[00:00:01]
GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO THE CITY OF DUBLIN'S ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING.
UH, THIS MEETING IS BEING LIVE STREAMED.
YOU CAN ACCESS, UH, VIDEO OF THIS OR OTHER MEETINGS THROUGH THE CITY'S WEBSITE.
UM, THIS MEETING FOR ANYBODY WHO IS UM, VIEWING THE LIVE STREAM IS BEING HELD AT 5 5 5 5 PERIMETER DRIVE THE CITY OF DUBLIN COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
UH, THE MEETING PROCEDURE THIS EVENING FOR EACH CASE WILL BE AS FOLLOWS.
UM, THE STAFF WILL INTRODUCE THE PARTICULAR CASE, UM, THEN THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A PRESENTATION.
THE BOARD WILL THEN ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF BOTH THE STAFF AND APPLICANT.
WE WILL THEN SEE IF THERE'S ANY PUBLIC COMMENT THAT'S BEEN SUBMITTED, WHETHER IT'S PUBLIC COMMENT FROM PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE OR EMAILS THAT WE RECEIVED.
UM, AND THEN WE WILL DELIBERATE AND REACH A CONCLUSION.
THE, UM, ANY SPEAKER WHO WOULD, WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE BOARD THIS EVENING WILL BE ASKED WHEN THEY COME UP TO GIVE US NOT ONLY THEIR NAME BUT THEIR ADDRESS AS WELL.
UM, WE START ALL OF OUR MEETINGS WITH THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
SO IF EVERYONE WOULD RISE AND FACE THE FLAG STATES, JUSTICE JUDY, WE CALL THE ROLL PLEASE.
[ACCEPTANCE OF DOCUMENTS and APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
IS THERE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE DOCUMENTS INTO RECORD AND APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE AUGUST 23RD IN THOUSAND 23 MEETING? SO MOVED.MR. ALEXANDER, OUR BOARD IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REVIEW OF CONSTRUCTION MODIFICATIONS OR ALTERATIONS TO ANY SITE IN THE AREA THAT IS SUBJECT TO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW UNDER PROVISION OF ZONING CODE SECTION 1 5 3 0.170.
WE HAVE THE DECISION MAKING RESPONSIBILITY ON THESE CASES.
ANYONE WHO INTENDS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON CASES THIS EVENING MUST BE SWORN IN.
SO IF YOU DO INTEND TO ADDRESS US, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND ANSWER IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
DO YOU SWEAR TO AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THIS BOARD? OKAY.
[Case #23-080]
ALRIGHT, OUR FIRST CASE IS CASE 23 DASH 0 8 0.THIS IS THE KAUFMAN HOUSE AT 5,300 EMERALD PARKWAY.
THIS IS A MINOR PROJECT REVIEW.
THE APPLICATION IS A REQUEST TO REPAIR AN EXISTING SIDEWALK AND CONSTRUCT A SIDEWALK EXTENSION AT AN EXISTING HISTORIC BUILDING IN KAUFFMAN PARK.
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A MINOR PROJECT REVIEW FOR REPAIRS OF AN EXISTING SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION OF A SIDEWALK EXTENSION AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS AT A HISTORIC BUILDING LOCATED WITHIN KAUFFMAN PARK.
THE SITE WHICH IS CURRENTLY OWNED BY THE CITY OF DUBLIN, IS HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW AND LOCATED NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF EMERALD PARKWAY AND KAUFFMAN PARK DRIVE.
THE CURRENT ZONING IS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT KAUFFMAN PARK AND IS LOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT AS AN APPENDIX G PROPERTY.
THE SITE IS SITUATED WITHIN KAUFFMAN PARK WITH THE CITY OF DUBLIN DEVELOPMENT BUILDING DIRECTLY LOCATED TO THE NORTH.
THE KAUFFMAN HOMESTEAD WAS BUILT IN 1865 BY THE KAUFFMAN FAMILY AND IT WAS REGISTERED TO THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES IN APRIL OF 1979.
IN APRIL OF 2018, THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED APPROVAL TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF AN AMENDED FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR AN UPDATED SIGN AT THE SITE TO BE PLACED WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY.
AND IN MAY OF 2018, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVED THAT AMENDED FILE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH A MINOR TEXT MODIFICATION.
THESE ARE THE EXISTING CONDITIONS OF THE SITE.
THERE IS CURRENTLY A STONE WALKWAY THAT EXTENDS OUT FROM THE CITY OF DUBLIN DEVELOPMENT BUILDING WITH ACCESS TO THE PARKING LOT, BUT DOES NOT CONNECT TO THE WALKWAY THAT WRAPS AROUND THE KAUFMAN HOUSE.
[00:05:01]
AND THIS IS THE CURRENT CONDITION OF THE SOUTH ENTRY STAIRCASE AND THE SURROUNDING STONE PATH OF THE SITE.SO THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN FOR THE PROJECT, UM, HIGHLIGHTED IN RED IS THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED SIDEWALK EXTENSION THAT WILL CONNECT THE SIDEWALK COMPLETELY AND HIGHLIGHTED IN BLUE IS THE LOCATION OF THE EXISTING SIDEWALK TO BE REPAIRED.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING USING OTTAWA BUFF RUSTIC STEPPING STONES PICTURED WITH THE REGULAR FLAGGING, PAIRED WITH A LIGHT GRAY MORTAR.
AND THE APPLICANT HAS ALSO PROPOSED A PROJECT ADD ALTERNATE TO SET BOTH THE EXISTING WALKWAY AND THE EXTENSION AND CONCRETE AS OPPOSED TO SETTING IT IN GRAVEL, WHICH IS THE CURRENT CONDITION.
IN ADDITION, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING REORDERING THE STEPS ON THE SOUTH FACADE SHOWN ON THE PREVIOUS SLIDE THAT ARE IN POOR CONDITION AND OVERALL REPAIRING THE EXISTING SIDEWALK, ADDING A SIDEWALK EXTENSION, REORDERING ALL JOINTS AND REPAIRING THE ENTRYWAY STEPS WILL BE A GREAT IMPROVEMENT TO THE CURRENT CONDITIONS WHILE MAKING THE HISTORIC SITE MORE ACCESSIBLE VIA THE PARKING LOT AND SURROUNDING PARK.
THE MINOR PROJECT REVIEW CRITERIA ARE ALL EITHER MET OR NOT APPLICABLE AND PLANNING RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE MINOR PROJECT WITH NO CONDITIONS.
WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND THE APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE AS WELL.
ANY INITIAL QUESTIONS? NONE ON MINE, SIR.
THE, UM, ADD ALTERNATE FOR THE CONCRETE MM-HMM.
UM, I'D LIKE TO INVITE THE APPLICANT UP TO SPEAK AS OKAY FOR THIS UM, PROJECT JUST TO CLARIFY THAT.
IF YOU WANNA COME OVER HERE TO THE, OH, SORRY.
I'M MICHAEL HYATT WITH CITY'S PARKS DEPARTMENT.
SO RIGHT NOW THE SIDEWALK SITS ON GRAVEL AND WE, THE FIRST PART OF THE PROJECT WOULD BE TO, UM, RELAY IT ON A GRAVEL BASE AND USE A POLYMERIC SAND AS THE JOINT.
SO THE ADD ALTERNATE IS TO EXCAVATE, PUT IN A FOUR INCH CONCRETE SLAB AND THEN SET THE ENTIRE SIDEWALK AND MORTAR AND THEN DO THE JOINTS AND MORTAR.
SO WE'RE VOTING ON TWO APPROACHES.
'CAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE GONNA TAKE THE AD ALTERNATE.
THE AD ALTERNATE IS WHAT WE PREFER TO TAKE ON THIS PROJECT.
SO IF WE APPROVE THE AD ALTERNATE, YOU'RE GONNA GO IN THAT DIRECTION? YES.
BOARD MEMBERS, ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY.
IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK TO THIS? OKAY.
IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINOR PROJECT WITH NO CONDITIONS? I'LL MAKE A MOTION.
SORRY, WHO? I'M SORRY YOU? YES.
I SHOULD HAVE ASKED DID WE GET ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS? OKAY.
