger
part
of
our
interest
in
this
project
has
to
do
with
the
stated
intention
to
build
a
new
community
center
that
would
provide
services
to
both
the
golfing
and
boating
public.
We
support
the
concept
of
a
shared
community
center
and
see
it
as
an
important
feature
in
the
overall
project.
C
Such
a
community
center
has
the
potential
to
attract
more
year-round
activity
and
in
and
around
newman,
and
would
be
tremendous
improvement
over
the
current
80-year-old
clubhouse.
That
appears
to
be
in
need
of
extensive
maintenance.
Over
the
past
months,
we
have
asked
both
the
city
and
city
harbor
development
team,
several
questions
about
the
community
center
project.
To
date,
we
have
yet
to
hear
anything
definitive
regarding
the
actual
construction
plans,
building
ownership
and
overall
management
of
the
space.
C
C
Is
the
city
considering
any
alternatives
such
as
extensive
intensive
renovations
to
the
current
clubhouse?
How
will
various
stakeholders
golfers
voters
hikers
be
included
in
the
decision-making
process?
Will
there
be
community
forums
to
help
create
the
design
and
plans?
Will
the
center
be
open
year
round
to
provide
a
meeting
space,
musical
entertainment,
special
lectures
as
well
as
food
and
beverage?
How
will
the
city
and
developers
resolve
the
many
issues
that
surround
this
component
of
the
project?
C
Where
exactly
will
the
new
community
center
be
located
on
the
course
does
the
plan
continue
to
be
situated
in
this
on
the
site
of
the
old
9th
grade?
Friends
of
newman
would
welcome
the
opportunity
to
share
our
perspective
and
thoughts
about
this
exciting
proposal.
Perhaps
our
questions
are
a
bit
premature,
but
we
believe
the
community
center
needs
to
be
carefully
planned
as
it
is
likely
to
serve
as
a
key
component
to
the
golf
course's.
C
Future
planning
for
this
project
will
be
complex
and
time
consuming,
but
we
also
believe
it's
wise
to
start
thinking
about
it
sooner
rather
than
later.
We
are
very
interested
in
this
project
when
you're
willing
and
able
to
commit
time
and
energy
when
the
appropriate
time
comes.
Thank
you
for
your
time
and
consideration.
D
All
right
under
three
minutes,
so
the
next
item
on
the
agenda
would
be
board
response
to
public
comment.
I
will
say
that
I
don't
have
a
response
to
that,
but
if
there's
any
member
of
the
board
that
wishes
to
respond
I'd
be
happy
to
recognize
you
to
do
so.
D
Seeing
none
next
up
is
subdivision.
Review
for
a
minor
subdivision
in
the
chain
works
district
at
620,
south
aurora
street.
So
let's
bring
the
applicants
in.
H
I
D
Thank
you
very
much
and
I
think
the
way
we're
handling
recusals
is
that
you
leave
the
zoom
meeting
and
then
either
anya
or
lisa
text
you
when
it's
time
to
come
back
in.
D
Great,
so
our
actions
tonight
are
public
hearing.
B
D
Then
consideration
of
preliminary
and
final
subdivision
approval,
take
it
away
and
tell
us
a
little
bit
about
what
we're
looking
at.
M
Okay
good
evening,
members
of
the
planning
board
lisa
anya.
My
name
is
sarah
spencer,
I'm
from
harris
beach
on
behalf
of
mr
sub
15
llc.
M
There's
some
underground
storage
tanks,
things
of
that
nature
and
eventually
convey
the
second
larger
parcel
for
mixed-use
development,
and
there
are
trail
easements
that
are
ready
to
be
reported
for
both
a
original
trail
site
and
a
alternate
trail
site
for
if
it
gets
disrupted
due
to
construction
or
other
factors-
and
I
know
that
this
project
has
been
in
the
works
for
a
long
time.
So
I
think
everyone
is
familiar
with
it.
But
so
I
don't
really
have
a
whole
lot
else
to
say.
D
No,
that's
great!
Okay!
No.
I
appreciate
that.
That's
a
great
summary.
Our
first
action
on
this
is
a
public
hearing.
So
rather
than
diving
straight
into
questions
and
comments,
I'm
going
to
ask
for
someone
to
make
a
motion
to
open
a
public
hearing
and
I
saw
mitch
move
and
emily.
Second,
all
those
in
favor
of
opening
public
hearing.
Please
raise
your
hand
and
elizabeth,
oh
great,
there's
a
thumbs
up
sign!
That's
great!
Thank
you,
elizabeth!
C
We
have
one
comment,
so
this
is
from
david
galligan
phd.
It
says
I
am
writing
about
the
proposed
subdivision
of
the
emerson
property
for
the
so-called
chain
works
development.
I
would
like
these
comments
to
be
read
into
the
record.
I
am
a
homeowner
on
spencer
road
in
the
city
of
ithaca,
near
to
the
proposed
development.
The
site
of
the
proposed
chain
works.
C
Development
is
very
important
for
the
health
of
the
city
and
its
present
wild
state
ithaca
is
blessed
with
a
lot
of
steep
terrain
so
that
we
necessarily
have
significant
undeveloped
land
near
the
urban
center.
Thus,
ithaca
is
gorgeous.
The
ou2
parcel
is
the
key
part
of
ithaca's
green
surround,
providing
connection
between
buttermilk
falls,
the
protected
six
mile
creek
watershed
and
the
green
space
on
the
ithaca
college
campus.
Some
of
this
green
space
is
protected
by
special
status
like
the
park,
but
much
of
it
is
only
protected
by
virtue
of
its
topographic
difficulty
of
development.
C
The
proposed
chain
works.
Development
has
special
dangers.
Development
on
such
terrain
will
seriously
harm
the
land.
Development
of
this
key
site
would
be
a
very
bad
precedent
for
various
other
sites
with
similar
topographic
difficulty
of
development.
I
urge
the
board
to
do
anything
possible
to
halt
this
development.
Thank
you
very
sincerely,
david
galligan.
B
D
Great
is
there
a
motion
to
close
the
public
hearing
saw
mckenzie
move
emily.
Second,
all
those
in
favor
of
closing
public
hearing
all
in
favor.
So
public
hearings
now
closed.
Do
we
have
any
questions
or
comments
before
we
move
to
the
resolution,
we
can
still
have
discussion
if
we
do
move
to
the
resolution
see
oh
lisa.
D
Sure
I
can
say
what
I
think
and
then
maybe
I
could
open
it
up.
We've
been
looking
at
this
project
for
a
long
time.
This
site
is
not
just
precious
because
of
its
its
natural
areas.
It's
pressure
it's
important
because
it
is
a
contaminated
site
that
requires
a
great
deal
of
cleanup
to
reach
the
levels
appropriate
for
the
development
considered
that
cleanup
and
that
development
are
both
good
for
the
city.
D
We've
taken
a
hard
look
at
the
impacts
created
by
that
development
and
what
that
would
mean
for
the
city
and
what's
required
to
make
sure
that
goes
the
way
it
should.
It's
been
an
extensive
process,
that's
gone
on
multiple
years,
and
I
believe
this
board
believes
that
moving
forward
with
this
development
is
appropriate
and
best
for
all
concerned,
and
is
there
any
member
of
the
board
wishing
to
expand
on
that
take
issue
with
that
or
otherwise
respond
to
the
public
comment.
D
D
Okay
with
that
and
we-
and
we
will
definitely
have
a
little
bit
of
discussion
on
this
resolution,
but
is
there
a
motion
for
the
resolution
at
issue?
It's
the
pink
resolution
for
preliminary
and
final
subdivision
approval.
D
I
saw
both
mckinsey
and
mitch
move,
so
one
moves
in
one
second
and
then
before
we
get
too
far
in
discussion.
I
know
lisa
that
there
was
one
change
requested
by
council.
C
Yes,
ari
levine.
Our
city
attorney
asked
that
we
reword
the
one
two
three
four
fifth,
whereas
to
add
to
to
read
as
such.
The
terms
of
such
easement
are
laid
out
in
three
trail,
easement
agreements
and
associated
exhibits,
two
of
which
are
to
be
executed
and
filed
with
the
subdivision
flats
and
a
third
jointly
to
the
town
and
city
of
ithaca,
as
required
in
one
of
the
first.
Two
easements
will
be
executed
within
60
days
of
the
recording
of
the
subdivision
class.
D
Great,
so
we're
changing
the
two
to
three
and
explaining
the
difference
between
them,
and
this
is
about
those
two
trails
that
you
mentioned
previously
in
the
response
to
public
comment.
Great,
so
that
seems
comprehensible
enough.
Are
there
any
questions
or
comments
from
the
board
about
this
resolution
or
this
project
that
we
should
address
before
we
move
towards
a
vote.
D
Okay
with
that,
I
think
I'm
comfortable
moving
towards
a
vote.
Lisa.
Do
you
have
anything
all
right
great
with
that,
I'm
going
to
ask
all
in
favor
of
the
preliminary
and
final
subdivision
approval.
That's
before
us
elizabeth.
D
Thank
you
very
much,
so
that
is
unanimous
for
your
subdivision
is
approved.
Thank
you
very
much.
C
K
C
P
O
Yes,
anya,
possibly
518-331,
I'm
sorry.
I
can't
hear
you.
D
H
D
Well,
I
appreciate
you
guys,
you
know
joining
us
this
evening.
We
are
considering
final
approval
on
this
project
tonight
and
that
is,
it's
been
quite
a
journey
to
get
here.
So
that's
exciting.
We
have
a
big
resolution
with
a
lot
of
parts
in
it,
but
before
we
get
into
that,
maybe
you
guys
want
to
introduce
yourself
and
tell
us
a
little
bit
about
what
we're
doing.
O
O
As
you
can
imagine,
there's
an
awful
lot
of
detail,
that's
embedded
in
the
the
conditions
and
cosa,
and
I
are
here
tonight
to
first
thank
you
for
entertaining
modifications
to
the
original
may
approval
conditions,
and
we
specifically
want
to
bring
up
some
concerns
that
we
have
that
relate
to
what
is
proposed
condition:
roman
numeral
3
under
the
prior
to
issuance
of
building
permit
amended
condition
and
we'll
we'll
speak
to
that
when
it's
appropriate
to
do
so.
O
We
appreciate
all
the
other
consideration
that's
been
given,
and
we
feel
that
we've
made
significant
progress
to
the
point
where,
while
we're
shovel
ready,
we
know
that
there
are
some
issues
that
are
not
going
to
be
as
timely
as
we
had
hoped
in
order
to
get
this
project
off
the
ground,
but
we're
making
an
effort,
and
we
hope
that
what
we
can
share
with
you
tonight
relative
to
some
of
the
the
tricky
conditions
can
be
considered
in
in
in
past.
O
D
You
very
much
so,
do
you
have
a
presentation
for
us
tonight?
Do
you
have
new
things
to
show
us.
O
We
don't
have
anything
new
to
show.
The
submission
of
a
large
volume
of
drawings
was
in
essence
in
response
to
what
I
call
the
easy
conditions
of
the
preliminary
site
plan
approval
there
is.
There
is
one
item
that
I
know
has
raised
a
couple
comments
recently
relative
to
planning
for
future
secondary
emergency
access
to
the
newman
district
from
any
of
the
adjacent
municipal,
owned
properties
or
existing
streets.
So
I
am
prepared
to
to
talk
about
that.
O
A
little
bit
put
it
into
context
relative
to
when
secondary
emergency
access
is,
is
believed
to
be
required,
and
so
that
we're
prepared
to
to
speak
to
that.
If
helpful,.
D
Okay,
let
me
let
me
talk
to
lisa
for
just
a
second
here.
It
sounds
like
most
of
what
the
applicant
has
for
us
today
is
material
related
to
conditions
and
the
resolution
that
we're
about
to
pass.
So
would
it
be
most
appropriate
for
us
to
move
that
resolution
and
look
at
that
in
the
context
of
discussing
those
conditions,
or
do
we
get
into
that
first,
just
procedurally,
what's
proper.
C
Well,
I
think
I
mean
you
could
really
do
it
either
way
if
they,
if
you
haven't
proved
if
you
haven't
planned
on
a
presentation,
I
mean
many
of
the
things
that
we're
drawing
related
are
pretty
detail
oriented
and
I
can
see
why
if
the
board
doesn't
wan,
does
the
board
want
to
look
at
those
and
ask
questions
it?
D
I
would
feel
comfortable
moving
straight
into
the
resolution.
Is
there
anybody
on
the
board
who
wouldn't
feel
comfortable
with
that?
I
mean
I
think,
maybe
that's
the
the
question
I
want
to
ask.
D
Seeing
none
all
right
is
there
a
motion
for
the
yellow
resolution.
That's
in
front
of
us
the
final
approval
resolution
for
city
harbor.
D
I
saw
emily
move
and
mackenzie.
Second,
I
also
saw
elizabeth's
thumbs
up,
but
I'm
not
sure
when
that
came
in
so
that
is,
that
is
moved.
It
is
open
and
we
have
a
couple
of
concerns
raised
by
the
applicant
about
particular
conditions
within
that
and
to
speak
to
those
arguments.
There
are
drawings
in
support
of
that,
and
maybe
we
should
just
dive
into
to
that.
You
know
just
straightaway.
The
first
one
that
I
have
marked
is
the
roman
numeral
number
three
below
before
issuance
of
a
building.
D
Permit
that
reads:
approval
by
common
council
of
new
york,
state
department
of
transportation's
proposed
west
end
couplet
concept,
so
yeah
lisa.
C
I
I
just
wondered
if
it
would
be
helpful
to
the
board
if
I
could
explain
what
that
is,
since
you
haven't
really
seen
it.
Maybe
you
have
been
recently
received
an
email
about
it,
but
you
haven't
really
seen
it
or
been
involved
with
that
discussion.
Yet
have
you?
I
don't
think
you
have
have
you
yeah,
so
I
so
would
it
be
helpful
if
I
explained
what
that
is?
C
Okay,
so
you
got,
I
mean
you
got
in
your
packet,
a
bunch
of
information
about
it,
and
probably
you
received
today
an
email
looking
for
comments
for
it.
So
what
happened
is
in
the
continued
conversations
with
dot
on
january
30th?
They
submitted
these
additional
comments
and
the
comments,
one
of
and
so
and
they
added
on
page
three
of
their
their
comments
about
the
the
the
project
and
they
really
look
at
both
of
this
project
in
the
carpenter
circle
project.
C
Together
they
added
three
required
mitigations,
one
of
which
was
this
reorganization
of
traffic
flow
in
the
west
end
and
that's
described
in
some
drawings.
You
got
that
are
also
attached,
so
they
presented
this
to
us
in
the
city
and
said
that
you
know
these
are
required,
mitigations,
that
so
that
means
that
they
are
going
to
require
this
to
happen
in
one
form
or
the
other
before
they
will
permit
any
work
on
route
13
related
to
these
projects,
so
for
city
harbor.
That
means
any
intersection
or
pedestrian
improvements.
C
That
would
happen
in
route
13..
So
that
was
a
lot
and
so
the
we,
the
developers,
are
really
not
in
charge
of
whether
or
not
these
improvements
can
happen
because
it
has
to
go
through
a
whole
public
and
political
process
which
we,
as
staff
have
started.
We
presented
this
concept
to
the
planning
board
and
we
just
started
doing
public
outreach
with
the
goal
of
determining
whether
the
city
is
interested
in
pursuing
this
in
one
way
or
another.
C
They
have
to
they'll
have
to
be
a
fair
amount
of
engineering
and
well
not
engineering
really,
but
it
has
to
be
studied
to
determine
if
this
is
really
the
right
solution.
C
If
this
works
for
the
whole
waterfront-
and
not
just
you,
know
these
two
projects-
and
so
you
know
that
takes
some
time,
so
we
have
again,
we
have
started
that
we've
started
public
outreach
with
it
with
the
goal
of
gathering
comments
and
questions
and
concerns
that
will
be
turned
into
a
scope
of
work
of
how
to
study
this
and
d.o.t
has
said
that,
if
common
council
can
this
idea
in
concept
while
it's
being
studied,
then
they
would
feel
comfortable
with.
C
Then
you
know
starting
to
work
on
the
approvals
for
the
route
13
improvements
related
to
this
project.
Does
that
make
sense.
D
It
does
you
know,
insofar
as
a
byzantine,
state-level
bureaucratic
regulatory
framework.
C
D
Okay,
so
what
lisa
said
sounds
very
rational
and
reasonable.
I'd
like
to
ask
the
applicant
what
the
issue
is
with
the
condition
as
written.
O
O
O
We
have
addressed
those
mitigations
that
were
understood
and
stated
at
the
time
that
we
completed
the
environmental
review.
It
is
unfortunate
that
the
the
timing
of
the
west
end
couplet
puts
into
play
a
variable
potential,
long
review
process
locally
and
a
concern
that
well
what
if
it
never
happened.
What
if
there
was
no
acceptance
of
the
west
end
couplet
at
the
city
level?
Where
would
that
put
our
project?
O
So
it's
it's
our
intent
and
our
expectation
that
the
conditions
that
were
originally
stated
during
preliminary
site
plan
review
approval
are
still
applicable
and
that
there
there
is
protection.
If
you
will
to
ensure
for
the
city
that
the
mitigations
at
willow
and
day
will
be
completed
by
the
development.
O
There
was
also
material
that
I
believe
you
have
seen
that
came
from
joanne
cornish
relative
to
requiring
the
applicants
to
provide
a
letter
of
commitment
and
it's
our
position
that
the
original
condition,
which
is
identified
as
roman
numeral,
two
in
the
in
the
reordered
conditions
under
building
permit,
coupled
with
the
letter
of
commitment
that
we
will
agree
to
provide
satisfies
our
mitigation
of
the
impacts
that
we
were,
that
we
analyzed
and
that
we
understood
and
that
we
agreed
back
in
may
to
to
provide.
O
So
the
concern
being
that
there
could
be.
You
know,
quite
an
extended
process
for
the
west
end
couplet
to
find
its
way
through
the
community
through
city
hall,
before
any
of
our
two
owner
groups
could
put
a
shovel
in
the
ground
and
it's
while
we
understand
the
relationship.
O
We
feel
that
it's
it's
going
to
be
a
significant
time
delay
in
our
ability
to
do
anything
in
the
waterfront
and
it
may
not
just
be
our
project,
but
the
extension
of
of
a
similar
condition
could,
you
know,
could
have
impacts
for
for
small
and
large
potential
developments.
O
Is
you
know?
What's
you
know
that
it
could
be?
It
could
be
an
issue
for
that
site
if,
if
this
type
of
mitigation
that
dot
is
is
requiring
the
submit
the
city
to
buy
into
is
maintained.
D
So,
to
make
sure
I
understand
what
you're
saying
you
know
the
the
impacts
that
you
raise.
I
mean
that
I
I
find
that
very
believable.
The
schedule
impacts
I
I
I
buy,
but
your
position
is
basically
to
unfairly
summarize.
Is
that
we're
covered
without
this
condition
that
even
if
we're
not
waiting
for
common
council
approval
of
the
west
end
couplet
that
you
are
on
the
hook
for
any
mitigations
anyway?
