Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[Item 1]

[00:00:14]

>>> THE FEBRUARY 20, 2020 REGULAR MEETING.

PLEASE CALL THE ROLE. >>

>> WE WILL WELCOME YOU LATER. >> WE HAVE TWO CASES TONIGHT THAT THEY ASKED THAT WE MOVE UP ON THE AGENDA.

EARLIER TODAY SHE SAID SHE WOULD LIKE TO TESTIFY EARLIER IN THE PEPPERS CASE AND JOSé HAS TO BE SOMEWHERE AT 5:30 P.M.

I WILL MAKE AN ARBITRARY DECISION AND SAY IF IT IS OKAY WITH THE BOARD WE WILL DO MIRANDA NOW AND THEN WE WILL GO

TO THE PEPPER. >> DO WE NEED A PHONE ON THAT? DO WE NEED A VOTE TO ADJUST THE AGENDA?

>> KNOW WE CAN JUST DO THAT. >> IN THAT CASE IT WILL BE SAMANTHA WHO WILL DO ST. MICHAEL'S BEAR SHE SET IT ASIDE FOR THIS ONE. BUT BEFORE WE GET THERE WE HAVE TO ASK BOARD MEMBERS TO DO COMMUNICATION STARTING WITH

MS. ROBINSON. >> NONE.

>> NON. >> I HAVE NONE BUT I WOULD LIKE TO PUT ON THE RECORD I DO THINK I AM RELATED TO JACKIE.

>> HE SPOKE BRIEFLY BEFORE THE MEETING ABOUT THE PEPPERS CASE.

>> MS. ANGELA. I HAVE NONE.

>> OKAY, WE WILL ASK THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PRESENT THIS BECAUSE

I JUDICIAL PROCEDURES. >> TONIGHT HEARINGS ARE THE CASES THE BOARD WILL BE CONDUCTING TRADITIONAL HEARINGS FOR EACH OF THEM. WHAT THAT MEANS, IT MEANS THE BOARD WILL BE A PANEL OF JUDGES. WHOEVER IS SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF CITY STAFF IS REPRESENTING THE CITY WHO IS A PARTY.

THE APPLICANT IS ANOTHER PARTY AND WE HAVE AFFECTED PARTIES WHICH MEANS IF YOU ARE A RESIDENT YOU WILL GET TO SEE -- SPEAK WITHOUT YOUR TIME BE LIMITED.

ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK HAS TO STAND AND TAKE A OATH AND THE CHAIR WILL ASK MS. GIBSON TO ADMINISTER THE OATH IN A FEW MINUTES. FIRST WE WILL START WITH CITY STAFF FOR THE HEARING. CITY STAFF INTRODUCES EVIDENCE INTO THE RECORD. THEY MAY CALL WITNESSES AND THE APPLICANT OR THEIR AGENT WILL COME TO THE PODIUM, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, YOU WILL NOT BE LIMITED IN THE TIME YOU GET TO SPEAK. YOU WILL PRESENT EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY ON THE RECORD. WE ARE MAKING AUDIO RECORDING AND WE HAVE A VIDEO RECORDING. THAT CONSTITUTES THE RECORD AS WELL AS THE DOCUMENTS AND TESTIMONY INTRODUCED HERE TONIGHT. SO THE APPLICANT AFTER THAT, IF THERE ARE ANY WITNESSES OR EACH OTHER CAN CROSS-EXAMINE EACH OTHER AND ASK QUESTIONS. ALSO AFFECTED PARTIES WHO COME UP TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE MAY CALL WITNESSES AND CONDUCT CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE PARTIES AND WITNESSES.

IF THERE IS AN APPEAL TO BE TAKEN TONIGHT WITH ANY OF THE DECISIONS THAT ARE MADE, THAT APPEAL IS FILED WITH THE CITY COMMISSION AND IT CAN ONLY BE FILED BY THE APPLICANT.

THAT IS THE ONLY PARTY THAT CAN APPEAL THE BOARD'S DECISION.

IT IS TAKEN WITHIN 30 DAYS TO THE CITY COMMISSION.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? >> HEARING NO QUESTIONS IF ANYONE WANTS TO TESTIFY PLEASE STAND UP NOW AND GET SWORN IN.

>>> RAISED HER RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SWEAR TO THE ORAL OR WRITTEN TESTIMONY YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE IS THE TRUTH CAUGHT THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.

[Item 2]

>> YES. >> BOARD MEMBERS WERE YOU ABLE TO GO OVER THE PREVIOUS MINUTES AND DO YOU HAVE ANY CHANGES.

>> SECOND. >> MOVE, HARRISON SECOND. CAUGHT NO DISCUSSION ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

THE MOTION CARRIES. >> MOVING ON, WE WILL HEAR HDC

[Item 3.2]

2018-19 AMENDMENT BY MIRANDA. WHAT IS THE CASE?

[00:05:08]

>> THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 222 NORTH FIFTH STREET.

AMENDMENT TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CERTIFICATE OF RELOCATION AND REHABILITATION OF A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE.

THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING TO MODIFY THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT FOR THE MOVING AND RELOCATION OF THE STRUCTURE.

AS ORIGINALLY PROVED THE HOUSE WOULD HAVE BEEN MOVED IN ITS ENTIRETY TO ITS NEW LOCATION. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO

NOT DO THIS. >> AS EVIDENCE IN THE EARLIER FORM, THE TOWNHOUSE FEATURED A ONE-STORY ADDITION THAT WAS CONNECTED TO THE HOME THAT SEPARATED FROM THE BODY OF THE HOUSE. THIS IS TYPICAL WHERE KITCHENS WERE OFTEN IN SEPARATE BUILDINGS.

THIS BLUEPRINT WAS REPLACED WITH THE CURRENT FOOTPRINT YOU SEE TODAY. SOMETIME BETWEEN 1909-1926.

IT HAS NOT HISTORIC WHEN THE PROPORTIONS AND NOT THE SAME QUALITY OF THE BODY OF THE HOUSE.

GALLUP AND -- THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED A MODIFICATION TO REMOVE THIS ADDITION. IT WAS ADDED AFTER THE LIFETIME OF CENTER BUILDINGS. IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF EACH ADDITION. THE STAFF FINDS THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE BUILDING CODE AND THE SECRETARY OF STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES ALSO RECOMMEND APPROVAL.

>> QUESTIONS? >> IT MAY BE A BE A DUMB QUESTION BUT I WOULD LIKE TO ASKED WHAT PART OF THE HOUSE

WILL BE RIGHT HERE. >> WE BELIEVE THAT UP TO JOSé.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> NONE.

YOU HAVE YOUR FIRST QUESTION. >> THE HOUSE AND THANK YOU FOR INDULGING ME ON THE AGENDA. THE BACK ADDITION AS YOU KNOW WAS NOT ORIGINAL TO THE ORIGINAL HOUSE.

WE THINK IT IS CLOSER TO 1865 OR SO.

IT MAKES US ABLE TO CREATE OR RELOCATE THE ORIGINAL FOOTPRINT OF THE ORIGINAL HOUSE ON ITS NEW SITE.

THE ONLY THING WE HAVE TO DO IS ESSENTIALLY THERE IS A DOOR NOW THAT GOES FROM INSIDE TO THE KITCHEN SPACE AND IT WILL GO BACK TO THIS WINDOW TO MATCH. THIS ONE RIGHT HERE.

THERE IS A DOOR RIGHT HERE THAT MATCHES THE OPENING ON THE OTHER SIDE. SO WE WILL GO THERE AND ADD NEW

SIDING TO MATCH IT. >> OBVIOUSLY WITH THE RELOCATION AND THE NEW FOUNDATION AND EVERYTHING YOU HAVE APPROVED.

CANCEL WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THE PROPERTY?

>> IT WILL BE DEMOLISHED AND REMOVED.

>> OKAY. >> DO WE NEED TO CONSULT WITH JOSé FOR THAT DEMOLITION QUESTIONS.

>> THAT IS A GOOD QUESTION. DOES HE NEED A PERMIT FOR THE DEMO PORTION? DO HE NEED APPROVAL FROM US TO DEMOTE THAT SECTION OF THE HO HOUSE?

>> THAT IS HE -- THAT IS WHAT HE IS ASKING FOR TONIGHT?

>> YES. >> YES, WE ARE ASKING FOR APPROVAL. THE RELOCATION WE APPROVE AND WE WERE GOING TO DO IT WITH THE QUESTION THAT'S RIGHT KITCHEN AND THEN WE REALIZED IT WAS AN ADD-ON.

IT IS ALSO IN BAD SHAPE AND DOESN'T MATCH THE MAIN HOUSE.

WHY DON'T WE TAKE IT ALL. SO WE ARE MODIFYING IT.

>> WE ARE GOING TO DEMO IT AND RELOCATE THE HOUSE TO THE NEW

LOCATION. >> AND PUT IN A WINDOW WHERE THE

DOOR IS INTO THE KITCHEN. >> WHAT IS THE CONDITION OF THE

ADD ON. >> IT IS IN FAIR CONDITION BUT NONE OF THE PROPORTIONS MATCHES THE ORIGINAL.

>> GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. >> OBVIOUSLY --

>> WE HAVE THE ROOF TRIANGLE, IT APPEARS IT MAY HAD A SIDE ROOF.

>> IT LOOKS LIKE THE ORIGINAL SHAPE KICKED OUT FURTHER AND THAT SPACE BECAME A LAUNDRY ROOM.

>> SO THERE COULD BE ANOTHER SIDE PORCH THAT COULD'VE BEEN

UNDERNEATH THERE. >> IT IS HARD TO TELL BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANY SPECIFICS EXCEPT THERE IS A LITTLE ADDITION ON

THE BACK. >> WE THINK THE LAUNDRY PIECED IS POST- 1930S. THAT LITTLE EXTENSION.

>> HAVE YOU DONE ANY INSPECTION OF MATERIALS?

>> NOT YET. THAT WILL HAPPEN JUST BEFORE THE

RELOCATION. >> IT IS ALWAYS MY CONCERN IS

[00:10:03]

THERE A WAY WE CAN HARVEST ANYTHING IT IS STILL

100-YEARS-OLD. >> IF ANYONE WANTS IT THE CHURCH WILL SAY COME AND GET IT. WE JUST HAVE TO MAKE SURE IT IS

A CLEAN BREAK. >> I'M SURE THERE IS SOME SALVAGEABLE MATERIALS. WE CAN LET EVERYONE KNOW BEFORE

IT GETS RELOCATED. >> IS THERE A WAY THAT THE ADDITION IS IN SUCH A CONDITION IT COULD BE MOVED INTACT?

>> IT IS NOT WORTH IT FOR US. THAT LITTLE BUMP OUT AND THE WAY IT IS PHYSICALLY CONNECTED IT WOULDN'T SURVIVE ON ITS OWN.

>> YOU KNOW WHEN? >> RIGHT NOW WE ARE HOPING IT WILL BE DONE BY EARLY APRIL WHEN WE MOVE INTO THE OFFICES, THEN WE WILL DEMOLISH THE OLD LOCATION AND RELOCATE THIS ONE ON THE NEW FOUNDATION. SOMETIME THIS SUMMER IS THE TIMELINE. THEN THE PARKING LOT AND ALL OF THAT. BY FALL WE WILL BE READY TO GO.

>> IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE SITE PLAN FOR THE HOUSE?

>> NO. WE KEPT IT IN THE SAME LOCATION

WE WERE APPROVED FOR BEFORE. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING IF ANYONE WISHES TO TESTIFY IN REGARDS TO HDC 2018-19.

NINE THAT'S RIGHT WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND MOVED TO BOARD DISCUSSION. BOARD MEMBERS, WHAT DO YOU

THINK? >> I THINK IT MAKES SENSE.

I AGREE. >> YEAH I AGREE.

>> THE ONLY THING I WOULD ADD IF THERE IS SOME HISTORICAL

MATERIAL. >> CAN WE PUT THAT IN THE MOTION TO SALVAGE WHAT ARCHAEOLOGY MATERIAL.

YOU NEVER KNOW. IF YOU FIND SOMETHING DON'T

THROW IT OUT. >> I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE ON THE RECORD IT MAKES SENSE FROM A MOVING FORWARD PERSPECTIVE YES, FROM A HISTORIC PRESERVATION, WE ONLY ASK WHERE DO YOU PRESERVE OR RESTORE. THAT IS STILL A HISTORIC STRUCTURE SO THAT HURTS MY HEART TO TAKE IT OFF AND THROW IT

AWAY. >> ELISE WE GET'S RECYCLED

MATERIALS. >> IF THAT IS THE CASE, THAT

SHOULD BE PUT IN THERE. >> LET'S ALL MAKE A MOTION.

>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION. >> I MOVED TO APPROVE THIS AMENDMENT TO HDC'S 2018/19 WITH THE CONDITIONING OWNERS MAKE EVERY ATTEMPT POSSIBLE TO MAKE THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE TO ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SALVAGE THEM FOR FUTURE USE.

I MOVE THEY MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS A FACT IN PART OF THE RECORD THIS CASE AS PRESENTED IS COMPLIANT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. AND THE DOWNTOWN -- DOWNTOWN

EMOTIONS. >> I WILL SECOND.

>> DISCUSSION? I JUST SAINT WE HAVE SEEN THIS DONE FREQUENTLY. MULTIPLE TIMES WHERE THE OLD KITCHEN GETS TURNED INTO A ROOM AND THAT GETS TAKEN OFF FOR

OTHER USES. >> ALL RIGHT, MS. KELLY WOULD

YOU PLEASE CALL ROLE. >> CALL THE ROLL.

>> A AMBER. >> YES.

>> WAIT A MINUTE. ARE YOU AN ALTERNATE?

>> YOU'RE NOT VOTING. >> ABSOLUTELY NOT.

>> WE ARE NOT SEEING ANY ALTERNATES.

>> CALLING THE ROLE. >> WE APPRECIATE THE INDULGENCE OF EVERYONE. SO THE QUESTION IS, ARE WE GOING TO MOVE ON TO 2019 -- 46 OR -- WE WILL MOVE ON GOD WE WILL

[Item 3.4]

REWORD THE AGENDA AND MOVE ON TO 201946.

OUR FOR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY AGENT FOR PEPPERS MEXICAN GRILL AND CANTINA. TELLING THAT I SPEAK SLOWLY

ENOUGH TO GET YOU. >> THANK YOU.

[00:15:03]

PLEASE PRESENT THE CASE. >> I DIDN'T BRING MY STANDUP

MATERIAL SO. >> THIS IS WHAT WE GET FOR

REWORDING THE AGENDA >> IT'S OKAY.

>> THIS EVENING, THE APPLICANT LOCATED AT 530 CENTER STREET ISSUED A REQUEST TO RE- STRIPE THE PARKING LOT AND CONSTRUCT ACCESSORIES STRUCTURE, THE STORAGE ROOM, DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE, MAN THREE PRIVACY WALL AND IN ADDITION TO EAST AND WEST ELEVATIONS. THIS IS IN THE PARKING LOT TO ALLOW BETTER FLOW OF THE PARKING.

THE DUMPSTERS ENCLOSURE AND PRIVACY WALL WILL ADDRESS THE FUNCTIONAL NEEDS OF THE EXISTING BUILDING.

AND THE PROPOSED ADDITIONS OF EAST AND WEST ELEVATIONS TO KEEP THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE NONCONTRIBUTING WALL.

THEY HAVE ISSUED A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL.

ALL OF THE MATERIALS THAT HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FOR THE BUILDING AND ALL OF THE APPLICANTS MATERIALS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED AS PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD. THEY ARE INCLUDED FOR YOUR

VIEWING THIS EVENING. >> JUST TO RECAP AS I RECALL.

WE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE COLOR OF THE BUILDING MATERIAL.

WE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE LOCATION OF THE DUMPSTER.

AND THE BOARD MEMBERS DO YOU RECALL WHAT ELSE WAS ON OUR LIST OF CONCERNS AT THE PREVIOUS HEARING?

>> PEDESTRIAN THAT'S WHAT IT WAS.

>> KELLY DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD?

>> I WOULD BE HAPPY TO GO THROUGH THE MATERIAL THAT HAVE BEEN PROVIDED THERE IS AN UPDATE THAT HAS BEEN INCLUDED AS PART OF YOUR STAFF REPORTS. THE DUMPSTERS STORAGE ROOM HAVE BEEN REARRANGED AND FLIPPED. THIS IS NOW FACING SOUTH.

THE NEW SITE ENTRANCE HAS BEEN ADDED WHICH WILL BE RECONSTRUCTED WITH THE SAME MATERIALS AS THE GATES THAT FACE TO THE EAST. THE DIMENSIONS PROVIDE CLEARANCES. THE BLOCK MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE FROM THIS. AND WE HAVE AN ARRAY OF COLOR SAMPLES THAT ARE PROVIDED AS SAMPLES AND ALTERNATES INCLUDED IN THE PACKET. AND THE PEAK COLOR SAMPLES WILL BE PROVIDED AS A SIMULATION OF THE WINDOW FRAMES.

ALSO STUCCO SAMPLES WILL BE PROVIDED AS THE PHOTOCOPY ITSELF. IT WILL DEPICT THE COLOR MATCH

TO THE OFFICE. >> THAT SEEMS LIKE A GREAT IDEA.

>> WISHES FOR MS. GIBSON. >> I THINK YOU DID THIS IN THE

FIRST SENTENCE. >> THE PROPOSED PROJECT WITH

ONE-WAY TRAFFIC. >>

>> QUESTIONS FOR MS. GIBSON? >> ALL RIGHT IF YOU COULD IDENTIFY YOURSELF. YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE

RECORD. >> GOOD AFTERNOON.