[Case #23-097]
IS NUMBER 2 3 0 9 7 HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AND GUIDELINES UPDATE.UH, THIS APPLICATION IS REQUEST FOR A PROPOSED UPDATE TO THE HISTORIC DISTRICT CODING GUIDELINES, ALONG WITH A SUPPORTING MAP FOR REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION TO ADDRESS CITY COUNCIL'S 2022 GOAL REGARDING PRESERVATION, COMPOSITION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE DISTRICT, SPECIFICALLY ON CONTRIBUTING AND NON-CONTRIBUTING TERMINOLOGY AND APPLICANT APPLICABILITY OF THE DEMOLITION CRITERIA.
MS. ROUSH WILL BE OUR PRESENTER.
SO JENNY, WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.
GOOD EVENING AND THANKS FOR HAVING ME.
UM, I WAS BEFORE YOU IN MAY TO GIVE AN INITIAL PREVIEW OF THIS, UM, AMENDMENT.
AND SO WE'RE BACK THEN WITH OUR FORMAL, UM, PROPOSAL AND RECOMMENDATION.
AND I'M GONNA GO THROUGH SOME SLIDES AND GIVE YOU SOME UPDATES ABOUT, UM, SOME OF THE INFORMATION AND REFINEMENTS THAT WE'VE MADE FOR
[00:10:01]
YOUR CONSIDERATION.UM, AND PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND JUST FOR EVERYONE'S UH, SAKE.
SO OUR EXISTING CODE, UM, FROM AN APPLICABILITY STANDPOINT INCLUDES ALL PROPERTIES IN THE HISTORIC AND THOSE ON APPENDIX G.
UM, IT REALLY FOCUSES ON THOSE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS, USES SETBACK, SITE DEVELOPMENT SIGN, UM, AND THEN ULTIMATELY OUR REVIEW PROCEDURES.
SO IT'S REALLY THAT SORT OF BACKBONE AND BASE FOR HOW WE LOOK AT DEVELOPMENT, UM, IN TERMS OF STANDARDS, UM, AND REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPERTIES IN THE DISTRICT.
AND ON APPENDIX G, UM, WITHIN THE PARTICULAR CODE, UH, REVIEW PROCESS SECTION, IT TALKS ABOUT DEMOLITION.
AND WITHIN THAT SECTION WE DIFFERENTIATED WITH THIS AMENDMENT THAT WE DID IN 20, UH, 21, 22 TIMEFRAME, 21, UM, TIMEFRAME FOR HOW WE APPLY THE DEMOLITION CRITERIA.
SO IF YOU WERE A CONTRIBUTING VERSUS A NON-CONTRIBUTING BUILDING, WHICH THAT DESIGNATION CAME FROM OUR HISTORIC AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT THAT WE DID IN 2019, UM, IF YOU'RE CONSIDERED A CONTRIBUTING BUILDING, THEN YOU HAVE A HIGHER BURDEN OF DEMOLITION CRITERIA TO MEET.
VERSUS IF YOU'RE IN A NON-CONTRIBUTING STATUS, THEN THE BURDEN IS LESS AND YOU ONLY HAVE TO MEET ONE OF THREE CRITERIA.
UM, AND THIS WILL BE APPLICABLE AS WE MOVE FORWARD INTO WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING.
UM, IN TERMS OF THE GUIDELINES, THEN THAT IS INTENDED TO SUPPLEMENT THE CODE.
UM, IT'S MORE DISCRETIONARY IN NATURE BECAUSE IT REALLY HAS TO DO WITH THE CHARACTER AND THE CONTEXT.
UM, WHICH RESULTS IN SCALE AND DESIGN AND SOME OF THOSE FEATURES THAT, AGAIN, DEPENDING ON THE STRUCTURE AND THE TIMEFRAME MAY VARY.
UM, AND THE, AND WHERE IT'S LOCATED IN THE DISTRICT, WHAT THAT NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT LOOKS LIKE WITHIN THE GUIDELINES, THE MAIN GOALS OF THAT AND HOW WE, HOW WE USE IT AND HOW THE BOARD APPLIES IT IS FOR ORIGINAL AND HISTORIC BUILDINGS LOOKING AT THAT REHAB AND PRESERVATION FOCUS.
WHEREAS NEW ADDITIONS AND BUILDINGS ARE INTENDED TO LOOK AT COMPATIBILITY AND APPROPRIATENESS.
SO THE INTENT OF THAT IS TO OBVIOUSLY THE HIGHER SCRUTINY FOR MORE HISTORIC ORIGINAL BUILDINGS TO THE DISTRICT.
UM, AND THEN LOOK FOR COMPATIBILITY FOR BUILDINGS THAT ARE EITHER NEWER OR WE'RE MODIFYING.
UM, SO AS I MENTIONED, THIS HAS BEEN, AND YOU READ IN THE INTRO, THIS HAS BEEN, UM, PART OF COUNCIL'S DISCUSSION, UM, BACK TO THE BEGINNING OF 2022, WHICH WAS RELATED TO THEIR GOAL SETTING AT THE TIME AND WANTING TO TALK ABOUT THE HISTORIC DISTRICT GIVEN THE CHANGES THAT WE HAD MADE WITH OUR RECENT CODE AND GUIDELINE UPDATES AND HOW THAT'S BEING IMPLEMENTED.
UM, WE HAD A WORK SESSION WITH COUNCIL THEN FOLLOWING THAT IN APRIL OF 2022, WHERE WE HAD A SIGNIFICANT DISCUSSION ABOUT PRESERVATION, WHAT SHOULD BE PRESERVED, AND PARTICULARLY THE CONTRIBUTING, NON-CONTRIBUTING DESIGNATIONS AND HOW THAT APPLIES TO DEMOLITION.
UM, AND COUNSEL ASKED US TO DO SOME ADDITIONAL RESEARCH, UM, WHICH WE THEN WENT BACK TO THEM IN AUGUST OF LAST YEAR AND PROVIDED A DETAILED INVENTORY, WHICH A MORE UPTODATE VERSION WAS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET.
SO IT'S ESSENTIALLY EVERY PROPERTY IN THE DISTRICT AND IDENTIFY HAVING A PHOTO OF THAT AND THEN A TIMEFRAME FOR WHEN THAT WAS ORIGINALLY CONSTRUCTED, JUST TO HAVE EVERYBODY ON THE SAME PAGE ABOUT WHAT THE, WHAT THE ADDRESS AND WHAT THAT BUILDING LOOKS LIKE, AND THEN HOW IT CONTRIBUTES FROM A HISTORIC PERSPECTIVE TO THE DISTRICT.
UM, SO TRYING TO THEN FROM THAT WORKSHOP, THEIR DIRECTION WAS TO FIGURE OUT THEN BASED ON THAT INFORMATION, HOW DO WE DETERMINE WHAT THIS REVIEW PROCESS IS FOR PRESERVATION, BUT PARTICULARLY FOR DEMOLITION.
AND THEN WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO WITH THE CODE AND THE GUIDELINES TO ADDRESS THAT, TO REALLY FOCUS THAT DISCUSSION.
AGAIN, GOING BACK TO THE CONTRIBUTING NON-CONTRIBUTING DESIGNATIONS, THAT THERE WAS NOT A GREAT COMFORT LEVEL WITH THAT AND HOW THAT WAS DETERMINED.
SO IS THERE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO DEFINE THIS DIFFERENTLY? SO THIS YEAR IN MAY, UH, WE WENT TO A COUNCIL WORK SESSION AND PROVIDED THEM THIS NEXT LEVEL OF HOW WE GOT TO, WHICH I'LL TALK ABOUT HERE AND WAS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET, BUT HOW WE GOT TO THE PROPOSAL THAT'S BEFORE YOU TONIGHT, CHECKING IN WITH COUNSEL, MAKING SURE WE'RE GOING THE RIGHT DIRECTION BASED ON WHAT THEY ASKED US TO DO.
AND THEN PROVIDING THE BASIS FOR HOW WE, UM, HOW WE GOT THERE AND IF ADDITIONAL PROPERTIES OR ITEMS NEEDED TO BE ADDED OR INCLUDED.
SO I'M GONNA TALK THROUGH THAT REAL QUICK HERE ON THE SCREEN.
AND AGAIN, THIS WAS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET.