D
P
Oh,
if
I
could
just
add
here
sure
I
think
the
way
I
understand
it
and
david,
you
can
correct
him
if
I'm
wrong
is
and
the
way
that
I
believe
it
is
that
we
have
agreed.
We
have
found
funding
for
all
the
improvements
at
the
willow
day,
intersection
that
the
planning
board
had
reviewed
and
signed
off
on
and
that
in
fact,
the
d.o.t
had
reviewed
and
said
yeah.
This
is
this
looks
good.
It
was
only
in
the
11th
hour
that
they
tied
us
to
the
couplet
anyhow.
P
What
I
am
proposing
and
and
and
this
isn't
a
formal
proposition,
but
this
is
what
how
I
understand
it
and
I
would
hope
it
would
be
amenable-
is
that
work
we've
got
the
funding.
We
have
the
plan
to
do
it.
You
know
you
can
hold
our
feet
to
the
fire
as
much
as
you
want
to
feel
comfortable,
but
what
we
just
sit
so
uneasy
with
us
is
the
timing
and
the
potential
for
a
negative
vote
from
common
council
on
the
couplet,
which
then
throws
the
whole
project,
including
guthrie
medical,
into
a
total
tail
spin.
P
P
So
let's
say
the
couple
it
is:
is
you
know
somehow
squeezes
through
in
three
months
we're
happy
we'll.
You
know
we'll
be
mid
construction,
hopefully
with
guthrie,
we'll
get
it
done
by
the
end,
but
say
it
doesn't
make
it
through
or
it's
extended
process,
eight
twelve,
two
years
or
it
never
does
you
know
we.
We
have
to
somehow
have
an
agreement
that
we
we
will
still
do
the
work
to
willow
and
day
the
second
that
the
state
issues
a
permit,
but
we're
at
the
mercy
of
the
state.
P
At
that
point,
and
it's
and
you
know
we
can
do
as
much
as
we
want.
The
city
can
do
as
much
as
they
want
to
try
and
make
it
happen,
board
the
mercy
of
the
state,
and
it's
it's
quite
frankly,
it's
unfair
for
us,
it's
unfair
for
the
city,
it's
unfair,
for
you
know
the
people
who
live
in
the
city,
but
that's
the
position
we're
in
it's
and
it's
I'm
not
there's
no
other
way.
To
put
it.
It's
very
awkward.
D
D
J
D
And
I
think
that's
tricky
lisa
is
there?
Are
there
subtleties
to
this
that
I'm
missing?
Are
we
ready
just
to
go
around
the
room
and
talk
about
it.
C
I
don't
think
there's
that
much
subtlety.
I
mean
it's
a
pretty
big
hammer
that
d.o.t
issued.
You
know
they
said
this
is
required
mitigation,
so
they're
not
going
to
permit
the
you
know
they
that's
my
understanding.
They
aren't
going
to
permit
the
improvements
to
route
13
proposed
by
this
project
and
as
mitigations
in
the
part
three.
C
Unless
you
know
the
city
gives
a
conceptual
approval
of
exploring
this
option
that
could
change
in
the
future.
They
might
move
on
it.
I
don't
know
like
if
it
yeah,
I
don't
we
don't
know.
What's
going
to
happen,
we
just
want
to
get
to
conceptual
approval.
That's
all
they
are
so
basically
that
they.
So
there's
really.
You
know.
So
it's
really
it's
a
very
difficult
spot
for
the
developer,
because
it
you
know,
they're
not
going
to
be
able
to
build
those
improvements
until
d.o.t
is
satisfied
that
the
city
will
look
at
this.
D
I
I
think
so
I've
been
watching
people's
facial
expressions
and
I'm
excited
to
hear
what
people
say.
So
maybe
we
should
go
around
the
room
garrick.
Would
you
mind
leading
us
off.
J
Can
hear
you,
okay,
yeah,
I
mean
my
position
on
this
is
the
same
as
it's
been
in
the
past,
which
is
I,
I
really
think
it's
unfair
to
hold
one
project
responsible,
for
you
know,
system-wide
improvement
that
needs
to
be
made
on
route.
13.
J
people
build
projects
in
lansing
and
the
people
who
live
in
those
projects
drive
into
ethica
and
drive
out
of
on
route
13
and
no
one
says
a
thing
of
it.
But
then,
when
we
build
housing,
that's
close
into
the
downtown
core
that
allow
people
to
to
bike
or
walk
to
work
we
say
hold
on.
J
We
need
to
put
the
whole
thing
on
hold
until
we
figure
out
the
traffic,
so
I
just
think
that's
really
unfair
that
the
the
central
project-
that's
the
most
in
line
with
our
comprehensive
plan
in
terms
of
transportation,
gets
singled
out
to
be
responsible
for
improving.
J
You
know
an
area-wide
transportation
problem,
so
I
think
these
things
should
be
separated.
The
applicant
has
agreed
to
make
the
improvements
requested
at
the
intersection,
that's
right
by
their
site.
I
think
that's
more
more
than
sufficient
and
as
far
as
I'm
concerned,
they
should
start
building.
Now
I
don't
know
that
you
know
the
legal
issues
of
this
and
who's
responsible
for
what
and
you
know
what
the
attorneys
say.
I
don't
know,
but
just
from
my
perspective,
I
think
these
are
separate
issues.
This
is
a
great
project
and
they
should
start
immediately
thanks.
D
Garrett,
emily.
G
Yeah,
I
agree,
I
think
it's
unfortunate,
that
they're
holding
this
project
hostage
these
two
projects
hostage,
but
I
feel
uncomfortable,
removing
condition.
Roman
numeral
three
completely.
I
agree
with
garrick
that
they
need
to
start
building
as
soon
as
possible
and
not
have
to
wait.
So
I
wonder
if
we
can
make
it
a
condition,
that's
moved
to
before
issuance
of
certificate
of
occupancy.
G
I
Yes,
thank
you
so
well.
I
I
I
think
it
seems
a
heavy
hammer.
I
agree
with
lisa
for
this
particular
project
to
kind
of
bear
the
burden
of
a
transportation
analysis
for
that
entire
area,
and
I
just
wonder
if
it
makes
sense
to
reopen
the
the
environmental
for
the
seeker
for
the
zoning
and
do
a
transportation,
specific
tgeis
kind
of
like
what
was
done
at
cornell.
I
I
You
know
we
gotta
find
a
way
to
put
the
toothpaste
back
in
the
tube
here,
because
sorry,
I'm,
the
179,
it
seems
like
it
could
be
a
really
good
opportunity
to
get
a
handle
on
kind
of
an
area-wide
transportation
impact,
and
then
that
way,
these
next
projects
can,
you
know
hopefully
like
garrick,
is
saying
you
know
fulfill
the
aspirations
of
you
know
this
urban
waterfront
that
we're
looking
to
do
from
from
this
perspective-
and
I
don't
know
if
that's
helpful-
for
this
particular
project.
But
that's.
K
D
Thank
you,
cj
mitch,.
F
I
agree
with
what
emily
and
gary
and
cj
are
talking
about.
I,
I
don't
really
have
any
other
comments.
I
do
think
it's
a
kind
of
a
classic
case
of
the
tail
wagging
the
dog
here
and
it's
unfortunate
that
the
development
team
is
having
a
deal
with
this.
So
if
there's
anything,
we
can
do
as
a
board
to
move
the
project
forward.
I
say:
let's
do
it
and
I
just
did
want
to
ask
about
the
david's
explanation
about
joanne's
letter.
F
C
So
joanne
has
asked
for
a
letter
of
commitment.
It's
a
condition
on
before
the
issuance
of
building
permit.
We've
got
verbal
confirmation
from
the
developer
that
they
will
provide
that
letter
of
commitment,
and
so
I
think,
if
they
do,
that,
that
can
stay
as
a
condition
they've
agreed
to
it.
So
right
is
that
correct
costa
dave.
O
Right,
our
expectation
would
be
that
we
would
provide
the
financial
assurances
to
the
city
that
the
value
of
the
mitigations
would
be
covered
through
bonding
as
a
fail-safe.
If
you
will,
I
fully
expect
that
the
timing
of
mitigations
being
implemented
would
be
2023
plus
or
minus,
and
but
again
we
would
provide
those
assurances
to
the
city
that
the
money
will
be
there
to
support
the
mitigation
when
there's
a
collective
understanding
of
what
the
d.o.t
is.
Ultimately
gonna
allow
the
city
to
do
within
the
corridor.
P
And
if
I
may
just
add
very
quickly
to
emily's
point
earlier,
I
think
that
that
that
bonding
you
know
to
the
us
paying
for
the
improvements
before
they
can
happen.
You
know,
is
a
pretty
good.
You
know
that
holds
our
feet
to
the
fire,
pretty
good,
because
otherwise
you
know
this
is
a
half
a
million
dollars
sitting
in
an
account
that
we
can't
access,
that's
doing
no
good
for
our
project
or
for
the
city
for
that
matter.
So
I
would
ask
that
you,
you
think
about
that.
P
Potentially
you
know
because
we're
we're
willing
to
do
that.
You
know
if,
if
we
could,
I
shouldn't
say
this,
and
this
is
off
the
cuff,
but
if
we
could
just
pay,
you
know
some
certain
amount
of
money
to
get
the
or
collectively
plan
to
get
the
couplet
done.
This
wouldn't
be
such
a
huge
issue.
It's
really
this
this
in
this
timing.
That
is
way
beyond
you
know
risky.
For
us,
it's
a
common
public
comment,
common
council
vote.
P
It
didn't
go
over
that
well
in
pedc,
I
might
add
so
it's
scary
and-
and
you
know,
if,
where
we
need
your
help
is,
is
yes
hold
our
feet
to
the
fire.
Tell
us
what
would
make
you
feel
comfortable
that
we
will
get
these
mitigations
done
at
willow
day
and
route
13
when
we're
allowed
to
do
then,
whenever
that
may
be,
if
that's
before
the
project's
over
best,
that's
better
for
both
of
us,
our
access
is
better.
If
it's,
if
it's
shortly
thereafter
fine,
we
can
deal
with
that.
P
E
Thanks,
I'm
sorry
that
for
a
few
minutes
my
internet
was
pretty
choppy,
then
it
cut
out.
E
So
I
lost
some
of
the
preamble
to
this
round,
but
I'm
pretty
sure
I
know
where
we
are-
and
I
agree
with
you
know
the
notion
that
this
applicant
is
going
above
and
beyond,
what's
required
right
now
and
that
you
know
I
think
garrick
explained
well
the
like,
where
the
burden
really
where
the
burden
could
lie
and
where
it
is
lying
right
now,
with
this
project-
and
I
guess
I
have
a
similar-
I
have
a
question
around
what
we
can
do
to
help
push
it
forward.
E
I
I
don't
know
if
you
know,
if
we're,
if
we're
waiting
for
common
council
to
approve
something
of
dots,
but
it
didn't
go
over
well
at
p
deck,
like
what
role
does
the
board
have
to
play
in
moving
this
forward,
and
I'm
also
curious
if
any
of
this
is
related
at
all
to
you
know
a
letter
that
we
got
from
cynthia
brock
about
the
emergency
access
like?
Are
those
two
completely
separate
issues,
or
do
we
need
to
deal
with
those
at
a
similar
time?
E
I
know
it
seemed
like:
maybe
both
of
them
could
be,
or
at
least
emergency
access
could
be
punted
a
little
bit
towards
phase
two.
But
I
don't
have
total
clarity
on
like
the
timing
and
the
needs
for
that
emergency
access
portion
and
whether
or
not
it
relates
to
to
the
couplet.
C
I
don't
think
they're
they're
not
related.
I
feel
like
that
was
resolved
with
the
email
from
tom
parsons
in
the
sense
of
it
you
know,
and
we
can
go
into
that
after
we
talk
about
this-
I
don't,
I
think
they
can
be
separated.
C
However,
if
I
may,
I
think
that
you
know
the
board
could
play
a
role
in
in
in
as
cj
sort
of
said.
I
don't
think
we
can
put
the
toothpaste
back
in
the
tube,
but
this
is
a
situation
that
every
every
development
is
gonna
have
and
we
have
to
get
a
handle
on
it.
We
can't
go
back
in
time
and
say:
okay,
you
know
we
should
have
done.
C
I
mean
we
can
say
that,
but
we
need
to
do
some
kind
of
transportation
study
for
the
waterfront
area
and
figure
out
what's
going
to
work
to
for
the
long
term,
and
certainly
the
planning
board
could
be
very
good
positive
force
in
recommending
that
to
common
council
if
it
starts
with
the
couplet
idea
or
if
it
expands
on
that,
that
would
be
very
helpful
and
positive.
I
think.
D
Thank
you,
elizabeth.
L
Yeah,
so
I
I
think,
I'm
in
agreement
with
what
every
everything
everyone
has
said.
This
is
a
positive
project
for
the
top
for
the
city
and
I'd
like
to
see
it
go
forward,
and
I
empathize
with
you
having
to
make
a
commitment
on
items
that
are
beyond
your
control.
L
L
So
I
appreciate
the
bond
that
you're
willing
to
commit
to
on
your
mitigations
for
transportation,
but
it
needs
to
be
part
of
a
larger
plan
right.
So
what?
If?
If
what?
If
the
mitigations
change-
and
you
have
who's
gonna,
take
that
that
responsibility
for
those
changes.
You
know,
if
you
end
up
having
to
make
more
of
a
commitment,
then
you
bonded.
D
Thanks
elizabeth,
I
agree.
I'm
gonna
try
to
summarize
what
I
think
we
all
heard
and
then
I'm
gonna
open
it
up
to
hands
cj.
I
see
your
hand,
I'm
gonna
grab
you
in
a
second.
If
that's
all
right,
I
feel
like
what
we
heard
was.
Nobody
saying
leave
the
condition
in
as
it's
written.
I
heard
a
few
voices
say
strike
it.
D
That's
not
just
about
this
project
and
let
this
project
move
forward,
and
then
I've
heard
a
voice
saying,
let's
rephrase
it
to
give
us
some
assurance
beyond
what
we're
going
to
get
from
the
bond
and
so
there's
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
stuff
there
that
I
am
not
quite
sure
which
parts
are
realistic
and
which
ones
aren't
in
terms
of
actually
moving
forward
tonight
and
with
that,
I'm
gonna.
I'm
gonna
look
for
hands
in
a
minute,
but
first
I'm
gonna
call
on
cj.
I
Thank
you
rob
so
the
one
thing
I
was
thinking
is
if
well-
and
I
don't
know
where
planning
stands
on
this-
it's
very
odd,
I
would
say-
to
receive
a
proposal
for
a
major
transportation
realignment
of
the
entire
downtown
the
day
of
a
meeting
and
have
that
as
a
condition
of
approval
for
a
project.
I
would
say
that's
incredibly
unusual
and
I'm
not
even
frankly
sure
what
to
make
of
it.
I
Whatever
those
conditions
are
that
are
found
to
mitigate
the
project.
I
wonder
if
that
is
a
good
tie
to
this
project,
because
then
it's
not.
You
know
heaping
this
project
with
the
couplet
specifically
because
what,
if
that
ends
up
not
even
being
being
the
mitigation
of
the
result,
analysis
right,
I
mean,
has
if,
if
d.o.t
has
thought
about
this
all
summer-
and
this
is
their
conclusion-
okay,
this
solves
all
the
problems
for
the
waterfront.
I
Okay,
I'm
I'm
hip
to
that
and
I'll
be
quiet
about
the
opening
any
kind
of
seeker
for
the
the
previous
waterfront
for
the
entirety
of
the
waterfront
rezoning.
But
if
we
could
at
least
maybe
in
advance
of
those
other
projects,
see
what
the
conditions
were,
that
they've
come
up
with
those
two.
Maybe
you
know
a
bit
more
in
advance.
That
would
also
be
helpful.
D
Thank
you
cj.
I
need
help
unpacking
that
and
so
I'm
gonna
look
at
lisa.
C
So
yeah
I
mean
what
cj
is
suggesting
is
to
go
back
to
the
zoning
and
she's
saying
there
should
have
been.
You
know,
reopen
the
transportation
section
for
the
for
the
plant
waterfront
plan
and
zoning
and
amend
the
the
seeker
for
that
and
yeah
I
mean
I,
I
that's
probably
what
I
I
think
we
can
do
it
another
way
without
going
back.
I
think
we
can
move
forward
and
do
a
transportation
study
for
the
waterfront.
C
I
think
that's
has
to
get
done
and
this
concept
of
the
couplet
or
whatever
it
ends
up
being
to
improve
safety
and
vehicular
travel
through
the
corridor
as
well
as
other
kinds
of
travels
to
corridor,
has
to
be
studied,
but
right
now
we
don't
have
a
project
and
money
for
that.
So
you
know
so
so
you
know,
I
think
d.o.t
recommended
what
they
thought
would
work.
You
know
this
is
not
something
they
wanted
to
do
for
a
while
and
there,
because
they
have
approvals
that
they
have
to
give
these
projects.
C
They
can
say
yeah.
This
is
this
is
part
of
it
you
have
to.
We
have
to
you
have
to
do
this
too,
and
so
I
think
that
I
think
that
the
you
know
the
it
would
be
helpful
for
the
planning
board
to
recommend
to
common
council.
You
know
whether
it's
this
couplet
or
just
take
a
more
comprehensive
look
and
to
put
resources
into
taking
a
comprehensive
look
at
transportation
in
the
waterfront
area
in
order
to
realize
the
vision
of
the
waterfront
plan.
I
think
you
could
say
it
like
that.
C
I
But
I
didn't
mean
to
insinuate
that
just
that
that
was
kind
of
an
option,
but
just
thinking
you
know
the
transportation
alternatives,
the
tap
money
is
about
to
open
up.
That
could
definitely
go
for
planning,
for
you
know,
specifically
this
type
of
this
type
of
condition.
I
suppose
you
could
say
so,
and
I
didn't
mean
I'm
not
meaning
to
be
critical
of
anyone
just
trying
to
think.
C
E
Yeah
thanks
no
problem.
This
is
all
really
helpful.
It
feels
kind
of
like
a
new
discussion.
It's
not
something
that
I
feel
like
the
board
deals
with
all
the
time
does.
Does
this
have
to
be
like
an
either
or
thing,
or
can
it
be
kind
of
a
both
and
situation
where
we
request
a
traffic
impact
study?
You
know
that,
like
common
council
and
dot
are
are
part
of,
and
also
we
strike
that
approval
from
this,
because
the
timing
just
isn't
appropriate.
I
suppose,
if
it's
not,
I
don't
you
know.
E
I
want
to
be
careful
about
setting
precedent,
because
sometimes
a
policy
is
enacted
in
the
middle
of
a
project
that
we
really
hope
like
plays
out
in
that
project,
like
affordability,
for
example.
But
in
this
case
I
feel,
like
you
know,
there's
some
kind
of
new
new
ideas,
new
implementation,
and
it's
like
at
the
very
end
of
this
project,
and
it
does.
I
I
think
that
the
board
all
agrees
that
we
don't
want
to
hold
this
particular
applicant
like
to
task
for
a
much
bigger
thing
I
feel
like.