I AM AN ARCHITECT 1365 MOONING TO THE ROAD.

I HAVE BEFORE YOU SOME ENLARGED DRAWINGS.

IF YOU WISH -- >> WE WILL LOOK AT THEM.

>> THE ONLY THING THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE SUBMITTED IS THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT THE IRON FENCE DETAIL.

AND THE ENCLOSURE WALL THAT IS ADJACENT.

ALSO I HAVE BEFORE YOU, THE COLOR SAMPLE FOR THE BLOCK.

THE OWNER HAS CONSIDERED THE CHANGE IN THE COLOR.

THIS IS THE BOTTOM LEFT CORNER. THIS IS THE NEW COLOR SELECTED.

>> THAT LOOKS PRETTY CLOSE TO THE EXISTING COLOR.

[00:20:04]

>> IT IS NICE. >> CAN YOU CLARIFY WHAT YOU MEAN WHEN YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE IRON DETAIL.

>> I DIDN'T KNOW THERE WAS AN IN DETAIL.

>> THERE IS AN IRON GATE ACTUALLY.

THERE IS -- THIS IS THE DETAIL. THIS IS FOR THE STORAGE AREA.

>> LET ME JUMP RIGHT TO THAT. >> THE STUCCO CLOSURE FITS THE WALL HERE THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT THE DETAIL OF THAT.

WE JUST CLARIFIED IT. THE OWNER WANTED THE WALL TO COME OUT BECAUSE THE SHAPE IS NOT REALLY WORKING.

>> THE DETAIL IS THIS ONE RIGHT HERE.

>> IT CREATES A CONSISTENT SH SHAPE.

>> IF YOU TAKE THAT DOWN. >> THIS IS THE ONE THAT WAS

PRESENTED. >> HOW DID THE REPORT GO?

>> ONLY ONE MEMBER WANTED TO CHANGE THE LOCATION TO GO

AGAINST THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE. >> THIS IS TOWARDS THE STREET.

>> THERE WAS NO CONSENSUS TO DO THAT.

NOR DID WE REQUEST THAT LOCATION.

>> IT WOULD BE A CHALLENGE TO DO THAT.

>> WE WERE JUST SHOWING THE QUALITY OF THE MATERIALS PRESENTED TO US. WE ARE BEING ASKED TO APPROVE

SOMETHING THAT WE CAN'T SEE. >> IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING?

OF USING THE IRON GATE? >> I HAVE NOT.

>> FRANKLY I DOUBT IT IS MATERIAL.

>> THE REDUCTION IN THE SIZE TO ELIMINATE THE TRAPEZOID SHAPE

WHICH IS AWKWARD. >> I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE DESIGN WHETHER THE FACT THAT WE ARE BEING ASKED TO PROVE SOMETHING OUT OF THE APPLICATION.

>> IF IT WAS ANY OTHER TYPE OF GAIT, I DON'T KNOW WHY WE COULDN'T APPROVE IT WITHOUT THAT COMPONENT.

>> THAT WOULD BE FINE. >> I WANT TO MAKE THE POINT THAT WE ARE BEING ASKED, THE APPLICANT IS MAKING CHANGES.

>> PRIOR TO THE OTHER CONFIGURATION.

>> THERE'S NOTHING CONTROVERSY ABOUT IT.

WERE NOT SAYING WE HAD A PROBLEM.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> I WAS UNCLEAR ABOUT THE COLORS. YOU SAID YOU WERE ADJUSTING

PAINT COLORS. >> THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE PAINT COLOR. I DID AGREE WITH THE SUGGESTION ON THE WINDOW FRAMES TO MATCH THE EXISTING BUILDING.

>> IS THAT THE AUBURN COLOR. >> YES.

>> THIS IS FOR THE IRON. >> THE OF THE MATERIAL WE HAD AN ARRAY THAT WAS SUBMITTED AND THERE WERE TWO THAT WERE CLOSE

[00:25:03]

TOGETHER SHOWING WHERE THE ARROWS ARE.

AND THE EXISTING BUILDINGS MATERIAL IS CLOSE TO THAT.

>> IT SURPRISING THAT THE NEW BLOCK OF COLOR IS CLOSE TO THE EXISTING COLOR. HE DIDN'T LOOK LIKE IT.

>> WHAT ABOUT THE CLEANING OF THIS.

IT IS A SPLIT PRODUCT. DO YOU ANTICIPATE IT HARD TO BE

CLEAN SINCE IT'S A LIGHT COLOR. >> THE ONE-SIDED SPLIT FACE THE

OTHER SIDE IS THE CUT FACE. >> WE ARE NOT PROPOSING THE

SPLIT FACE. >> WE CAN POWER WASH IT.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION OF THE PARKING AREA.

I HAVE TO ADMIT IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HISTORICAL MATTERS ON THIS APPLICATION. BUT I NOTICED THE PARKING SPACES ARE VERY DURABLE. I'M WONDERING WHETHER YOU WILL

HAVE A SET STANDARD. >>

>> A GOOD QUESTION. THEY WILL REQUIRE THIS TO THE

BUILDING DEPARTMENT. >> YES.

THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. >> TO ADDRESS THE SIZE OF THE PARKING SPACES, THE MIDDLE ROAD WILL NOT HAVE THESE STOPS SO

THEY ARE LARGER. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> HEARING THEN I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO OUR CONCERNS AND LISTENING TO THE CONCERNS OF THE NEIGHBORS AND TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. IT IS GREAT WHEN WE CAN GET TO

WHERE WE NEED TO BE. >> I WILL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 2019 -- 46. 530 CENTER STREET.

IF ANYONE WISHES TO SPEAK THIS WOULD BE THE TIME.

>> I LIVE ON ASH STREET AND I AM JUST ASKING THE APPLICANT TO SEE THE PAINT. THAT IS THE BLOCK WE WERE ABLE TO SEE THAT. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>> OUR MAIN CONCERN AS THE CHAIR INDICATED, WE WANTED TO THANK YOU FOR MOVING THE HEARING SO WE COULD BE HEARD.

WE ARE THANKFUL TO THE APPLICANT AND THE AGENT CAN'T THEY LISTEN TO THE NEIGHBORS AND THE BOARD'S CONCERNS.

WE AGREED WITH ALL RECOMMENDATIONS THE BOARD MADE.

THE IRON FENCE DETAIL, I DON'T REMEMBER THAT BUT MY CLIENT DOES AND SAYS SHE HAS LOOKED AT IT AND WE DON'T OBJECT.

WE WILL JUST TALK TO SOUND THAT WHAT IS APPROVED IS WHAT IS PRESENTED TONIGHT. I DO WANT TO THANK THE APPLICANT AND THE LAST TIME WE REPORTED TO THE BOARD, WE WORKED ON A SEPARATE MATTER TO ADDRESS THE SHIELDING OF THE ELEMENTS ON THE ROOF AND SOME SHIELDING ON THE BACK WINDOWS.

I BELIEVE THE NEIGHBOR ON THE OTHER SIDE WHO WAS AT THE LAST HEARING SPOKE TO THEM AS WELL. WE WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH JOEL AND THE APPLICANT TO HOPEFULLY BE BACK IN FRONT OF YOU WITH THOSE CHANGES. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND WE FULLY SUPPORT THE APPLICATION AS IT IS RIGHT NOW.

>> THE WINDOW SHIELDING YOU MENTIONED IS FOR LIGHT QUICKSAND

YES IT IS FOR LIFE. >> IT IS ALSO VARIANT LIGHTS SO IT IS VERY OBTRUSIVE TO THE AREA.

THEY WILL BE HAVING RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL ON THE OTHER LOT.

>> I KNOW THEY HAD -- I WE SPOKE TO THEM AND I THINK THEY WANTED

[00:30:03]

SOMETHING OTHER THAN WHAT WE ARE REQUESTING.

THEY WANT DAYLIGHT COMING IN. THEY DON'T WANT TO BLOCK OUT THE WINDOWS SO THERE IS NO LIGHT COMING IN.

BUT ON THE BACKSIDE WHERE THE KITCHEN IS AND WHERE THE LIGHT IS COMING OUT, THAT IS WHERE WE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE AGENT AND SEE IF WE COULD COME UP WITH SOMETHING.

>> ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO TESTIFY IN THIS CASE, NOW WOULD

BE THE TIME. >> WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. KELLY, WITH THE SCREENING COME BACK TO US, SO EACH CASE WHERE THAT WILL HAPPEN, IN THIS CASE THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THEY HAVE TO DO BUT THEY ARE CHOOSING TO

DO. >> I WOULD NEED TO CHECK TO SEE IF IT CAN BE APPROVED BY STAFF BEFORE IT BECOMES A FULL BOARD REVIEW. IF IT IS PART OF SOME ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES THEY'RE DOING THEY MAY BRING IT TO US AS THE BOARD NEEDS TO CONSIDER. BUT LET ME CHECK.

>> THEY ARE NOT READY, IT'S OKAY.

>> BUT WE DO APPRECIATE THEIR EFFORTS.

>> >> I THINK WE SHOULD THINK IN FOR TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THAT HE DID THE REVIEW.

>> SOMEBODY COULD MOVE THIS AND SECOND IT.

>> I'M GOING TO APPROVE HDC CASE 2019 -- 46 WITHOUT CONDITIONS AND I MOVE THAT THE HDC MAKES THE FOLLOWING.

IT IS PRESENTED AS COMPLIANT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

THE MATERIAL STANDARDS AND THE DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT

GUIDELINES. >> I WILL SECOND PERIOD.

>> PLEASE CALL THE ROLE. >>

>> THE ROLE IS BEING CALLED. MOVING ON.

I APPRECIATE YOUR INDULGENCE FOR MOVING THESE OTHER CASES BACK.

>> 2017 -- ZERO THREE AND AMENDMENT FOR ARTISAN HOMES AT

[Item 3.1]

211 BEECH STREET, 117 SOUTH THIRD STREET AND 111 SOUTH THIRD STREET. AMENDMENT TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL FOR THE EDITION OF A ELEVATOR SHAFT AT THE ROOFTOP CAN'T CHANGE IN WINDOW LOCATIONS AND CHANGE IT

ROOFTOP EXIT DOOR. >> THIS EVENING YOU ARE CONSIDERING A MODIFICATION FOR THREE OF THE TOWNHOME UNITS.

THE REQUEST SPECIFICALLY ADDS TO ADD AN ELEVATOR SHAFT.

REMOVE WINDOWS AND THE LOCATION OF THE WINDOW SLIGHTLY AND CHANGE THE DOOR TYPES AT THE TOP OF THE ENCLOSURE.

THE STAIRCASE ENCLOSURE ITSELF HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY

THE BOARD. >> LOOKING AT THIS FURTHER THE WINDOW AND DOOR REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SECRETARY OF MATERIAL STANDARDS AND THE DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES. THE ELEVATOR SHAFT WITH DETERMINED IT WOULD VISUALLY DISTRACT FROM THE OVERALL ARCHITECTURE THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED.

IT FURTHER WITH DETRACT FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSISTENCY THAT YOU SAY IN THE ENVIRONMENT. STAFFED RECOMMENDATION WAS TO APPROVE THE WINDOW AND DOOR REQUEST AND TWO DENIED THE ELEVATOR SHAFT ADDITION. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO PULL UP ANY OF THE ELEVATIONS OR ARCHITECTURAL'S FOR YOU TO TAKE

A LOOK AT. >> MR. HARRISON.

>> ONE OF THE ELEVATOR SHAFTS QUICKSAND IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE PEOPLE WHO DESIRE TO HAVE ELEVATORS AND ACCESS TO THE UNITS, IT ISN'T A REQUIREMENT. THE BUYERS ARE MAKING THE

REQUEST. >> CALLICOTT I'M SORRY OTHER

MEMBERS FIRST. >> MOTIONS?

>> KELLY WAS THERE A ROOF PLAN OR A PLAN INCLUDED IN THE PA

PACKET? >> I BELIEVE SO AND I WOULD BE

HAPPY TO PULL THAT OUT. >> THERE IS NO INFORMATION WITH

[00:35:06]

MATERIAL OR DIMENSIONS. I DON'T SEE HOW THIS IS ENOUGH INFORMATION FOR US TO MAKE A DECISION.

>> THE ELEVATIONS ARE THERE. I DON'T THINK THIS WEEK DO HAVE INFORMATION. I REMEMBER LOOKING AT THE BUT WE COULD LOOK AT THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE THROUGH THE PACKET.

>> JUST RINGING THIS UP. WE WERE NOT HERE.

>> I REMEMBER THIS. >> I THINK YOU WERE HERE.

>> I'M SURE THIS GENTLEMAN WAS HERE?

>> 2017. >>

>> IN MY DEFENSE I WOULD SAY THERE IS NOTHING STICKING UP

ABOVE IT. >> WHERE THEY PUT THEIR

EQUIPMENT IS UP TO THEM. >> THIS IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, THEY ARE PUSHING BACK THE BUILDING SO THIS IS ON THE

OUTSIDE OF THE STREET. >> THIS IS LOCATED TO THE REAR

OF THE STRUCTURE. >>

>> AND WE HAVE TO REMIND OURSELVES THIS IS A CRA DESIGN.

IS EVERYTHING CONSISTENT WITH THE CRA DESIGNS.

WERE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.

>> I CAN ADDRESS THAT. YES THEY ARE WITHIN THE DESIGN BUT WITHIN THIS AREA WE WOULD DIFFER BACK TO THE DOWNTOWN

HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES. >> THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> HEARING NON.

WE WILL HEAR FROM THE WORK. >> I APOLOGIZE I FORGOT YOUR

NAME. >> IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR THE

RECORD PLEASE. >> HELLO.

>> I THINK THE APPLICATION SAID THIS WOULD BE STUCCO TO MATCH

THE EXISTING WALL. >> IT IS APPROXIMATELY 6 FEET.

I THINK THE BOARD WOULD CERTAINLY BENEFIT FROM HAVING AT LEAST A PLAN THAT SHOWS WHERE THIS IS LOCATED SOME DIMENSIONS TO IT AS WELL AS DIMENSIONS ON THESE ELEVATIONS AND THE RENDERING OF IT CAUGHT WHAT SIDE IS THE DOOR ON.

>> IT WOULD BE THE FURTHEST FROM THE STREET.

>> THOSE ARE THE THINGS WE REALLY NEED TO SEE IN ORDER TO SAY YES ON THE ELEVATOR. I THINK REGARDING THE WINDOW AND THE DOOR IT IS CLEAR WHAT IS GOING ON BUT AS FAR AS THE ELEVATOR I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION AT THIS

POINT. >> I AGREED.

>> I KNOW YOU ARE JUST THE MESSENGER BUT THE MORE INFORMATION WE HAVE, IT GETS US TO A DECISION QUICKER SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO KEEP COMING BACK. I WOULD ALSO RECOMMEND SO WE CAN SEE ANGULARLY WHAT PEOPLE WILL SEE WHEN THEY DRIVE BY THIS IN

ADDITION TO THE ELEVATIONS. >> I GUESS THE QUESTION IS DO YOU WANT US TO TRY AND APPROVE THE CHANGES TO THE WINDOWS TONIGHT AND DEFER ON THE ELEVATOR SHAFT OUT WHEN YOU WANT US TO DO OR DO YOU WANT US TO CONTINUE THE ENTIRE CASE?

>> I THINK EVERYONE AS A PREFERENCE.

>> >> I WOULD JUST COME BACK.

I THINK YOU NEED TRAVEL FLOOR PLAN THAT SHOWS WHERE THE ELEVATOR IS ON THE ROOF AND THE DIMENSIONS BEAR I THINK YOU NEED TO PUT SOME VERTICAL DIMENSIONS ON THE EXTERIOR SO WE KNOW HOW HIGH THIS THING IS OFF OF THE ROOF DECK IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

IF THERE IS A DOOR WE SHOULD SEE WHERE THE DOOR IS.

>> WE NEED TO SEE WHERE THIS WOULD BE VISIBLE.

>> I THINK IT DOES IDENTIFY THE UNITS ON THE FIRST PAGE.

[00:40:01]

>> I WOULD LIKE TO REPEAT MY QUESTION ON WHY WE NEED THE ELEVATORS OR WHY DO YOU NEED THEM.

>> BECAUSE IT IS THREE FLOORS AND NOT EVERYONE CAN WALK UP

THREE FLOORS. >> ARE THESE BUILDINGS UNIQUE

WAX. >> THEY ARE ALL THREE FLOORS.

>> IT IS NOT EXCESSIVE. >> SO WHY WEREN'T THEY DESIGNED WITH ELEVATORS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

>> WE WERE NOT SURE WHO THE BUYERS WOULD BE.

>> I THINK JUST TO HELP, I PERSONALLY THINK STAFF HAD SOME GOOD POINTS ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE SHOWING.

YOU'RE SHOWING THE ELEVATOR ELEMENT INDEPENDENT OF THE STRUCTURE OF THE BUILDING VOTING.

I THINK STAFF INDICATES THAT THEY WOULD LOOK ON IT MORE FAVORABLY IF IT WAS ENGAGED WITH A STARE ELEMENT.

>> HE WOULD MAKE IT FEEL LIKE IT IS PART OF THE ARCHITECTURE THAN A RANDOM ELEMENT FLOATING ON THE ROOF.

BEFORE YOU COME BACK HERE I WOULD DEFINITELY CAUGHT I WOULD LOOK AT THAT AND THINK ABOUT WHAT IMAGES YOU WOULD WANT.

>> IS THIS DESIGNED TO GIVE ACCESS TO THE ROOF AS WELL.

>> THERE IS A STARE AT THE TOP. >> SO IT DOES GO ON TO THE ROOF?