UM, BUT WHAT WE ESSENTIALLY DID WAS KNOWING THAT WITHIN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, SO THE DARKER SORT OF AERIAL OUTLINE, THAT'S THE HISTORIC DISTRICT BOUNDARIES, YOU'LL SEE IN THE SORT OF CENTER SOUTH OF BRIDGE STREET IS A RED OUTLINED AREA WITHIN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
WE HAVE A NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES DISTRICT.
SO WE ALREADY HAVE A DISTRICT WITHIN A DISTRICT ESSENTIALLY, UM, BECAUSE THAT'S REALLY THE CORE OF THE CITY IN TERMS OF A HISTORIC PERSPECTIVE.
SO WE IDENTIFIED ALL THOSE PROPERTIES WITHIN THAT DISTRICT OR WITHIN THAT RED BOUNDARY AND
[00:15:01]
IDENTIFIED THOSE AS THOSE PROPERTIES WITH THE EXCEPTIONS OF THE ONES THAT HAVE BUILT WITHIN OUR MOST RECENT HISTORY, WHICH ARE SHOWN AS GRAY.THOSE WOULD BE CONSIDERED THEN WHAT WE'RE NOW CALLING LANDMARK BUILDINGS.
THEN WE ALSO THEN LOOKED AT THE BUILDINGS THAT ARE IDENTIFIED AS ORANGE ON HERE AS PROPERTIES THAT ARE INDIVIDUALLY LISTED ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER AND INCLUDED THOSE IN WHAT WE ARE NOW ALSO CALLING THE, THE LANDMARK, UM, BUILDINGS.
AND THEN WE LOOKED AT, OKAY, WHAT'S THE TIME PERIOD FOR WHICH YOU ARE EITHER IN THE, IN SORT OF THE RED BOUNDARY AND THE ORANGE BUILDING SO WE COULD UNDERSTAND LIKE WHAT ARE THE DATES OF THOSE BUILDINGS AND THEN SHOULD WE THEN BE CONSIDERING OTHER BUILDINGS THAT ARE NOT GREEN OR ORANGE TO THEN BE INCLUDED BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED DURING THAT SAME HISTORICAL TIME PERIOD.
UM, SO THAT IS A NUMBER OF THE BLUE BUILDINGS THAT ARE INCLUDED ON THERE.
UM, AND THEN THERE WERE THEN A COUPLE, UM, INDIVIDUAL BUILDINGS AND I CAN TALK THROUGH SPECIFICS IF THERE'S QUESTIONS THAT WERE OUTSIDE THE TIME PERIOD BUT WE FELT LIKE CONTRIBUTED TO THE OVERALL CHARACTER CONTEXT.
SO LIKE AN EXAMPLE OF THAT WOULD BE THE OLD POST OFFICE WHERE FOX IN THE SNOW IS.
SO THAT'S OUTSIDE THE TIME PERIOD, BUT THAT IS A VERY ICONIC BUILDING THAT CONTRIBUTES TO THE CHARACTER.
SO WE FELT LIKE THAT FOR EXAMPLE, SHOULD BE INCLUDED ALSO.
UM, SO THOSE THEN ARE WHAT WE ARE NOW CALLING LANDMARK BUILDINGS AND THEN THE GRAY BUILDING.
SO EVERYTHING ON HERE THAT'S GRAYED OUT WITHIN THE DISTRICT IS CONSIDERED A BACKGROUND BUILDING.
SO THE, THE DISTINCTION FOR THIS IS THAT ANYTHING THAT'S A LANDMARK BUILDING WILL HAVE TO ADHERE TO THAT HIGHER BURDEN OF DEMOLITION CRITERIA AND ANYTHING THAT IS CONSIDERED A BACKGROUND BUILDING OR THE GRAY BUILDINGS HAS TO ADHERE TO DEMOLITION CRITERIA.
BUT IT'S THAT FORMER NON-CONTRIBUTING.
SO EITHER WAY DEMOLITION IS COMING BEFORE THE BOARD.
THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION AND INFORMATION FOR YOU ALL TO REVIEW.
IT'S JUST THE LEVEL OF SCRUTINY IS DIFFERENT, UM, IN THAT BUILDINGS THAT FILL FULFILL THIS SORT OF GREEN, ORANGE BLUE, WHICH WE'LL CONSOLIDATE THAT INTO A SINGLE COLOR, BUT JUST WANTED YOU ALL TO UNDERSTAND THE METHODOLOGY TO THAT.
UM, THAT'S HOW WE CAME TO THAT DECISION.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE SHARED WITH COUNCIL, UM, AND THEY WERE SUPPORTIVE OF THAT.
BUT OBVIOUSLY WANTING THIS NEEDS TO GO THROUGH THE REVIEW PROCESS AND UNDERSTAND, UM, FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE.
AND THEN THIS WILL ULTIMATELY GO TO PLANNING COMMISSION AND THEN TO COUNCIL FOR FINAL REVIEW, BUT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S NOT ANY OTHER PROPERTIES, BUILDINGS, THINGS THAT NEED TO BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THIS AMENDMENT.
UM, SO THEN WE'VE ALSO HAD A COUPLE PUBLIC INPUT SESSIONS.
SO FOLLOWING THAT, UM, NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING, OR EXCUSE ME, THAT COUNCIL WORK SESSION IN MAY, THEN THERE WAS A RESIDENT MEETING THAT I ATTENDED.
UM, AND THEN I SUBSEQUENTLY CAME TO A R B RIGHT AFTER THAT.
SO I PROVIDED AN UPDATE TO YOU ALL THEN AT THAT POINT.
UM, AGAIN, CONCERNS ABOUT THE REVIEW PROCESS, HOW WE'RE APPLYING THE CODE, SORT OF THAT DISCRETIONARY NATURE OF THINGS.
THOSE WERE PEOPLE'S LARGEST CONCERNS.
UM, SO THAT'S DEFINITELY SOMETHING THAT WE'RE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND MORE FULLY AND HOW DO WE INCORPORATE THAT, AND I'LL TALK ABOUT THAT HERE IN A MINUTE.
HOW WE'RE, UM, LOOKING TO MAYBE TACKLE THAT.
WE THEN HAD A, UM, AN EDUCATIONAL SESSION A COUPLE WEEKS AGO TO AGAIN, HELP PROVIDE, 'CAUSE THERE WAS A LOT OF QUESTIONS AT THAT MAY MEETING OF, YOU KNOW, HOW THE CODE, HOW WE GOT THERE OVER TIME.
AND I INCLUDED THAT ALSO IN YOUR PACKET FOR REFERENCE SO THAT YOU COULD SEE THAT.
'CAUSE WE'VE MADE A LOT OF CHANGES AND I'VE BEEN HERE ALMOST 20 YEARS.
SO WE'VE CHANGED THE CODE MULTIPLE TIMES AGAIN TO TRY TO ADDRESS THE CHANGING NATURE OF THE DISTRICT.
UM, SO AGAIN, CHANGE COMES LOTS OF QUESTIONS.
SO TRYING TO EXPLAIN THAT AND SHARE WHAT THE CODE IS, WHAT THE GUIDELINES ARE, HOW THOSE APPLY, WHAT YOUR ROLE IS, HOW WE SUPPORT APPLICANTS, BUT HOW WE ALSO SUPPORT THE BOARD.
SO THAT WAS ALSO A REALLY GOOD SESSION.
UM, SIMILAR CONCERNS ABOUT THE LENGTH, LENGTH OF PROCESS, HOW WE'RE GOING THROUGH REVIEWS, SORT OF THAT DISCRETIONARY PIECE CONTINUES TO SORT OF BUBBLE UP AS SOMETHING THAT'S UM, A CONCERN.
AND THEN LOOKING AT OPPORTUNITIES, WHICH AGAIN, I THINK WE'VE DONE OVER TIME FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS.
SO FOR MODIFICATIONS THAT DON'T NECESSARILY NEED TO RISE TO COMING TO A R B, UM, HOW DO WE, ARE THERE OTHER OPPORTUNITIES TO DO THAT AND WHAT THAT MIGHT BE.
SO, AND AGAIN, DEFINITELY WANT YOUR FEEDBACK ABOUT THAT, UM, AS SORT OF A PART TWO OF THIS CONVERSATION.