E
D
Thanks
mackenzie,
I
I
think
that's
a
reasonable
suggestion,
so
I
mean,
as
pointed
out,
we
do
have
a
couple
issues
before
us
at
this
point.
We
have
you
know
what
do
we
do
about
the
west
end
traffic
mitigation
and
I
think,
there's
some
consensus
emerging
that
we
need
to
do
some
sort
of
study,
but
that's
not
necessarily
tried
directly
to
the
approvals
of
this
project
and
then
in
the
approval
for
this
project.
There's
this
condition
which
the
applicant
objects
to
and
not
without
reason.
D
You
know
this
is
a
a
weird
situation
in
terms
of
timing
and
in
terms
of
you
know,
state
level,
meddling,
and
so
what
do
we
do?
You
know
we
could
just
strike
it.
I
will
say
personally
I
really
liked
the
common
you
know,
sort
of
the
middle
ground
that
emily
proposed
moving
it
to
a
later
stage
of
the
approvals.
Then
we
come
back
to
it
and
maybe
we
strike
it
then,
or
maybe
we
get
it
satisfied
and
then
you
know
I
think
elizabeth
hypothesized,
a
rewarding
that
got
us
more
comfortable.
D
G
Thanks,
I
suggested
moving
that
number
three
to
the
cfo,
but
the
more
I
think
about
it.
I
don't
know
that
that
solves
the
problem,
because
we
would
still
be
holding
the
applicant
responsible
for
something
that
is
a
d.o.t
issue.
D
Okay,
I
appreciate
you,
you
know
clarifying
that
I
I
had
really
been
sold
by
it.
I
really
liked
that
idea.
I
thought
it
was
an
attractive
punt
mckenzie.
I
saw
your
hand.
E
I
think
we
could
also
you
know.
I
think
that
we
have.
We
have
the
right
to
to
say
these
mitigations
the
way
we
want
to
right
and
like
approval
by
common
council
approval
of
a
different
entity
of
a
different
entity's
plan,
like
it's
all
very
external,
and
it
doesn't
seem
like
an
appropriate
mitigation
for
this
board
to
hold
anyway.
E
So
instead,
we
could
say,
like
this
board
hopes
that
the
applicant
considers
dot's
plans,
but
not
hold
them
to
common
council
approving
it.
That
feels
like
it's
actually
a
little
bit
more
in
our
wheelhouse
to
like
make
that
request
of
them,
but
yeah
so
I'd,
say
striking
it
or
like
really
softening
the
language.
That's
that's
where
I
am
with
it.
D
Okay,
thank
you.
So
maybe
we
should
go
around
the
room
and
see
where
people
are
whether
they
want
to
strike
or
whether
they
want
to
do
something
else,
and
you
could
just
tell
me
what
the
something
else
is.
Oh
lisa.
C
I
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
you
understand
that,
if
you
I
mean-
and
I
I
agree-
that
it's
it's
very
heavy-handed
and
everything,
but
if
the
reason
it's
in
there
is
because
without
some
kind
of
assurance
that
they
can
build
the
pedestrian
improvements
on
13,
they
won't,
they
might
not
get
built,
the
project
might
build
out
and
those
those
improvements
will
never
get
built.
So
there
will
never
be
improved
pedestrian
crosswalk
on
route
13..
Just.
R
C
C
So
I
feel
like
it
is
totally
out
of
the
planning
board's
wheelhouse
to
be
having
to
have
such
a
condition
on,
but
if
it's
it
was
in
an
effort
to
not
let
this
project
happen
without
those
having
more
assurance
that
those
things
will
be
built-
and
I
I
mean
I'm
not
you
know.
Obviously
you
should
make
this
decision.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
you
understand
that.
C
I
mean
yes
that
I
mean
it
happens,
all
the
time
that
you
know
in
different
ways.
You
approve
things
that
other
people
have
jurisdiction
over,
so
you
want
to
make
sure
that
whoever
has
jurisdiction
over
those
improvements
is
somewhat
on
board
with
them.
So
you
know
that
it
happens
a
lot
actually
in
your
work,
because.
E
So
it
sounds
like
more
of
a
consideration
than
a
condition
to
me
like
we.
We
understand
the
possibility
that
some
of
this
plan
may
not
be
able
to
move
forward
because
of
other
decision-making
bodies,
but
we're
approving
the
plan
with
these
improvements
in
place
and
assuming
all
approvals,
all
other
approvals
move
forward.
That's
the
plan,
that's
approved
and
then
it's
like,
we
don't
have
any
control
over
it.
Whatever,
whatever
I
mean,
we
can
make
recommendations
to
common
council,
but
we
don't
have
control
over
their
approval
or
not
anyway,
whether
or
not
it's
a
condition.
C
D
G
So
it
sounds
like
the
question
is
coming
down
to
do.
We
want
this
project
at
all
if
we
can't
get
the
pedestrian
revisions,
and
I
think
at
least
from
my
perspective,
we
want
the
project,
even
if
those
pedestrian
revisions
can't
happen.
We
all
want
them,
but
I
would
not
delay.
I
would
not
cancel
the
project
altogether
if
they
can't
happen.
D
I'll
say
that
I
agree
I
I
still
keep
going
back
to
the
middle
ground
that
you've
walked
away
from,
which
is
to
to
put
it
on
the
cfo,
because
then
they
have
to
come
back
and
if
they
don't,
you
know,
but
you
know
I
I
I
get
why.
That
is
unfair
in
the
same
way
that
the
condition
and
and
the
the
current
spot's
unfair,
but.
D
Now
we
make
them
do
something
else.
You
know
we
would
have
the
leverage
over
the
cfo
and
if
we
can't
make
them
do
a,
we
could
make
them
do
b,
because
we
have
you
know
something
and
I
feel
like
if
we
strike
we
no
longer
have
a
thing.
We
have
this
money,
that's
bonded,
which
is
nice,
but
we
don't
have
the
same
leverage
to
say
what
they
do
with
it,
although
maybe
maybe
I'm
just
wrong.
So
I
mean
if
somebody
wants
to
explain
why
I'm
wrong
I'd
be
happy
to
listen.
Can.
P
Anything
for
you,
I
just
want
to
say,
go
on.
I
had
that
such
an
open,
open,
checkbook
kind
of
at
the
end
of
a
project
is,
does
not
it's
not
looked
favorably
upon
by
financers
by.
D
P
Every
major
bank,
if,
if
we
just
said
we'll
figure
it
out
at
the
end
and
right
now
we're
looking
at
half
a
million
who
knows
what
it
could
be,
then
they
would
be
a
little
scared.
No,
I
relate
to
that.
D
I
I'm
sure
that's
true.
No,
I
I'm
sensitive
to
that.
I
just
like
it
better
than
where
it
is
but
yeah
I
mean
it
doesn't
sound
like
that's
where
the
board
is
headed.
So
let's
go
around
the
the
board
and
let's,
let's
ask
people
if
they
want
to
strike
this
or
whether
they
want
to
do
something
else,
whether
it's
move
it
reword
it
whatever.
I
think
consensus
is
the
strike,
but
I
want
to
get
everybody
on
the
record.
Garrick.
H
D
J
Overlooking
it
so
rob
I
mean
look,
I
I
think
that,
from
the
point
of
view
of
the
applicant
offering
up
to
improve
the
pedestrian
access
at
that
intersection
and
warrantying
that
with
a
bond
that
covers
us,
if
they,
for
example,
if
they
went
bankrupt
or
whatever
is
really
all
that
we
can
ask
of
them-
they
would
do
it
now
if
they
could,
but
they
can't.
J
You
know
they're
willing
to
offer
up
money
to
do
it
in
the
future
when
they
have
the
permission
to
do
it
and
they're
willing
to
back
up
that
money
with
a
bond.
I
think
that's
enough,
I
don't
think
we
need
any
other
condition.
You
know
let
let
the
department
of
transportation
figure
out
how
they
want
to
do
the
sidewalks
and
when
they
do
do
it,
they'll
have
the
money
to
pay
for
it.
J
The
only
thing
I'd
add
is,
and
since
I
don't,
I
don't
have
the
bond
language
in
front
of
me-
I
I
don't
know,
but
I
I
think
it's
you
know
that
the
amount
of
money
that
should
be
put
in
for
the
sidewalk
should
have
some
limit
to
it.
So
it
shouldn't
be
an
open-ended
obligation,
so
the
you
know
the
applicant
agrees
to
pay
for
sidewalk
improvements
up
to
you
know
what
some
reasonable
estimate
of
what
it
would
cost
to
build.
J
What
is
currently
proposed
so
that
they're
not
put
in
a
position
where,
three
years
from
now
the
dot
decides
it
needs
to
be
some
mega
project
and
then
they're
liable
for
paying.
For
so
I
think
their
liability
needs
to
be
limited,
but
I
I
just
you
rigorously
object
to
holding
any.
You
know
permit
hostage
to
the
actions
of
the
common
council
or
department
of
transportation.
J
D
F
D
L
I
agree,
I
think
it's
a
rewarding.
Maybe
it
doesn't
belong
in
the
permit
section,
but
I
like
what
garrick
said
about
the
applicant
will
commit
to
making
a
an
investment
of
half
a
million
dollars
for
pedestrian
access.
I
think
that.
C
Well,
I
mean
the
the
pedestrian
access
that
we're
talking
about
was
detailed
to
great
detail
in
the
part
three
and
explained
that's
what
you
approved.
You
approved
the
drawings
for
the
pedestrian
access.
It's
a
you
know
a
crosswalks
over
route
13
with
a
median
refuge
and
then
other
you
know
they
have
to
change,
do
some
things
so
so
I
think
that
they've
estimated
the
cost
of
that
to
a
half
million
dollars,
and
you
know
that
I
don't
have
any
reason
to
doubt
that
them
that
that's
what
they
would
cause.
C
P
C
Yes,
they
won't
right,
they
don't
have
it.
They
don't
have
an
objection.
To
I
mean
dot's
position.
Is
they
think
these
projects
are
too
big
they're
going
to
put
too
many
cars?
So
how
do
they
increase
vehicular
capacity
within
the
corridor?
That
is
not
the
city's
position.
The
city
has
a
different
position
that
creating
places
where
people
work
and
live
and
recreate-
and
you
know
if
we
increase
pedestrian
amenities-
that's
that
is
going
to
mitigate
the
traffic
right.
A
C
A
different
perspective,
but
d.o.t
still
has
to
permit
that.
So
I
mean
I
don't
like
it.
I
don't
like
this.
I
don't
like
the
condition.
I
don't
think
it's.
I
don't
think
it's.
I
don't
think
it's
fair
to
re.
Well,
I
mean
I
don't
I
don't
know
about
fair,
but
I
don't
think
it's.
C
C
If
you
could
couple
that
with
a
strong
recommendation
to
common
council
to
invest
resources
in
exploring
the
couplet
and
whatever
other
transportation
improvements
are
needed
in
the
waterfront
area
to
facilitate
the
vision
for
the
waterfront.
That
would
be
helpful
rather
than
just.
I
think
that
would
be
helpful
yeah.
I
think
I've
said
that.
Does
that.
Does
that
answer
your
question
rob
you
said
you
want
to
yeah.
D
I
think
so
I
mean
I,
I
think
that
people
are
generally
satisfied
with
what
you
just
said
just
from
reading
faces,
and
I
also
think
I
heard
a
majority
for
striking.
You
know
there
were
some.
There
were
some
complications
around
a
couple
of
voices,
but
you
know
definite
majority
for
striking,
and
I
think
you
know
when
there
was
enough
voices.
D
You
know
in
support
of
the
bonding
thing
and
and
thanks
for
catching
that
it
wasn't
in
the
resolution,
has
written
garrick
and
so
much
of
the
bonding
question
is
wrapped
up
in
this
letter
of
commitment,
which
we
don't
have
yet
that
I
wonder
if
it's
not
worth
pinning
something
down
sticking
in
some
sort
of
bonding
condition
in
the
resolution
and
relying
on
that
when
we
strike
the
the
current
number
three
and
I
wondered
lisa.
What's
your
thoughts
on
that
one.
C
I
think
that
the
what
is
supposed
to
be
in
the
letter
of
commitment
is
in
the
last,
whereas
so,
if
they
choose
to
bond
it,
then
that
takes
care
of
it.
That
certainly
takes
care
of
it,
they're,
otherwise
solely
responsible
for
the
financing
of
it
so
bonding.
It
is
a
great
idea
I
mean
you
could.
It
seems
like
that,
it's
already
detailed
that
they
have
to
take
financial
responsibility,
saying
they're
going
to
bond.
It
does
satisfies
that.
I
know
if
you
want
to
specifically
say
bonding.
D
I
I
think
that
would
give
me
a
level
of
comfort.
I
don't
I
don't
know
that,
that's
where
the
whole
board
is,
but
I
yeah
so
at
least
a
couple
other
nods
and
the
applicant's
willing
to
do
it,
and
so
maybe
we
just
elizabeth,
I
see
a
thumbs
up.
Are
you?
Are
you
asking
to
speak
sorry.
L
E
Yeah
also,
I
just
want
to
point
out
that
in
that,
whereas
around
the
letter
of
commitment,
it
states
that
you
know
the
applicant
understands
and
acknowledges
that
any
changes
to
the
approved
site
plan
would
have
to
be
approved
by
us
or
staff
is
allowed
before
they
can
be
implemented.
So
if
it
were
to
be
down
the
line
after
they,
you
know
start
building
that
common
council,
for
some
reason,
doesn't
approve
this.
That
change
to
the
plan
is
already
going
to
come
back
to
the
planning
and
development
board.
E
So
I
think
that
there's
kind
of
that
fail-safe
for
us
to
get
to
work
with
the
applicant
again
on
like
how
we
might
change
things.
I
mean
I
it
seems
like
if
common
council
doesn't
approve
it,
everybody's
hands
are
tied,
the
board
and
the
applicant's
hands
are
tied
and
we
can't
really
force
those
improvements,
but
we
could
potentially
talk
about
other
mitigations
or
something
it
seems
like
it's.
You
know,
there's
there's
room
for
this
to
be
open
for
the
discussion
to
be
open
in
the
future.
D
Thank
you
mackenzie.
I
think
that's,
I
think
that's
a
fair
read.
So
that
was
a
lot
I
feel
like.
We
just
put
one
condition
to
bed
and
there's
a
whole
other
rest
of
the
resolution.
Here
david,
I'm
gonna
ask
you.
You
mentioned
two
conditions
specifically
that
were
applicant
concerns.
Can
you
point
me
to
the
other
one
because
I
don't
have
a
little
star
by
it.
H
O
Three
was
the
one
that
we
had
an
issue
with,
and
perhaps
what
I
was
alluding
to
was
that
as
part
of,
what's
embedded
in
condition,
two
under
issuance
of
a
building
permit
deals
with
the
transportation
improvements
and
emergency
access
improvements,
and
I
I
went
to
great
lengths
in
our
cover
letter,
to
lisa,
to
explain
how
I
saw
those
as
being
two
discreet
and
different
objectives,
one
from
a
planning
perspective
and
one
from
an
approval
perspective,
and
we,
we
have
just
dealt
with
the
transportation
side
of
condition
two.
O
O
In
the
balance
of
the
newman
district
that
wants
to
come
back
to
the
city
and
and
offer
additional
residential
housing
development,
that
too
could
trigger
the
need
to
understand
the
second
means
of
access
for
emergency
vehicles.
It's
not
to
suggest
that
it
would
be
a
secondary
means
of
access
for
the
public,
but
it
would
be
emergency
access
for
life
safety
purposes.
O
D
C
So
I
think
that
I've,
I
think
that
we
can
take
that
part
of
it
out.
I
mean
what
we
you
know.
David
didn't
come
up
with
this
idea
on
his
own.
We
talked
to
tom
parsons
about
it
and
we
looked
at
various
other
routes
and
ultimately,
he
felt
like
the
one
to
investigate
further
would
be
to
co-locate
the
emergency
access,
which
would
only
be
used
if
willow
were
black
blocked
by
a
train,
and
there
was
a
fire
in
that
area,
and
that
was
the
only
time
it
would
be
used.
C
So
he
felt
that
that
was
you
know
co-locating
that,
with
the
trail
was
the
best
option
because
it
already
exists,
and
it
wouldn't
you
know
it's.
C
D
D
D
All
right,
I
am
going
to
go
around
the
room,
garrick,
any
final
thoughts
or
or
feelings,
questions
or
issues.
J
G
I'm
good
with
both
of
those
changes,
and
I
wonder
about
our
language
or
suggestion
to
common
counsel-
is
that
something
we
want
to
put
in
here.
Is
that
something
we
want
to
talk
about
at
the
end
tonight
or
soon.
D
D
E
L
I
agree
to
the
condition
for
the
commitment
letter,
including
wording
about
the.
L
H
D
D
As
detailed
in
the
part
three-
and
I
don't
know
that
we
want
to
set
a
number
because.
C
D
G
C
So
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I
understand
everything,
we're
taking
out
condition
three
completely
and
then
submission
it
and
we're
adding
to
the
submission
of
a
letter
of
commitment,
a
bond
for
the
scope
of
work
for
the
construction
costs
as
detailed
in
part
three
and
then,
and
then
the
ninth
grade.
Thank
you
that
that's.
I
And
would
you
want
to
make
the
estimate
of
costs
to
be
prepared
by
a
pe
and
sealed
accordingly
and
have
the
annual
cost
reflect
prevailing,
because
this
would
be
a
public
works
project
right?
So
would
you
want.
C
I
mean
it
might
be
contracted
out.
It
could
be
potentially
contracted
out
to
somebody
else,
but
you
know
like
if
the
city
were
doing
work,
they
were
doing
work,
but
they've
agreed
to
do
the.
I
Work.
Okay,
just
I
think
somebody
mentioned
an
inflationary
rise
for
the
surety
and
yeah.
I
would
make
sure
that's
in
there.
D
So
I
mean
cj's
referencing,
you
know,
I
think,
there's
a
couple
things
in
there.
One
is
one
is
having
some
provision
for
construction,
cost
inflation
and
then
the
other
is
prevailing
wages
if
the
sort
of
become
a
city
project.
The
response
I
heard
to
the
prevailing
wage
thing
was
that
it's
not
a
city
project,
it
would
be
an
applicant
project
and
so
that
may
not
be
appropriate
and
then
the
construction
cost
increase.
I
think
it's
tricky.
I'm
not
I'm
not
quite
sure
how
to
how
to
create
language
around
that.
L
D
D
M
C
It
doesn't
matter
if
the
bond
that
they're
in
good
faith,
it
seems
to
me,
offering
to
bond
a
half
a
million
dollars.
Will
it
cost
a
half
a
million
dollars?
I
don't
know
they
have
to
build
it,
whatever
it
costs,
but
they're
offering
to
bond
a
half
a
million
dollars.
I
I
mean
for
the
project.
They
have
to
build
what
they
said
they
would
build.
I
I
you
know
right
now:
it
costs
a
half
a
million
dollars.
C
If
they
want
to
bond
that
great,
we
don't
have
any
way
to
really
regulate
that
or
keep
track
of
that
if
it
costs
more,
they
have
to
put
in
more
money.