>> YES. >> IT IS ROOFTOP ACCESS.

SO WILL THAT BE AVAILABLE TO THE RESIDENTS?

>> THE PEOPLE CAN GET TO THEIR DECK.

>> THAT IT'S ALWAYS BEEN THERE. IT WAS INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL

FLOOR PLAN. >> THERE IS A ROOF PLAN IN THE

ORIGINAL. >> IS THE MATERIAL WHERE THE DOOR IS TO THE ROOFTOP STUCCO AS WELL?

>> I DON'T KNOW MY SUGGESTING CAUGHT BECAUSE IT APPEARS THAT IT LOOKS LIKE A LARGE CHIMNEY. MAYBE SOME OTHER MATERIALS MAY

BE MORE COHESIVE. >> THAT IS AN EXCELLENT POINT.

THE ONE I WAS GOING TO MAKE. >> I THINK THE OTHER QUESTION.

>> IT'S PROBABLY IN THE BACK. >> DID YOU GET ENOUGH GUIDANCE

FROM US. >> I APOLOGIZE I DID NOT HEAR THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION OF THE WINDOW LOCATIONS.

>> THANK YOU. >>

>> WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC MEETING ON CASE 2017 -- ZERO THREE ARTISAN HOMES BEECH STREET AND SOUTH THIRD STREET.

IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEECH -- SPEAK ON THIS CASE.

SEEING THE ONE WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> I THINK WE WILL ASK IF THEY WANT US TO CONTINUE WITH THIS

ONE. >> I DON'T THINK WHAT WE ARE ASKING FOR IS ONEROUS BUT WHAT ABOUT THE MARCH MEETING.

>> IT SHOULD BE TODAY. >> THAT IS WHAT WE RUN INTO

EVERY MEETING. >> WE CAN'T SPEAK FOR ONE WEEK

FROM TODAY. >> WE DON'T KNOW HIS WORK LOAD.

>> I DON'T KNOW HIS SCHEDULE FOR NEXT MONTH.

>> LET ME ASKED SARAH A QUESTION.

MY SENSE IS THAT THIS PROBABLY DOESN'T DRIVE -- CONSTRUCTION.

>> I THINK IF IT WAS POSSIBLE TO GET THE MATERIALS INVITE NEXT WEDNESDAY IT COULD BE CONSIDERED AT THE MARCH MEETING DATE.

BUT PENDING MAKING SURE WE HAVE ALL OF THE MATERIALS SO THERE CAN BE A MORE THOROUGH CONSIDERATION AT THAT MEETING IF

[00:45:01]

THE ITEMS ARE INCOMPLETE. WE COULD MOVE IT TO THE APRIL

HEARING. >> OKAY.

>> CAN I GET A MOTION. >> WHAT IS THE DATE OF THE MARCH

MEETING? >> 19TH.

>> I MOVED TO CONTINUE HDC CASE 2017-3 AMENDED TO THE MARCH 19

MEETING. >> I SECOND PERIOD.

>> ANY DISCUSSIONS? HEARING NUNCA WE WILL MOVE

FORWARD. >>

>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE. WE REALLY APPRECIATE THAT.

>> MOVING ON. >> 2019 -- 35.

[Item 3.3]

CHISHOLM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY INC.

AGENT FOR TUP REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS LLC.

NORTH -- 14 NORTH SECOND STREET. >> ALL RIGHT, THEY ASKED THIS EVENING ON A NUMBER OF TIMES IN THE PAST.

AT THIS TIME THEY ARE REQUESTING FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO-STORY BUILDING. THE ANALYSIS HAS BEEN PROVIDED AS A SEPARATE PORT AND ALL OF THE APPLICATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE FOR THE BACKUP OF THIS ITEM. THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE APPEARS TO MEET THE DIRECTION PROVIDED BY THE BOARD.

AND FULFILLS THE DOWNTOWN GUIDELINES.

IT IS APPROPRIATELY CITED AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE ENVIRONMENT THAT IT SURROUNDS. AND STAFF HAS ISSUED A RECOMMENDATION WITH CONDITIONS THAT THE ROOFTOP PLANNERS BE REMOVED PRIMARILY FOR PURPOSES OF MAINTENANCE AND ACCESS.

WITH THAT I WILL TURN IT OVER TO THE BOARD FOR QUESTIONS.

>> THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTOR GIBSON.

>> IF THE ROOFTOP PLANNERS ARE REMOVED.

I'M ASSUMING THEY PUT IT UP THERE TO HIT THE LANDSCAPE

REQUIREMENT. >> THOSE ARE REMOVED AND THEY WOULD HAVE WICKED -- SOME LITIGATION.

>> IT WOULD BE SOMETHING WE NEED TO GET ADDRESSED IF IN FACT THEY ARE NO LONGER MEETING LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS.

>> THIS IS IN CONFLICT WITH SOMETHING DIFFERENT I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT MATCHES UP. IT COULD FORCE THEM TO COME BACK FOR ANY DESIGN CHANGES FOR EXAMPLE IF THEY WANTED TO HAVE A GREEN WALCOTT THAT WOULD FALL UNDER THIS REVIEW.

AND. >> I ONLY HAVE ONE OTHER COMMENT FOR THE HEIGHT CALCULATIONS. THEY HAVE INCLUDED AGAIN THEIR PROPOSED BUILDING AND THE CALCULATIONS.

>> THAT IS WRONG. >> IT SHOULD BE THE AVERAGE WITHIN 10% OF THE EXISTING BUILDINGS.

SO THAT BRINGS THE TOTAL DOWN SIX PLUS INCHES.

WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT CALCULATION IS CORRECT AND ANY

PLANS AND HAVE NEW CALCULATIONS. >> WHAT NUMBER DID YOU COME IN

WITH? >> 29.59.

>> I'M GOING TO DISAGREE WITH YOU.

I HAVE 2029. YOU AND I ARE OFF A FEW INCHES.

>> >>

>> THE LAST APPLICATION AND I THINK THE RESOLUTION AND.

[00:50:09]

>> OTHER MEMBERS QUESTIONS. >> KELLY IS IT STAFF CONCERN REGARDING THE PLANTERS THAT THEY MAY DRIVE THE NEED FOR ACCESS AND THEREFORE AN ELEMENT THAT MAY -- CERTAINLY THE ESTABLISHMENT WILL BE THERE AND THEY NEED ACCESS.

AND THEY HAVE TO MONITOR THEM.

>> I SEE A LADDER IN THE BACK OF THE BUILDING.

>> I WILL ALSO ADDRESS THAT. >> OTHER QUESTIONS FOR

MS. GIBSON? >> MS. GIBSON, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE -- BUT IF THE REQUIREMENTS FROM VARIOUS CITIES WERE TO CHANGE THE DESIGN OF THE BUILDING, FOR EXAMPLE, THEY IDENTIFY THIS. AND IT RESULTED IN THE CHANGE OF THE DESIGN, THAT WOULD COME BACK HERE?

>> ABSOLUTELY. IT WITH D2.

>> >> IF THERE'S ANY CHANGE IN THE DESIGN, IT WOULD NEED TO COME BACK BEFORE THE BOARD.

>> OKAY. >> CAN I ASK ANOTHER QUESTION.

WE WILL MOVE WITH YOUR PERMISSION WE WILL MOVE ON TO MR. CHISHOLM AND HE WILL PRESENT OF THIS.

>> PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD.

>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO TAKE A MINUTE AND INTRODUCE THIS YOUNG

LADY. >> HE DID.

>> EITHER WAY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE BECAUSE I KNOW YOU GOT BUMPED. TANGIBLE PROBLEM.

IT IS A SMALL TIME -- SMALL TOWN.

TANGIBLE PROBLEM. >> THE PLANNERS WERE NOT IN ISSUE WHEN WE REMOVE THE THIRD FLOOR.

WE MET OUR CRITERIA FOR THE HDC. THEY COULD BE REMOVED.

AS FAR AS THE DRAINAGE, I DO STILL HAVE ONE ISSUE WITH DRAINAGE. IT IS WITH ANDRE FROM THE TRC AND WE ARE WORKING ON THAT NOW. THE DESIGNS THAT I HAVE IN MIND WON'T BE REFLECTED IN A CHANGE AS FAR AS THE EXTERIOR BUILDING.

IT WILL BE AN INTERIOR DESIGN. IT SHOULDN'T AFFECT YOU AND IT SHOULDN'T AFFECT THE ART GALLERY TO THE NORTH.

SO IT SHOULDN'T INTERRUPT THEIR FLOW OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE.

IT IS IN THE WORKS. I HAVE TO WORK WITH ANDRE AND OTHERS TO MAKE SURE THEY ARE COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT WE ARE

PROPOSING. >> AND ALSO THAT THE OWNERS OR WHATEVER OF THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH ARE OKAY WITH WHAT WE ARE

PROPOSING AS WELL. >> WONDERFUL.

>> BUT IT SHOULDN'T HAVE TO COME BACK HERE BECAUSE IT WILL BE AN INTERIOR SYSTEM TO CAPTURE THE WATER THAT THEY ARE GROWING TO

THE PROPERTY BASICALLY. >> VERY GOOD.

>> AND THOSE WERE THE TWO THINGS THAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO APPLAUD YOU. >> I THINK THIS IS YOUR FIFTH

TIME HERE. >> MAYBE THIS YEAR.

>> THE IMPROVEMENTS ARE INCREDIBLE.

>> I'VE BEEN DOING THIS 18 MONTHS.

>> THE PACKET HAS BEEN SO GOOD YOUR DRAWINGS AND RENDERINGS.

>> THE DESIGN OF THE BUILDING IS SO MUCH MORE APPROPRIATE.

I DO HAVE A QUESTION. I SEE THIS AREA FOR TRASH CANS IN THE BACK. DO WE HAVE A DUMPSTER AREA QUICKSAND THEY DON'T HAVE A DUMPSTER AREA.

THEY CONTRACT WITH THE TRASH SERVICES TO COME AND PICK UP AND TAKE THIS ON A DAILY OR BY LEGALLY OR WHATEVER THEIR NEEDS

ARE. >> THAT WILL BE FOR THE

RESIDENTS AND THE RESTAURANT? >> THEY ARE NOT RESIDENTS THEY

ARE CONSIDERED COMMERCIAL. >> OKAY.

>> WERE YOU GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE HEIGHT QUICKSAND WE ALREADY

[00:55:04]

ADDRESSED THE HEIGHT. IF WE HAVE TO DROP IT DOWN 6 INCHES YOU JUST HAVE TO FIND IT SOMEWHERE.

>> WE WILL TALK ABOUT THAT. THAT IS A BOARD CONVERSATION.

>> I COULDN'T READ THE DRAWINGS. WHAT HEIGHT.WHAT EXACT HEIGHT ARE YOU IDENTIFIED IN THE DRAWINGS QUICKSAND THE RESOLUTION I WAS PROVIDING WAS RIGHT HERE.

I ASSUMED THAT TRACK I ASSUMED IT WAS 30 SOMETHING BUT I

COULDN'T TELL FOR SURE. >> LEGAL COUNSEL AND

OPTOMETRIST. >> I JUST COULDN'T READ IT ON

THE DRAWINGS. >> 30 FEET AND ONE AND A HALF INCHES. IT IS 29 FEET AND 7 INCHES.

>> BUT THIS IS 32 INCHES. THIS WOULD BE THE SHORTEST OF ALL BUILDINGS EXCEPT ONTO THE LEFT LEFT.

>> AND THE TATTOO PARLOR. >> EXACTLY.

>> CAN ASK A QUESTION. SO I KNOW THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS JUST STARTING. BUT THIS IS WHERE THEY GIVE A RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BUILDING MAY BE 10% OF THE AVERAGE.

HOWEVER I DON'T KNOW IF IT TALKS ABOUT -- DO YOU HAVE A POLICY AS FAR AS HOW IT IS DETERMINED. I KNOW EVERYONE ON THE BOARD IS THINKING ABOUT DIMENSIONS. BUT RATHER THAN THEN US APPROVING A DIMENSION WE CAN APPROVE IT AS BEING CONSISTENT AND WE CAN DETERMINE, I DON'T NEED IF YOU NEED A SURVEYOR, WHATEVER THE PROCESS IS, WE DON'T HAVE TO SET THAT RIGHT

NOW. >> ACTUALLY I THINK WE DO.

>> >> WE JUST WANT TO ASK KELLY ONE QUESTION AND THEN WE WILL COME BACK TO YOU.

>> THIS IS A GUIDELINE. KEEP IN MIND YOU TO HAVE A BUILDING HEIGHT OF 40-FOOT ACTS -- MAXIMUM.

THEY ARE NOW ASKING FOR SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO SEE WHAT IS THE AVERAGE. IN AN EFFORT TO PROVIDE TO THEM THE MAXIMUM THEY CAN GO TO FOR THE AREA.

IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WILL BE STRICT.

>> HOW THAT GETS CALCULATED, IT WILL BE INCUMBENT ON THE APPLICANT TO GIVE DETAILS. I WOULD ASK THE APPLICANT HOW WERE THE DIMENSIONS PROVIDED. DID YOU HAVE SURVEY WORK.

>> ACTUALLY WE DIDN'T COUNT WE GOT ACCIDENT ACCESS DOWN TO THE CONCRETE. AND WHEN I SAY PLUS OR MINUS THE WALLS WERE UNEVEN. WE COULD BE LOOKING AT THE ORDINANCE. IT DOESN'T STATE MUST BE.

IT SAYS IT SHOULD BE. IT IS JUST A GUIDELINE.

SO I THOUGHT A COUPLE OF INCHES WHITTEN -- WOULD BE FAIRLY

REASONABLE. >>

>> I ALSO WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE PACKET.

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WE HAVE BEEN ASKING FOR.

>> YOU DID A GOOD JOB. THIS IS WHAT WE LIKE TO SEE.

I KNOW THIS SAYS FULL BREAK. >> THAT IS AN ACTUAL TRUE BREAK.

>> THAT IS AWESOME. >> FOR THE FRONT DOOR, I SEE SOME #. IS THAT FOR FLOODS QUICKSAND

[01:00:02]

FLOOD PROTECTION. >> IT IS NOT A PERMANENT THING.

>> IT IS JUST A TEMPORARY PEACE. >> SO THIS IS BUILT RIGHT HERE.

>> IT WAS MANDATED BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.

THAT IS WHY EVERYTHING KEEPS MAKING ITS WAY.

>> THANK YOU. BOARD MEMBERS, WE WILL GO TO THE PUBLIC HEARING IF ANYONE WISHES TO SPEAK WITH REGARDS TO CASE 2019 -- 35 NOW WOULD BE THE TIME.

>> YES PLEASE COME UP. >> PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELF AND

YOUR ADDRESS. >> MY NAME IS CAROL HARRIS.

I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH THE BUILDING, I DO HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE FACT THAT THIS PERSON OWNS ANOTHER BUILDING IN TOWN GOT THE ONE NEXT DOOR THAT IS IN DIRE NEED OF EXTERIOR MAINTENANCE. AND FOR HIM TO BE GIVEN A PERMIT TO GO AHEAD AND BUILD A NEW BUILDING, WITHOUT ADDRESSING THE NEEDS OF WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE FOR THE BUILDING.

>> QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESS? TRACK WHICH BUILDING ARE YOU

TALKING ABOUT. >> THAT IS OUTSIDE OF OUR.

>> HAS THIS POPPED UP ON OUR BUILDINGS OF CONCERN.

>> I REACHED OUT TO CODE ENFORCEMENT BUT I COULDN'T GET

AN ANSWER. >> THAT IS A FAIR QUESTION THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MAYBE MR. CHISHOLM WOULD LIKE TO

RESPOND. >>, YES, I WOULD.

BRIEFLY. >> WHILE WE ARE DOING THE PROJECT THE OWNER HAS ADDRESSED THE WINDOWS AND THE DOOR FUNCTIONS THAT WILL BE CHANGE FIRE ESCAPE ISSUES.

WE WILL BE DOING THAT WORK AT THE SAME TIME THAT WE ARE DOING CONSTRUCTION NEXT DOOR. IT WILL BE MORE COST-EFFECTIVE FOR HIM TO TAKE CARE OF THE THINGS NEXT DOOR.

>> SO THEY SPED UP THE PROCESS. >> HE WAS ALREADY PLANNING ON DOING IT. WE HAVE DONE SOME MINOR REPAIRS TO KEEP WHAT IS THERE INTACT. JUST REMEMBER TO COME BACK HERE

WITH ANY CHANGES. >> WE WILL DO THEM AND I AM

TIRED OF THIS PROCESS. >> TELL US HOW YOU REALLY FEEL.

>> WE MAY NEED TO TALK TO SAL. >> THANK YOU.

>> SO ANYONE ELSE? >> WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND MOVE INTO BOARD DISCUSSION.

>> BOARD MEMBERS. >> I DID HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS ABOUT HEIGHT CALCULATION.

ARE YOU COUNTING THE CHANDLER BUILDING AS ONE BUILDING?

>> I PERSONALLY THINK YOU SHOULD DO A LINEAR MEASUREMENT TO GET

AN ANSWER. >> THAT IS NOT WHAT THEY WANT.

WHEN I LOOK AT THAT PICTURE IT SEEMS SILLY TO ASK THEM TO LOWER

IT ANOTHER 6 INCHES. >> I THINK IT MAY SEEM SILLY BUT FOR CONSISTENCY. IF WE GET DINGED ON CONSISTENCY WE HAVE TO BE CONSISTENCE. WE STICK TO IT OR WE DON'T.

MAYBE IT IS A LANGUAGE CHANGE. MAYBE WE CHANGE IT TO THE BUILDINGS MUST APPEAR THEN IT'LL BE A BLACK-AND-WHITE ISSUE.