SO, UM, WE ALSO THEN HAVE A MEETING SCHEDULED FOR OCTOBER 11TH AS ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY IF THERE ARE TOPICS TO DISCUSS.
UM, WE DIDN'T HAVE A SET AGENDA FOR THAT MEETING, BUT ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO GET TOGETHER AND HELP UNDERSTAND WHAT NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS ARE AND CAN PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON THIS PROCESS AS PART OF THAT.
SO IN TERMS OF WHAT'S BEFORE YOU TONIGHT, UM, YOU HAVE A REVISED CODE AND GUIDELINES WHICH APOLOGIZE FOR NOT HAVING THE RED LINE IN THERE AT THE END OF LAST WEEK.
[00:20:01]
UM, SO THAT SHOWS THEN, EXCUSE ME, THE PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THAT CONTRIBUTING NON-CONTRIBUTING LANGUAGE TO THEN WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING AS LANDMARK AND BACKGROUND BUILDINGS BASED ON THE METHODOLOGY.UM, SO A LOT OF INSTANCES IT'S REALLY JUST CHANGING THE NAMES.
UM, WE DID ALTER THE DEFINITIONS TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S CLEAR.
UM, AND THEN WITHIN THE GUIDELINES THERE WAS A LITTLE ADDITIONAL, UM, MODIFICATIONS TO THAT.
UM, JUST TO CLARIFY PARTICULARLY THE GUIDELINES HAVE A MAP IN THERE THAT HAVE A CONTRIBUTING NON-CONTRIBUTING DESIGNATION.
SO WE'RE OBVIOUSLY GONNA UPDATE THAT TO COINCIDE WITH, UM, WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED.
SO THEN THE LAST PIECE OF THIS IS THEN THE SORT OF PHASE TWO.
SO AGAIN, GOING AND TAKING THE FEEDBACK FROM UM, RESIDENTS, ARE THERE ADDITIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS THAT WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT, UM, TO ADDRESS THIS CONCERN? UM, WE'VE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS ABOUT HOW TO IMPROVE OUR REVIEW PROCESS AND THE TIMEFRAMES INTERNALLY, HOW CAN WE LOOK AT THAT BEING A QUICKER TURNAROUND? 'CAUSE IT DOES TAKE TIME TO DO THAT.
UM, BUT, AND THEN ALSO COMING BACK TO A R B WITH THEN IF THERE'S ADDITIONAL REVISIONS TO THE CODE, THAT COULD SORT OF BE A SECOND PHASE OF THIS THAT WE COULD TACKLE ONCE WE COMPLETE THIS SORT OF COUNCIL DIRECTIVE DIRECTED OBJECTIVE.
UM, THERE ARE SOME MINOR TWEAKS WITHIN THE CODE, LIKE ERRORS OR REFERENCES THAT NEED TO BE REVISED.
SO WE CAN LOOK AT THAT AS PART OF THAT.
AND THEN THAT ORIGINAL HISTORIC AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT DID NOT FOCUS SPECIFICALLY ON SOME OF OUR OUTBUILDINGS AND SOME OF THOSE HISTORIC OBJECTS AND HOW THOSE ARE CLASSIFIED.
SO WE'RE ON THE PROCESS OF LOOKING AT THOSE.
'CAUSE WE DO HAVE A NUMBER OF STRUCTURES THAT ARE OUT BUILDINGS THAT LOOK HISTORIC, BUT WE DON'T HAVE ANY DOCUMENTATION FOR THAT.
UM, SO HOW DO WE HELP UNDERSTAND WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS ARE FOR THOSE? SO, UM, AGAIN, SO TONIGHT, AS I MENTIONED, WE'RE LOOKING FOR A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, UM, FOR THE CODE AND THE GUIDELINES.
AND THEN, UM, ALSO THOUGH LOOKING FOR YOUR DISCUSSION FEEDBACK ABOUT WHAT THAT PHASE TWO COULD OR SHOULD INCLUDE.
UM, AGAIN, A LOT OF DISCUSSION TOO AS PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONVERSATION WAS IF YOU'RE A BACKGROUND BUILDING, WHAT IS THE LEVEL OF REVIEW AND SCRUTINY FOR THE CODE, BUT ALSO PARTICULARLY THE GUIDELINES, UM, IN THAT IT'S, IT'S SIGNIFICANT TO THE DISTRICT BUT IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY RISE TO THAT SORT OF HISTORIC LEVEL, UM, THAT WE'RE SUBJECTING THE LANDMARK BUILDINGS TO.
SO THAT WAS A, I THOUGHT A REALLY GOOD QUESTION TO TALK THROUGH OF HOW DO WE HELP YOU ALL AND RESIDENTS AND OURSELVES UNDERSTAND AND, AND INCLUDE, UM, YOU KNOW, HOW THE CODE AND THE GUIDELINES SHOULD APPLY OR COULD APPLY.
SO THAT IS THE END OF MY PRESENTATION.
HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS OR REVIEW THINGS IN DETAIL.
WE DID GET ONE PUBLIC COMMENT, WHICH I'LL HAVE TO PULL UP HERE.
UM, SO IF ANYBODY ELSE WANTED TO MAKE COMMENT WHILE I'M GETTING THAT, BUT BEFORE WE GET INTO, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT IF THIS IS ADOPTED, THIS DOES NOT CHANGE THE ZONING.
SO IF YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT DEMOLITIONS COULD LEAD TO IN TERMS OF NEW BUILDS AND BULK AND MASS, NO STILL NEW STRUCTURES WILL STILL NEED TO MEET THE CURRENT LIMITS AND ZONING OF THE PROPERTY AND THERE WILL BE A REVIEW PROCESS.
SO I KNOW THERE, THERE HAVE BEEN SOME CONCERNS ABOUT SOME OF THE NEW BUILDS AND SO THOSE, THE LIMITATIONS THAT WE HAVE IN OUR CODE ON THOSE WILL NOT CHANGE AND THERE WILL STILL BE THE REVIEW PROCESS.
SO THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY LEADING TO A CARTE BLANCHE FOR PEOPLE TO TAKE STRUCTURES DOWN AND OVERBUILD, UM, THE PROPERTIES.
SO I JUST, I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT FOR EVERYBODY WHO'S IN THE AUDIENCE WHO'S INTERESTED IN THIS TO BE AWARE.
THIS IS JUST, THIS INITIAL PORTION IS JUST ABOUT THE DEMOLITION STANDARDS.
OKAY, SO THEN THE ONE PUBLIC COMMENT THAT WE RECEIVED VIA EMAIL IS, UM, FROM DAVID VINNY AT 56 SOUTH RIVERVIEW STREET IN DUBLIN.
THE CITY'S RESEARCH AND DETERMINATION STATE THAT EVERY HOME LOCATED ON FRANKLIN STREET IN THE EAST SIDE OF SOUTH VIEW SHOULD NOT HAVE AN ELEVATED STANDARD FOR CONSIDERATION FOR DEMOLITION, THUS SIGNALING NO HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE.
THE CITY ALSO STATES THAT THESE HOMES WILL REMAIN UNDER THE PURVIEW OF A R B CODE AND GUIDELINES.
I ASK THAT THE A R B TAKE STEPS TO ADJUST THE BOUNDARIES OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT TO ACCURATELY REFLECT THE TRULY HISTORIC AREAS OF DUBLIN.
THE SWATHS OF GRAY HOMES ON FRANKLIN AND THE EAST SIDE OF SOUTH RIVERVIEW REPRESENT A HISTORIC OVERREACH AND AN ADDITIONAL BURDEN.
THE A R B NEED NOT CARRY THE 21 BACKGROUND HOMES CAN BE RESPONSIBLY PASSED.
SO THE CITY OF DUBLIN TO MAKE SURE BUILDING STANDARDS ARE UPHELD, ALLOWING THE A R B TO MORE TIGHTLY
[00:25:01]
FOCUS ON ITS MISSION OF PRESERVING THE HISTORIC SITES IN DUBLIN.THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION FOR AND FOR ALL YOUR WORK TO MAKE THE CITY OF DUBLIN A BETTER PLACE.