You
know
it's
it's
the
scope
of
work,
that's
important,
not
the
bunny,
so
I
I
feel
uncomfortable
getting
technical
about
the
bonding,
because
really
what
they
have
to
do
is
build
the
project
and
in
good
faith
they
are
offering
to
bond.
H
E
And
we
generally
don't
make
requirements
around
how
much
money
applicants
save
or
set
aside
for
any
portion
of
a
project.
I
think
what's
important.
Is
that
we're
holding
them
to
build
the
to
build
the
project
as
planned
and
approved
and
they're
putting
500
000
in
a
bond
because
they
want
to
set
that
aside
for
these
pedestrian
improvements,
whether
or
not
they
have
to
pay
more
or
less
at
the
time
of
doing
it
isn't
really
for
us
to
determine
now.
L
I
Yeah,
that's
cool,
I
mean
also,
you
could
give
them
more
flexibility
by
just
you
know,
referring
to
a
bond
or
a
letter
of
credit
or
whatever
form
you
know,
joanne
is
buy.
C
D
So
I
think
we've
reached
consensus
on
this.
I
think
we've
gotten
to
a
good
place.
I
do
want
to
open
it
up
for
anybody
with
concerns
questions,
because
you
know
we've
been
through
a
lot.
So
if
you
have
anything,
please
raise
your
hand
or
unmute
yourself,
seeing
none
I'm
ready
to
move
to
a
vote,
all
those
in
favor
of
the
yellow
resolution
before
us
final
approval
on
this
project.
D
Year,
I
forgot
all
right
all
those
in
favor
and
I
think
that
was
everybody
yeah.
So
you
have
unanimous
approval.
D
D
R
Okay,
I'm
gonna
share
my
screen.
We
have
a.
We
have
a
project
update,
okay,
sorry,
work
in
progress.
We
have
a
project
update
that.
R
We
have
some
facade
material
updates
for
based
on
our
last
few
conversations
with
the
board.
We've
decreased
the
amount
of
stucco
on
all
of
the
elevations,
the
materials
of
on
the
facades
have
changed
from
a
fiber
cement
panel
to
a
metal
versalock
panel.
R
R
You
can
see
that
material
is
the
light
gray
that
that
is
all
on
all
four
facades
a
metal
instead,
so
we
feel
that's
a
positive
change
and
we've
lowered
the
height
of
the
screen
on
the
roof
to
shield
the
mechanicals
there.
R
R
On
those
conversations
we've
been
having,
we
also
included
a
more
detailed
lighting,
drawing
so
that
you
can
tell
what
lights
are
being
used
underneath
these
reveals
and
to
eliminate
the
murals
themselves,
and
we
included
a
copy
of
renderings
of
the
project
as
seen
from
aurora
and
green
street.
R
Those
were
shown
during
previous
project
meetings,
so
those
were
the
materials
that
are
in
your
packet.
There
are
ongoing
updates
to
the
feaf
and
we
hope
to
talk
about
those
at
some
point
soon.
R
A
few
other
separate
processes
are
going
on,
so
we
have
shown
the
lot
line
adjustment,
drawing
the
way
that
the
property
lines
are
changing.
So,
instead
of
a
lot
line
adjustment,
the
project
will
be
doing
a
subdivision,
so
the
iora
has
been
coordinating
on
that
with
tpmr
who
is
working
on
that
independently
from
the
project.
R
We
are
on
the
agenda
for
the
bga
in
october
for
the
height
and
rear
yard,
variances
that
we've
talked
about
and
we're
working
with
city
planning
staff
to
coordinate
a
meeting
with
stakeholders
about
the
the
city
hall,
loading
and
parking
area
between
esteria
and
city
hall
and
the
east-west
alley.
That's
between
esteri
and
herald
square.
R
So
those
are
some
updates
and
then,
as
we
look
ahead,
we
have
we're
already
near
the
end
of
august
now,
so
looking
toward
prc
we'll
be
giving
a
full
design
update
all
of
our
building
plans,
elevations
perspectives,
landscape
plans,
site
plans,
civil
plans
and
that
will
include
the
garage
as
part
of
that,
so
we're
looking
forward
to
progressing
some
of
those
more
design
related
conversations
as
we're
hoping
to
reach
the
end
of
the
seeker
review
process.
R
So,
at
the
end
of
september,
during
the
regularly
scheduled
planning
board
meeting,
we're
hoping
for
a
secret
action
on
the
project
and
if
it
is
being
planned
in
your
planning
to
have
another
meeting
on
the
29th,
which
we
understand
is
a
possibility.
R
If
you
would
consider
having
this
project
on
the
agenda
for
the
final
design,
approvals
and
site
plan
approvals,
we
would
be
available
and
ready
for
those
conversations
because
we
are,
we
are
making
some
live
schedule
adjustments.
You
know
as
we
speak,
for
example,
we're
not
talking
about
the
fbaf
tonight,
so
that
was
getting
right
into
some
details
quickly.
So
we're
here
to
discuss
as
helpful.
D
All
right,
thank
you
very
much
so,
given
that
there's
no
action
on
this
today
and
it's
just
a
project
update
and
we've
had
the
presentation,
it
might
be
worth
just
going
around
the
room,
seeing
what
reactions
and
questions
are
to
what
we've
seen
so
far
and
then
seeing
if
there's
any
anything,
to
leave
the
applicant
with
on
that
front
emily.
Could
I
start
with
you.
G
Sure
so,
kate,
I
received
some
material
percentages
in
my
packet
for
today's
meeting.
So
are
you
saying
that,
for
example,
north
elevation,
synthetic
stucco
used
to
be
52
and
now
that
that
has
changed
right
and
fibers
board
cement
everywhere
will
now
be
metal
panel.
R
That's
right
and
all
of
the
percentages
of
stucco
on
all
of
them
have
decreased,
so
this
is
the
same
as
what
you
have
in
your
in
your
packet.
So
these
these
don't
reflect
the
changes
of
percentages.
What
I
recall
on
the
north
facade
was
a
change
of
about
nine
percent
decrease
stucco
other.
R
That
was
the
most
significant
change
great
in
terms
of
the
decrease
but
yeah.
We
also
felt
that
the
change
to
metal
instead
of
the
fiber
cement
was
a
pretty
significant,
positive,
yeah.
G
I
agree.
Thank
you
for
that
change.
That's
that's
great!
So
that's
my
only
comment
and
I
just
for
the
board
want
to
bring
up
cynthia
brock's
letter
because
I
am
now
confused.
G
D
Thank
you,
emily
cj.
I
I
I
Oh
okay,
and
why
the
creation
of
a
new.
C
Because
it's
one
lot
now
and
so
you
you
know,
if
you
do
the
lot
line
adjustment
you're
you're
at
you're,
creating
it
actually
creates
a
buildable
lot,
which
is
the
not
that
it
would
be
built
on,
but
it
creates
a
lot
that
is
in
conformance
with
lots
for
the
downtown
zoning
and
so
right
now
that
lot
is
the
the
parking
lot.
We
don't
have
any
intention
to
build
on
it,
but
it
is
a
buildable
lot,
so
it
does
create
a
buildable
lot.
C
I
That
make
sense
yeah,
I
think
so,
and
then
I'm
also
yeah
and
I'm
sure
they'll
show
it.
No,
no
worries,
you
don't
need
it
right
this
second,
you
know
I
was
definitely
surprised
to
see
a
letter
from
cynthia,
because
you
know
I
also
like
emily
figured
okay.
Well,
I
guess
you
know
we
need
this
conference
center.
Everyone
is
on
board
and
then
so
it
seems
to
call
into
question.
You
know
whether
this
is
going
to
be
a
significant
city
expense.
I
You
know
the
two
million
dollar
price
tag
is
definitely
eye-popping.
In
a
time
where
aids
municipalities
is
being
cut.
You
know
the
state's
not
gonna
have
any
money
either
just
kind
of
curious.
What
everyone's
thoughts
are
on
that.
E
Thank
you.
I
appreciate
the
material
changes.
Those
updates
are
nice
and
you
know
in
general.
I
think
the
project
just
continues
to
evolve
in
a
really
great
way.
I
also
want
to
reference
cynthia's
letter
and,
more
specifically
than
just
kind
of
like
wondering
where
this
city
might
stand.
I
mean
I
feel,
like
we
heard
a
presentation
from
the
city
well
into
covid
times
still
advocating
for
the
conference
center.
So
I
think
that
we
we
could
say
that
we
know
what
the
what
the
city
stand
is.
E
But
my
question
is:
let's
you
know,
let's
assume
that
travel
or
businesses
or
whatever
you
know,
in-person
meetings
are
on
hold
for
some
extended
period
of
time,
another
six
months
another
year,
another
two
years,
something
what
programmatically
is
there
some
kind
of
contingency
plan
for
the
for
the
conference
center
space?
E
I
think
the
case
for
the
conference
center
was
made
pretty
well,
but
it
seems
like
now.
The
case
to
be
made
is
what
do
we
do
with
that
space
if
it
can't
be
used
to
its
full
potential
as
a
conference
center
for
some
extended
period
of
time,
and
you
know
hopefully
shedding
some
light
on
how
that
would
impact?
F
I
don't
have
many
thoughts
I
feel
like
this
is
the
project
we've
been
looking
at.
This
is
the
project
I
think
they're
going
to
move
forward
with
which
includes
a
conference
center.
So
I
don't
really
understand
how
that
decision
could
be
sort
of
unraveled.
At
this
point,
maybe
maybe
there's
something
that
I'm
not.
F
F
The
only
design
thoughts
I
had-
which
I
guess
we'll
hear
more
about
in
september-
are
the
this
idea
of
adding
wood
and
accents
and
color
to
to
what
I
think
is
a
rather
bland
facade
of
the
building.
I
think
the
project's
great
still-
and
you
know
I'm
so
happy
to
see
affordable
housing
coming
downtown
and
I
think
we've
dealt
with
the
proximity
issues
and
so
I'll
just
look
forward
to
further
conversations
about
various
elevations
and
facade
articulation
in
september.
L
D
Thank
you,
elizabeth
for
my
piece.
You
know
the
conference
center
decision
isn't
ours.
You
know
I've
never
been
a
conference
center
booster,
but
council
made
a
decision
and
if
council
wants
to
make
a
different
decision,
then
they
can
pass
something
else.
D
You
know
legislators
that
are
on
council
can
make
their
voices
you
know
heard
to
us,
and
they
certainly
do,
but
they
don't
speak
on
behalf
of
full
council
when
they
raise
concerns
and
the
way
that
council
speaks
is
they
pass
stuff
and
the
thing
that
passed
is
a
conference
center
and
to
me
that's
just
where
we
are
so
we
have
to
review
the
project.
That's
before
us.
D
The
projects
before
us
includes
a
conference
center,
which
we
feel,
however,
we
feel
about
an
affordable
housing
which
we
all
feel
pretty
strongly
positively
about,
and
so
that's
that's
where
we
are,
I'm
excited
to
get
into
the
design
stuff.
You
know
the
design
changes
that
we've
seen
material
with
materiality,
I
think,
are
positive.
D
I
like
to
see
the
the
expanded
metal-
and
you
know,
there's
more
to
dig
into
I'll
say
that
from
my
piece
you
know
that
ground
level
activation
on
all
sides
of
the
building
is
going
to
be
super
important
and
I'm
excited
to
dive
into
that
when
we,
when
we
get
to
it,
because
there's
no
action
tonight,
I
want
to
make
sure
that
the
applicants
getting
whatever
feedback
they're
looking
for
so
that
they
can
move
towards
whatever
they're
trying
to
turn
for
us
next
time,
they're
before
us.
R
Well,
we
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we
are
able
to
plan
for
whether
you
are
having
that
special
meeting
on
the
29th.
R
You
know
if
we're
having
a
seeker
action
and
a
potential
site
plan
conversation
that
will
be
a
robust
conversation
during
the
month
of
september,
but
you
know
we
feel
like
really
ready
to
get
into
more
of
a
design
conversation
and
to
show
updates,
based
on
all
of
the
conversations
that
we've
had
to
date.
But
we
just
want
to
confirm
with
all
of
you
that
that
should
be
something
that
we're
prepared
to
do
later
in
september.
D
I
think
we're
planning
to
decide
on
the
extra
meeting
in
september
end
of
meeting
tonight.
I
think
that
we're
going
to
get
into
that
at
the
end
and
decide
if
we're
going
to
do
that
and
what
we're
going
to
do
with
that
meeting.
If
we
do
and
I'm
going
to
ask
lisa
if
we'd
be
ready
for
a
seeker
action
at
a
normal
meeting
in
september
and
then
additional
work
to
follow.
C
I
think
you
certainly
could
consider
it.
We've
certainly
gotten
into
real
detail
level
of
the
project
you
know
would
be
considering
preliminary
or
final
site
plan
approval
before
the
zoning
variants,
but
I
do
feel
also
that
you
know
you
can
rationalize
that
if
I
think
you're
in
a
positi,
you
certainly
haven't
skimped
on
looking
at
the
design
of
the
building
so
and
looking
at
the
impacts.
So
if
you
felt
like
that
was
something
you
wanted
to
do,
that
would
certainly
help
the
schedule
for
the
project.
D
So
I
think
tentatively,
we'll
plan
to
you
know,
take
a
hard
look
at
that
action
at
our
next
normal
meeting
and
then
we
will
figure
out
if
we're
having
a
special
meeting
to
follow
and
what's
on
the
agenda
for
that,
and
we
should
get
that
decided.
Probably
at
the
end
of
meeting
today.
S
Rob
it's
bruce
here
good
evening.
Everyone!
The
only
comment.
I've
got
that
we
really
didn't
dig
into
too
much
is
that
I
think
kate
mentioned
that
we're
working
with
planning
staff
to
work
through
the
final
outcome
of
the
layouts
and
functions
and
uses
for
the
space
between
the
austere
project
and
city
hall,
which
also
includes
the
space
between
a
stereo
project
and
harold's
holdings
in
the
in
the
south
side
of
those
buildings
against
the
commons.
S
And
I
would
like
to
understand
that
that
might
take
some
time
to
work
through
and
for
the
board
to
realize
that
that
is
when
we
talk
about
a
subdivision
or
a
lot
line.
Adjustment
either
way
that
space
we're
talking
about
is
not
technically
in
our
project
proper,
but
we're
willing
to
work
through
and
figure
out.
What
needs
to
happen.
S
D
C
I
don't
think
that
should
cause
any
problem.
They
can
always
come
back
in
the
future.
To
I
mean
it's
not
going
to
be
a
space
that
it's
going
to
be
used
in
a
very
particular
way
for
at
least
two
years,
and
so
that
gives
us
at
least
18
months
to
figure
out
what
we
want
to
do
with
it,
and
that
can
come.
D
D
D
And
that
brings
us
to
the
215
east
state
street
project,
for
which
I
do
need
to
recuse
myself.
I
do
have
a
conflict
of
interest
and
mckenzie.
Our
vice
chair
will
be
taking
over.
Thank
you
very
much
mackenzie,
and
I
will
see
you
guys
in
a
little
while.
H
E
N
N
They
should
all
be
hanging
out
on
zoom,
so
you
should
have
like
jeff
rimland,
johnny
besh
jared
hunter
brian
rosen,
I
believe
all
are
hanging
out.
The
only
one
missing
tonight
is
brian
bouchard,
because
he's
at
another
meeting.
H
K
N
E
Okay,
all
right
great!
Well,
then,
let's
get
going
welcome.
Gentlemen,
let's
start
with
a
brief
presentation
of
any
project
updates.
You
have
particularly
points
that
were
brought
up
at
project
review
committee.
We're
going
to
go
through
the
part
3
which
we
have
done
in
part
and
we're
going
to
just
make
sure
that
everything
is
complete,
as
expected,
we'll
vote
on
environmental
significance
and
then
we'll
have
a
brief
discussion
about
the
variances
that
you're
seeking
in
making
a
recommendation
to
the
pca.
So
I'll.
N
N
Hey
john,
the
majority
of
the
updates
were
stuff
on
the
architectural
stuff,
so
you
want
to
show
and
just
briefly
go
through
because
there
hasn't
been
any
real
wholesale
changes.
It's
just
minor
tweaks,
so.
U
The
main
thing
we
changed,
based
based
on
the
prc
meeting
last
time,
was
on
level
one
landscaping
along
the
front
of
east
green
street.
We
talked
about
the
landscaping
around
the
transformer
and
we
were
showing
trees
before,
unfortunately,
do
the
utilities
in
that
area
there's
there's
not
enough
room
in
order
to
get
larger
trees
in
there.
So
what
we
did
do
was
provide
a
new
planting
ski
scheme
that
cha
did
send
over,
but
from
a
rendering
standpoint.
U
What
we've
done
at
the
transformer
as
well
as
we
talked
about
hiding
the
transformer
we're
using
that
language
along
the
balcony
rails,
to
create
a
tighter
mesh
around
it
to
hide
it
as
well,
not
just
with
bushes,
so
we're
doing
both
to
start
to
kind
of
add
some
greenery
to
that
corner
and
other
than
that.
That
was
pretty
much
the
only
change
from
the
prc
meeting
to
now.
U
James,
do
you
have
the
the
updated
landscape,
drawing
from
ch
that.
N
You
sent
yeah,
I
believe,
brian's
submitted
all
those
things
under
correspondence,
at
least.
H
N
H
E
U
And
then
that
was
the
only
change
that
we
really
discussed
at
the
prc
meeting.
So
that's
pretty
much.
It.
E
Okay,
great
well,
thanks
for
that
brief
update.
Let's
go
quickly
around
and
dis
and
I'll,
we'll
just
hear
from
the
board
about
that
change
the
transformer.
I
know
that
that
was
a
hot
topic
and
then
we've
also
got
some.
We
have
some
public
comment
that
I'd
like
to
reference
after
we
so
start
with
cj.
I
Yeah
the
I
definitely
appreciate
trying
to
have
that
treatment
around
the
transformer.
Those
flowers
are
gonna
totally
get
crushed
the
plant
things
you
know.
Hopefully,
they'll
survive
the
salta.
It
might
be
better
to
have
something
a
bit
more
for
less
alive,
perhaps
in
that
area.
But
I
appreciate
the
effort.
U
We
did
update
the
lighting
for
the
prc
meeting.
Yes,.
E
Thank
you
great
thanks,
just
a
reminder
that
something
else
we'll
want
to
see
before
preliminary
or
final
approval
will
be
your
signage
package.
I
know
we've
talked
about
that
before,
but
there's
just
that,
and
I
also
just
want
to
point
out.
I
I
assume
that
you've
received
this,
but
just
in
case
you
haven't
the
board
received
word
from
one
of
the
tenants
at
sunny
days
with
some
questions
around
how
they
will
be
impacted.
E
Okay,
great
and
so
I'll,
I
would
just
encourage
you
to
continue
open
communication
with
tenants
of
the
building
and
helping
to
to
answer
those
questions.
We
don't
have
all
of
those
answers.
I
think,
but
yeah.
N
E
E
I
don't
see
lisa
any
highlights
of
things
that
are
new.