>> >> WHATEVER.

>> OTHER DISCUSSIONS QUICKSAND THE ONLY OTHER COMMENT I WOULD MAKE GOD TO MAKE SURE I WANTED TO SAY I NOTICED THAT THE SHUTTERS ON THE FRONT ARE OPTIONAL.

WHICH I PERSONALLY THINK IS ON. I THINK IF THEY WERE OPENINGS THEY WOULD STILL LOOK NICE. THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE THERE BUT I WANTED EVERYONE TO MAKE SURE THEY SAW THAT.

I THINK THAT IS A GOOD POINT. I DID NOTICE IT.

WE HAVE IN THE PAST -- THE SHUTTERS CREATE THIS LOOK.

ALMOST AS IF THEY SHOULD NOT BE OPTIONAL.

>> ANYBODY ELSE? IF NOT, WHEN WE STARTED ON THIS

[01:05:01]

PROCESS, WE HAD A THREE-STORY BUILDING.

WE NOW HAVE A TWO-STORY BUILDING THAT IS WITHIN COT DEPENDING ON WHO YOU BELIEVE GOD WHOSE NUMBERS ARE BETTER, IT WOULD BE

8 INCHES. >> 6.36.

WHY WAS I CONCERNED ABOUT THIS. I WANTED IT TO LOOK LIKE THE REST OF THE BUILDINGS NOT TOWER OVER.

THAT IS WHAT THE GUIDELINES PROVIDE FOR.

GENERALLY SPEAKING I AM COMFORTABLE WITH THIS SPIRIT IF IT WORKS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION BECAUSE IT IS AN SCALE TO THE THINGS AROUND IT. NOW THAT WE HAVE THIS I AM RELUCTANT TO ASK THEM TO DO IT WON MORE TIME AND DROP IT 6 INCHES TO BE CONSISTENT WITH A GUIDELINE THAT GIVES FLEXIBILITY. SO, THAT IS WHERE I AM ON THAT.

>> IF YOU ARE COMFORTABLE WE CAN APPROVE IT THAT WAY WITH, DON'T FORGET THE SHUTTERS ARE A REQUIREMENT.

>> EVERYONE IS OKAY WITH THAT. >> CAN WE GET A MOTION?

>> I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION. ON THE REAR ELEVATION IT LOOKS LIKE SOME STACK UP THERE. DOES THAT NEED SCREENING?

>> I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU WOULD SEE IT.

>> FROM -- WHAT IS BEHIND THIS? >> AN EMPTY LOT.

>> SO IT IS NOT VISIBLE FROM ANY STREET OR RESIDENCE BEHIND IT.

>> WE DO HAVE A REQUIREMENT. >> I THINK THERE IS A WALL

SEGMENT IN FRONT. >> YES.

>> >> DO YOU SEE ANYTHING THERE

THAT WOULD GIVE YOU PAUSE? >> OKAY.

CAN WE GET A MOTION ON THIS ONE. WE WILL MAKE A MOTION.

I WILL MAKE A MOTION. I MOVED TO APPROVE HDC 2019 -- 35 WITH THE FOLLOWING COND CONDITIONS.

IT MUST INCLUDE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION NUMBER ONE TO REMOVE THE PLANNERS ON THE ROOFTOP AND THAT THE SHUTTERS ON THE FRONT FAçADE BE PART OF THE DESIGN AND NOT OPTIONAL.

I MOVE THAT THE HDC MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDS PART OF THE RECORD THAT HDC CASE 35 IS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS IN THE DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES FOR

APPROVAL AT THIS TIME. >> I SECOND PERIOD.

>> ANY DISCUSSION? THANK GOD.

PLEASE CALL THE ROLE. >> THE ROLE IS BEING CALLED.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE.

AT LEAST THE NUMBER THAT STARTS HIS CASE IS 2019.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO INTERRUPT AT THIS TIME AND WELCOME KATE.

WE REALLY DO APPRECIATE YOU JOINING THE BOARD.

SOME OF US WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A DAY OFF ONCE IN A WHILE.

HAVING THE ALTERNATES HERE REALLY HELPED.

SINCE YOU SAT THROUGH TWO MEETINGS THE OTHER NIGHT AND STILL CAME BACK, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MOVING ON, NEW BUSINESS. >> NEW BUSINESS IS ACTUALLY OLD

[Item 4.1]

BUSINESS. 2020 -- ZERO ONE.

JACK AND LINDA HARRISON, THIS IS SUMMERLIN STREET IN OLD TOWN.

THIS IS A VARIANCE WE SAW SEVERAL YEARS AGO IMPROVED.

IT SUBSEQUENTLY HAS EXPIRED SO WE ARE GOING TO HEAR IT AGAIN.

MS. GIBSON. >> WE DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO THE

LIGHTS HERE. >> THIS IS THE ONLY CASE ON THE AGENDA THAT IS A REQUEST FOR VARIANCE.

[01:10:02]

THE ONLY THING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT I EXPLAINED EARLIER IS THEY REQUIRE BOTH VOTING TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE.

TO APPROVE A VARIANCE IT REQUIRES FOR OUT OF THE FIVE VOTING MEMBERS TO APPROVE IT. SO YOU WILL HEAR A MOTION TO APPROVE AND THERE MUST BE FOUR OUT OF THE FIVE AT A MINIMUM.

IF THERE IS A MOTION TO DENY THE VARIANCE THAT WILL REQUIRE THREE OUT OF FIVE. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS?

>> THINK YOU MR. CHAIR. >> THANK YOU COUNSEL.

MS. GIBSON. >> GOOD EVENING.

AS YOU HAVE INDICATED THIS IS A CASE WHICH YOU HAVE SEEN PREVIOUSLY. IT WAS A CASE WHERE IT DIDN'T EXPIRE LAST YEAR. IT EXPIRED IN AUGUST OF 19.

2019. THE REQUEST IS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON LOT TEN THE BLOCK NINE IN OLD TOWN.

SPECIFICALLY THE VARIANCE IS FROM THIS SECTION LOT VISIBILITY CORE DOORS AND EVEN MORE SPECIFIC TO THAT FOR THE CORRIDOR. THIS CASE THE PARCEL ITSELF IS CONTRARY TO WHAT THE 1811 PLAQUE WOULD HAVE PROVIDED.

THIS IS THE ADJOINING HOME WHICH WAS CITED IN THE NORTHERN HALF OF LOCKED IN. AS SUCH THERE IS A CORRIDOR THAT RUNS THROUGH THE CENTER OF THE PROPERTY AND THAT MUST REMAIN

OPEN. >> THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE SECTION TO ALLOW THE HOME TO HAVE THE SAME BUILDING AREA AS COMMON WITH ANOTHER OLD TOWN LOT.

ALTHOUGH STAFF DOES ISSUE RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL BECAUSE IT DOES NOT MEET ALL SIX CRITERIA IN ORDER TO FIND IT FAVORABLY. WITHIN THE ANALYSIS ITSELF, THE VARIANCE DOESN'T HAVE THE STATED GOALS.

AND MAINTAINING THE SAME CONFIGURATION TO FIT INTO THE LOT. THE DESIGN BUILDING AND LANDSCAPE TO REINFORCE THE HISTORIC GRID.

THE APPOINTMENT MADE PREVIOUSLY HOPE THEY DO HAVE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES THAT HAVE BEEN IN PLACE PRIOR TO THE CURRENT

OWNER. >> THAT THE BOARD.

>> THEY CONTINUE TO FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES AND TO PROVIDE THIS

PREFERENCE. >> AND I DID NOT SAY THIS PREVIOUSLY BUT THE APPLICATION MATERIALS WERE RECEIVED.

AND THE ENTIRE STAFF REPORT. >> I'M JUST WONDERING WHAT SORT OF CONSTRUCTION STAFF HAD IN MIND? A -- A VARIANCE WOULD BE REQUIRED.

>> STAFF SAYS I'M NOT SURE I CAN FIND IT.

>> WHEN YOU READ THROUGH THE CRITERIA YOU FIND ONE IS NOT

MET. >> IT IS A MINIMUM VARIANCE.

IT CAN BUILD ON THIS LOT WITHOUT A VARIANCE.

YOU CAN BUILD SOMETHING IT JUST WON'T BE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE.

>> THE QUESTION IS SHOULD YOU. >> THAT IS UP TO YOU.

>> I ASSUME IT WOULD BE TWO PROPERTIES WITH THE LINKED CORE

[01:15:10]

DOOR. >> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR TAMMY.

THIS DOES NOT REFLECT MY THINKING ON THIS.

IF WE HAD GRANTED THAT'S RIGHT GRANTED A VARIANCE ONCE CAN WE

DO IT AGAIN. >> EACH ONE EACH ONE OF THESE CASES WHEN I SAY QUASI- TRADITIONAL THAT MEANS ALL OF THE EVIDENCE IS WHAT YOU SHOULD CONSIDER.

AND GOING FURTHER THE ONLY EVIDENCE THAT YOU MAY CONSIDER IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. THIS IS AN EXTREME EXAMPLE.

IF YOU ARE FOR EXAMPLE A RESIDENT MOST LIKELY IN THIS CASE I JUST DON'T LIKE THAT. THAT IS NOT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE JUST OPINION. THEY HAVE EXPERIENCED.

I THINK SAL MADE A COMMENT IF THIS WAS TO BE APPROVED HE MADE A RECOMMENDATION THAT THE COURT OR BE ADDRESSED SOMEHOW AND THE ARCHITECTURE OF WHAT THAT WOULD BE.

I WAS CURIOUS TOO MUCH OF A VARIANCE THAT WAS APPROVED

SEVERAL YEARS AGO. >> I DON'T REMEMBER IT THAT WAY.

>> I DON'T KNOW IF IT MATTERS EITHER.

>> >> LET'S SUPPOSE THAT LOT 14 WAS BUILT ON SEPARATELY. WITH THOSE RESIDENTS ADDRESS THIS STREET IF THEY WERE GOING TO FOLLOW THE GRID.

WOULD THAT BE THE POTENTIAL? >> I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK OF

HOW YOU WOULD TACKLE THIS. >> WOULD A DOG TROT WORK?

>> WHAT IS THAT? >> SO TWO STRUCTURES WITH AN

ATTACHED RUBRIC. >> REMEMBER HOW SMALL THE LOT

IS. >> LAST QUESTION.

SCOTT I KNOW IN THE DESCRIPTION OF THE CRITERIA FOR THE VARIANCES THEY ASK THAT THIS IS A UNIQUE CASE.

IS THIS AN ISOLATED EVENT OR DO YOU KNOW IF THERE ARE OTHER

LOTS. >> THE OWNERSHIP OF THE LOTS.

>> WE WILL CALL YOU DURING THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY PORTION.

>> I THINK WE NEED TO DISTINGUISH IS THIS PROPERTY OWNED AND OLD TOWN WHICH CONSISTS OF THIS AND MAKE THE DISTINCTION. I BELIEVE THERE ARE A NUMBER OF THOSE. THE OPPOSITE PART HAS ALREADY BEEN CONSTRUCTED. I THINK IN THE OTHER CASES, WHERE THE PROPERTY OWNED IS HALF OF THE LOT.

THE PROPERTY OWNERS SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED TO DO A SWAP OR TR

TRADE. >> I THINK WE SHOULD MAKE THAT A REQUIREMENT FOR FUTURE APPLICATIONS.

>> I THINK THE DIE HAS BEEN CAST.

[01:20:02]

THIS IS IN ORDER TO COME UP WITH A STRANGE PIECE OF ARCHITECTURE THE CORRIDOR OR WHAT WE ARE CALLING THE CORRIDOR IS UNNECESSARY. THE WAY THE OTHER HOUSES CONSTRUCTOR IS NOT LIKE IT WOULD RUN EAST-WEST.

IT IS STILL THE SAME BUT NOT QUITE.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OTHE OTHERWISE.

>> DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO ADD?

>> PLEASE DO. IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR THE

RECORD. >> LINDA HARRISON.

MY HUSBAND JACKIE. >> IF IT HELPS FOR CLASSIFICATION BEST BUY CLARIFICATION, THE ORIGINAL VARIANCE THAT WAS ISSUED BACK IN AUGUST 2018, IT WAS TO THE PRIOR OWNER. WE PURCHASED THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY ON THE CONDITION THAT THEY OBTAIN THE VARIANCE.

WITH EVERY INTENTION OF DOING A ONE YEAR TIME SPAN FROM AUGUST 2018 TO AUGUST 2019 TO DO THE THINGS IN ORDER TO BEGIN CONSTRUCTION. UNFORTUNATELY, JACKIE'S MOTHER, MOTHER-IN-LAW, GOT ILL DURING THE TIMEFRAME.

ULTIMATELY SHE PASSED AWAY AND WITH WORKING AND DEALING WITH THAT UNFORTUNATELY THE YEAR QUITE FRANKLY GOT PAST US.

>> I DON'T WANT TO SAY IT WASN'T A PRIORITY BUT AT THAT POINT IT WASN'T. THEN WE REALIZE WE WERE READY TO PROCEED. WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR ANYTHING DIFFERENT THAN WAS ISSUED. WE JUST WANT TO BE ABLE TO BUILD A HOME THAT WOULD BE OUR PERMANENT RESIDENCE AT THAT LOCATION AND HAVE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE COMPARABLE TO THE OTHER HOMES. WE HAVE BEEN ADVISED IT IS NOT BUILDABLE. I AM HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY

QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU.

>> WE WILL GO TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE A POINT OF CLARIFICATION.

YOU WILL SEE THIS AND A FUTURE DATE THAT THE HOME IS RIGHT HERE. IT WON'T BE CONSISTENT WITH THE

ONE ADJACENT TO IT. >> THE EXPECTATION IS THAT THE PARCELS GOT THE CONFIGURATION WILL BE SITUATED RIGHT HERE.

IT DOESN'T PREVENTED FROM HAVING DUAL ENTRANCES.

>> THIS IS ON THE NORTH SIDE. >> THEY WERE TRYING TO MAINTAIN THE GRID. WHEN THIS DOES COME BACK TO THE BOARD IT WILL BE UP TO CONSISTENCY.

>> >> THAT WAS THE --

>> IF THIS WAS DEVELOPED AS THE ORIGINAL LOTS WHICH LOT WITH THE

BUSINESS BE EXPECTED TO FRONT? >>

>> BOTH LOTS WOULD FACE THIS WAY OR SEPARATELY?

>> IN GENERAL, IT WOULD FACE THIS STREET.

>> WAS THE HOUSE PREVIOUSLY HERE DEMOLISHED CRACKS.

>> THERE WAS ONE -- HE PROBABLY KNOWS BETTER THAN ME.

[01:25:05]

>> THERE WAS ONE THAT WAS DEMOLISHED.

>> WE WILL MOVE TO PUBLIC DISCUSSION.

SO IF THERE'S ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK WITH REGARDS TO 2020 -- ZERO ONE. THIS WOULD BE THE TIME.

ARE YOU AWARE OF OTHER LOTS OF. IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR THE

RECORD. >> THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHER LOTS WHERE THE PLOT HAS BEEN BROKEN IN THIS WAY.

RON -- AND THEY ARE VACANT. >> THERE MAY BE OTHERS.

BUT THIS IS ONE I KNOW FOR SURE. >> IT'S UNFORTUNATE BECAUSE IT

DISTURBS THE GRID. >> ACTUALLY THERE ARE TWO OF

THEM THERE. >> LET ME BE CLEAR.

THE POINT -- BACK WHEN SAID WE MAY SEE IT AGAIN, IF WHAT WE HAVE SEEN IN THE FUTURE IS WHAT HE IS PROPOSING WHERE THERE IS NO CONSTRUCTION I THINK WE SHOULD PRESS HARD TO GET THE GRID RESTORED TO GET THIS PUT TOGETHER WHICH WOULD INVOLVE

THIS SPIRIT. >> IN THE CASE I'M REFERRING TO OR THE SITUATION I'M REFERRING TO IT IS THE SAME AS WITH THESE FOLKS FACE WITH THE EXCEPTION TO THE NORTH YOU HAVE A HOUSE.

>> IN THE CASE OF BRONZE LOTS THEY ARE VACANT.

SO IT COULD POTENTIALLY BE RESTORED BECAUSE THERE IS NO

PLOT TO THE NORTH. >> WHAT I AM HEARING HERE IS WE ARE PROVIDING AN ARGUMENT ON WHY WE WILL MAKE A DECISION BECAUSE IN THAT CASE WE COULD SITE THERE IS ANOTHER'S STRUCTURE THAT

LACKS THE ORIGINAL. >> THAT SENDS A SIGNAL.

>> I KNOW OF NO OTHER CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE THAT CORNER OF A BLOCK, IS VACANT WHERE IT IS BLOCKED WHERE YOU GUYS ARE.

>> THANK YOU. >> I APPRECIATE THAT.

>> SO TO CONTINUE AND PICKING UP ON KELLY'S POINT, I THINK THE FRONTAGE SHOULD BE RIGHT HERE. TO MATCH THE EXISTING HOUSE NEXT

DOOR. >> I THINK IT IS UNNECESSARY.

>> LET'S CONTINUE THE PUBLIC DISCUSSION.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WISHES TO TESTIFY ON CASE ZERO ONE.

>> PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELF WITH THE RECORD.

>> LINDA HARRISON. MY HOME IS CAP CORNER TO YOUR PROPERTY. I THINK IT IS FAIR TO YOU.

AND TO RECOGNIZE THIS AS IF IT WERE IMMEDIATE WOULD BE

APPROPRIATE. >> ANYONE ELSE.