BEST, DAVID, VINNY, UH, MAYBE WE'LL GO THROUGH OUR, OUR COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS AND THEY'RE PROBABLY MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS.
SO LET US ASK OUR INITIAL UH, CONVERSATIONS, THEN I'LL OPEN IT UP TO MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE.
AND WHO WOULD LIKE TO START MICHAEL? SO, SO JENNY, HOW'S THIS GONNA IMPACT THE APPENDIX G PROPERTIES? UM, I MEAN NOW SEEMS TO BE THE TIME TO ALSO LOOK AT THOSE AT THE SAME TIME.
UM, ESPECIALLY WHEN, YOU KNOW, THERE'S SOME THAT ARE PROBABLY NOT GONNA FALL NOW IN THE LANDMARK BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN SOME DURATIONS.
UM, THERE'S SOME PROPERTIES IN THE APPENDIX GS THAT HAVE MULTIPLE DWELLINGS AND WE MAY ONLY HAVE ONE.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW WHICH IS THE CITY OWNED, WHICH ARE NOT.
SO I THINK IT'S ALSO A GOOD TIME TO DIVE INTO THE APPENDIX G HOMES AT THE SAME OR PROPERTIES AT THE SAME TIME.
IS THAT POSSIBLE? YEAH, I MEAN WE JUST UPDATED THAT WITH THE CODE IN 21, BUT THAT'S A GOOD REFERENCE POINT FOR US TO LOOK AT AS WE GO FORWARD.
WE WERE, I DON'T THINK WE CLEARLY SPELLED THAT OUT, BUT MY INTENTION I THINK WAS FOR THOSE TO FOLLOW THAT MORE, THAT HIGHER LEVEL OF SCRUTINY.
UM, JUST BECAUSE WE HAVE A NUMBER OF OTHER HISTORIC BUILDINGS LOCATED THROUGHOUT THE CITY THAT ARE NOT ON APPENDIX G, SO THAT THESE WERE INITIALLY CHOSEN, UM, TO HIGHLIGHT THEIR HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE.
BUT WE COULD DEFINITELY CHECK THAT BEFORE WE GO TO PLANNING COMMISSION TO SEE, AGAIN, ASSUMING YOU ALL WANNA MOVE THIS FORWARD TONIGHT, UM, WE CAN DEFINITELY CHECK AND MAKE SURE THAT THAT TIMEFRAME IS, IS SIMILAR AND THAT THEY ARE WORTHY OF THAT LEVEL OF SCRUTINY OR IF THERE NEEDS TO BE A MODIFICATION MADE TO BE CONSIDERED MORE BACKGROUND.
UM, AGAIN, I FEEL LIKE OUR MOST RECENT SCRUB OF THAT REALLY HIGHLIGHTED, WE FELT LIKE THOSE WERE STILL NECESSARY TO BE ON THERE AND WE DID ADD THE CITY OWNED HISTORIC STRUCTURES TO THAT LIST TOO.
SO, WHICH COULD FALL WITHIN THAT TIME PERIOD.
THAT'S A GREAT AND YOU, AND YOU BRING UP A GOOD POINT.
WE HAVE THE NEW CONSTRUCTION OF THE CABIN OVER THERE AT THE ARTS COUNCIL THAT HASN'T REALLY BEEN NAMED AND IDENTIFIED AND THERE'S PROBABLY A FEW OTHER CEMETERIES THAT REALLY PROBABLY COULD FALL ON THAT LIST AS WELL.
UM, SO YEAH, GOOD, GOOD THOUGHT.
BUT I JUST THINK IT'S A GOOD TIME TO, IF WE'RE GONNA DO THIS, LET'S LOOK AT ALL OF IT.
SO JAN, I GOT A COUPLE, THEY'RE MORE IN THE DETAILS OF THE CODE.
SO I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IN, IN, UH, IS IT J IS IT J TWO A WHERE THE, THE RED LINE ON JT? YOU CAN PROBABLY HAVE TO FIND IT AND IT TALKS ABOUT, UM, JUST TRYING LANDMARK, UH, UH, PER THE DETERMINATION OF THE A R B USING, USING THE HISTORIC DISTRICT MAP.
SO, AND IT COMES BACK TO WHY YOU WOULD NEED A WAIVER DOWN FARTHER.
SO IS THE MAP ARBS TO ADAPT OR IS THE CITY GONNA MAINTAIN AND THEN, OR, OR IF THERE'S AN ADAPTATION TO BE MADE, LET'S PICK FRANK, WANT SOME, SOME STRUCTURE THAT SOMEBODY EITHER WANTS TO, LET'S SAY LIKELY DOWNGRADE IN A CERTAIN SENSE.
HOW WOULD, WHERE DOES THAT SIT? IS THAT GONNA COME TO THE CITY FOR THEN THE A R B TO SAY WE WOULD AGREE OR WILL YOU AS PLANNING SAY, HEY WE SEE WHAT THEY'VE COME WITH THIS, WITH THIS REQUEST AND WE SEE THE REASONING BEHIND IT, JUST KIND OF PROCESS WISE.
'CAUSE AT THE END IF IT COMES LIKE THAT, THEN WAIVERS WOULDN'T BE NEEDED.
'CAUSE THE NEXT SECTION IS ABOUT HOW DO YOU DO A WAIVER.
BUT IF YOU CHANGE THE DISTRICT, IT WOULD, IT WOULD COME THROUGH HERE.
AND THEN PE I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY A WAIVER WOULD EVER BE NEEDED.
SO THE WAY IT CURRENTLY EXISTS IN WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING SIMILARLY IS THAT CONTRIBUTING, NON-CONTRIBUTING DESIGNATION IN THE EXISTING, UM, IS IN THE EXISTING GUIDELINES.
SO WE, AND THAT IS WHAT WE USE AS A REFERENCE, WHICH WAS BASED ON THE HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT.
SO WITH THE PROPOSAL, WE ARE ALSO RECOMMENDING THAT THAT LIVE WITHIN THE GUIDELINES BASED ON THE DISCUSSION AND THE RECOMMENDATION.
AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS REVIEWED BY YOU ALL AND THEN RECOMMENDED AND THEN ULTIMATELY APPROVED BY COUNCIL.
SO THAT WOULD BE A COUNCIL APPROVED DOCUMENT.
SO THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO YOUR POINT IN THE CODE THAT SOMEONE COULD COME FORWARD AND SAY, WE WANT TO REQUEST TO BE CONSIDERED A BACKGROUND BUILDING, NOT A LANDMARK BUILDING.
SO THEN THAT WOULD, WE COULD CONDITION THAT LIKE AS PART OF THE APPROVAL OF THAT, THAT WE WOULD THEN BE ALLOWED TO CHANGE THE, THE MAP IN THE GUIDELINES TO REFLECT THAT.
SO IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT I WOULD HAVE THE AUTHORITY OR PLANNING WOULD HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CHANGE WITHOUT COUNSEL OR YOUR APPROVAL DEPENDING ON HOW THAT LANDS.
SO COULD A R B CHANGE THAT OR, OR NOT? AGAIN, WE'D HAVE TO LOOK AT THE SEQUENCING OF THAT.
YEAH, I THINK IT WOULD MAKE SENSE THAT IF THE BOARD HAS THE DISCRETION
[00:30:01]
AND AN APPLICANT IS COMING FORWARD TO YOU TO REQUEST GOING FROM A LANDMARK TO A BACKGROUND, THAT YOU WOULD THEN HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CHANGE THAT MAP.UM, BUT THEN IT WOULDN'T BE A WAIVER.
UH, I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE FROM A PROCESS STANDPOINT, IF IT EVER COMES UP, HOW, HOW WOULD WE, JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT IT DOESN'T COME AS A WAIVER TO US AND THEN WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO, WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO GIVE A WAIVER TO SAY IT'S, IT GOES FROM LANDMARK TO BACKGROUND.
'CAUSE FARTHER DOWN AND I FORGET WHAT SECTION I WOULD THINK WE WOULD, WE'RE PROPOSING THAT THAT STAY THE SAME, THAT THEY COULD MAKE A WAIVER REQUEST TO DETERMINE THAT THE BUILDING IS A LANDMARK VERSUS A BACKGROUND BUILDING.