So
would
you
recommend
that
we,
you
know,
continue
to
go
through
this
piece
by
piece
or
are
there
anything?
Is
there
anything
that
you
want
us
to
focus
on
right
away?
We've
spent
a
good
bit
of
time
on
transmission.
C
We
have
so
there's
two
things
I
think
well,
one
is
just
that
you
never
submitted
the
energy
questions
in
response
to
the
energy
questions
that
I
got
at
least
that's.
So
that's
an
outstanding
item.
N
Yeah,
I
thought
brian
fought
that
on
so
lisa
just
confirmed
here
I
mean.
C
The
way
we
were
talking
about
it,
I
added
the
you
know
the
changes
from
last
time.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
you're
that
reflects
accurately
reflects
your
discussion.
I
see.
E
E
U
E
Painting
so
the
reader's
digest
of
that
paragraph
is
that
the
planning
board
has
it
under
their
purview
to
grant
you
know
special
use
of
that
active
use
overlay
zone
and
that,
in
this
particular
case,
the
applicant
is
proposing
art,
because
this
is,
it
will
be,
it's
an
entrance
way
to
a
lobby
with
some
public
amenities
and
the.
I
think
the
flanking
of
that
lobby
is
probably
the
the
specific
areas
that
we're
thinking
of.
E
E
It
doesn't
look
to
me
like
anybody's
having
any
concerns
so
lisa.
I
think
that
you
probably
have
gotten
the
language
correct,
that
we
have
that
we,
we
foresee
no
significant,
negative
impact
to
the
community
plans,
as
anticipated.
E
C
E
U
Got
it
on
it
and
I'm
happy
to
email
it
myself
as
well.
So
as
far
as
the
first
item
that
was
related
to
water
fixtures,
all
the
water
fixtures
on
the
project
will
be
selected
to
be
water
sense,
rated.
That
is
always
usually
the
plan.
All
appliances
selected
for
each
unit
will
also
be
energy
star
rated
in
order
to
minimize
any
energy
consumption
in
the
building
item
two
on
that
was
about
hvc
systems,
especially
for
public
space
for
and
for
residential
units,
it'll
all
be
electric
air
source
heat
pumps
to
avoid
any
fossil
fuels.
U
The
roof
layout
as
well
is
very
simple,
so
we
do
want
to
provide
an
efficient
layout
to
allow
the
possibility
for
future
installation
of
photovoltaic
panels.
That's
always
a
strategy.
We
we
try
to
take
item
four
about
building
shape.
This
is
a
simple
building
shape
it
minimizes,
exterior
walls
as
much
as
possible
to
you
know
to
the
exposed
elements,
helps
keep
a
more
insulated
internal
environment.
The
window
to
wall
ratio
is
targeted
to
be
less
than
30
on
each
facade.
U
U
U
All
ductwork
layouts
will
be
run
the
most
efficient
layout
minimized
and
insulation
insulated
within
the
condition
conditioned
spaces,
so
no
duct
work
will
be
in
an
unconditioned
space
to
minimize
any
energy
loss
and
the
engineer
will
model
the
system
with
a
comcheck
review,
along
with
prescriptive
compliance
measures
in
order
to
in
an
effort
to
maintain
an
efficient
use
of
energy
throughout
the
project.
So
those
are
just
the
standard
measures
we
take
every
time.
A
E
It's
great
to
see
that
policy
being
enacted.
Are
there
any
questions
from
the
board
around
energy
impacts.
C
Okay,
I
would
just
incorporate
that
directly
into
the
part
three
just
as
written
yeah.
E
So
I
think
that
would
that
seems
appropriate,
and
so
then,
with
that
we
can
move
on
to
the
seeker
neg
deck
resolution.
Do
I
have
anyone
willing
to
move
that.
B
Hold
on
one
second,
can
you
guys
stop
sharing
your
screen
so
that
I
can
see
all
of
the
participants?
Thank
you.
E
I
saw
that
emily
moved
and
elizabeth
seconded
do
we
do
I
need
to
vote
on
opening
it?
Let's
take
a
vote.
All
in
favor
of
opening.
E
E
Did
it
what
you
did
yeah,
you
moved
it
yeah,
okay,
so
are
there
any?
Is
there
any
discussion
knowing
that
we
will
add
language
that
we
just
heard
around
energy
into
the
part
three
which
of
course
is
referenced
I'll
just
go
around
I'll,
do
a
little
round
and
make
sure
that
we're
all
comfortable
moving
forward
on
this
negative
declaration
mitch.
E
Great
thank
you
garrick
comfortable,
great
cj
yep.
Thank
you.
Emily
comfortable,
great
and
elizabeth
looks
good
to
me
great
I'm
in
agreement.
So
it
looks
like
there's
that
we
don't
have
any
questions
around
this
yeah.
This
is
you
know.
We
appreciate
this
kind
of
infill
additional
adding
to
existing
building
stock.
It
really
helps
to
reduce
the
impact,
reduce
negative
impacts
and
increase
positive
impacts
for
the
community.
E
So
all
in
favor
of
passing
this
negative
declaration,
let's
see
a
show
of
hands
waiting
on
elizabeth's
thumbs
up
perfect
that
passes
unanimously,
so
you're
all
set
with
that,
and
my
guess
is
that
our
next
you'll
probably
be
bringing
further
design
changes.
We'll
continue
with
site
plan
review
in
september.
E
Let's
take
a
moment
to
discuss
your
zoning
variances.
Are
you
on
the
schedule
with
the
bza.
N
E
E
We
are
looking
at
three
variances.
One
is
number
of
stories
14,
as
opposed
to
12,
as
allowed
we're
looking
at
height
as
the
second
variance
156
and
10
inches,
as
opposed
to
140
feet
and
we're
looking
at
a
rear
yard
setback,
rear,
yeah,
rear
yard
zero
feet
as
opposed
to
the
required
10
feet
setback.
So
are
there
any
cons?
I
mean
we've
been
discussing
these
as
a
matter
of
sight
plan
review,
but
are
there
any
concerns
about
making
a
recommendation
to
the
bza?
E
It
doesn't
look
like.
There
are
any
concerns,
so
we
could
discuss
language
and
I
would
propose
something
along
the
lines
of
you
know.
We
this
this
project
is
increasing
the
housing
stock
and
improving
upon
existing
infrastructure
and
we've
determined
that
we
don't
see
any
negative
environmental
impacts
and
or
any
long-term
negative
planning
impacts,
so
anything
that
anyone
would
like
to
add
to
that
language
to
the
bza.
E
C
Well,
I
mean,
I
think
it
might
be.
Obviously
the
bza
knows
this,
but
just
for
the
record
it,
it
might
be
important
to
acknowledge
that
a
lot
of
the
height
variance
comes
from
the
elevator
tower.
Well,
the
stories
come
from
the
fact
that
there's
a
roof
terrace
right
for
for
the
most
part,
and
so
it's
really
it's
not
really
a
whole
story
that
is
being
asked
for
that
might
be
helpful.
E
Yes,
I
think
adding
language
to
suggest
that
would
be
great
and
also
that
the
elimination
of
the
rear
yard
is
to
help
create
a
consistent
street
line
on
green
street.
E
N
Correct
they
have
two,
you
know,
literally,
you
have
two
front
yards
depending
on
the
address
of
the
building's
215
each
state
street
fire
department
will
probably
request
that
we
have
an
address
on
green
street
as
well,
based
on
some
emails
that
john
and
I
have
been
receiving.
So
it's
either
the
deviation
of
15
feet.
So
we
can
have
right
away
to
right
away
based
on
what
you
know
is
consistent
with
the
developments
in
that
area.
E
Anything
else
to
add:
does
the
board
feel
comfortable
moving
forward
with
that
recommendation,
I
see
no
objection,
so
I
think
that's
it
we'll
send
that
along
to
the
bza
and
you
can
get
on
their
schedule
and
we'll
see
you
for
a
further
site
plan
review,
probably
in
september,
and
perhaps
you
can
update
us
then
also
on
communications.
E
You've
had
with
tenants
to
make
sure
that
they're
aware
of
trash
and
recycling
during
construction,
if
there's
going
to
be
construction
on
the
patio
in
front
of
buildings,
so
on
and
so
forth,
I'll
just
be
curious
to
know
that,
although
it's
not
anything
that
we
are
going
to
hold
you
to
with
any
legality
anything
on
your
end,
anything
you
need
from
the
board
any
questions
that
you've
got.
N
N
I
just
have
a
question
on
based
on
the
vasino
presentation
prior
about
us,
potentially
another
special
meeting
or
a
meeting
you're
adding-
and
I
know
it's
being
discussed
later,
but
I
if
I
believe,
we're
on
the
september
1st
bza
meeting.
So
if
there
is
other
meetings
that
are
in
between
meeting
dates,
we'd
love
to
continue
forward
with
you
as
we
develop
stuff.
So
because
our
goal
is
upon
approvals,
john
and
his
team
is
ready
to
submit
for
building
permits
and
we
like
to
start
construction
of
this
project.
N
E
D
D
T
Okay,
hello,
it's
christian,
bernal
in
front
of
you
once
again,
a
vice
president
with
burn
dairy,
but
in
front
of
you
guys
before
for
the
remodel
of
the
denny's
into
a
burn
dairy
fuel
facility,
I'm
just
going
to
go
over
to
three
changes
from
the
last
meeting.
I
believe
these
were
the
last
three
two
dues
that
I
had
on
my
list.
T
One
was
a
fence
between
our
property,
the
residential
property
to
the
rear
to
the
south
on
the
site.
Planet
was
submitted
to
lisa
and
it
is
in
a
document
center.
I
saw
you
will
notice
that
there's
a
six
foot
custom
wooden
privacy,
cedar
fence
with
a
detail
in
it
again,
it's
six
foot
tall
along
the
whole
rear
of
the
property
in
between
then
residential,
the
other
one
you
guys
want
to
look
into
was
signage.
Megan
wilson
did
review
the
signage
perlis's
request.
T
After
last
meeting
on
august
20th,
she
said
an
email
to
lisa,
saying
I
need
all
the
signage
requirements
which
is
in
the
document
center
the
whole
package.
I
did
a
separate
package
and
it's
on
the
site
plan
so
that
meets
all
the
city
regulations.
T
The
third
thing-
and
the
final
thing
was
with
the
city
forester
jean
grace-
had
made
some
comments.
Last
meeting
in
regards
to
pear
trees,
I
had
some
red
maples
and
pears
mixed.
She
did
not
like
the
pears,
we've
changed
them
to
hawthorne
trees.
Also.
She
also
had
some
additional
comments
on
the
red
maples.
She
would
have
liked
to
see
them
moved
off
the
curbing
more
for
salt
and
plowing,
which
we
did
incorporate
into
the
site
plan
as
well.
So
I
addressed
she
gave
a
nice
detailed
email.
T
I
addressed
every
one
of
their
concerns
on
those
and
sent
them
back
to
her.
She
is
fine
with
all
changes,
so
I
believe
I've
addressed
all
three
of
the
two
news
and
gotten
correspondence
back,
saying
that,
and
I
think
lisa
can
attest
to
all
that.
So
that's
where
I
stand.
I
think
I'm
in
pretty
good
shape
at
this
point.
D
Much
so
we
do
have
two
actions
before
us
tonight:
one
is
the
potential
neg
deck
on
seeker
and
then
the
other
one
is
the
potential
preliminary
and
final
approval,
and
I
think,
unless
that
there's
issue,
that
members
of
the
board
want
to
bring
up
beforehand,
we
can
just
move
into
the
first
one
and
start
looking
at
the
part
two
for
the
neg
deck
lisa.
I
saw
your
hand.
T
Okay,
that
choice
is,
if
you
look
at
the
elevation
change
there,
it
drops
off
about
seven
feet
and
it
turns
into
a
swamp.
Okay,
all
right
literal
swamp
is
again.
If
you
see
the
elevation
lines,
you
can
see
it
now.
Okay,
all
right
edge
of
what
area.
That's
why
we
did
it
all
right,
follow
the
contour
of
the
property.
D
Seeing
none
I'm
going
to
direct
everyone's
attention
to
the
environmental
packet,
which
is
mostly
the
part
two.
It
looks
like
with
some
additional
items
stapled
onto
the
back
and
because
there
is
no
part
three
for
this
project.
I
thought
we
could
just
review
the
part
two
see
if
we're
comfortable
and
then
potentially
move
into
that
resolution.
D
Similar
on
four
ground
water
and
five
flooding
no
impacts.
D
There
is
a
yes
on
error
and
we
have
listed
here
no
or
small
impacts
on
b
through
f.
D
D
D
C
C
D
D
Got
it
so
that
makes
sense
to
me
and
then
18
consistency
with
community
character.
No
impact
is
checked
and
that
to
me
seems
accurate.
So
the
part
two,
as
far
as
I
can
read
it
is
pretty
clean.
It
makes
sense
to
me
why
there's
no
part
three,
but
I
do
want
to
check
in
and
make
sure
everyone's
comfortable
and
that
there's
not
additional
questions
or
comments
that
we
want
to
get
into
before
we
move
into
a
neck
deck.
E
Yeah,
I'm
happy
to
move
forward
with
the
negative
declaration
and
with
preliminary
approval.
I
do
just
have
a
question
about
where
it
might
fit
that
this
is
a
great
reuse
of
an
existing
space,
as
the
city
moved
to
move
moves
towards
wanting
to
reduce
vehicular
traffic.
I
wonder
if
we
want
to
make
any
statement
about.
You
know
adding
fuel
tanks,
it's
not
something
that
I
have
that
I
think
needs
to
like
delet.
E
I
don't
think
that
we
need
to
delay
anything
and
I'm
not
trying
to
block
anything,
and
I,
like
I
said
I
think
this
is
a
great
use
of
the
project,
but
I
don't
I
don't
know
you
know,
does
does
adding
fuel
tanks
like?
Is
that
in
opposition
to
like
a
certain
plan?
Or
is
it
not?
I
mean
we
don't
really
address
specifically
the
use
of
fossil
fossil
fuels,
maybe
in
like
the
comprehensive
plan
and
whatnot,
but
we
do
generally
aim
to
move
towards
different
modes
of
transportation.
E
D
Record
so
perhaps
on
a,
whereas
in
the
neg
deck
or
more
in
the
the
site
plan
approval.
E
Yeah,
maybe
as
a
whereas
in
the
neck
deck
like,
we
could
add
a
you
know
a
last
one,
because
we
say
that,
like
city
of
ithaca
parks,
recreation,
natural
resources,
commission
they've
all
had
a
chance
to
speak
up
no
one's
in
opposition
and
that,
while
you
know,
while
the
city
and
hopes
to
move
towards
alternative
energy
use
away
from
fossil
fuels,
we
are
in
support
of
adding
a
gas
station
to
this
like
high
traffic
area
and
reusing
an
existing
building.
Something
like
that.
D
C
D
So
let's
do
that.
Is
there
a
motion
for
the
the
pink
resolution,
the
neg
deck
on
this
project?
D
I
saw
elizabeth
move
and
emily
second
and
I'm
going
to
be
smart
and
not
call
for
a
vote,
even
though
that's
my
instinct
and
mckenzie
has
hypothesized
not
hypothesized
proposed
an
amendment
in
which
we
would
add
a
whereas
and
reference
that,
even
though
the
city
supports
and
envisions
a
future
where
we
are
less
reliant
on
fossil
fuels
and
less
encouraging
of
fossil
fuels,
this
is
an
appropriate
use
and
appropriate
spot
and
a
good
reuse
of
an
existing
building.
That
is
briefly.
D
D
I
Is
there
something?
Is
there
some
tide
of
the
call
for
that?
Maybe
I
was
just
trying
to
look
up.
Planet
go
and
see
if
there
was
something
that's
inside
of
the
comprehensive
plan,
but
I.
C
Yeah
I
mean,
I
think,
the
the
direction
the
city's
going
in
is
more
like
energy
use
in
buildings
rather
than
and
providing
electrical
vehicle
stations,
not
saying
you
know
gas,
so
most
cars
run
on
fossil
fuels,
so.
E
E
D
Any
other
questions
or
comments
before
we
move
on
towards
a
vote
on
the
neg
deck,
seeing
none
all
those
in
favor
of
a
negative
declaration
for
323
325
elmira
road.
Please
raise
your
hand
all
right.
That's
everyone!
Thank
you
very
much.
That's
unanimous!
We
have
a
neg
deck,
so
the
other
action
before
us
is
preliminary
and
final
approval.
The
schedule
has
this
as
potential,
which
means
we
don't
have
to
do
it,
not
that
we
have
to
do
anything.
D
So
if
we
decide
we're
not
ready
for
this,
we
could
totally
punt,
but
I
will
say
for
my
piece:
this
project
seems
pretty
well
baked.
You
know.
I
don't
see
any
reason
why
we
wouldn't
move
for
this,
since
this
has
been
sort
of
a
brief
discussion
on
this
today,
and
this
would
be
our
last
opportunity
to
discuss
this
project
prior
to
approval.
I
think
it's
worth
going
around
the
room,
just
checking
in
on
how
everybody's
feeling
cj,
if
you
wouldn't
mind
I'd
start
with
you.
H
J
Yeah
agreed
appropriate
project
for
the
location,
good
reuse,
it's
an
attractive,
very
attractive
project.
I
appreciate
the
applicant
putting
effort
into
making
it
look
good.
Thank
you.
D
G
D
F
Ready
to
move
forward
with
it,
I
also
agree
with
mackenzie's
comments
earlier
in
principle.
So
thanks
for
those.
L
I
agree,
I
mirror
everybody's
assessment
of
the
project
and
I'm
ready
to
move
on.
D
Excellent,
so
there's
definitely
consent
this.
I
feel
similarly,
so
with
that,
let's
see
we
haven't
moved
this
yet
have
we
so
I'm
going
to
ask
for
a
motion
for
preliminary
and
final
approval
on
this
project.
D
H
C
They're
in
negotiations
with
the
city
for
a
maintenance
agreement
agreement
to
for
a
sensor
strip
on
their
prop,
that's
partially
on
their
property
partially
on
the
city's
property.
And
I
was
asked
by
transportation
to
put
that
in
the
resolution
as
a
condition
before
co.
So
it
would
say
execution
of
a
maintenance
and
an
agreement
easement
and
agreement
with
the
city
of
ithaca
for
the
traffic
sensor.
That
is,
on
the
applicant's
property.
D
So
that
to
me
seems
pretty
reasonable.
Is
the
applicant
opposed
to
that
condition?.
D
D
Thank
you
excited
to
see
this
happen.
It's
a
great
reuse
should.
D
B
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
I
just
received
an
email
from
one
of
the
applicants
for
this
project
earlier
this
evening,
suggesting
that
we
need
to
correct
their
name
from
are
not
realty
to
are
not
ithaca
too.
Just
for
the
record.
D
All
right,
we
will
get
that
llc,
correct,
I'm
betting.
It's
the
same.
D
B
B
Is
applicants
is
somebody
named
lana.
A
K
D
Everybody's
connected
applicants:
can
you
just
sort
of
look
around
the
metaphorical
room
and
tell
me
if
the
gang's,
all
here.