IF NOT, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

MOVEMENT TO DISCUSSION. >> I SAID EARLIER TO TRY TO

SQUEEZE A PROPERTY HERE. >> THIS IS IN PLACE OF WHAT WOULD NORMALLY BE IMMEDIATE LOT LINE.

IT IS TO CREATE AN ARCHITECTURAL CAMEL.

>> IN THE SAME TONE I THINK IF WE FORCE THE FRONTAGE ONTO THE

[01:30:03]

STREET, WHICH IT CERTAINLY WOULD BE IF THE PROPERTY WERE BEING BUILT IN ITS TN. I THINK IT IS WRONG.

I THINK WE ARE FORCING IT IN THE WRONG PLACE.

IT WOULD BE AT ODDS WITH ITS NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH.

>> AS TO THE HOUSE OPPOSITE? >> COULD YOU EXPLAIN WHY STAFF THOUGHT THE FRONTAGE WOULD BE HERE.

>> THE EXPECTATION WOULD HAVE BEEN THE FRONTAGE WOULD BE HERE.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. >> I WANT TO LEAVE THIS MATTER OPEN AND FOR THE HARRISON TO CALL.

>> IS A PRETTY BIG THING TO CHANGE LATER ON.

>> >> THIS WAS AFTER THEY DESIGNED

THE HOUSE. >> COME ON UP.

WE WILL REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARINGS.

>> PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

THE LAST RESIDENTS OF THAT PROPERTY THAT'S MY FAMILY'S

PROPERTY. >> THAT WAS MY UNCLE.

>> WHEN WAS NOT? >> THAT WAS BACK IN THE 50S.

AROUND 1955 AND 56. BEFORE THAT THEY BUILT 14TH AND 14TH STREET. AS YOU GO AROUND THE CURVES MY

FAMILY BUILT THAT. >> WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> >> IF IT WAS DEVELOPED.

>> WHATEVER WAS BUILT THERE WITH FACE HER ANYWAY.

>> THAT IS WHY I AM THINKING THAT DON'T HAVE AS MUCH BEARING FOR ME AS THE FACING OF WHAT IS BUILT ON 14TH.

>> WITH THIS FACE A MILLION? >> I THINK IT WOULD FACE SOME

RELIGIOUS STREET. >> YES.

THINGS HAVE CHANGED. >> OKAY.

NO DISCUSSION. IS THERE CONSENSUS THAT A SUGGESTION THAT WE SEE THIS AS A PROPER FRONT STREET.

>> WE CAN'T PROMISE YOU WE WILL BE SITTING HERE WHEN YOU COME BACK WITH YOUR PLAN. BUT I WOULD MOVE IN THAT DIRECTION. IT IS THE CONSENSUS TO PROVE THAT SHREK APPROVED THE VARIANCE.

>> LET ME ASK YOUR. IF IT IS APPROVED TONIGHT.

WHAT HAS TO HAPPEN BY FEBR FEBRUARY 2020 -- FEBRUARY 2021.

>> GOOD QUESTION. >> THEY WILL NEED TO TAKE ACTION TO MOVE FORWARD AND TO STRAIGHT THAT SHREK DEMONSTRATE APPROVAL OF PLANS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE VARIANCE GRANTED.

>> IS THAT POSSIBLE. >> IT IS POSSIBLE.

>> DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT? >>

>> SOAP MAKE A NOTE IN YOUR CALENDAR.

>> SO FEBRUARY 2021, EITHER THE VARIANCE NEEDS TO BE RENEWED FOR SIX MONTHS OR THE APPLICANT NEEDS TO APPLY FOR APPROVAL.

>> JUST SO YOU KNOW JOSé IS EXCELLENT.

>> SOMEONE SUGGESTED EMPIRIC. >> BUT WE HAVE ARCHITECTS ON

[01:35:05]

THIS BOARD WERE MAKING A JOKE. >> AND I THINK IT IS A GREAT

IDEA. >> I DON'T THINK THAT IS WHAT WE

ARE RECOMMENDING. >> MY CONTENTION IS THIS WOULD FACE THIS WAY NO MATTER WHAT. SO POINTING TO THAT AS YOUR REASON FOR MAKING THIS FACE AMELIA CAUGHT IN MY MIND IT DOESN'T HOLD WATER BECAUSE THOSE SHOULD FACE THIS AREA.

>> CAN WE GET SOME NUMBERS UP THERE.

>> I'M HAVING A HARD TIME FOLLOWING THE DISCUSSION.

>> THIS IS APPROPRIATE. >> WHAT DO YOU THINK.

>> WHEN YOU THINK TAMMY. >> SO JIM YOUR POINT IS IF THIS WAS BEING DEVELOPED IT WOULD FACE THIS WAY.

>> AND 13 WITH FACE AMELIA. >> IT JUST HAPPENS THEY ARE

JOINED TOGETHER. >> WHAT HAPPENS ON THE OTHER

CORNER DO WE KNOW? >> IS IT VACANT.

>> THAT WHOLE CHUNK IS VACANT BACK THERE.

>> >> CAN I GET BACK TO MY PRIOR QUESTION. DESPITE THE DISCUSSION CAN WE

HAVE APPROVAL ON THE VARIANCE. >> WE NEED TO DO THIS.

THEY WILL NEED APPROVAL. >> IF THIS IS ALWAYS WENT UP TO

THE PRESENT BOARD. >>

>> >> THERE MAY BE AN ARGUMENT THAT

WE ARE NOT THINKING OF. >> SPEAK WITH THEM ON A HABIT WHERE YOU MEET BEFORE COMING BEFORE US AND SEE IF THERE ARE

ANY GUIDELINES. >>

>> THANK YOU. >> ONE MORE CASE.

>> I WANT TO APPROVE CASE 20 2020 -- ZERO ONE WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE LOT VISIBILITY CORRIDOR TOWARDS THE SIDE YARD BE TREATED AS A CORRIDOR AND I MOVE THEY MAKE THE FOLLOWING FACTS THAT THE CASE IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE GUIDELINES.

>> I NEED TO ADDRESS THAT SHREK'S SINCE THERE IS A SECOND PERIOD AMEND YOUR MOTION TO DISCUSS THE THREE CRITERIA THAT ARE NOT MET AND SAY WHY THEY ARE NOT MET BRIEFLY.

>> THIS IS WHY YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO MAKE A MOTION.

>> I CAN HELP. >> SOLD THE FIRST ONE IS IN

REGARDS TO SPECIAL PRIVILEGE. >>

[01:40:04]

>> I FEEL LIKE THIS DOES NOT GRANT THE OWNER ANY SPECIAL PRIVILEGE DUE TO THE FACT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR MAKES THE DEVELOPMENT DIFFICULT WITHOUT THE VARIANCES BEING GRANTED. THE MINIMUM VARIANCE I DO BELIEVE THAT THE MOTION THAT HAS BEEN MADE ALONG WITH THE CONDITION THAT IT IS PART OF THAT MOTION IS THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW OWNERS TO HAVE REASONABLE PROPERTY TO DEVELOP. AND I BELIEVE THIS WILL MAKE THE PROPERTY CONSISTENT WITH THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE CONSIDERING THE CIRCUMSTANCES

FACED WITH THE LOT. >> THAT IS A NEW AMENDED MOTION

TO ACCEPT? >> I DO.

>> I WANT TO CLARIFY FOR THE RECORD.

IT IS HDCV 20 -- ZERO ONE. >> PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

THE ROLE IS BEING CALLED. >> THANK YOU.

WE LOOK FORWARD TO SEEN WHICH YOU COME BACK WITH.

>> ARE AYCOCK MOVING ON. HDC 202001.

[Item 4.2]

JOHN HILLMAN. 1001 WEISS STREET.

CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL TO REHABILITATE EXTERIOR OF HOME TO INCLUDE ADDITIONS, SCREENED PORCH AND A SENSORY DWELLING

UNIT. >> THE APPLICANT WANTS TO REHABILITATE THE EXTERIOR OF THE HOME.

THEY ARE LOOKING TO INCLUDE ADDITIONS LIKE A SCREEN PORCH AS WELL AS AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT.

THIS IS NOT REPLACING DOORS, WINDOWS AND SIDINGS WITH MATERIALS AND DESIGNS WHICH ARE MORE APPROPRIATE TO THE PERIOD OF THE HOME. STAFF HAS ANALYZED THE CASE.

WE FOUND IT TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT CODE, GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS SPECIFIC TO REHABILITATION.

WE HAVE FOUND THE REHABILITATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE UNIT WILL BE KEEPING WITH THE SCALE AND DESIGN OF THE HOME AND IT IS RESPECTFUL. THE ONLY NOTE THAT HAS BEEN MADE IS THAT OF THE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT BEING LOCATED CLOSER THAN 5 FEET TO THE PROPERTY LINE.

THEY ISSUED A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE HVAC BE CONSISTENT WITH THE CODE STANDARDS.

>> QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTOR GIBSON?

>> WITH LOCATION OF IT BEING CHANGE IS THAT SOMETHING THAT

COULD BE STAFF REVIEW? >> YES.

>> AS LONG AS YOU GET IT OUT OF THE AREA.

>> OTHER QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTOR GIBSON?

>> HEARING NONE. >> YOU ARE THE ONLY PERSON IN

THE ROOM I DIDN'T KNOW. >> GOOD EVENING.

MY NAME IS JOHN HILLMAN. MY WIFE AND I ARE SOME OF THE NEWEST MEMBERS OF THE OLD TOWN COMMUNITY.

WE HAVE MADE A LIFETIME OF WORKING ON HOMES THAT NEEDED LOVE. WE PARTICULARLY LIKED THIS HOUSE AND ITS SIMPLE FORM. BUT WE WANTED TO BRING THE HOUSE CLOSER TO WHITE STREET. AS A DEVELOPER I SPEND MY DAY JOB WORKING ON ARCHITECTURE AND LAND PLANS AND DEVELOPMENT WORK.

WE ALSO WANT TO ADDRESS THE STREET TOO.

THIS IS THE PORCH. WE WANTED TO CREATE SOMETHING THAT WOULD WORK INTO DIRECTIONS AND ALSO WE NEEDED STORAGE SPACE BECAUSE I HAVE TWO KIDS GOT TWO DOGS AND A CAT.

WE NEEDED SPACE FOR THOSE VITAMINS.

WE ARE EXCITED WE WILL DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO BRING THIS HOME TO FUTURE GLORY AND HONOR THE TRADITIONS.

[01:45:01]

YOU MAY EVEN SEE A GAS LINE AROUND THE HOUSE TOO.

>> QUESTIONS FOR MR. HILLMAN? >> WOW.

>> I NOTICED YOU GAVE US GOOD PICTURES SHOWING INSPIRATION FOR YOUR RAILING SYSTEM. IS THAT GETTING INTO MEET CODE IS THAT A WIRE BEHIND THE GRIT STAGE THERE COULD BE.

IT DEPENDS WHAT THEY REQUIRE IN THE SPACES.

WE USED TO CALL THIS HARD TACK. YOU WOULD PUT CHICKEN WIRE THERE TO MAKE SURE ANIMALS OR KIDS COULDN'T GET IT.

SO WHATEVER THEY REQUIRE WE WILL DO IT.

>> I SEE ON THE MAIN HOUSE YOU MAY NOT NEED ANYTHING ON THERE.

BUT ON THE SECOND FLOOR THE BALCONY WOULD HAVE TO MEET CODE.

I WAS CURIOUS WHAT THAT MATERIAL WOULD BE THAT WOULD BE ADDED IN

THERE. >> ONE THING I WISH WE HAD GOTTEN WAS AN IMAGE THAT SHOWS US THE GARAGE IN RELATION TO THE HOUSE. I AM HAVING DIFFICULTY GETTING A FEEL FOR THE SCALE. WE HAVE A ONE-STORY HOUSE AND A TWO-STORY GARAGE AND PART OF THE CODE TALKS TO SCALE.

AND IT TALKS TO A HIERARCHY WHERE THE MAIN HOUSE SHOULD READ BIGGER AND MORE PROMINENT THAN THE GARAGE.

RIGHT NOW NOT BEING ABLE TO SEE THEM TOGETHER I WORRY THE GARAGE

-- >> WHY --

>> HOW WIDE IS THE GARAGE? >> 16 FEET.

>> CAN WE BRING THE ARCHITECTURAL'S UP?

>> YOU ARE LOOKING AT THIS AND YOU HAVE THIS.

I UNDERSTAND THE GARAGE IS SLIGHTLY TALLER THAN THE MAIN

AISLES. >> YOU KNOW HOW TALL THE HOUSE

IS? >> IT'S ON THERE.

>> THERE IS A BIG TREE THAT WE WANT TO KEEP.

A BIT OF THE ROOF WILL GET ENVELOPED INTO THE SPIRIT.

>> WE COULD POSSIBLY MOVE IT A COUPLE OF FEET SO THAT WOULD

MAKE IT DIMINISHED. >> IT LOOKS LIKE THIS.

>> WHAT IS THE ALLOWABLE -- WHAT IS THE ALLOWABLE SIZE?

>> 500 FEET. >> I THINK THIS IS A LITTLE

BIGGER THAN THAT. >>

>> IT IS 512 SQUARE FEET. >>

>> CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG. >> THAT'S NOT A SUBSTANTIAL

AMOUNT BUT -- >> THIS IS THIS SMART HALF OF OUR TEAM AND SHE SAYS IT IS 15 FEET.

>> THANK YOU. >> I SHARED THE SAME CONCERNS

THAT JIM DOES. >> I GET WHAT YOU ARE SAYING ABOUT THE TREE HELPING TO MITIGATE SOME OF IT.

BUT IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL FOR THE BOARD TO SEE THE BUILDINGS NEXT TO EACH OTHER THE WAY THEY WENT BE SEEN.

IF YOU WANTED TO SKETCH IN THE TRADE THAT WOULD BE AWESOME.

>> YOUR NEIGHBOR AS A HOUSE THAT WAS REMOVED FROM THE STREET.

[01:50:03]

AND A COUPLE OF YEARS BACK HE PUT IN AN APARTMENT IN THE BACK

OF IT. >> AND REMEMBER HE JUST WHISPERED TO ME ME BUT I WILL BRING IT UP, THE EXISTING HOUSE DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING THAT RECOGNIZES THE CORRIDOR.

>> I THINK IT IS AN INTERESTING QUESTION WHEN YOU ADD THE PORCH AND YOU ARE EXTENDING THE EXISTING HOUSE SHOULD THIS BE

LIKE WE REQUIRED? >>

>> I UNDERSTAND THE DISTINCTION. >> I STUDIED THE MIDPOINTS.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE BREAK. >> IF WE COULD LOOK AT THE ELEVATION. THE MIDDLE IS RIGHT HERE.

ONE OF THE THINGS WE TALKED ABOUT IS IF WE WERE TO HAVE A CHANGE OF MATERIALS TO ADDRESS IT AND TO ANNOUNCE A MOMENT AND A BREAK. WE ARE BUYING THOUSAND AS IT SITS. WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO CREATE THE OPEN SPACES BUT IF IT WOULD SATISFY THE BOARD WE COULD LOOK AT SOMETHING TO CHANGE THE MATERIAL.

THE TRICKY THING IS IT WOULD LOOK WONKY AS YOU GO AROUND THE CORNER. SO EVEN THOUGH AS YOU TURN THE CORNER ON THE HOUSE GOT IT WOULD BE WHERE --

>> ONE THING WE ARE TRYING TO DO IS IN THE FRONT, APPEAR WHERE THE DINING AREAS AND THE MASTER BEDROOM, IN THE OLD DAYS IT WOULD'VE BEEN A SCREEN PORCH BUT AS FAMILIES EVOLVED SPACE EVOLVED. WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE THE ADJUSTER THAT THIS WAS PART OF AN OLD PORCH.

>> ARCHITECTURALLY WOULD YOU DO IS REALLY NICE.

>> YES. OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> HEARING NONE WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.

IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN REGARDS TO 2020 -- ZERO ONE. OKAY WE WILL CLOSE THE HEARING.

I THINK -- TELL ME WHAT YOU HEARD.

>> WE WILL CONTINUE THIS CASE LET THEM COME BACK WITH A DRAWING THAT SHOWS THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE HOUSE TO THE GARAGE/GUESTHOUSE AS WELL AS THE ADJACENT PROPERTY.

>> AND THEN ALSO I THINK IN MY PERSONAL OPINION IT WOULD BE NICE IF THE ARCHITECTURE INTERLOCK THE CORRIDOR AND IT IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE WOULD EXPECT.

>> GIVEN THE STAFF WHAT THEY ARE DOING, THEY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT AND IT WILL BE RECEIVED.

>> I ECHO THAT SENTIMENT. I WOULD GO FURTHER AND SAY BECAUSE THAT IS NEW, YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY OF DOING SOMETHING MORE THAN JUST THE SUBTLE DIFFERENCE OF CHANGING FIGHTING. A BREAK IN THE ROOF.

MARK THE ENTRY ONTO THE PORCH WITH SOME SORT OF AN ELEMENT THAT ADHERES TO THE CORRIDOR AND REALLY MARKS IT.

MARKING IT WITH STAIRS AND A ROOF ELEMENT WOULD BE AN

EXCELLENT WAY TO CAPTURE IT. >> COME UP IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO ADD. GO AHEAD.

>> I SAY THIS WITH RESPECT. ARE THERE EXAMPLES OF AN EXISTING HOME THAT GOT MODIFIED TO THE LEVEL THAT WE DID THAT YOU WOULD.TO SO WHEN I COME BACK YOU CAN GIVE ME AN IDEA OF WHAT

YOU'RE LOOKING FOR. >> I THINK YOU NEED TO TALK TO MR. -- BUT. SURVEY SHOULD PLAN UP HER.