SO WE ARE, WE'RE SUGGESTING THAT SAME, WELL WE'D LIKE TO GO THE OTHER WAY, RIGHT? IT'D BE A LANDMARK.
I'M JUST, IT LIKELY GO THE OTHER WAY.
SO WE'RE GONNA, WE'RE GONNA TAKE IT FROM A HIGHER THRESHOLD TO A, TO A DIFFERENT THRESHOLD.
THAT IS HOW IT CURRENTLY STANDS AND WE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THAT BE THE SAME.
BECAUSE I'M JUST TRYING TO SAY 'CAUSE IT WOULD MAKE SENSE.
I WOULD THINK WE WOULD CHANGE THE MAP.
I MEAN IF YOU ULTIMATELY MAKE A DECISION THAT A BUILDING THAT WAS LANDMARK IS GOING TO BE A BACKGROUND BUILDING, THE MAP WOULD THEN NEED TO BE CHANGED TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THAT.
AM I NOT ANSWERING OR I FEEL LIKE I'M NOT ANSWERING? YEAH, IT'S JUST MORE ON THE PROCESS I'S IT'S MORE ON THE, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT IF WE CHANGE IT AND IT'S NOT A WAIVER, RIGHT, WE'RE GONNA CHANGE IT AND IT'S GONNA BE CHANGED.
WELL THE WAIVER WOULD, WELL WE WOULD CHANGE IT.
SO WHATEVER THE BASELINE IS WHEN THIS IS ADOPTED WOULD THEN BE WHAT THE DESIGNATION IS.
IF SOMEBODY THEN FELT LIKE, WELL I'M A LANDMARK BUILDING IN THIS NEW MAP AND I THINK I SHOULD BE A BACKGROUND, THEY COULD MAKE THAT WAIVER REQUEST TO YOU AND YOU COULD CHANGE IT AND THAT WOULD THEN RESULT IN THE MAP CHANGING.
BUT WE WOULD SORT OF ESTABLISH A NEW BASELINE I GUESS.
BUT IT'LL SIT, IT WILL SIT HERE.
IT WON'T HAVE TO GO INTO ANOTHER CURRENTLY THAT'S HOW WE HAVE IT.
AND YOU BRING UP A GOOD POINT TO KEEP THAT MAP ACCURATE AT THAT POINT IN TIME.
'CAUSE THEN WE'LL BE OUTDATED IF WE DON'T KEEP THAT MAP UPDATED.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE'VE, WE'VE HAD THAT BEFORE WHERE PEOPLE, UM, WE'VE HAD SOMEONE ON APPENDIX G DEMOLISH A BUILDING AND THAT WAS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT WE WOULD BE GIVEN THE AUTHORITY TO THEN CHANGE THE MAP.
'CAUSE THAT'S WITHIN YOUR PURVIEW TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION.
ONE QUESTION, ONE COMMENT I HAD.
THE, THE LANGUAGE IS REALLY UNIQUE WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED BECAUSE IT'S RARE IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT FOR SOMEONE TO BE ABLE TO TEAR SOMETHING DOWN WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT'S GONNA REPLACE IT.
SO THAT'S ONE OF THE BIG CHANGES HERE IN THE CODE.
THERE COULD BE, IF THIS IS APPROVED, MOST HISTORIC DISTRICTS, WE NEED TO SEE, AS I WAS READING THE LANGUAGE, THAT WE DON'T NEED TO APPROVE IN THIS CHANGE A NEW DESIGN TO APPROVE THE DEMOLITION.
IS THAT CORRECT? IF IT'S A LANDMARK BUILDING, RIGHT.
BUT IF IT'S A NON LANDMARK BUILDING, WHEREAS CURRENTLY WE NEED TO SEE A DESIGN FOR THAT SITE, RIGHT.
CURRENTLY THE, IT WOULD, AGAIN, WE'RE GOING WITH WHAT THE EXISTING CODE SAYS.
SO ONLY IN THE CURRENT CODE, ONLY CONTRIBUTING BUILDINGS ARE REQUIRED TO SHOW YOU THAT.
SO NON CONTRIBUTING WOULD NOT SAY BUT CONTRIBUTING.
LET'S, LET'S, YEAH, LET'S BROADEN.
CONTRIBUTING IS THE WHOLE AREA.
SO, SO THE BIG CHANGE IS INSTEAD OF THE WHOLE AREA, US HAVING TO SEE WHAT'S GOING TO GO ON THAT LOT WHEN SOMETHING'S DEMOLISHED, UM, IT'S ONLY FOR THESE NEW LANDMARK STRUCTURES.
SO THAT'S NOT COMMON IN HISTORIC DISTRICTS.
SO YOU COULD HAVE OPEN PARCELS AS WE WAIT TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS.
SO WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S A GOOD IDEA I THINK IS OPEN FOR DISCUSSION AND QUESTION.
UM, BECAUSE IT, IT LITERALLY WILL CHANGE THE FABRIC OF THE COMMUNITY IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO TAKE A STRUCTURE DOWN.
AND SO NOW IT'S LIKE HAVING, UM, GAPS IN, IN GAPS IN THE FABRIC OF THE COMMUNITY.
SO THERE'LL BE OPEN THERE, THERE CAN BE OPEN SPACES AND THERE'S NO GUARANTEE HOW LONG THOSE OPEN SPACES WILL BE WHILE THE STRUCTURE'S BEING DEMOLISHED.
SO THAT'S ONE CHANGE IF, IF THAT IS APPROVED AND I CAN SEE PROVIDING SOME LATITUDE IF THAT'S APPROVED.
DO WE REQUIRE A SITE RESTORATION PLAN TO COME WITH THE APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION? BECAUSE SOME, SOME COMMUNITIES ARE NOT HISTORIC DISTRICTS WHERE THERE IS DEMOLITION SPECULATIVE DEMOLITION GOING ON, THEY REQUIRE, IF THERE'S A LAG BETWEEN WHEN THAT PRO PROPERTY'S DEVELOPED AND THE HOUSE COMES DOWN, THEY REQUIRE A SITE RESTORATION PLAN.
SO WE DON'T HAVE, UM, JUST RAW EARTH ON A, WHICH WHICH COULD BE FOR YEARS.
SO DO WE, IS THAT IN THE GENERAL CODE SOMEPLACE? THAT'S, THAT'S A REQUIREMENT.
I MEAN THAT IS TYPICALLY SOMETHING, SO WE HAVE THIS IN THE HISTORIC OR IN THE BRIDGE STREET DISTRICT WHERE PEOPLE DEMOLISH THINGS AND THEN THEY DON'T HAVE SOMETHING TO BUILD.
THAT'S PART OF SOMETHING WE REQUIRE THEM TO DO.
SO WE CAN DEFINITELY, IF THAT'S NOT CLEAR ENOUGH, WE COULD DEFINITELY CLARIFY THAT.
AND AGAIN, I THINK AS PART OF YOUR REVIEW
[00:35:01]
OF THE DEMOLITION COULD REQUEST THAT THAT THAT BE SHOWN SORT OF WHAT THIS INTERIM CONDITION IS.I MEAN FROM A CITY PROPERTY MAINTENANCE PERSPECTIVE, YOU WOULD, IT WOULD NEED TO BE SEATED AND GRADED AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
BUT WE COULD MAKE THAT CLEARER IF IT'S NOT.
I MEAN THAT'S OUR, THAT'S OUR TYPICAL STANDARD.
UM, AND, AND MY OTHER POINT IS, I MAY HAVE MISREAD THE LANGUAGE AS I WAS LOOKING AT THIS, BUT IN THE RED LINE SECTION FOR THE, FOR THE NEW CRITERIA AS I WAS READING THAT THERE ARE NOW THREE, THREE STANDARDS FOR THE NEW CRITERIA FOR, FOR THE NON LANDMARK BUILDINGS FOR DEMOLITION AND, AND THEY ONLY NEED TO MEET ONE OF THOSE.
BUT IT SEEMED LIKE IT WAS POSSIBLE THAT THE, UM, STRUCTURE COULD HAVE DISTINCT ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES AND CHARACTERISTICS AND UM, MEET ONE OF THE OTHER CRITERIA AND BE DEMOLISHED AGAIN.