D
M
D
So
I
understand
the
applicants
have
a
brief
presentation
for
us
before
a
public
hearing
and
a
review
of
our
part,
two
we're
ready
for
that
presentation.
V
V
Good
evening
it's
I'm
eric
colbert
with
air
cold,
bear
and
associates
architects
and
members
of
the
board
and
the
community.
I'm
really
happy
to
be
able
to
present
this
project
tonight.
I
live
in
washington,
but
I
was
born
in
ithaca
and
raised
there
and
attended
cornell
university
architecture
school
and
it's
it.
I
still
have
family
there
and
it's
very
exciting
for
me
to
have
been
chosen
to
work
on
this
fantastic
project
with
the
arnott
people.
V
They've
really
been
a
great
group
to
work
with,
so
you
know,
I
know
the
site
in
certain
respects.
Historically,
where
you
know
the
state
diner.
Of
course
everyone
has
gone
there
many
times,
and
then
I
can
remember
the
hardware
store
that
used
to
be
in
that
location.
V
So,
in
terms
of
the
design,
there
are
a
couple
ideas
that
we
had
that
the
owner
has
encouraged
me
and
my
team
to
develop
one
is
to
take
the
piece
of
the
existing
buildings
that
has
the
most
representation
in
terms
of
the
history
of
the
project
and
develop
on
that
theme.
V
But
let
me
just
point
out
that
so
obviously
I'm
not
currently,
you
know
a
local
company,
but
we
are
working
with
all
local,
the
structural
mvp
engineers
and
the
civil
you
know.
Tatum
is
structural,
other
engineering
and
then
tg
miller
and
then
a
local
landscape,
company,
tobert,
wolfe
and
michaels,
and
then
arnott
realty
corporation.
V
So
here
you
can
see
the
site
it's
kind
of
halfway
between
the
commons
and
the
waterfront.
It's
a
very
awkwardly
shaped
site
and
that's
kind
of
consistent
with
a
lot
of
the
projects
that
we've
worked
on
over
the
years
urban
sites
that
are
complicated
and
have
a
lot
of
different
frontages
on
different
streets
and
different
arrangements
with
adjacent
buildings.
V
What
we
want
to
do
is
it's
an
urban
mixed
use
project,
so
we're
capturing
some
commercial
space
on
the
ground
floor,
that'll
be
more
on
the
east
side,
so
it
sort
of
you
know
the
side
facing
the
more
commercial
area
of
downtown
and
then
on.
The
west
side
of
the
first
floor
would
be
our
community
spaces
and
building
entrance
for
the
residences
and
then
on.
V
The
back
side
would
be
where
we'd
be
coming
in
for
parking
off
of
west
seneca
street,
so
we'll
have
5
500
square
feet
of
retail
and
commercial
space
on
the
ground
floor
and
we're
structuring
that
so
that
if
someone
wants
to
come
in
and
put
a
restaurant
there,
that
would
be
fine,
but
it
could
also
be
you
know:
hardware
store,
other
kinds
of
shops
and
then
one
thing,
that's
kind
of
an
interesting
comment
about
this
diet.
V
Is
that
because
of
the
soils,
we're
not
able
to
do
any
kind
of
underground
parking
so
that
we
do
have
some
parking
on
grade
50
spaces
that
are
accessed
from
west
seneca
street.
V
V
So
I'd
also
like
to
point
out
that,
currently
in
the
existing
building,
there's
a
raised
area
at
the
corner,
an
exterior
patio
kind
of
thing
at
the
corner
of
west
state
street
and
north
corn,
and
so
what
we're
our
plan
is
to
lower
the
whole
first
floor
of
the
existing
building
down
to
grade
and
then
also
the
corner
outdoor
space,
so
that
it
creates
a
much
more
strong
connection
between
the
street
and
the
interior
of
the
building.
And
the
same
is
true
with
the
frontage
of
the
building.
V
So,
as
I'm
sure
all
of
you
are
familiar
with
the
current
condition
where
there
is
some
parking
in
the
front
of
the
buildings
that
are
set
back
and
that's
actually
a
very
you
know,
there
are
two
problems
with
that:
one
is
that
it's
not
a
very
urban
solution
and
then,
secondly,
so
we're
bringing
the
building
out
to
the
street.
Well,
but
another
thing
that
does
is
it's
a
very
dangerous
situation,
the
way
it
is
now
because
people
have
to
drive
back
and
forth
across
the
sidewalk,
so
we're
eliminating
that
public
safety
concern.
V
This
is
a
diagram
of
our
upper
floor,
showing
that
the
kind
of
unit
mix
that
we're
having
so
on
the
corners
and
then
on
the
north
side
are
larger
units
and
then
facing
west
state
street
mlk
we're
having
some
of
the
more
what
we
call
junior
bedroom
apartments
and
then
kind
of
spattered
in
between
that
would
be
the
the
one
bedroom
and
one
bedroom
down
unit.
V
So,
in
terms
of
the
existing
conditions,
our
plan
is
to
do
whatever
is
reasonably
possible
and
we're
going
to
be
showing
you
some
documents
that
inform
you
about
the
conditions
of
the
existing
building
on
the
corner
that
we,
our
plans,
are
incorporating
into
the
development
so
and
here's
the
the
center
part
of
the
development,
where
the
bland
buildings
that
have
been
altered
over
a
period
of
time
are
the
ones
that
were
planning
on
demolishing
also.
V
You
can
notice
the
utility
pole
in
the
front,
and
so
another
part
of
our
plan
is
to
eliminate
that
pole
because
it
basically
serves
our
site.
So
we
can
get
a
power
from
the
north
side
and
here's
a
picture
from
the
north
side.
So
you
can
see
well
yeah
the
parking
lots.
So
basically,
this
development
will
create
130
dwelling
units
on
what
is
normally
severely
underused,
land
and
parking
lots,
and
a
lot
of
the
commercial
uses
are
falling
into
this
repair.
V
V
V
However,
as
is
always
a
risk
with
this
type
of
work,
we
want
to
acknowledge
the
possibility
that
some
or
all
the
brick
facades
may
fail.
Despite
our
best
efforts,
the
facade
is
composed
of
stacked
stone
foundation
built
on
dirt.
You
know
here's
a
season
photographs
of
that
above
grade.
The
facade
is
composed
of
brick
that
has
been
warped
and
eroded
due
to
extensive
extensive
water
damage
and
freeze
and
thought
cycles.
V
However,
based
on
the
feedback
we
have
received,
we
need
to
consider
the
possibility
that
the
structure
may
be
damaged
or
fail
at
some
point
during
demolition
or
construction
should
a
portion
of
the
in
or
the
entirety
of
the
facade
fail.
We
would
expect
to
rebuild
the
brick
facade
using
modern
construction
practices
and
materials
to
build
a
wall
that
reasonably
mimics
the
original
expression.
V
V
So
one
thing
we
did
when
we
first
started
looking
at
the
site
was
to
look
at
some
of
the
old
maps
of
that
land,
and
one
thing
that
was
kind
of
interesting
to
us
is
to
see
that
the
original
structures
were
an
old,
foundry
and
blacksmith
shop,
and
so
there
wasn't
an
industrial
character
that
existed
historically.
So,
in
addition
to
saving
the
corner,
building
and
adaptively
reusing
it.
V
Our
plan
is
to
also
carry
the
theme
of
the
industrial
architecture
in
the
new
construction
and
the
way
we're
doing
this
is
by
using
inserting
brick
components
of
our
facade
throughout
a
larger
metal
design,
and
we
have
pieces
like
the
beam
that
will
extend
out
above
the
front
entrance
of
the
building
supporting
the
canopy
with
a
kind
of
mechanism
that
you
might
have
seen
in
some
of
the
older
industrial
buildings
in
the
area.
V
In
the
initial
meeting
we
had
with
the
board,
there
was
a
comment
by
one
of
the
members
that
so
on
the
corner.
Building
there
is
a
horizontal
canopy
and
our
understanding
was
that
there
was
a
desire
to
kind
of
maintain
the
horizontal
line.
So
we've
added
a
canopy
to
the
components
that
we
have
along
state
mlk
street
and
hopefully
that
will
address
the
concern.
V
There
was
another
comment
about
there's
kind
of
a
setback
portion
in
the
middle
of
the
facade,
the
parts
where
the
brick
are
and
to
make
sure
that
we
make
a
careful
emphasis
of
that
and
we
plan
to
continue
developing
that
concept
as
we
move
forward.
V
So
this
is
a
straight
on
view.
Looking
from
the
street,
we
have
a
52
high
foot
building,
so
our
first
floor
will
be
from
the
first
to
second
floor
would
be
12
feet
and
then
the
the
floors
above
that
will
be
10
feet
in
height
and
given
the
depth.
You
know,
in
order
to
do
this
project
economically,
we
need
to
use.
V
We
were
doing
a
concrete
podium
with
wood
construction
above
that
for
four
floors
and
given
the
depth
of
the
wood
trusses,
it
gives
us
just
about
enough
room
to
have
an
adequate
ceiling
height
for
the
residences.
V
So
this
gives
you
there's
a
shot
of
the
main
entrance
of
the
building,
as
I
was
saying
that
one
of
the
industrial
characters
is
the
there's
a
cable
that
comes
down
from
the
beam,
that's
other
than
the
fourth
floor.
That
will
be
supporting
the
canopy.
Another
thing
is
working
carefully
with
our
landscape,
architect
to
relocate
and
add
on
the
bike
racks
and
then
do
some
nice
landscaping
along
state
street
that
isn't
able
to
exist
now
because
of
the
curb
cuts
that
go
in
and
out
of
the
property.
V
V
So
one
of
the
concerns
of
the
board
after
our
first
meeting
was
that
they
wanted
to
make
sure
that
the
we
weren't
forgetting
about
our
north
side,
that
it
didn't
become
the
back
of
the
building,
so
that
every
place
that
we
had
an
expression
facing
a
street
that
we
would
enhance
that
facade
and
I
think,
we've
done
a
good
job
here.
We're
taking
the
the
windows
that
are
kind
of
there
are
two
different
types
of
windows
that
we're
using
in
the
project.
V
V
So
not
only
do
we
have
the
the
kind
of
old
brick
looking
brick,
but
also
their
metal
elements
that
will
be
integrated
into
the
facade,
not
only
the
heads
above
the
windows
but
then
creating
also
brick
setback
panels
in
the
middle
of
the
face
of
the
building
on
this
side
and
then
we're
because
the
zoning
on
the
north
side
is
lower,
we
will
have
a
nice
landscape,
roof
deck
that'll
enhance
that
side
of
the
building.
V
So
here
are
some
pictures.
Looking
at
that,
you
know
looking
from
the
north
side
of
our
from
to
our
property,
and
you
can
see
the
back
of
it
and
compare
that
to
what
we
just
showed
you.
I
think
that
it
will
be
a
significant
improvement.
D
D
Here,
I
don't
think
we
need
you
to
walk
us
through
the
variant
stuff
tonight
and
I
think
we've
gotten
an
overview
last
time
we're
not
taking
action
on
that
tonight.
Anyway,
I
appreciate
the
new
the
new
perspectives
you've
shown.
Those
are
super
helpful
for
understanding
the
project.
G
V
D
Great,
thank
you
very
much.
That's
a
very
helpful
presentation
before
we
get
into
board
feedback
and
what
we
just
saw.
We
do
have
a
public
hearing.
So
it's
worth
getting
that
taken
care
of.
Is
there
a
motion
to
open
public
hearing?
D
C
We
did
get
comments,
but
I'm
not
clear
that
they
were
asked
to
be
read.
I
mean
I
can
read
that
what
yeah?
No
they
haven't,
asked
to
be
read,
but
we
did
get
comments
and
they're
on
your
desk.
B
C
D
I
think
we're
good,
so
hopefully
everyone
has
read
those
comments
with
that.
I'm
going
to
ask
for
a
motion
to
close
public
hearing
mckenzie
moves
elizabeth
seconds.
All
those
in
favor
public
hearing
is
now
closed
great.
So
now
the
main
action
is
taken
care
of
for
tonight.
We
do
need
to
review
the
the
fifth.
D
The
full
environmental
assessment
form
part
two,
but
before
we
do
that,
I
think
it's
worth
taking
a
minute
just
going
around
the
room
and
giving
the
applicant
feedback
on
what
we
just
saw,
because
there
were
some
new
perspectives
in
there
that
I
don't
remember
seeing
before
worth,
checking
in
on
how
the
board
feels
about
that
mckenzie.
If
it's
all
right
with
you,
I
would
start
with
you.
E
Yeah
happy
too,
I
appreciate
those
horizontal
elements
edition
of
that.
I
think
that's
great
and
changes
you've
made
to
the
north
facade.
I
would
request
that
along
seneca
street,
because
that's
a
fairly
busy
thoroughfare,
some
kind
of
pedestrian
striping
or
maybe
even
a
raised,
maybe
even
a
raised
sidewalk
at
the
entrance
to
the
garage,
something
like
that
for
pedestrian
safety
and
also
you
may
or
may
not
be
aware
of
the
tompkins
county
industrial
development
agency,
passing
some
policy
around
affordable
housing
and
just
curious.
E
If
you
have
an
update
on
that
in
part,
because
I'm
I'm
interested-
and
I
know
that
the
board
is
interested
in
whether
or
not
this
is
going
to
be
there-
you'll
be
offering
affordable
units
and
I've
seen
some
talk
of
it
around
town.
So
I
know
that
people
are
thinking
about
it
in
part,
because
this
is
you
know.
E
I
would
kind
of
consider
this
like
a
sensitive,
sensitive
area
between
the
business
development
district
and
the
new
waterfront,
and
it's
near
south
side,
where
we've
seen
a
lot
of
people
get
priced
out
so
yeah,
and
I
mean
I
can
wait
for
other
comments
before
you
respond
to
that.
That's
all
I
got.
Thank
you,
nice
presentation.
I
think
it's
a
beautiful
building.
Thank
you.
A
J
H
F
Yeah
you
know
I
continue
to
like
it
good
infill
project.
I
also
have
a
concern
about
affordability.
I've
been
talking
about
that
since
we
saw
the
plan
the
first
time
that
remains
critical.
I
think
for
me
and
for
this
project
and
especially
given
its
location
as
mackenzie
pointed
out
the
other
part
of
it.
F
For
me,
I
think
I
think,
there's
a
serious
historic
preservation
component
to
this,
that
I
don't
want
to
overlook,
and
I
I
feel-
and
I
I'm
not
accusing
anybody
of
anything,
but
I
I
have
a
feeling
that
the
developer
is
heading
towards
a
version
of
this
project
where
the
mama
goose
building
is
coming
down,
and
I
you
know
I
recognize
you
know
you
read
the
statement
eric
and
you're
saying
that
you
know
you're
going
to
do
everything
you
can
and
that's
what
we
heard
last
time
we
heard
in
the
prc,
but
I
I
really
think
it's
a
different
project,
if
you,
if
you
tear
the
existing
building
down
and
you
build
it
back
as
a
modern
interpretation
and
through
your
renderings,
I
noticed
that
what
you're
showing
does
not
match
the
mama
goose
building.
F
Now,
there's
incredible
articulation
of
brickwork
at
the
top
of
the
building
that
exists.
Now,
that
is
not
on
your
rendering
there's
window
borders,
masonry
window
borders
that
are
quite
beautiful,
and
I
I'm
just
concerned
by
it.
I
have
to
have
to
say
that
the
language
that
I'm
hearing
makes
me
feel
like
this
is
something
that
that
you're
kind
of
talking
a
good
game,
but
not
necessarily
kind
of
making
a
commitment
to
preserving
a
really
great
building
part
of
ithaca's
character,
part
of
state
street's
character
in
this
neighborhood.
F
G
I
agree
with
all
of
that.
You
know
I'd
like
to
second
and
third
and
fourth,
the
affordability,
because
this
is
right
within
the
walking
district.
So
if
you
can
get
any
percentage
of
affordable
housing
within
this
beautiful
building,
I
think
I
think
it
will
be
a
better
place
for
it
and
it
is
beautiful.
I
think
you
know
the
changes
are
looking
really
good,
I'm
interested
in
the
energy.
G
You
know
what
percentage
of
code
you're
trying
to
meet,
I
think
a
green
building
policy
and
that
energy
code.
So
I'm
looking
forward
to
digging
into
that
with
you
next
time
as
well.
H
D
I'll
say
that
I'll
echo,
the
the
the
points
about
affordability,
appreciate
the
work
on
the
north
facade.
That
seems
to
to
be
pretty
cohesive.
D
I
do
think
when
you
look
at
that
section
of
the
building
from
the
corn
street
view,
because
of
the
way
your
eye
follows
the
brick
that
section
of
the
building
seems
to
float
in
a
way
that
I'm
not
sure,
is
entirely
successful,
and
it
might
be
worth
looking
at
that
as
we
move
in
towards
site
plan
review
and
then
those
junior
one
bedrooms,
this
is
not
a
family-friendly
unit
mix.
The
the
biggest
slug
of
this
is
something
you
know
I
mean
a
junior
one.
Bedroom
is
a
real
estate
term.
D
It's
not
a
regulatory
term.
I
have
a
feeling
that
if
we
ran
it
through,
the
regulatory
ringer
they'd
show
up
as
studios
and
a
unit
mix
that
is
mostly
or
plurality
studios
is
not
necessarily
what
we're
trying
to
push
for.
So
look
at
that
I
mean
that's
something:
we're
gonna
look
at
no
units
bigger
than
a
two
bedroom
there,
as
I
could
tell
that's
also
something
that
you
know
not.
That's,
that's
not
great.
It's
fine!
D
You
know
this
is
a
compelling
project
for
other
reasons,
but
that's
that's
not
a
compelling
unit
mix
and
yeah.
I
think
you
heard
a
broad
range
of
perspectives.
I
think
you
heard
you
know
general
support
for
the
project
and
concerns
about
some
stuff
that
we
still
have
to
hammer
out,
and
I
hope
that
you
take
those
concerns
seriously
and
as
we
move
forward,
does
the
applicant
have
a
desire
to
respond
to
any
of
the
things
you
just
heard
from
the
board,
because
you
heard
a
lot.
D
A
Yeah
I'll
make
a
couple
of
quick
comments.
The
first
comment
relates
to
the
new
workforce,
housing
policy
of
tompkins,
county
and
mckenzie.
That
is
something
that
we
are
aware
of,
and
it's
something
that
we
are
researching
and
working
with
the
ida
and
tcat
on.
So
we
expect
to
have
an
update
on
that
within
the
next
month.
I
would
say,
but
it's
not
something
that
we're
ready
to
speak
finally
on
just
yet
with
regard
to
housing,
affordability,
I
think
you
know
we
agree
that
it's
a
concern
in
tompkins
county.
A
I
think
that
we
view
our
project
as
adding
nearly
130
new
housing
units
to
an
area
that
hasn't
seen
new
housing
development
recently,
and
so,
if
we
believe
that
you
know
housing,
affordability
is
a
function
of
constrained
supply
and
increasing
demand.
It's
our
opinion
that
adding
a
nearly
130
new
housing
units
to
the
area
is.