>> BUT YOU'RE THE BOARD I'D BE CURIOUS AS TO WHAT YOU'RE ASKING

FOR. >> I THINK WHAT I JUST OUTLINED.

JAMES SOMETHING -- ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE CORRIDOR?

>> I THINK WITHOUT SOLVING THE PROBLEM FOR YOU WHICH IS AN APPROPRIATE FORCE TO DUKE OUT THERE ARE EXAMPLES YOU CAN SEE OF RECENT PROPERTIES THAT HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED WHERE YOU CAN SEE HOW THEY SOLVED THAT PROBLEM. I WILL SAY I THINK WHERE WE HAVE BEEN LATELY WE WANT TO SEE A REFLECTION IN THE ARCHITECTURE THAT REFLECTS THE ENTIRE CORRIDOR AND IT IS REFLECTED IN

THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE HOUSE. >> I THINK THE GENTLEMAN'S

QUESTION WAS EXAMPLES. >> YES SCOTT THAT IS EXACTLY MY

POINT. >> GUIDANCE ON WHAT MAY BE --

[01:55:04]

I'VE ONLY BEEN HERE A COUPLE OF YEARS.

>> BASED ON MY EXPERIENCE PEOPLE REHAB THIS WITH A BULLDOZER.

>> SO PART OF THIS FROM OUR POINT OF VIEW AS AN OWNER, WE ARE TRYING TO HONOR THE TRADITION OF THIS HOUSE.

IT HAS BEEN THERE SINCE 1938. IT SAT OFF OF THE STREET WE ARE TRYING TO BRING IT CLOSER TO THE STREET.

BUT TO DENY US ON SOMETHING LIKE THIS CAN'T YOU ARE THE BOARD AND YOU HAVE THE FINAL SAY BUT WE ARE TRYING TO DO SOMETHING THAT IS BENEFICIAL TO THE COMMUNITY. IF WE LOOK AT THE NEW CONSTRUCTION THIS WILL RIVAL MANY THINGS THAT ARE THERE.

I'M STILL JUST AT A LOSS, I HAVE AN EXISTING STRUCTURE AND YOU ARE NOW ASKING ME TOO CHANGE AND ALTER THE ROOF LINES THAT MAY NOT HONOR THE EXISTING HOUSE. I WOULD ASK YOU TO RECONSIDER.

>> ONE OF THE CONCEPTS AND THIS WOULD BE INTRUSIVE TO YOUR EXISTING DESIGN. ALREADY HAVE STAIRS THAT COME OFF OF THE PORCH. IF THEY WERE TO ALIGN WITH THE CORRIDOR WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. AND ADD A CABLE ELEMENT OVER IT.

YOU NOW HAVE AN EXCELLENT ELEMENT WITH MINIMUM CHANGE TO YOUR DESIGN THAT DOES EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE ASKING YOU TO DO.

>> I'M NEW TO THIS SPIRIT IT'S HELPFUL.

>> YOU CAN SEE WHERE THERE ARE TWO LOTS.

>> LOTS 11 AND 12. THE LINES THAT GO THROUGH.

IS THIS THE CENTERLINE OF THE CORRIDOR.

>> WE DO HAVE AN EXISTING PIECE THAT IS NONCOMPLIANT.

THAT IS WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR. I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT

WOULD MAKE EVERYONE HAPPY. >> I THINK YOU DID A GREAT JOB WITH THE DESIGN. I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE SCREENING MATERIAL. I DIDN'T SEE THE SPECIFICATIONS.

>> I DIDN'T BUT I CAN GIVE YOU THE CHARACTER WHAT WE DO.

WE WOULD LOOK FOR MORE OLD SCHOOL SCREEN PORCH.

WE WON'T EXPOSE THE METAL ELEMENTS.

IT WOULD BE OLD SCHOOL WHERE YOU HAVE THE COLUMN DETAIL CAUGHT PUT THE SCREEN ON IT AND WE WOULD HAVE A BOARD TO FRAME IT TO THE HOUSE. LIKE YOUR GRANDMOTHER SCREEN

PORCH. >> AND THE MATERIAL ITSELF?

>> I CAN PROVIDE THAT. >> ARE YOU THINKING FIBERGLASS?

>> PROBABLY JUST ENOUGH TO SEE THROUGH AND KEEP THE BUGS OUT.

IS THERE A PREFERENCE? >> WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING LIKE

THAT IN OUR NOTES. >> IT HAS TO BE HISTORIC.

>> WE CAN DO THAT. >> WE ARE FROM THE SOUTH.

>> THANK YOU. >> CONGRATULATIONS ON WHAT YOU ARE DOING. NICE PROJECT.

>> WE ARE MOVING TO CONTINUE. >> YES.

>> APRIL? >> LET'S ASK YOU GUYS.

REALISTICALLY HOW LONG DO YOU THINK IT WILL TAKE TO ADJUST THE

DRAWINGS? >> IF I CAN HAVE A WEEK.

>> WE WILL TRY MARCH 20. >> MARCH 19.

>> YES SCOTT MARCH 19. >> WE -- DO YOU THINK YOU CAN DO

THAT? >> YES.

>> IF YOU CAN'T DO BY NEXT WEEK WILL BUMP IT.

>>

MICROPHONE. >> ON DON HILLMAN.

OUR NEIGHBOR AS FAR AS THE DRAWINGS YOU'D LIKE FOR THAT, BOARD MEMBER HARRISON YOU MENTIONED HE HAS A GARAGE APARTMENT IN THE SAME LOCATION AS THIS PROPOSED DEPARTMENT.

AND IT IS ACTUALLY LARGER AND WIDER THAN THIS ONE.

[02:00:03]

SO WHAT DRAWINGS DO YOU WANT BECAUSE YOU CAN SEE IT IN THE

OVERHEAD. >> I THINK WE ARE ASKING TO SEE IT IN ELEVATION. SO WE CAN UNDERSTAND THE CONTEXT OF THE MAIN HOUSE WITH YOUR GARAGE APARTMENT.

>> YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAND DRAWINGS? I WENT TO DESIGN SCHOOL. OKAY.

THAT'S IT. >> I THOUGHT IT WAS A HELPFUL

SUGGESTION. >> YOU WANT TO CONVINCE US THAT

THE HEIGHT IS NOT AN ISSUE. >> OKAY.

>> THE OLD GUIDELINES REQUIRE WOULD BE MORE SUBSTANTIAL.

>> YOUR SITUATION IS DIFFERENT AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT.

>> THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT.

>> THANK YOU. CAN I GET A MOTION TO CONTINUE.

>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE HDC 2020 -- ZERO ONE.

TO THE MARCH 19 MEETING. >> I WILL SECOND PERIOD.

>> THE MOTION IS SECOND PERIOD PLEASE CALL THE ROLE.

THE ROLES BEING CALLED. -- CALL THE ROLL.

>> WHERE ARE WE. >> STAFF REPORT.

BOARD BUSINESS. >> BEFORE WE DISCUSSED BACK, I WOULD LIKE TO RECOGNIZE HIS WORK AT THE JOINT MEETING.

I THOUGHT HE DID A VERY GOOD JOB REPRESENTING US IN SPEAKING FOR

US. >> YOU MAY TAKE THAT BACK AFTER YOU HEAR MY PRESENTATION ON RIVERFRONT PARK.

I DON'T SEE MR. MARTIN I INVITED HIM TO JOIN US.

>> >> WE ARE HERE TONIGHT TO REVIEW

[Item 5.1]

THE WATERFRONT PLAN AS A BOARD AND PROVIDE TO MR. MARTIN SOME FEEDBACK AND HE HAS ASKED US TO ADDRESS A SET OF QUESTIONS.

BEFORE WE GET THERE I WANT TO TELL YOU ABOUT HOW I PROCEEDED AS THE CHAIR OF THE HDC. AM I IN THE RIGHT PLACE?

>> I CAN SCROLL DOWN THE IMAGES. >> LET ME START YEAR PERIOD SO HE IS CHARGED BY THE CITY COMMISSION TO WORK ON THIS.

MARTIN CREATES A COMMITTEE THAT INCLUDES THE HEADS OF ALL OF THE BOARDS THAT MAY HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE WATERFRONT PLANT.

THE MARINA. HDC.

MAIN STREET. I CAN'T REMEMBER WHO ELSE IS ON

THAT. >> SO WE CONVENE -- BEFORE WE CONVENE I DO SOME THINKING ABOUT WHAT THE HDC WOULD WANT TO HAVE HAPPEN IN THIS CONTEXT. BECAUSE OF THE WORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE BEFORE WE GOT HERE, WE HAVE THE CRA GUIDELINES, PAGES AND PAGES OF GUIDELINES THAT LAY OUT WHAT WE THINK SHOULD HAPPEN FROM THE HDC'S PERSPECTIVE. I SHARED WITH THE CONSULTANTS WHAT THIS GUIDANCE WAS. I CALLED TO THEIR ATTENTION I SENT THEM THESE DOCUMENTS AND I PULLED OUT OF THEM WHAT I THOUGHT WERE THE CRITICAL COMPONENTS THEY SHOULD CONSIDER FROM THESE GUIDELINES AS THEY DID THEIR WORK.

AND MY SENTENCES THEY PAID ATTENTION.

SO I WILL ASK IF WE HAVE A SLIDE, THE POINTS THAT I MADE OR A HANDOUT WE CAN USE AND I WILL TELL YOU THEY WERE VERY HELPFUL TO HELP ME SHAPE THIS. WE HAVE ENOUGH EVERYONE?

[02:05:02]

>> THERE ARE SEVERAL COPIES. >> SO THIS IS FROM THE INTRODUCTION TO THE FINAL SUBMITTAL OF THE THREE MOST PRINCIPLES TO EMERGE FROM THESE REPORTS.

THIS GOES BACK TO 2008. THE THREE MOST IMPORTANT PRINCIPLES ARE, TO MAINTAIN VIEWS AND PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE WATER. TO ESTABLISH A SENSE OF PLACE ALONG THE WATER'S EDGE TO MAINTAIN THE CHARACTER AS REFLECTED IN THE WORKING WATERFRONT AND IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. I GOT FROM THESE DOCUMENTS THAT OUR GOAL SHOULD BE TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC'S ABILITY TO SEE AND ACCESS THE WATERFRONT BY INTEGRATING IT IN THE STREET.

SPECIFICALLY WE NEED THE CROSSES TO PROVIDE CLEAR AND SAFE AND EASY ACCESS TO THE WATERFRONT. IN ORDER TO PREVENT -- PROTECT PANORAMIC VIEWS I WOULD SUGGEST THE BUILDINGS AND COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES BE PUSHED TO THE SOUTH.

THE CITY DESIGN GUIDELINES AND MATERIALS, THIS SHOULD GUIDE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE CONSTRUCTION AND THE WATERFRONT AREA.

I MEAN, OUTSIDE OF THE WATERFRONT PARK AND SHE REMINDED ME THAT WHEN YOU SAY IT IS INDUSTRIAL, BUT NOT STATIC.

SO THAT WAS THE GUIDE I GAVE TO THE CONSULTANTS.

I THINK THEY WERE PAYING ATTENTION.

THEY PRESENTED TO THE CITY COMMISSION IN JANUARY AND MR. MARTIN DIRECTED US WITH THE MEMO.

WE HAVE COPIES OF THAT. HE ASKED US TO SPECIFICALLY LOOK AT FOUR ELEMENTS THE PROPOSED EVENT SPACE.

THE INDOOR EVENT SPACE WILL REORIENTATION OF PARKING AND THE GREAT SPACE IN THE PARKING LOT AND B.

I WILL STOP THERE AND SEE IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE GUIDANCE OR THE DIRECTION. HE SAID IT SHOULD FOCUS ON GENERAL CONCEPTS PRESENTED NOT SPECIFIC DESIGN ELEMENTS.

I WILL COMPILE EVERYTHING TO SHARE WITH THE COMMISSIONERS.

I WILL DISCUSS MORE OF THIS IN EARLY MARCH AND THE CITY COMMISSION WILL BE CHARGED WITH ENDORSING AND REVISING THE

CONCEPTS MOVING FORWARD. >> IT SEEMS THERE ARE TWO ELEMENTS. WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF THIS PROPOSAL ON THE HISTORIC DISTRICT? AND I SEE THAT AS BEING FAIRLY MINIMAL.

AS LONG AS THE CONSTRUCTION ZONES ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. THE OTHER ONE IS WHAT IS ITS IMPACT. I DON'T KNOW IF HE IS ASKING FORWARD FEEDBACK ON BOTH OF THOSE.

>> >> HE WANTS US TO STAY AT THE CONCEPTUAL LEVEL AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.

WITH THAT IN MIND, IF YOU COULD MOVE US -- IS THIS CLEAR SLIDE PRESENTATION. WE CAN GO TO CONCEPT E.

>> LET'S DO THIS. >> THERE'S A LOT OF WORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE RELATIVE TO RESILIENCY ALONG THE WATERFRONT THAT DRIVES THIS CONVERSATION. SO HE IS THE ENGINEER THAT HAS BEEN WORKING ON THIS. AND I DON'T KNOW WHO WANTS TO SEE THE SPIRIT YOU ARE FACED WITH THIS WATERFRONT.

WHILE YOU'RE DOING THAT. >> WHILE YOU ARE DOING THAT WHY NOT DEVELOP A WATERFRONT PARK AS WELL.

IT WOULD BE CRAZY NOT TO. >> I HAVE A QUESTION.

THE HARDENING OF THE WATERFRONT. THERE ARE TWO APPROACHES TO THIS. ONE IS TO PUT IN PLACE A BOAT THAT WOULD GET US TO THE REQUIRED HEIGHT AND THE SECOND PART IS TO DO THAT SO YOU BRING THE WHOLE LEVEL UP.

[02:10:02]

>> I THINK YOU WILL SEE BOTH ASPECTS.

I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE ENGINEERING BUT I BELIEVE I HEARD BOTH

CONCEPTS AS PART OF THIS DESIGN. >> IT DOESN'T MEAN WALKING DOWN CENTER STREET WHEN YOU GET TO THE RAILROAD TRACKS.

>> I THINK ONE THINK WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED AND WE HAVE ASKED FOR IS ELEVATIONS. AT THIS POINT WE ARE 5,000 FEET NEAR AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE FROM THE STREET

LEVEL. >>

>> COME ON UP AND INTRODUCE YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD.

THE COMMISSIONER WILL HELP US OUT TONIGHT.

>> I'LL JUST SIT RIGHT HERE. >> SO ON THE SHORELINE STABILIZATION TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, WHAT WE ENDORSED WAS RAISING THIS ENTIRE LEVEL. OF COURSE IT IS HIGHER IN SOME LEVELS AND LOWER IN SOME AREAS. BUT RAISING PIGS TO 9 FEET.

>> 9 FEET ABOVE WATER. >> THIS IS THE LOWEST SPOT RIGHT HERE. THIS VIOLATES THE BUILDING ORDINANCES. THIS AREA RIGHT HERE IS THE SAME. RIGHT WHERE THIS BUILDING IS SCOTT.FLOODS ALL OF THE TIME. SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, THIS IS A COMBINATION OF NATURAL SHORELINE AND BULKHEAD.

>> BUT THIS IS ABOVE THE LAND. >> CORRECT.

>> BY HOW MUCH. >> THERE WOULD BE STRUCTURE BUILT ON TOP OF THIS. 42 INCHES COMES TO MIND.

THE INTENTION WAS. AS WE GET TO THE RAILROAD TRACKS AND EVERYONE SAYS IT IS LIKE AN INVISIBLE WALL.

WE NEED TO INTEGRATE OUR CONNECTION.

WE ALSO HAVE THE MOST BEAUTIFUL WATERFRONT IN SO MANY PARTS OF FLORIDA WITH THIS FANTASTIC SUNSET VIEW.

WE HAVE FILLED IT UP WITH PARKING LOTS.

WHEN THIS HAPPENED IN THE 1960S SEEMS LIKE A GOOD IDEA.

BUT NOW WE LOOK AT IT AND WE SAY WHY AM I STANDING IN A PARKING LOT LOOKING AT THE SUNSET VIEW. I THINK THE GOAL HERE IS TO PUSH THE PARKING AND BRING THE PEOPLE TO THE WATER.

THAT IS WHAT THEY ACCOMPLISH WITH THIS ALONG THE WATERFRONT.

>> ON THE RIGHT SIDE, WHERE IT GETS REALLY NARROW.

HOW MUCH ARE WE TAKING OUT. >> I CAN'T ANSWER TO THE SPECIFICS BUT THE NOTION IS WIDENED THE STREET FOR ANGLED PARKING SO YOU CAN HAVE A PARK ON THE OTHER SIDE.

ONE OF THE THINGS WE TOLD THEM EARLY ON, WE NEED TO HAVE AS MUCH PARKING AS WE HAVE RIGHT NOW.

I SAID TO THEM, WHAT DID YOU FIND WHEN YOU ASK PEOPLE ABOUT PARKING. HAVE SAID PARKING IS DIFFICULT AND A PROBLEM WE NEED TO FIX. THE OTHER SAID PARKING IS NOT A PROBLEM. BUT OUR MESSAGE OF THEM WAS WE WANT NO NET LOSS OF PARKING. AND THEY TOLD US THAT IS WHAT

THEY ACCOMPLISH. >> I THINK THE LAST TIME WE LOOKED AT THIS PARKING IT WAS IMPORTANT TO THE BOARD MEMBERS.

WE DID NOT WANT TO LOSE THE PARKING SPACE.

>> THAT IS WHAT I BELIEVE THEY BROUGHT HERE.