SO IT'S, WE JUST CHANGED THE LANGUAGE FROM THE CONTRIBUTING TO NON-CONTRIBUTING.
SO AGAIN, IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU ALL FEEL STRONGLY THAT THERE SHOULD BE, YOU SHOULD HAVE TO MEET MORE THAN ONE CRITERIA.
THAT'S, I MEAN THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE TO TALK ABOUT.
SO THAT'S, THE CURRENT CODES ARE ALSO SAYS THAT, THAT YOU ONLY HAVE TO MEET ONE OF THE THREE, BUT IF IT HA ISN'T THAT WHAT WE'RE HERE TO DO, IT PRESERVES THINGS THAT HAVE, UM, ARCHITECTURAL MERIT AND VALUE.
AND SO IF WE ARE PERMITTING, IT SEEMS LIKE THAT PART OF THE CODE SHOULD BE CHANGED BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO PERMIT THE DEMOLITION OF THINGS THAT HAVE ARCHITECTURAL MERIT OR VALUE.
I MEAN, AGAIN, THAT THAT IS PART OF YOUR PURVIEW IS WHEN YOU REVIEW VARIOUS APPLICATIONS AND HOW YOU THINK THAT APPLIES.
I THINK THAT WOULD ALSO BE MAYBE HELPFUL TO LOOK AT THE BUILDINGS THAT ARE NOT, THAT ARE CONSIDERED THEN THE BACKGROUND BUILDINGS.
AND IF YOU THINK THOSE HAVE THAT SORT OF ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE, THEN MAYBE THOSE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE A LANDMARK BUILDING VERSUS A BACKGROUND BUILDING.
SO I MEAN, THAT'S ALSO ANOTHER WAY TO APPROACH THIS.
UM, IT JUST, I'M JUST, I'M NOT SURE THE SOLUTION, BUT IT, THAT POTENTIAL SEEMS CONTRARY TO WHAT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING.
UH, AND I LIKE YOUR COMMENT TOO ABOUT THE IDLE PROPERTIES, IF IT'S DEMOLISHED, AND THEN WHO'S RESPONSIBLE OF KEEPING THE WEEDS DOWN AND YOU KNOW, I MEAN, WHAT'S IT GONNA LOOK LIKE OVER A PERIOD OF TIME? UM, I, I LIKE THAT I, YOU KNOW, WHAT YOU'RE THINKING THERE.
IT'S LIKE WE NEED TO HAVE SOMETHING SAYING, OKAY, IT'S GONNA BE REDONE INTO, YOU KNOW, GRASSLAND OR WHATEVER.
SO WE KIND OF KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON VERSUS IT JUST LOOKS LIKE IT'S AN ABANDONED HOLE AND CONSTRUCTION SITE AND WE'VE KIND OF GOT A PROPERTY ON, UH, NORTH OR SOUTH HIGH RIGHT NOW THAT WE'VE BEEN CONTINUALLY LOOKING AT THAT'S WAS PARTIALLY DEMOLISHED ON THE INSIDE AND IT'S KIND OF AN EYESORE THERE ON, ON SOUTH HIGH.
UH, AND IT'S BEEN SITTING THERE FOR WHAT, SEVERAL YEARS.
SAME SITUATION THAT, UM, THAT'S A GOOD EXAMPLE OF LIKE, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY WENT IN AND DID SOME DEMOLITION, NOT NOTHING'S BEEN DONE.
SO, UH, I LIKE YOUR POINT ON THAT.
I THINK THAT'S JUST ANOTHER GOOD EXAMPLE OF WHAT COULD DO THE DISTRICT, BUT JENNY, I MEAN RIGHT THERE, THAT WOULD FIT IN THE MAINTENANCE CODE AND WOULD FIT IN THE ZONING CODE.
AND ABANDONED A PROPERTY THAT HAS GOT SOME OTHER ISSUE WILL FIT IN THE OVERALL YES, ABSOLUTELY.
AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE, YOU HAVE TO MOW THE GRASS AND KEEP THAT MAINTAINED.
SO I MEAN CODE CODE DEFINITELY COVERS THAT CURRENTLY.
SO THAT SITS IN ANOTHER PART OF IT.
A COUPLE QUESTIONS AND THEN A COMMENT.
SO THE QUESTION IS, FIRST ONE IS, I WAS LOOKING AT THE MAP AND YOUR EXPLANATION OF THE ORANGE AND THE BLUE AND THE GRAY.
I MISSED WHERE THE GREEN WAS INCLUDED IN YOUR CATEGORIZATION.
DOES IT HAVE THE SAME PROTECTION? IS THE ORANGE OKAY, I I MISSED THAT.
THE, THE NEXT QUESTION IS WHEN DID WE GO FROM, I THINK IT USED TO BE THAT A DEMO PERMIT WOULD BE ISSUED IF YOU MET TWO OF FOUR CRITERIA, RIGHT? WAS IT 10 YEARS AGO? AND WE'RE AT SOME OTHER STANDARD NOW.
SO THAT ONE, THAT ONE GOT BY ME.
SO AS FAR AS I KNOW, WE'RE SORT OF ON A TREND LINE DOWNWARD.
AND SO WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED IS A SINGLE CRITERION FOR THE ORANGE PROPERTIES, THE LANDMARKS, WHICH IS ECONOMIC,
[00:40:02]
NON SOMETHING RATHER NON VIABILITY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.I THINK IT'S JUST FOR THE SINGLE CRITERIA IS JUST FOR THE NON LANDMARK, THE NON LANDMARK, WHAT WE'RE CALLING NON LANDMARK.
SO THE GREEN, THE GRAY, THE GRAY, THE GRAY, ONLY THE GRAY, ONLY THE GRAY.
CAN YOU GO BACK TO THAT SLIDE PLEASE? OKAY.
SO THE ONES, YEAH, THE ONES THAT ARE GREEN, ORANGE AND DARK BLUE HAVE THAT HIGHER BURDEN OF SCRUTINY.
SO ANY OF THOSE PROPERTIES HAVE TO MEET THAT ECONOMIC HARDSHIP, WHICH IS A VERY, VERY ECONOMIC STRINGENT CRITERIA TO MEET THE ONES THAT ARE IN GRAY.
AGAIN, WE, THE CURRENT CODE IS ONE OF THREE CRITERIA.
SO WHEN THAT WAS APPROVED IN 2021, THAT'S HOW THE CODE WAS ESTABLISHED THAT YOU MEET ONE OF THREE.
SO THEN CHANGING THIS LANGUAGE, WHICH AGAIN, THE CONTRIBUTING WAS A LARGER NUMBER OF PROPERTIES, BUT, SO THIS WOULD MEAN THEN FOR THE GRAY BUILDINGS, YOU ONLY HAVE TO MEET ONE OF THREE AS IS CURRENTLY PROPOSED.
SO I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S PART OF THIS DISCUSSION TONIGHT, WHAT YOU ALL FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH.
SO THE ECONOMIC, THE MAIN PROTECTION OF THE LANDMARKS IS THAT ECONOMIC HARDSHIP, RIGHT? MM-HMM.
SO HERE'S MY COMMENT, WHICH CAN PROBABLY BE BACKED UP.
I, UH, I THINK WHEN I FIRST MOVED IN, IN 19, UH, 96, WENT TO THE COMMUNITY PLAN UPDATE MEETINGS AND, UH, IT FOR MAYBE DIFFERENT REASONS THAT WAS IN THE AIR PRESERVATION ISSUES.
UM, THE, I THINK IT'S PRETTY DEMONSTRABLE THAT ECONOMIC HARDSHIP IS, COMES WITH THE TERRITORY OF OWNING HISTORIC INVENTORY.
I DON'T THINK ANY OF THE HISTORIC STRUCTURES PROVIDE ANYTHING BUT ECONOMIC HARDSHIP TO THE OWNERS.
AND YOU CAN WALK DOWN THE STREET AND YOU CAN OBSERVE THOSE FALLING APART AND THOSE THAT AREN'T.
AND THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS MASSIVE CAPITAL OUTLAYS AND CONTINUOUS, UH, OVERSIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE.
SINCE I OWN ONE, I KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.
THEREFORE, I PROPOSE THAT THAT ONE CRITERION THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE THE GATEKEEPING CRITERION TO KEEP THE INVENTORY UP IS NOT A VERY STRONG CRITERION YOU MIGHT CALL IT.