G
A
To
address
housing,
affordability,
and
those
are
my
comments.
Thank.
Q
I'd
also
like
to
just
comment
real
quick
on
mitch's
comments
about
adaptively
reusing,
the
existing
brick
structure.
I
want
to
assure
the
board
that
it
is
our
100
gold
to
do
just
that.
Q
The
purpose
of
the
slides
and
expressing
showing
the
conditions
of
that
brick
facade
was
to
say
you
know.
Despite
somebody's
best
efforts,
it
may
be
unsalvageable
in
response
to
the
detail.
It
is
in
our
renderings.
Unfortunately,
I
think
the
renderings
doesn't
show
it
off
as
much
as
real
life
does
and
we
can
work
on
those
renderings,
but
that
corner
is
rendered
with
the
intricate
brick
cornice
and
the
intricate
window.
Details
that
currently
exist.
D
C
These
are
all
things
that
sort
of
we
need
information
on,
and
I've
tried
to
explain
it.
I
haven't
updated
this
in
the
last
two
weeks
and
they
have
just
submitted
a
bunch
of
information
to
me.
So
basically
it
was
it.
The
highlighted
things
are
just
informat.
I
needed
more
information
based
on
you
know
their
application,
so
they
have
submitted
a
lot
of
things.
I
will
integrate
that
into
this
form.
D
C
D
A
D
The
part
two
might
get
shortchanged,
but
all
those
issues
will
bring
brought
up
in
the
part
three,
so
I
mean
I
I
I
think
we'll
be
able
to
work
through
it.
I
appreciate
that
concern.
D
So
great,
I
feel
pretty
comfortable
with
that.
Are
there
any
other
things
to
bring
up
from
behalf
of
the
board
or
the
applicant
or
the
staff.
D
All
right,
I
appreciate
the
presentation
glad
we
got
through
the
public
hearing
and
look
forward
to
moving
forward
through
next
steps.
Next.
L
Yep,
I
am
a
cornell
university
project
manager
and
work
with
engineering
and
project
management.
In
that
capacity
I
don't
stand
to
gain
professionally
or
financially
from
the
cornell
wire
dam
project
or
any
other
project
before
the
planning
board.
That
being
said,
I
do
plan
on
recusing
myself
from
comment
of
the
dwyer
dam
project
due
to
my
co-workers
presenting-
and
I
feel
it's
better-
that
I
don't
comment
so
I'll
leave
and
someone
texts
me.
D
So
I'll
ask
the
applicants
is
the
gang
all
here.
Are
we
waiting
on
anyone.
B
W
W
Okay,
my
name
is
tammy
akin,
I'm
a
project
manager
for
cornell
university,
I'm
here
tonight
with
mark
lesner,
who
I
think
is
on
the
phone
or
joining
us
on
zoom
and
mike
savino.
Both
of
the
design
group.
Leslie
schill
may
also
be
joining
us
and
we're
all
here
for
you
to
ask
questions
to
later
on
in
the
presentation.
W
W
Okay,
so
this
is
looking
from
the
east
at
the
bridge
and
I'm
just
gonna
fly
through
these.
I
think
lisa
said
it
can
go
pretty
fast,
so
the
bridge
was
constructed
in
1924
in
1977
there
were
some
repairs
which,
which
added
the
granite
barriers
in
2016
new
york
state
dot,
did
their
annual
inspection
and
found
some
corrosion
of
steel
floor
beams
and
flagged
the
bridge
we've
since
done
structural
analysis
and
confirmed
the
bridge
has
adequate
capacity
and
the
flag
was
inactivated.
W
W
So
the
university
went
through
a
concept
design
with
labella
and
decided
to
rehabilitate
the
existing
bridge,
which
consists
of
retaining
the
existing
10-foot
lane.
So
basically,
the
existing
girders
and
abutments
all
remain
we're
just
replacing
the
superstructure
and
that
project
will
retain
the
existing
ten
foot.
One
wide
lanes,
two
foot
shoulders
increase
the
sidewalk
width
just
slightly
a
few
inches
on
each
side,
add
granite,
curbs
to
delineate
the
roadway,
replace
the
existing
railing
with
a
crash
tested.
W
Four
rail
steel
railing
sustain
system
and
from
which
we're
going
to
be
putting
in
those
clear
openings,
a
a
stepladder
deterrent
of
black
powder
coated
stainless
steel
mesh.
The
project
will
also
add
means
restriction
to
the
south
side
of
the
bridge,
together
with
surveillance
equipment.
W
The
construction
in
order
to
mitigate
the
impacts
to
pedestrians
vehicles
will
have
to
follow
the
detour
plan
which
you
may
have
seen
in
the
in
the
application
packet.
Pedestrians
will
be
routed
through
a
temporary
eight
foot,
wide
ada,
accessible
pedestrian
bridge.
W
The
project
will
maintain
a
usable
six
foot
wide
stair
width
with
stainless
steel.
Railings
mounted
on
the
outboard
side
of
the
stairs
and
railings
and
landings
lighting
will
also
be
upgraded
and
replaced
with
led,
led
lighting.
Fixtures
and
concrete
foundations
on
the
west
side
of
the
stairs
project
is
anticipated
to
be
constructed
in
2022
or
2023,
depending
on
the
financial
situation
of
the
university.
W
This
slide
just
shows
a
typical
bridge
section
and
you
can
see
the
the
travel
lanes,
10,
foot,
travel
lanes,
the
shoulders
sidewalks
and
the
the
the
guide
rails.
You'll
also
see
too.
The
bridge
carry
significant
utilities
under
the
bridge,
and
so
those
utilities
will
remain
in
service
and
the
contractor
will
be
required
to
re-hang
the
utilities
with
new
new
hangars
there's
going
to
be
a
few
repairs
on
the
utilities
too.
W
Some
re-insulation
some
welding
of
joints,
that
type
of
thing
pretty
all
minor
stuff,
no
new,
no
new
utilities,
just
all
utility
repair,
and
then
you
can
see
here
on
the
south
side
of
the
bridge,
the
means
restriction.
So
this
means
restriction
will
match
more
or
less
some
of
the
means
restriction
that
you
see
on
other
bridges
on
campus
it'll,
be
a
black
coated,
stainless
steel,
wire
mesh.
W
You
can
see
the
bridge,
nothing
really
changes
about
the
bridge
alignment
for
the
most
part,
the
granite
curbs
the
travel
lanes
are
identical,
we'll
be
reconstructing
the
elevated
sidewalk
on
the
west
side
of
the
bridge
to
d.o.t
standards
also
be
you
know,
just
working
with
ada
accessibility
coordinator
on
curb
cuts
and
accessibility
for
all
of
the
sidewalk
cuts,
tree
replacements
and
natural
areas
again,
working
with
landscape,
architect
and
todd
bitner
on
those
landscape
plans.
W
And
then
here
this
slide
just
shows
our
pedestrian
detour
during
construction.
So
this
isn't
final
final.
Yet
it
might
shift
a
little
this
way
or
that
we're
trying
to
mitigate
any
impacts
to
to
trees,
but
we'll
have
pedestrians
crossing
over
the
bridge,
all
80
accessible,
all
the
way,
through
and
meeting
back
up
with
the
south
side
of
hoy
road
for
pedestrians
to
continue
on
their
way
or
up
the
stairs.
W
If
the
stairs
are
not
under
construction,
if
the
stairs
are
under
construction,
we
plan
on
doing
that
in
the
fall
after
the
bridge
is
open,
and
then
this
is
my
final
slide
just
shows
a
rendering
of
the
of
the
dwyer
dam
bridge.
W
There
was
a
note
in
the
planning
committee
meeting
that
we
had
last
week
or
the
week
before
about
the
concrete
abutments.
So
there
are
some
small,
concrete
abutments
that
are
these
transition
points
for
the
the
guide
rail
proper
on
the
bridge,
and
then
these
transition
rails
that
are
extending
on
the
north
side
of
366
and
then
again
a
little
bit
on
the
south
side
of
hoy
road
on
the
west
side
of
the
bridge.
D
D
And
I
think
that's
unanimous,
so
you
do
have
a
lead
agent
and
in
the
interest
of
getting
through
our
items,
let's
go
ahead
and
have
our
public
hearing
as
well.
Is
there
a
motion
to
open
public
hearing.
D
C
D
All
right
is
there
a
motion
to
close
public
hearing.
I
saw
emily
move.
Is
there
a
second
saw
garrick?
Second,
all
those
in
favor
of
closing
public
hearing.
Please
raise
your
hand.
Public
hearing
is
now
closed.
So
that's
all
we
have
to
do
on
this,
but
we
did
just
see
a
nice
presentation
on
what
we're
looking
at
and
it'll,
be
worth
going
around
the
room
and
giving
feedback
on
what
we've
seen.
Cj.
Oh
anya,.
B
Could
the
applicant
please
stop
sharing
for
just
a
moment
because
it
it's
hard
for
me
to
follow
who's
doing
what
with
the
screen
sharing
please.
Thank
you.
Sorry,
you
may
have
to
pull
it
back
up
if
they
want
to
see
something,
but
it's
just
harder
for
me
to
see
what
they're
doing.
D
Cj,
I
am
going
to
go
ahead
and
start
with
you
in
terms
of
feedback
all
right.
I
Yeah,
thank
you.
So
it's
looks
very
similar
to
the
one.
That's
there.
As
far
as
my
limited
understanding
and
visual
acuity
and
discrimination
goes
so
great.
E
Yeah
thanks,
it
looks
like
a
nice
bridge
it'll
be
great
to
see
details
of
like
railings
and
stuff,
but
in
general
I
appreciate
keeping
up
with
maintaining
important
infrastructure,
and
you
know
detailing
pedestrian
access
and
stuff
like
that.
So
so
far
so
good.
For
me.
D
G
The
your
binder
is
really
comprehensive.
I
wish
every
project
had
this
level
of
information.
Thank
you
so
much.
I
think
it's
great
overall,
you
know
the
getting
rid
of
those
granite
barriers
are
going
to
be
wonderful.
Having
the
lower
railing.
G
The
mesh
below
is
such
an
upgrade.
I
think
it's
great
that
you're
able
to
provide
pedestrian
access
during
construction,
and
my
I
guess
my
only
question
is
the
stairs
are
an
alternate.
Is
that,
like
that,
might
be
part
of
the
project
or
that's
a
later
phase,
or
why
is
it
an
alternate.
W
Yes,
it's
it,
it's
an
alternate
and
we're
all
hoping
right
now
it
does
seem
to
be
within
budget
and
as
long
as
it's
in
budget
and
when
we
go
out
to
bid
and
that
budget
still
exists,
we're
we're
definitely
going
to
proceed
with
that.
It's
been
on
the
list
of
things
to
to
do
at
cornell,
replace
those
stairs.
They
are
badly
in
need
of
of
replacement.
W
G
I
run
up
them
or
maybe
trip
up
them.
Often
so,
and
I
see
there's
extra
light
fixtures,
so
that
looks
great.
I
hope
you
have
the
money
to
do
that
project
as
well.
Thank
you.
D
J
Yeah,
so
I
have,
I
would
just
echo
what
everyone
said,
especially
emily.
I
I
had
three
comments.
You
know
the
the
first.
By
the
way
is
this
I
mean
it's
great.
This
is
a
very
attractive
area.
I
think
it
was
2008
or
2010
that
that
whole
road
was
widened
and
the
bike
lane
was
put
in
and
really
it
was
aesthetically
improved.
So
it's
nice
to
see
the
bridge
follow
along.
I've
always
thought
this
is
a
very
you
know,
grand
and
kind
of
majestic
entrance
to
the
university.
J
You
know
along
the
creek
and
with
all
the
trees
and
so
on.
So
really
like
this
this
spot.
You
know
along
those
lines,
though,
a
lot
of
the
pedestrians
that
are
crossing
this
bridge
or
grad
students
coming
from
maplewood
and
especially
like
a
lot
of
foreign
students,
and
I
get
the
sense
that
if
they
live
in
maplewood
and
they
walk
to
and
from
campus
over
this
bridge,
that
they
kind
of
come
in
a
little
bit.
The
back
of
the
university
and-
and
so
these
may
be.
J
This
may
be
a
population
of
the
students
who
don't
see
so
much
of
the
front
entrance
of
the
university
and
where
I'm
getting.
That
with
this
is,
is
there
an
opportunity
to
deploy
some
of
the
great
signage
that
botanic
gardens
has
developed
elsewhere
on
campus
to
kind
of
hit
those
graduate
students
as
they're
coming
onto
campus
and
saying
hey
you're,
not
very
far
from
some
really
terrific
outdoor
resources
and
here's
a
map?
And
here's
where
you
are
on
this
bridge
and
how
it
relates
to
other
trails.
J
And
in
particular
you
know
it
might
be
possible
to
to
alert
people
that
if
they
just
walk
a
little
bit
forward
on
hoy
road
and
then
make
a
left
kind
of
behind
the
road
center
that
they
can
jump
right
down
into
the
gorge
and
that
there
are
maintained
trails
there.
So
you
know
just
something
to
look
at.
I
know
there's
great
signage,
that
already
exists
elsewhere
on
campus,
that
we
could
consider
you
know.
The
second
thing
is
those
stairs.
J
J
You
know
hopefully
helpfully
which
is
great,
but
then
I
remember
seeing
that
the
steel,
on
the
the
hand
rails,
which
are
very
important,
was
constantly
degrading
and
corroding,
and
then
I
remember
grounds
coming
along
every
every
year
and
painting
that
black
paint
on
it
and
so
on.
So
just
be
great.
If
you
could
replace
the
stairs
if
they
could
be
replaced
with
something
that
didn't
require
that
ongoing
maintenance
with
assault,
I
don't
know
what
the
options
are.
Similarly
again,
I
haven't
you
know
I
should
have
gone
by.
J
I
do
recall
that
you
know
when
you
got
to
the
top
of
the
stairs.
It
wasn't
quite
clear
as
a
pedestrian
where
you'd
walk.
You
know
you
kind
of
end
up
in
that
parking
lot.
You
know
if
we
could
look
at
you
know
I
haven't
gone
back
there
and
look,
but
maybe
think
about
you
know,
what's
the
continuation
of
the
pedestrian
experience
at
the
top
of
the
stairs
if
we
redo
the
stairs.
So
that's
the
second
comment.
J
The
third
comment
is-
and
this
really
is
unrelated
to
the
project,
but
if
we're
gonna
rip
up
the
whole
bridge-
and
you
know
reconsider
that
whole
spot
and
then
I
also
know
that
there's
you
know
been
on
the
board
of
public
works.
There's
been
some
looking
at
the
the
oak
avenue
dryden
avenue,
ethica
road
cornell
street,
that
you
know
six-way
intersection,
one
block
away.
There's
talk
about
a
roundabout
there.
J
If
we're
going
to
rip
out
this
bridge
and
we're
going
to
put
a
roundabout
a
block
away,
could
we
rethink
about
the
signage
and
particularly
when
I'm
I'm
sure,
you've
all
noticed
this,
but
the
westbound
traffic
coming
in
from
dryden
road?
So
imagine
you're
at
cornell,
orchards
and
you're
coming
down
towards
this
bridge
and
the
that
westbound
traffic
does
not
have
a
stop
sign
as
they
approach
the
hoy
road
dryden
road
intersection.
J
But
if
you
just
go
ahead
and
stand
there
about
every
fourth
car
stops,
despite
the
fact
that
there
is
no
stop
sign
and
then
it
causes
a
lot
of
confusion,
and
you
know
I'm
sure
you
just
just
walk
out
there
and
look
at
it
for
10
minutes.
I'm
sure
you've
seen
it,
but
since
we're
ripping
all
this
out,
is
there
something
we
could
do
to
reduce
the
confusion
error?
You
know
we're
taking
the
signs
out
anyway,
gonna
replace
them.
Could
we
improve
on
that?
So
that
was
my
three
comments.
D
Those
are
good
comments.
Thank
you.
Garrick,
my
windows
got
all
jumbled
or
my
faces
got
all
jumbled.
Some
point
during
that
series.
Did
I
get
everybody
on
the
board?
Did
everyone
speak?
D
I
think
so.
I'm
gonna
say
yes,
if
you
didn't,
you
should
speak
for
my
piece.
You
know
I
like
what
everyone
said.
It's
a
it's
a
tidy
project.
It's
an
improvement
of
infrastructure.
The
materials
are
comprehensive.
I
don't
think
anybody
mentioned
the
native
plants.
I
appreciate
the
attention
to
native
plants,
but
yeah
good
project
and
unless
there's
other
items
from
the
board
or
there's
areas
in
which
staff
wants
us
to
weigh
in
or
places
where
the
applicant
was
looking
for
more
feedback.
I
think
that
might
be
it
for
today.
K
D
D
So
that
brings
us
to
the
discussion
about
the
fifth
tuesday.
How
excited
is
everybody
to
have
a
special
meeting
on
the
fifth
tuesday
in
september?
E
Amidst
everyone
else
shaking
their
heads
now,
I
actually
get
excited
about
5th
tuesday
meetings
be,
but
it's
because
I
want
it
to
be
our
time
board
time
for
topics
other
than
site
plan
review,
and
I
feel,
like
we've
got
some
like
equity
and
racial
justice
topics
floating
around
that
it
would
be
really
nice
to
connect
with
them
in
person
yeah.
I
don't
I.
E
I
appreciate
that
applicants
want
to
like
get
in
front
of
us
as
much
as
they
can,
but
I
don't
feel
obligated
to
reserve
if
we
agree
with
special
time,
I
don't
feel
obligated
to
reserve
it
for
them.
I
like
it
to
be
for
us
as
a
board,
because
we
have
so
many
things
to
plan
and
discuss
outside
of
site
plan
review,
but
that
being
said,
I
wouldn't
hold
anybody
to
having
a
fifth,
a
fifth,
tuesday
and
september
meeting,
I'm
I'm
available,
but
it's
okay.
If
we
don't
want
to
do
it.
D
L
I
D
Okay,
good,
it
has.
G
D
My
calendar
as
well
cj,
you
were
violently
shaking
your
head,
no.
I
Well,
I
just
well,
I
just
have
I
have
a
lot
of
meetings
just
in
general,
as
many
of
you
probably
do,
but
I
don't
see
it,
it's
usually
things
that
are
on
my
calendar
are
gospels,
so
I
don't
see
it,
but
did
we
talk
about
it
before
and
I
just
probably
forgot
to
put
it
in
my
calendar.
I
I
had
forgotten.
Okay,
I
mean
it's.
I
could
certainly
accommodate
it.
I
was
sort
of
being
just
funny,
but
yes,
I
can.
G
I
could
attend,
I
think
elizabeth
and
cj
are
not
on
the
invite.
Actually,
it
may
have
gone
out
a
long
time
before.
C
D
J
Well,
you
know,
I,
I
got
the
bbw
meetings
too
so,
like
everyone,
I'm
a
little
bit
meeting
out,
but
but
having
said
that,
you
know
the
issues
that
mckinsey
raised
and
were
discussed.
You
know
are
paramount
in
importance
and
so
I'll
be
there
great.