THERE WERE DISCUSSIONS IF IT IS ADEQUATE FOR THE TRAILERS THEY USE. THAT IS A TECHNICAL PROBLEM THAT NEEDS TO BE ANSWERED AND RESOLVED.

PROBABLY NOT OUR PROBLEM. I AM RELUCTANT TO LET THIS DRIVE THE REST OF THE PROJECT. IT IS JUST ONE ELEMENT.

[02:15:03]

>> WE ARE ASKED FROM A HISTORIC STANDPOINT THESE POINTS THEY WANT US TO HIT. ONE THING I KNOW AND I'VE HEARD FROM A LOT OF PEOPLE, KEEP THIS LOW DEVELOPED WATERFRONT VERNACULAR. WHAT I DON'T SEE ON HERE, THAT IS A GREAT PARK. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE DESIGN OF IT. IT IS A FORMAL LOOK.

WE ARE A MILLTOWN. THAT LOOKS VERY FORMALIZED.

I DON'T SEE THE INTEGRATION OF AN IMPROVED MARINA.

I DON'T SEE A WORKING WATERFRONT.

>> CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT YOU MEAN BY WORKING WATERFRONT.

ONE OF THE COOLEST THINGS ABOUT FRONT STREET AND WHAT I HEAR FROM VISITORS, THAT IS MY NEIGHBORHOOD.

PEOPLE COME INTO TOWN AND THEY ARE LIKE 0 MY GOODNESS SCOTT THIS IS ALMOST LIKE A SECRET THAT NO ONE KNOWS ABOUT.

THEY LOVE THE OLD PEERS. >> YOU SEE EVERYONE TAKING PICTURES. THEY LOVE THE DOCKS.

>> I THINK THERE ARE SLIDES THAT.OUT THE DESIGNERS.

>> THEY SAW THIS AND SAID THIS IS SOMETHING YOU HAVE TO KEEP YOUR THESE VIEWS, AND MAYBE KELLY CAN TELL YOU.

>> IF YOU LOOK AT THESE VIEWS, THEY ARE ALL RIGHT HERE.

IT'S INTERESTING THAT MOST OF WHAT WE ARE INTERESTED IN IS ON THE NORTH SIDE. ALL OF THE THINGS THAT YOU SEE ON THE NORTH SIDE. LOOKING TO THE WEST.

>> WHAT MAKES THIS SO DIFFERENT IS FROM OTHER ITEMS IN FLORIDA.

IF NOT THIS HIGH-END LOOK. IT IS.

>> I THINK ANYONE WHO COMES HERE LIES AN ART BACKGROUND LOOKS AT IT AND THINKS WE NEED -- THIS IS WONDERFUL.

IT'S NOT ALL LANDSCAPING. SO INDUSTRIAL VIEWS LONG RIVERVIEW SKY MARINA VIEWS, AND TO THE SOUTH AND WEST, SUNSET VIEWS. IT WAS INTERESTING TO WATCH THE DESIGNERS WAXED POETIC ABOUT THINGS THAT ARE RUNNING IN THE WATER. YOU WILL REALLY WANT TO SEE SOME ELEVATIONS. WE CAN'T TELL WHAT THIS LOOKS LIKE GOING DOWN THE STREET. WE WANT TO KNOW WHAT IT LOOKS

LIKE. >> JUST ONE COMMENT.

A COUPLE OF PEOPLE HAVE SAID, HOW DOES THIS RELATE FROM A

HISTORIC STANDPOINT. >> I THINK THE CHALLENGES IT DOESN'T. USING THIS AS A CONTEXT TO MAKE

DECISIONS IS HARD. >> SOME SAY WE DON'T NEED A PARK

WE NEED A WORKING WATERFRONT. >> I CAN'T TURN THIS INTO A PORT. THE THING THEY TEACH YOU IS DON'T EVER INSERT GOVERNMENT INTO THE PRIVATE SECTOR UNLESS YOU HAVE TO. IN THIS CASE YOU DON'T HAVE TO.

BUT YOU DO NEED TO BUILD RESILIENCY.

THERE IS NO BETTER TIME THAN WHEN YOU ARE GOING TO PUT IN

THIS WALL. >> I FEEL LIKE WHEN YOU ARE WALKING THROUGH DOWNTOWN THEY HAVE DONE A GOOD JOB.

THERE'S A LOT OF PLAQUES THERE'S A LOT OF INFORMATION.

ARE THEY INCORPORATING THAT IN THE WATERFRONT TO TELL THE

STORY. >> YOU ARE TWO YEARS AHEAD OF US IN THAT QUESTION. PROBABLY IS THE ANSWER.

IF WE GET TO THE FOR QUESTIONS CUP WE DID AT FOR QUESTIONS,.

[02:20:03]

>> I HAVE THE FOR QUESTIONS. >> YOU'RE DOING WHAT I SAID AS OPPOSED TO WHAT I WANTED. THE FIRST QUESTION WOULD BE, I'M GOING TO WORK BACKWARDS. THE INTRODUCTION TO GREEN SPACE AND THE PARKING LOTS. I WOULD MAKE A RECOMMENDATION WITH THE DESIGNERS COME BACK WITH THE NEXT PLAN THEY ACTUALLY LABEL SOMETHING. IT WOULD MAKE IT EASIER.

THERE'S NOT A SINGLE NOTE THAT TELLS US WHAT TO DO.

>> THANK YOU. >> THESE ARE THE PORTS.

THIS IS THE PERFORMANCE SITTING AREA.

THIS WOULD BE THE VENUE, POTENTIALLY.

>> IT'S NOT DEFINED BUT SOMETHING PERMANENT MAINLY BECAUSE OF THE HAZARDS INVOLVED IN THE TEMPORARY STAGES.

WE HAVE ALL SEE THE STAGES THAT COLLAPSE.

THIS WOULD BE. >> THAT WOULD BE ONE OF THE QUESTIONS WE WANT YOU TO COMMENT ON.

THAT IS ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THEY WANT YOU TO COMMENT ON.

>> AS AN OUTDOOR EVENT SPACE, I'M NOT CLEAR ON WHAT THAT

MEANS. >> WE DON'T KNOW.

>> IT COULD BE WHERE YOU PUT UP A STAGE.

IT COULD BE A LOT BUT SOMEWHERE, YOU WILL ALSO SAY DON'T.THIS AT

DOWNTOWN. >> IF IT'S MUSIC IN THEIR DO WE

WANT IT COMING THIS WAY. >> WE WANTED GOING TOWARDS THIS AREA APPEAR WE DON'T WANTED POINTING OVER HERE.

>> I DISAGREE. YOU WANT THE PEOPLE TO LOOK AT

THE WATERFRONT. >> WHEN YOU MOVED DOWNTOWN WE

CAN HAVE THAT CONVERSATION. >> I'VE SEEN IT BACKED UP SO THE BAND IS LOOKING AT THE WATER AND THE PEOPLE.

>> LET'S TALK ABOUT THE PROCESS. WE WILL TALK ABOUT THIS A FEW MINUTES. AND WE WILL SEE IF THERE IS A CONSENSUS. I KNOW WE WILL ASK FOR

ELEVATIONS. >> VERY GOOD.

>> MIKE GO AHEAD. >> THIS THE EVENT STRUCTURE AND I FEEL I NEED TO BE TRANSPARENT ABOUT THIS.

YOU WILL NOTICE THAT ON THE SLIDE PRESENTATION ON THE FEEDBACK THERE'S A GENTLEMAN NAMED RYAN.

AND HE IS A CONCERT PROMOTER. AND WHAT THE CITY MANAGER AS DONE, HE WAS APPROACHED BY HIM AND THE CITY MANAGER WENT OUT TO APPRAISERS ABOUT WHAT THIS LAND WOULD BE VALUED ON A LEASE BASIS. THE FIGURE IS $70,000.

AND THAT IS JUST FOR THE LEASE PROPERTY.

>> YOU MEAN THE ENTIRE THING OR THAT ONE LITTLE AREA.

>> THIS AREA IS WHAT APPEAR AND I THINK THE SCALE OF THIS SPIRIT AND THERE'S NOTHING LIKE A STONE IT WOULD BE 2024000 SCREEN.

FLOOR. SO HE WOULD BUILD THE STRUCTURE.

LEASED THE PROPERTY AND BUILD THE STRUCTURE AND THIS WOULD COST THREE TO $4 MILLION. IT WOULD ALSO BUILD THE STRUCTURE. WHAT YOU WOULD HAVE WOULD BE PAID EVENT SPIRIT THE REASON BEHIND THESE TWO ELEMENTS,.

>> THIS MARINA IS $11 MILLION UPSIDE DOWN.

>> THE MARINA WILL NEVER MAKE ENOUGH MONEY TO SUSTAIN ITSELF.

>> TRADITIONALLY MARINAS CAUGHT WORKING MARINAS MONEY BY HAVING BOTH STORAGE AND BOAT REPAIR. THERE IS NOT ENOUGH ACREAGE FOR EITHER ONE. SO CREATIVELY CITY IS TRYING TO DETERMINE HOW DO WE MAKE MONEY FOR THE MARINA.

>> DO THEY MAKE MONEY ON CONCERTS.

>> YES. SO A PORTION OF TICKET SALES WOULD GO TOWARDS THE MARINA. A PORTION OF CORPORATE PARTIES

[02:25:04]

AND FAMILY PARTIES WOULD ALSO GO TO THE MARINA FUND.

THAT IS THE IDEA. >> MARTIN WANTS TO KNOW WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THE PROPOSED EVENT SPACE.

WHAT IS THE CONSENSUS. WHAT ARE YOUR OPINIONS?

>> I THINK PERSONALLY I CAN SEE THE VALUE IN HAVING A REVENUE STREAM THE ONLY COMMENT I WOULD MAKE WOULD BE THAT THE SPACE BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC WHEN IT IS NOT BEING USED AS A CONCERT VENUE. IT'S A PRETTY GOOD CHUNK OF THE SPACE. IF THAT WAS SKATED OFTEN PEOPLE COULD USE FOR GOD PEOPLE COULD PICNIC OUT THERE.

I THINK THAT WOULD BE -- IS THERE A CONSENSUS ON THAT.

IF THERE IS A PERFORMANCE-BASED IT WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR THE

PUBLIC TO USE. >> WHAT DOES IT ENTAIL.

>> THE CAPACITY OF THIS IS INITIALLY 800 FEET.

>> WEIRD TO THE PEOPLE PARK WHEN THEY COME FOR ANY EVENT.

>> THAT HAS COME UP REPEATEDLY. ALL OF THE COMMENTS I HAVE HEARD

IS IT TOO BIG. >> DO WE WANT EVERY CONCERT GOT EVERY TIME WE GO SOMEWHERE DO WE WANT TO BECOME THAT.

>> I AM A NEUTRAL PARTY. SO AM I.

>> WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. >> TELL US WHERE WE WILL END UP

AND WE WILL WALK OUT OF HERE. >> WE WILL HAVE IMPROVEMENTS.

>> WE ARE PAYING FOR THAT. >> THANK YOU.

>> RATHER THAN SIMPLY SAYING THE PUBLIC SHOULD HAVE ACCESS I THINK WE SHOULD ASK ABOUT THE DUAL USE IF NOT TRIPLE USE.

>> LET ME PIECE THIS OUT. THIS IS OPEN SPACE IT'S PERMANENT. I THINK YOU HAVE TO DO INFRASTRUCTURE NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO.

THE SECOND QUESTION WOULD BE HOW BIG SHOULD BE ENDURED EVENT SPACE B SHOULD WE HAPPEN TO HER SPACE.

>> I THINK LOOKING AT THIS IT IS TOO BIG.

LET'S JUST PRETEND THIS IS WHERE WE WILL PUT IT.

THAT IS BLOCKING ONE OF THE PRIME VIEWS.

CAN'T YOU PUT IT HERE SO YOU'RE COMING DOWN AND YOU'RE NOT HIT WITH THIS STRUCTURE NO MATTER WHAT SIZE IT BECOMES.

MAKE THIS MORE INVITING WHEN YOU COME DOWN THE STREET.

MY OTHER THING IS I QUESTION THE ECONOMICS.

IF THIS GUY IS PUTTING THIS IN, AND WERE ONLY GETTING $70,000.

YEAR. IT SEEMS LIKE IT IS WORTH MORE.

>> LET ME CLARIFY. $70,000 FOR THE LAND.

THEN A PERCENTAGE, SO YOU HAVE 200 PEOPLE ATTENDING YOUR EVENT.

HE IS ALSO SAYING THAT ANY CATERING WOULD BE FROM LOCAL

RESTAURANTS. >> I HEAR THAT.

BUT A PORTION OF WHAT HE IS CHARGING GOES TO THE MARINA.

>> DO WE KNOW HOW OFTEN HE WILL HAVE PEOPLE COMING IN-AND-OUT.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION. >> JUST BECAUSE WE SPOKE TO ONE

LOCAL GUY, IT IS MEANINGLESS. >> IF YOU DON'T THINK THIS IS A PROJECT AND YOU THINK OF IT AS PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT, IT WAS -- IF IT WAS A COMMERCIAL BUILDING, WITH THERE BE A REQUIREMENT FOR

PARKING. >> IT WOULD BE BASED ON THE

YOUTH ASSOCIATED WITH IT. >> THEY WOULD HAVE TO MEET A

REQUIREMENT. >> THAT IS DUE TO THE OVERALL AREA. THERE IS A PRIOR DEVELOPMENT FOR THE WATERFRONT AREA. THIS GOES BACK TO THE PAINT SO

[02:30:07]

IT RAISES THE QUESTION OF HOW DO YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THEM BECAUSE THEY DID NOT CONTEMPLATE PARKING AND WHERE IT SHOULD BE ALLOD. HOW DO YOU WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH PLANS SUCH AS THIS OR ANY PLAN IN DETERMINING HOW YOU ALLOCATE PARKING OUT THERE. CERTAINLY THE COMMERCIAL INTERESTS WILL HAVE A PARKING GENERATOR AND HOW YOU ALLOCATE FOR THAT. YOU CAN REALLY ACKNOWLEDGE THE DEFICIENCIES. AND HOW YOU WILL SPREAD IT OUT.

BUT YOU WOULD ALSO CONSIDER IT THROUGH VARIANCES.

THOSE ARE SOME DETAILS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN DETERMINED.

BECAUSE WE ARE LOOKING AT IT HAS CONCEPT ONLY.

WE WILL BE ABLE TO GET INTO THE TECHNICAL NUANCES ON HOW YOU ACCOMPLISH THIS ONCE WE GO INTO THE NEXT PHASE.

>> I HEAR A CONCERN. THAT IF YOU HAVE A BACKSPACE OF

ANY KIND. >> I THINK IT'S REASONABLE THAT THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW THE SAME RULES.

>> WHEN YOU ARE ON YOUR BIKE EVEN ON THE WEEKENDS, YOU CAN'T GO THROUGH THE STREET MOUNT BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE COMING

IN-AND-OUT. >> IN TERMS OF PARKING FOR NONRESIDENTIAL USES, THERE IS THE OPPORTUNITY TO PAY A FEE AND PROVIDE FOR PARKING WITHIN THE CITY.

AS WE TALKED TO PRIVATE INTERESTS THAT IS SOMETHING THAT ALWAYS COME BACK AND MINE. WE ARE ENCOURAGING YOU TO READ THEY'LL VOTE THAT'S RIGHT REDEVELOPING AREA IN A WAY THAT WILL GENERATE MORE VITALITY AND FACILITY -- AND THE CITY IS WILLING TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS TO HELP YOU GET THERE.

>> >> I THINK THAT IS AN UNNECESSARY PART OF THE PLAN. I AGREE WITH TAMMY I THINK THERE IS TOO MUCH STRUCTURE. I WOULDN'T GO FOR THAT BUILDING

AT ALL. >> IS THERE A CONSENSUS YOU WOULDN'T HAVE A BUILDING I'LL PICK.

>> I THINK I WOULD BE OPEN TO THE BUILDING.

IF YOU LOOK AT THIS CONCEPTUALLY AND SAY IT DOESN'T GO HERE.

BUT TO SAY WE DO NOT WANT TO HAVE ANY ENCLOSED BUILDINGS WHETHER IT IS FUNCTIONING OR SOMETHING ELSE I WOULD NOT -- I

WOULD TAKE IT OFF OF THE TABLE. >>

>> MY CONCERN THE PARK AS A WHOLE IS NOT UNIFIED OR DOES THAT BUILDING CERTAINLY SUDDENLY CHOP IN HALF.

IS IT PERCEIVED AS I CAN GO OVER TO THIS PART.

>> ARE THEY TAKING ADVANTAGE. >> ARE THEY GOING THERE FOR A REASON. WE HAVE GREEN SPACE BUT THEY THIS IS WHERE WE CAN WALK AND SEE THINGS.

SOME HAVE SUGGESTED IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

>> KELLY CAN YOU QUOTE THEM, THEY GAVE THEM TO US WE MAY AS

WELL USE THEM. >> SO IT IS DIAGONAL SPREAD BUT

THIS DOESN'T MEAN METRIC HERE. >> KELLY WILL BRING UP SOME

[02:35:10]

OTHER OPTIONS. >>> IT WOULD RELIEVE THE BURDEN OF TAXPAYERS. ESPECIALLY IF YOU HAVE TO SACRIFICE SOMETHING. THE BOARD ON MONDAY WILL LOOK AT THIS AND DO THE SAME EXERCISE. I CAN TELL YOU THEY ARE ADAMANT ABOUT NOT GIVING UP THESE PARKING LOTS WHERE SALT THEY ARE ADAMANT ABOUT NOT GIVING UP THE PARKING SPOTS.

EVEN THOUGH IT IS THE MOST VALUABLE REAL ESTATE.

THEY WANT ACCESS TO THE DOCKS I LIKE YOU COULD GO THROUGH HERE TO GET TO THE DOCKS. IF YOU ARE HANDICAPPED OUT ELDERLY OR PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED, OR IF YOU ARE A BOAT CAPTAIN YOU CAN BRING YOURSELF EASILY TO THE WATER.

>> A DROP-OFF PARENT DOES THIS SATISFY THEM OR THIS BASICALLY HOW IT IS. I WILL KNOW THAT ON MONDAY.

PRIOR TO MONDAY THEY HAVE ALREADY VOICED THEY DO NOT WANT TO LOSE THESE SPACES. SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION BENJAMIN THAT IS ONE OF THE THINGS I LIKED ABOUT THIS.

I LIKE THIS PERFORMANCE AREA. I PERSONALLY, I CAN DO WITHOUT THE BUILDING BUT THE REVENUE IS NICE.

I GET THE COMMENTS OF BEING TWO-STORY COULD BECOME THE FOCAL POINT. I GET THAT.

AND OF COURSE THERE IS CONCERN THAT WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO

ABOUT THIS. >> SINGLE-STORY AND SMALLER

SPACES. >> AND OR RELOCATION.

>> WHAT DID YOU SAY QUICKSAND I JUST DON'T WANT ANY OF THE

BUILDINGS THAT FOLLOW THIS AREA. >> FOR ME GETTING THE ENTIRE SYSTEM TO WORK AND FLOW TOGETHER IS IMPORTANT.

THAT IS A PROBLEM RIGHT NOW. >> IT'S IN THE WRONG PLACE.

IT IS TOO BIG. >> DON'T WE PLAN TO MOVE THE

MARINA NORTH? >> I CAN ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.

SO, THERE IS A BIG GRANT WHICH IS 1 MILLION AND A HALF DOLLARS.

IT IS 50% TO EXTEND THIS NORTH. FOR TRANSIENT VOTING -- BOATING.

IN ORDER TO EXTEND THIS NORTH WE HAVE TO HAVE THE CHANNEL.

THE SPONSOR IS WITH PORT AUTHORITY.

THIS APPROVAL BY CONGRESS CAME 20 YEARS AGO FOR THE PAST YEAR WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO GET A LETTER APPROVING MOVING THE

CHANNEL. >> BY THE PORT YOU MEAN THE

OCEAN. >> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> I CAN ALSO TELL YOU THE FINANCIAL STRAITS WE ARE IN THIS IS A LONG WAYS OFF. WE TALKED ABOUT THIS ON TUESDAY.

[02:40:06]

IF WE EVER HAVE ANOTHER STORM AND THESE GO BY THE WAYSIDE, FEMA WILL REQUIRE US TO DO THIS THAT IS WHY IT IS IMPERATIVE.

>> FEMA REQUIRES THEN THEY HAVE TO GRANT PERMISSION.

>> THEY DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING.

>> >> WE NEED THERE BLESSING IN

ORDER TO DO IT. >> WELL, SO --

>> I FEEL LIKE, THERE MAY BE THE CONSENSUS THAT THE IDEA OF HAVING SOME SORT OF BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY IS WORTH EXPLORING MORE IT IS JUST NOT LIKE IT IS NOW.

>> IS PROBABLY TOO TALL. IT'S PROBABLY TOO BIG.

>> IT'S HARD WITHOUT SEEING THE DRAWING TO SAY THAT.

>> I'M SURE THEY HAVE SAID TO EVERYONE ELSE THERE IS A

CONSENSUS THAT IT'S TOO BIG. >> WE HAVE HEARD THAT REPEATEDLY. IF HE COULD BE MOVED FURTHER SOUTH THAT WOULD BE EVEN BETTER. WE GOT IT OUT OF THE MAIN PART BY PUSHING IT FURTHER SOUTH THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.

>> LET ME TALK ABOUT A FEW MORE THINGS.

>> SO THE FRONT STREET PARKING THOUGHT IS THAT SOMETHING THEY FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH KNOWING IT WILL CHANGE THE TRAFFIC PATTERNS

AND THE WAY WE DO THINGS? >> WERE NOT CHANGING THE ONE-WAY

IN-AND-OUT. >> I HAVE HEARD NO CONSENSUS.

THE DESIGNERS KEEP TALKING ABOUT THIS.

IT WOULD BE SO MUCH EASIER. THEY TALK ABOUT PUTTING A

ROUNDABOUT INTO THE AREA. >> BASICALLY WE'RE JUST OPENING

THIS. >> THIS WILL CREATE SOME TRAFFIC

ISSUES. >> I THINK FROM A CONCEPTUAL STANDPOINT I FEEL PRETTY STRONG ABOUT THE PARKING AND IT IS A

BETTER SOLUTION. >>

>> AS LONG AS THERE IS NO LOSS OF PARKING.

>> THE CONSENSUS WE WANT TO SEE OF THESE STREETS WILL YIELD

THEMSELVES INTO THE PARK AREA. >> I THINK THEY SHOULD MAXIMIZE THE SPACE OR AT LEAST THAT'S RIGHT THERE SHOULD ALWAYS BE A

WALK SPACE BAR. >> WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE IS A BALANCE BETWEEN GREEN SPACE SO IT IS SOMEWHAT GREEN.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE. >> RIGHT.

>> SOME REALLY WANT IT THERE. >> I THINK THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF TALK ABOUT IT. THIS IS NOT A HISTORIC BUILDING.

IT IS AN ICONIC BUILDING. THERE'S A LOT OF COMMUNITY SENTIMENT FOR IT. I ENJOY IT AS WELL.

YOU ADDRESS THAT IN HERE. I THINK THERE IS COMMUNITY CONCERN ABOUT REPLICATING THE SENSE OF HISTORY.

>> PART OF THE PROBLEM IS THE CURRENT LOCATION.

IT IS OVER A MAJOR STORM LINE. IT IS LITERALLY BUILT OVER THAT.

>> IT WAS BUILT IN 1,963. RIGHT AROUND THE TIME OF THE

WELCOME TP. >> WHO WOULD'VE NEVER THOUGHT

[02:45:03]

THIS WOULD BE HEATED OR CONDITION PROPERLY.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT HAS TO GO.

>> I THINK THERE IS A SENSE THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOME SORT OF SHOP ON THE WATERFRONT SOMEWHERE IN THE COMMERCIAL

SPACE. >> YOU COULD GO WITH THE INDUSTRIAL SIDE OR YOU COULD GO WITH THE WATERFRONTS.

>> IS JUST LIKE WHAT YOU SAID. >> I THINK WE HAVE SOME CONSENSUS AROUND THE SPIRIT UNFORTUNATELY I CAN'T TAKE MY NOTES AND SAM NOTES AND SEND THEM TO YOU FOR REVIEW.

WE CAN'T DO THAT IN THE SUNSHINE.

YOU HAVE TO LEAVE IT UP TO US. >> I THINK YOU HAVE GIVEN ME GOOD FEEDBACK. BUT THE FIRST THING IS WE WANT TO SEE ELEVATIONS. WE ARE COMFORTABLE WITH THESE CONCEPTS. IF WE ARE GOING TO HAVE COMMERCIAL SPACE, PERHAPS FURTHER SOUTH.

PUSH FURTHER SOUTH. >> WE DON'T HAVE ANY SAY WITH YOU SPIRIT WE WILL ADDRESS THAT AFTERWARDS.

>> RIGHT. IT OCCURRED TO ME, IT IS SOME KIND OF COVERAGE SPACE WHERE PEOPLE COULD HAVE A WEDDING OR

SOMETHING. >> A PAVILION.

>> IT WASN'T LIKE THIS WHOLE ENTERTAINMENT FACILITY.

YOU CAN SEE THE PRESSURE THEY ARE UNDER.

>> I SUSPECT IT MAY MAKE THE FINANCIAL SITUATION WORSE.

>> YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO GENERATE REVENUE IN AN AREA WHICH HASN'T REGISTERED -- GENERATED REVENUE BEFORE.

NOW YOU WILL HAVE SOMEONE MAKE A PROFIT WHICH IS ANOTHER UNKNOWN.

>> WE NEED TO CLOSE THIS OUT. ONE OF THE THINGS WE SAID EARLY, HOW IS THE SPACE GOING TO BE USED.

THAT IS A QUESTION THEY WILL HAVE TO RESOLVE.

>> I THINK IT IS EXCITING THERE SOME MOMENTUM TOWARDS THIS.

>> RISING SEA LEVELS HAVE A WAY OF GETTING YOUR ATTENTION.

>> >> I WANT SEE ELEVATION OF THE

RAILROAD TRACK. >> IF YOU GO INTO THIS SLIDE,

THE ELEVATIONS ARE IN THERE. >> CAN YOU TELL ME --

>> NOT WITHOUT LOOKING. >> IT IS ON THE DRAWING.

>>- BUT WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT IS PROTECTING THIS AS WELL AS PROTECTING THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO THINK THEY ARE PAYING A SHARE OF THE

PROTECTION. >> HAVE YOU EVER HAD TO DEAL

WITH THEM BEFORE CLARK'S. >>

>> LET'S MOVE ON SINCE IT IS GETTING CLOSE TO 8:00 P.M.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR INDULGENCE.

>> YOU DID A GOOD JOB. >> I JUST STAND ON THE SHOULDERS

OF THE PEOPLE WHO PRECEDED US. >>

>>> ALRIGHT KELLY IF YOU ARE READY TO MOVE ON WE WOULD LIKE TO GIVE YOU TIME TO TALK ABOUT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

>> THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR. >> I NOMINATE KATE FOR BOTH JOBS

[Item 5.2]

AND I AM OUT OF HERE. >> HOW MANY MORE TERMS TO HAVE?

>> I THINK I GET ONE MORE YEAR, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> ACTUALLY YOU ARE TERMED OUT. >> I THINK I HAVE SERVED FOR ONE

YEAR AS CHAIR, I THINK. >> I THINK YOU CAN'T DO MORE

THAN TWO CONSECUTIVELY. >> THAT SOUNDS RIGHT.

>> JIM ARE YOU COMFORTABLE? >> YES.

>> I KNEW WE WOULD RETAIN MIKE AS OUR CHAIR AND THAT WE RETAIN

SET UP AS OUR VICE CHAIR. >> NO DISCUSSION.

[02:50:04]

WE CAN DO THAT BY VOICE VOTE. >> ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

ALL AGAINST. OKAY.

>> FIELD FREE TO CORRECT ME WHEN I AM WRONG.

>> OKAY. MS. KELLY YOU WERE GOING TO TALK

[Item 6.1]

ABOUT THE ACTION PLAN. >> THIS IS REALLY ON YOUR AGENDA FOR YOUR AWARENESS. THE DOCUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN PROVIDED OUTWARDLY TO THE BOARD AND THE CITY COMMISSION ABOUT WHAT WE HAVE ON ARMOR PLATE THIS YEAR DEPARTMENT.

AND ALSO FEEDBACK OF WHAT WE ACCOMPLISHED LAST YEAR AS WELL AS SOME OF OUR CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT.

SO YOU HAVE THE ANNUAL REPORT. YOU MAY HAVE TAKEN A LOOK AT IT.

THERE IS A SECTION SPECIFIC TO THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.

IT ALSO LOOKS AHEAD AT WHAT WE ANTICIPATE FOR THE BOARD.

INCLUDING EFFORTS TO CONTINUE OLD TOWN.

LOOKING AT THE DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES, SOME OUTREACH EFFORTS FOR PRESERVATION.

AND THEN WITHIN THE ACTION PLAN AND I WILL SKIP OVER THIS

[Item 6.3]

COTTBUS SCORE CARD AND IT IS MORE DETAILED ABOUT THE TASK

THAT WE ARE WORKING ON DIRECTLY. >> SO I CAN BRING ANY OF THESE ITEMS UP IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT

>> I APOLOGIZE. I HAD A BUSY WEEK AND I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO READ THIS SECTION OF THE DOCUMENTS.

>> WAS THIS IN OUR PACKET? >> IT WAS PAGE 250 SOMETHING.

265. I MAY SUGGEST IF PEOPLE DON'T HAVE QUESTIONS, GIVE US SOME TIME AND WE MAY ASK YOU FOR A GUEST APPEARANCE AT A FUTURE MEETING.

IT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE YOU COME IN AT 5:00 P.M. INSTEAD OF 8:00 P.M. I DON'T FEEL LIKE WE WILL GIVE

YOU A FAIR REVIEW AT THIS TIME. >> OKAY.

>> IS THAT FAIR QUICKSAND YOU PROMISED.

>> THIS IS WHAT WE WILL DO. WE PROMISED TO REVIEW THESE MATERIALS AND COME BACK AND TALK TO YOU LATER.

>> THAT SOUNDS WONDERFUL. >> WE WANT TO TALK TO YOU.

>> OKAY. >> I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CAME UP AT THE MEETING PREVIOUSLY WAS LOOKING BACK AT WHAT THE EFFECTS OF OUR BOARD'S DECISIONS HAVE BEEN.

DID WE MAKE A DECISION THAT IS CONTRIBUTING AND NOW IT'S NOT.

JUST WE CAN GET THE FEEDBACK SO WE CAN PUT OURSELVES IN THAT

CONTEXT AND KEEP AN EYE ON IT. >>

>> OFTEN THAT COMES UP WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT.

IT INDICATES APPROVAL AND IT WILL TAKE AWAY FROM STATUS AND THE RISK ASSOCIATED WITH APPROVAL.

AND DEPENDING ON THE MAKEUP OF THE REPORTED ANY GIVEN TIME THERE COULD BE A GREATER WILLINGNESS TO ACCEPT THAT.

I THINK IT IS SOMETHING THE BOARD NEEDS TO BE AWARE OF AS

THEY MAKE DECISIONS. >> I'M CERTAINLY MORE AWARE OF IT NOW. WE TALKED ABOUT IT.

>> >> OKAY.

>> ANYTHING ELSE ANY COMMENTS BEFORE --

>> DO WE WAIT AN ENTIRE MONTH? >> WE WILL LET YOU CALL THE NEXT

MEETING. >> IT HAS BEEN A LOT THIS WEEK.

>> WE DO. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

I APOLOGIZE WE DIDN'T GIVE YOU AS MUCH ATTENTION AS YOU DESERVE

WE APPRECIATE YOUR HARD WORK. >> THANK YOU STAFF.

>> THANK YOU. >> WE ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC

[Items 7 - 8]

COMMENT. COME ON UP.

YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

>> I JUST WANT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT AT THE SCHOOL BOARD MEETING LAST MONTH THEY GOT UP AND TOLD THE SCHOOL BOARD THAT YOU GUYS VOTED TO PUT THEM INTO THE HISTORIC DISTRICT WHICH FREAK THEM OUT LIKE YOU WOULDN'T BELIEVE.

I DID STAND UP AND SAY NOTE YOU WERE JUST ADDED TO A LIST FOR CONSIDERATION. BUT THAT INFORMATION IS OUT THERE. SO WHAT I AM THINKING IS, NOW THAT THOU HAS GIVEN THE LIST AND GOTTEN PUBLICITY, PEOPLE ARE

[02:55:01]

GOING TO RESPOND TO THAT. PEOPLE HEAR ABOUT IT AND GOODNESS ONLY KNOWS WHAT THEY WILL HEAR.

>> THANK YOU. >> I APPRECIATE YOU STAYING.

>> THE MESSAGES WE WOULD LIKE THEM TO BEEP BUT THAT DOESN'T

MEAN THEY WILL BE. >> YOU ARE RIGHT GOT THERE ON

THE LIST. >> SO, I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT I KNOW YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING WITH THE CITY COMMISSIONERS ABOUT THE CONSISTENCY AND I APPRECIATE THE DISCUSSION TONIGHT AROUND PROTECTING THE MEDIA.

I WAS SURPRISE OR MAYBE THIS IS JUST ANOTHER AREA WHERE 38 TO BE CLAIRE'S PATIENT WHEN I READ IT DOES SAY I THINK IT SAYS, IT IS VERY CONFUSING, I BELIEVE IT SAYS ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ARE SUPPOSED -- IT DOESN'T SAY SUBORDINATE I THINK IT SAYS ANCILLARY, FERTILE, IF AN AREA THAT NEEDS CLARIFICATION.

>> SO YOU THINK DID YOU THINK THE FILM IN CASE.

>> I THINK YOU DID A GREAT JOB ON THAT.

THERE'S NO QUESTION THERE IS AN IMPROVEMENT.

THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT YOU COULD BE CLEAR ON WHAT YOU CAN DO. THAT IS MY POINT.

>> I'M NOT SURE WE CAN PROVIDE ENOUGH GUIDANCE AROUND SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO MAKE IT BLACK-AND-WHITE.

THERE ARE WAYS. >> I BRING THAT UP BECAUSE I KNOW YOU GUYS ARE GETTING A LOT OF FEEDBACK FROM PEOPLE.

PEOPLE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE HEIGHT.

I JUST WANTED TO BRING IT TO YOUR ATTENTION.

>> HIS BUILDING IS UNDER 24 FEET.

>> IT ABSOLUTELY IS. >> AGAIN I AM NOT CRITICIZING HIS DESIGN. I THOUGHT YOU DID A GREAT JOB IMPROVING AN OLDER STRUCTURE. BUT WHEN I LOOKED AT THE LDC, I'M BRINGING UP THE POINT OF THE LDC.

IT NEEDS CLARIFICATION. IT IS REALLY CONFUSING.

>> IT ONLY CAUSES ANGST IN OLD TOWN.

>> I APPRECIATE THAT. >> ANYTHING ELSE?

>> THERE WE GO.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.