D
C
I
mean
you
know
it's
your
it's,
your
call
that
the
agendas
are
really
packed
and
I
think
you
know
my
opinion
is.
It
could
be
helpful
to
take
something
on
so
to
get
it
off,
but
it's
a
never.
You
know
it's,
it's
always
refills.
So
I
guess
it
always
refills.
You
know,
there's
always
plenty
of
projects.
Maybe
we
can
wait
and
make
that
you
know
like
if
one
project
like
a
steery,
you
know
need
it.
You
know
they
need
their
approvals
for
a
particular
reason
that
is
of
benefit
to
the
city.
C
E
K
E
As
long
as
we
reserve
some
time
for
just
board
discussion
of
topics
outside
of
site
point
of
view,
that's
okay,
but
I
mean
it
also
feels
like
do.
We
need
to
meet
with
people
two
weeks
in
a
row?
Is
that
what
that's
kind
of
what
it
sounded
like
like?
Maybe
some
of
those
applicants
want
to
meet
at
the
regular
meeting
and
at
a
special
meeting,
and
that
feels
well
maybe
beneficial
to
their
schedule,
yeah
unnecessary
for
us.
I
don't
know.
I
Yeah,
I
was
thinking
of
two
things
I
was
thinking
for
this
kind
of
non-site
plan
or
non-subdivision
or
non-action
item
agenda.
I
guess
that's
the
way
to
put
it
is
if,
if
you,
if
we
are
really
gonna,
get
into
some
kind
of
traffic
analysis
on
the
waterfront,
maybe
we
could
talk
about
helping
the
city
with
an
application
to
the
transportation
alternatives
program.
I
They're
about
to
announce
this
tap
money,
itctc
wants
to
coordinate
applications
from
topkins
county
and
make
sure
we're
all
on
the
same
page
and
moving
forward
those
kinds
of
analyses
and
that
money
is
going
to
be
there
and
it's
specifically
for
planning
studies
specifically
for
these
types
of
projects,
so
the
money's
there.
Maybe
we
could
kind
of
draft
some
kind
of
help
them
draft
a
scope
of
at
least
put
something
you
know
together
to
you,
know
kind
of
give
some
additional
ideas
and
then
you
know
strongly
recommend.
Please
apply
for
this
money.
I
You
know
put
some
staff
time
towards
that
and
then
the
other
thing.
Oh
yeah,
the
conference
center,
this
letter
kind
of
came
out
to
me
a
little
bit
out
of
left
field.
Just
wondering
you
know
what
comment
is
common
council
thinking
something
different?
Are
they
concerned
about
a
trent,
some
kind
of
impact
district
that
they're
looking?
Do
they
want
us
to
weigh
in
on
that?
Is
that
what
she
was
saying
with
in
her
letter?
Like
I
don't
know,.
E
And
also
today,
I
see
you
because
I
think
clarification,
I
think
too
I
mean
because
we
did
it
was.
It
is
important,
I
think,
for
us
to
understand
that
common
council
approved
the
conference
center
before
covid
times
and
that
there
might
be
an
impact,
and
I
am
curious
in
hearing
about
the
contingency
plan
from
the
applicant.
I
don't
know
that
she's
just
trying
to
be
dissenting,
but
could.
I
We
hear
from
yeah,
could
we
hear
from
tom
about
this
kind
of
contingency
plan
about
it
and
she
asked
something
about:
are
weren't
they
forming
a
special
district
as
part
of
that?
Do
they
care,
I
mean,
do
they
want
input
from
us
or
I
don't
know.
I
think
it.
I
E
E
Yeah
to
the
tax
base,
okay,
but
I
second
that
I
second
hearing
from
tom
or
the
project
team
about
the
contingency
plan
I
mean
I
agree
that
the
project
before
the
project
before
us
and
that
common
council
could
reverse
their
decision
to
have
a
conference
center
if
they
wanted
to
it's,
not
our
call,
but
it
would
just
be
good
to
know
at
lea
for
the
public
too.
You
know
just
like
to
have
that
transparent
conversation
about
like
what
what
happens
to
nobody
wants
a
big
empty
conference
center
so
yeah.
I.
I
Think
it's
a
fair
to
have
a
just
discussion.
I
kind
of
have
a
really
fully
fleshed
out
understanding
of
it,
especially
you
know
I
mean
we're
all
city
taxpayers
here.
You
know
like
this.
Is
you
know
good
to
know?
I
think
you
know
if
we're
going
to
be
covering
up,
you
know,
whatever
the
impact
is
it's
just
great
to
know
everyone's
still
thinking
through
it
and
whatever
the
case
is
just
want
to
make
sure
everybody's
done
their
due
diligence
on
the
postcovid
kind
of
conference
world.
That's
it.
I
I
was
just
thinking
more
generally
and
to
kind
of
you
know,
without
the
applicants
you
know,
don't
it's
not
really
fair
in
some
ways
you
know
they're
here
for
site
plan
approval.
You
know
it's
to
me.
It's
not
necessarily
fair
to
question
them
on
like
policy
decisions
right.
You
know
just
this
kind
of
chance
to
have
an
open
conversation.
I
I
mean,
I
guess
a
way
to
just
engage
from
like
an
economic
development
perspective
to
just
kind
of
have
a
you
know,
just
understand
that
someone's
taking
a
holistic
look
in
this
in
the
kind
of
postcovid
environment,
and
that's
common
councils
briefed
on
it
that
everyone
feels
like
they're,
making
a
good
decision
on
it
going
forward.
Whatever
that
is,
you
know,
does
this
make
sense?
No,
I
don't
know.
F
My
memory
is
failing
me,
but
isn't
this?
What
the
presentation
with
tom
knight
to
the
board
was
about
specifically
these
questions,
and
if
that
presentation
was
recorded,
maybe
that's
something
we
could
all
look
at
again
and
I
think
it
answers
a
lot
of
these
questions
from
where
the
city's
perspective
is.
Am
I
wrong.
C
F
E
A
D
D
G
K
G
Than
then
somebody
said,
people
are
going
to
be
excited
to
meet
and
greet
again,
and
I
don't
know
that
that's
really
scientific
but
but
rob.
I
think
your
point
is
well
taken
that
it's
not
really
really
in
our
kirby.
We
should
have
the
conversation,
but
if
common
council
wants
to
revisit
it,
it's
kind
of
their
their
deal.
D
Okay,
so
I'm
not
sure
in
what
context
to
sort
of
get
into
that,
you
know,
I'm
not
sure
it's
a
special
tuesday
topic.
Maybe
it
is,
and
we
don't
necessarily
want
to
do
it
with
the
applicant,
and
I
think
that
there's
reasons
for
that
and
we
don't
necessarily
think
that
tom's
perspective
has
probably
changed,
although
it
could
be
worth
having
him
come
back
and
talk
to
us
again
if
we
want.
D
If
we
want
to
hear
that
viewpoint,
I
don't
think
I
don't
think
he
begrudged
the
visit,
and
I
am
maybe
out
of
ideas
on
other
ways
to
tackle
that.
E
Maybe
we
start
with
ask
just
asking
him
his
thoughts
in
an
email
you
know
and
like
if
it
seems
like
his
perspective
or
rationale
has
changed
or
if
there's
like
a
lot
new
information
for
us
to
consider,
then
we
could
meet
but
very
likely
it's
he's.
He
is
he
representing
council
and
the
city
economic.
You
know,
department
are
gonna,
maintain
their
case
that
at
least
this
will
be
a
really
valuable
future
use.
So
I'd
say
we
just
ask
him.
Like
you
know,
we
got
this
email
from
cynthia.
It
made
us
wonder
a
little
bit.
E
D
D
I
would
add
into
the
mix,
affordability
and
we've
heard
some
resistance
to
looking
at
projects
during
that
meeting
and
a
hypothetical
openness
to
30
minutes
at
the
top.
If
we
really
really
need
it,
I
will
say
that
I
share
that
resistance
to
doing
projects
special
meeting.
You
know
that
they
always
need
everything
and
we've
been
getting
out
at
reasonable
enough
times.
You
know
we've
been
out
by
or
about
10
each
one
of
these
for
a
while,
and
that's
really
as
good
as
it's
ever
going
to
get
for
us.
D
So
let's
not
worry
about
making
it
too
much
better
than
that,
because
we
won't,
but
you
know
we'll
we'll
see
when
we
get
closer
and
I'm
sure
there'll
be
some
emergency
and
we
can
talk
about
whether
it's
real
any
other
topics.
We
want
to
include
on
that
fifth
tuesday
agenda
and
we
can
have
a
chance,
obviously
to
review
it
before
then
mackenzie.
E
A
E
E
E
I
guess
I
should
say
so
there
that's
one
thing,
and
so
I
guess
we
should
play
if
people
know
that
they're
planning,
vacations
and
stuff-
maybe
we
should
like
talk
about
that
and
the
other
thing
is
perhaps
it
would
be
wise
to
have
someone
prepared
to
temporarily
for
those
months
step
up,
as
vice
chair
in
the
case
that
rob
can't
attend
a
meeting
or
if
we're
still
discussing
the
rothschild
building
so
on
and
so
forth.
E
I
just
want
to
put
those
things
on
the
table
and
also
I
this
is
an
assumption
that
I've
made,
but
my
hope
is
that,
after
my
leave
ends,
I
can
return
to
my
seat
on
the
board,
as
is
and
continue
my
tenure,
but
you
know
lisa.
Let
me
know
if
that's
not.
C
True,
I
don't
think
I
think
I
think
it's
fine
yeah
yeah,
okay.
D
Thank
you
for
that
heads
up.
Those
are
those
are
things
worth
considering
and
yeah.
We
should
have
another
vice
chair.
I
think
that
the
traditional
one
that
we've
been
using
is
garrick,
and
I
don't
know
how
excited
you
are
about
that
garrick,
but
we
could
definitely
tap
you
and,
if
you're
not
interested,
we
could.
We
can
look
at
that.
D
I
appreciate
that,
thank
you
very
much.
C
C
I
just
looking
ahead
to
the
schedule
on
december
is
always
so
november.
The
the
meeting
schedule
is
always.
This
is
traditionally
the
same.
We
meet
on
thanksgiving
week,
the
tuesday
before
thanksgiving,
but
then
on
this
in
december.
It's
we
bring
it
forward
a
week,
so
it's
very
early
and
then
january.
We
go
back
so
just
in
terms
of
people's
travel
and
vacation
schedules.
D
I
can
commit
to
making
all
those
meetings.
I
think
it's
worth
everybody
looking
at
their
calendars.
H
G
D
Checking
in
if
you
see
a
conflict
just
so
we
can,
you
know,
be
ready
in
advance.
C
Yeah
there's
you
know
sometimes
if
the
county
gives
you
know
sometimes,
which
has
to
be
a
super
majority,
and
you
know
we
don't
have
any
alternates
and
we've
always
thought
about
that.
That
might
not
might
be
something
to
look
into.
But
if
you're
interested
then
alternates,
where
someone
will
step
in
when
somebody
can't
be
there.
C
G
You'll
have
to
vote
if
there's
and
it
is
if
there's.
D
Good
to
keep
in
mind
so
we
should
check
in
on
these
via
emails
anya.
Can
you
just
send
out
the
dates
just
to
confirm,
so
everybody
can
check
against
it.
You're,
muted.
B
D
D
F
It
I
mean,
I,
I
think,
emily's.
G
F
F
You
know
a
very
good
project
for
the
city
that
we've
been
working
on,
that
the
developer
is,
you
know,
laying
out
a
huge
risk
for,
and
you
know,
I
think
we
really
need
to
support
that
and
and
try
to
get
this
thing
decoupled,
because
it's
they
shouldn't
be
related
good
to
garrick's
point
that
traffic
comes
from
everywhere
and
d.o.t
should
know
that,
I'm
sure
they
do
so.
I
don't
know
what's
really
happening
here.
E
C
F
H
J
Yeah
yeah
mitch,
I
completely
agree,
and
then
we
all
know
that
there's
more
coming,
the
d.o.t
site
itself
is
going
to
be
developed,
and
then
I
I
know
the
same
folks
did.
City
harbor
have
also
bought
the
property
all
along.
Where
you
know,
puddle
dockers
is
and
so
and
so
there's
more
coming.
D
So
there's
the
idea
of
saying
to
common
council
that
it's
important
that
this
be
looked
at
holistically
and
not
coupled
with
individual
project
approvals,
and
even
though
we
do
couple
things
tonight,
I
think
we
got
to
make
that
point.
There's
a
push
for
holistic
study
that,
like
lisa
mentioned,
and
that
I
think
in
some
ways,
is
intention
with
a
push
for
them
to
approve
the
d.o.t
plan
and
I
think
either
of
those
pushes
have
pluses
the
nice
push
for
the
d.o.t
plan.
D
Is
that
it's
a
plan
and
it's
actionable
in
a
way
that
a
study
is
is
not
action.
You
know-
and
I
I
I
could
see
us
coming
out
for
either
of
those
things.
I
think
it's
harder
harder
to
come
out
for
both,
but
I
could
imagine
that
too
and
yeah
maybe
yeah.
I
I
don't
know
where
the
consensus
is
here
yet.
F
D
Sure
all
right,
so
we
push
for
study.
We
talk
about
the
importance
of
decoupling.
What
other
points
do
we
want
to
raise.
B
C
You're
gonna
be
asked
to
comment
on
the
proposal
anyways.
So
maybe
this
could
be
kind
of
woven
into
that
and
you'll
see
all
the
questions
that
everybody's
asking
about
the
proposal-
and
I
don't
know
if
we
could
start
drafting
this
bull.
I
like
I
could
start
with
a
bullet
pointed
list
and
then
we
could
keep
talking
about
it.
Do
you.
E
Yeah
yeah,
okay,
didn't
read
it
yet,
but
I
saw
it
okay
good.
So
that's
so
maybe
that's
something
that
we
talk
about
on
the
fifth
tuesday
and
one
of
the
things
that
we
can
recommend
to
common
council
is
that
we
would
be
supportive
in
what
cj
was
discussing
like
seeking
funding
for
this
kind
of
traffic
study.
We.
D
G
Can
you
forward
the
email
from
deborah
to
me,
please,
I
can't
find
it
sure.
Thank
you.
C
C
They
have
other,
they
have
other
things,
holding
them
up,
they're
even
more
complicated,
but
it
that's
the
same
thing
I
mean.
D.O.T
has
said
that
this
is
mitigation
for
the
breaking
access.
They,
I
don't
think,
there's
a
way
around
that
I
mean
they.
They
have
to
approve
a
break
and
x.
You
know
it
has
to
dot
staff
has
said
they
won't
recommend
a
break
in
access
without
these
mitigations.
D
All
right,
I
think
next
actions
might
just
be
to
review
the
draft
that
lisa
puts
together
in
relation
to
the
proposal.
It
sounds
like
we're
going
to
start
with
a
bullet
list
and
work
towards
something
that's
more
more
languagey
and
what
will
that
go
out
over
email,
lisa.
H
C
Yeah
we
could
start,
I
mean
I
could
just
get
down
these
ideas
there
and
and
then
we
could
just
you
could
just
keep
talking
about
them
and
eventually
it
will
turn
into
you
know
more
of
a
conversation.
You
can
also
look
at
the
the
the
proposal.
I
just
sent
it
out
to
you
in
case
you
didn't
get
it
great.
D
D
I
think
that
brings
us
to
reports,
I
will
say,
as
planning
board
chair.
This
is
another
sort
of
long
meeting.
Where
I'm
impressed
at
the
complexity
of
what
we
were
able
to
deal
with
and
the
ways
we
were
able
to
deal
with
it.
You
know
in
a
really
weird
format
you
know
was
complicated
today
and
I
think
we
worked
through
it
just
fine.
So
I
thank
everyone
for
helping
to
do
that
that
it's
a
non-trivial
task,
bpw
liaison.
J
Yeah
by
the
way,
rob
I'd
agree
with
all
that,
and
it
was
it
wasn't
his
tough
issue.
Bpw
main
thing
is
the
hector
street
sidewalk.
If
you
haven't
looked
that's
a
major
infrastructure
addition
to
the
city,
so
you
can
now
walk
bicycle
whatever
you
know
all
the
way
up
the
sidewalk
from
downtown
to
the
citytown
line.
So
that's
a
big
improvement.
J
The
brindley
street,
the
brindley
street
bridge,
is
about
to
come
online
and
so
that
bridge
has
to
be
also
considered
in
any
discussion
about
route
13,
because
that's
going
to
change
the
the
patterns,
you
know
the
whole
redesign
of
of
west
state.
You
know
tim
loge
worked
very
hard
on
it.
It
was
all
just
finished.
J
I
I
think
it's
great,
but
the
one
problem
we
have
is
that
sort
of
about
the
time
that
thing
was
finished
is
when
the
virus
hit,
and
so
I
don't
think
we've
really
had
a
real
testing
of
how
well
you
know
all
that
worked
as
a
guy
who
lives
on
west
hill.
J
I
can
tell
you,
you
know
the
virus
just
solved
all
the
traffic
problems,
so
you
know
we'll
have
to
see
when,
when
cornell
reopens
and
all
the
businesses
reopen
fully
how
things
you
know
line
up
last
bpw
meeting
a
lot
of
over
an
hour
discussion
about
what
happens
when
someone's
water
meter
fails,
and
you
don't
know
how
much
water
they
used
and
what
to
do.
And
anyway,
what
bottom
line
is
conclusion.
J
This
is
one
of
these
sort
of
hidden
benefits
of
the
virus
is,
you
know,
looks
like
we
had
some
really
good
discussion.
You
know
the
the
department
is
just
overwhelmed
and
people
are
furloughed
and
working
from
home
and
in
discussion
that
it
was
revealed
that,
basically,
if,
if
any
citizen
appeals
a
a
water
bill
or
a
snow
removal
fee
or
anything
like
that,
the
current
system
is
that
staff
has
to
drop
everything,
they're
doing
and
spend
hours
and
hours
and
hours.
J
You
know
researching
the
issue
and
providing
paperwork
and
and
so
on,
and
it's
really
interfering
with
staff's
ability
to
do
their
job,
and
so
we
had
a
long
discussion
about
trying
to
move
the
burden
off
of
staff
and
on
to
the
applicant
or
or
on
to
the
appellant,
so
that
staff's
not
responding
to
these
complaints,
and
so
you
know
we're
looking
to
reform
the
the
broader
appeal
system.
J
D
Excellent.
Thank
you
very
much
director's
report.
C
Well,
I'm
glad
to
say
that
all
of
our
staff
has
is
back
at
work.
Now
everybody
that
was
furloughed
has
been
brought
back,
which
is
brian
mccracken.
The
historic
preservation
planner
alex
phillips,
our
planner
and
gino
also
is
brought
back,
although
megan
has
taken
over
the
zoning
administrator
thing,
so
we're
very
happy
to
have
everybody
back
and
we're
just
gonna
take
a
little
bit
of
a
deep
breath.
D
Excellent,
I'm
glad
to
hear
that
unless
there's
any
other
items
that
a
member
of
the
board
might
like
to
bring
forward,
I
think
we're
ready
for
a
motion
to
adjourn.