I MEAN, I'VE SEEN A LOT OF 'EM GO THROUGH THAT WHEN IT WAS ONLY ONE OF THE TWO.
THERE ARE A LOT OF DEMOS THAT WERE ALLOWED BECAUSE ONE OF THOSE ONE WAS ECONOMIC HARDSHIP AND OKAY, YOU GOT ONE OTHER ONE DOWN IT COMES.
SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CURRENT STRINGENT CRITERION VERSION OF THE STRINGENT CRITERION IS, BUT IN THE PAST IT WASN'T THAT STRINGENT BECAUSE EVERYBODY KNOWS WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE NORTH RIVERVIEW PROPERTIES, FOR INSTANCE, THEY'RE, THEY WERE DELIBERATELY LET GO.
AND SO ANYBODY'S GONNA KEEP THEM STANDING AND IN USE HAS GOT TO PUT A LOT OF MONEY INTO 'EM.
SO THAT'S WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE WHEN YOU DON'T PUT THE MONEY IN.
SO THOSE THAT DON'T LOOK LIKE THAT, THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN AUTOMATICALLY.
ALL OF THOSE ARE LOOKING GOOD BECAUSE OF SIGNIFICANT MAINTENANCE AND ATTENTION.
SO THAT'S WHY WHEN YOU KNOW THE OWNER OF 1 0 9 SOUTH AND, UH, WHOEVER OWNS LIKE, OH, I FORGET WHAT THE NUMBER IS, THE SMALL PLACE THAT'S, UH, IT'S, UH, BOTH OF THOSE WERE, UH, LAWYER, UH, LEGAL OFFICES.
AT ONE POINT I WAS RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY, THEY SHOULD BE GIVEN AWARDS FOR PRESERVATION, UH, ALONE, JUST PURE PRESERVATION AWARDS JUST LAUDED THEM BECAUSE THEY TOOK VERY GOOD CARE OF THEIR INVENTORY.
SO I'M JUST SAYING, I DON'T THINK THERE'S MUCH PROTECTION AT ALL BASED ON MY, THE BOARD.
SOMEONE CAN PRESENT THEIR, THEIR DEFINITION OF ECONOMIC HARDSHIP.
THAT DOES NOT MEAN THE STAFF OR THE THE BOARD WILL AGREE WITH THAT.
AND SO APPROVAL IS STILL REQUIRED.
IT WOULD BE GOOD IF THAT WERE QUANTIFIED BECAUSE I'M CERTAIN THOSE THAT WERE APPROVED FOR DEMO, INCLUDING UNDER THE ECONOMIC HARDSHIP IN THE PAST, MAYBE THAT IS ADJUDICATED DIFFERENTLY.
BUT IT WOULD SURE BE GOOD TO KNOW HOW IT'S SO MUCH HARDER TO GET THAT, UH, STATUS
[00:45:02]
IF YOU REALLY WANT IT TO BE A PROTECTION, KNOWING THAT IT REALLY HASN'T BEEN YOU, YOUR POINT IS YOU'D LIKE TO SEE EVEN MORE STANDARDS FOR THE PROTECTION OR AT LEAST QUANTIFY IT, RIGHT? BECAUSE I KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE TO LIVE IN ONE OF THESE THINGS AND IT'S ENDLESS.THERE'S ALWAYS A ROOM, YOU KNOW, WE'RE READY TO GUT THE 200 YEAR OLD SECTION OF OUR HOUSE.
'CAUSE IT NEEDS TO HAVE AN INTERNAL INSPECTION AND BE SHORT UP.
IF I'M GONNA BE A GOOD STEWARD OF THAT PROPERTY, I GOTTA LAY OUT 50 GRAND TO GUT THE FRONT OF MY HOUSE AND YOU WON'T SEE THE DIFFERENCE.
YOU'LL WALK DOWN THE STREET AND YOU'RE LIKE, OH, ISN'T THAT NICE? YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T NOTICE THAT I'M LAYING OUT TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO KEEP IT FROM CHANGING.
ITS, YOU KNOW, IT'S CHARMING, LEAN AT A CERTAIN ANGLE AND NOT, YOU KNOW.
SO I HOPE PEOPLE ARE CONSIDERING THAT.
'CAUSE I, I DON'T RE YOU KNOW, MY EXPERIENCE SAYS THAT THAT'S NOT A PROTECTION.
CITY COUNCIL HAS ATTEMPTED TO CHANGE THE LANGUAGE OF, UM, REGARDING MAINTENANCE OF STRUCTURES.
SO THERE ARE PENALTIES THAT ARE APPLIED TO OWNERS WHERE IT APPEARS THEY ARE INTENTIONALLY LETTING THEIR STRUCTURES DETERIORATE.
ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT? WE GET? ONE MORE.
DO I HIT A BUTTON? YOU'RE YOU'RE ON, YOU'RE ON.
I LIVE AT 1 79 SOUTH RIVERVIEW.
UM, I WANNA FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE AND FOR YOUR TIME.
UM, I MOVED HERE THREE YEARS AGO AND I, I WANNA SPEAK OF TWO THINGS.
FIRST OF ALL, MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE AND THEN WHAT I HAVE LEARNED SINCE I HAVE LIVED HERE TALKING TO COMMUNITY, UM, I RENOVATED MY HOUSE WITH YOUR APPROVAL.
IT WAS INTIMIDATING, BUT I KNEW WHAT I HAD TO DO TO DO WHAT I NEEDED TO DO TO MAKE MY HOUSE LIVABLE.
I THEN WENT FORWARD AND TRUSTED IN YOUR GUIDANCE THAT YOU WOULD LOOK AFTER ME AS A PROPERTY OWNER.
I AM DISAPPOINTED, AND I'LL SAY THIS PUBLICLY TO WHAT HAPPENED TO ME TO MY LEFT.
IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT MY HOUSE, THAT'S MY, I AGREE.
THAT IS MY PERSONAL, SO THEREFORE YOUR CREDENCE IS, IS SOMEWHAT TAINTED IN MY EYES.
I'M ALSO HERE TO TRY AND WORK TOGETHER.
I, I WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE TO WORK TOGETHER.
SO THEREFORE I WENT FROM HOME TO HOME TO HOME WITH ANOTHER NEIGHBOR.
AND WHAT I HEARD WAS, IF YOU HAVE POWER AND YOU HAVE INFLUENCE, YOU CAN BUILD WHATEVER YOU WANT, GARY OR SMIRKING.
WELL, I I I I DON'T APPRECIATE THAT.
NO, I, I WILL, I WILL, I'LL RESPOND TO THAT.
I'LL RES I'LL RESPOND TO THAT IN A MOMENT BECAUSE WHAT'S, BECAUSE IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT TRUE.
MAY I CONTINUE? YEAH, PLEASE DO.
WHETHER IT BE TRUE OR NOT, BUT THE GENERAL FEELING UP AND DOWN FRANKLIN AND UP AND DOWN MY STREET IS IF YOU HAVE ENOUGH WEALTH AND INFLUENCE, YOU CAN GET THROUGH CITY COUNCIL, YOU CAN GET THROUGH THE A R B IF YOU HAVE TIME AND MONEY.
THOSE PEOPLE THAT DON'T, AND I EXPERIENCE ON A MUCH LESSER LEVEL, IF THOSE PEOPLE THAT DON'T, THEY WOULD RATHER HAVE THEIR HOMES FALL IN PERIL, THEN HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS.
AND DO YOU WANT DUBLIN, OLD DUBLIN TO HAVE, BE REFLECTED OF THE HASS, THE HAVES AND THE HAVE NOTS? AND AS YOU CAN TELL BY MY VOICE, I'M VERY PASSIONATE ABOUT THIS AND I'M NOT HERE REALLY, REALLY, MARTHA, I'M NOT HERE TO ARGUE WITH YOU.
I'M HERE TO TRY AND HELP AND I'D LIKE TO GET INVOLVED AND I'D LIKE TO HELP BECAUSE THERE'S, THERE'S A, THERE'S A
[00:50:01]
DISCOURSE.DO YOU WANT ME TO RESPOND? SURE.
WELL, FIRST OF ALL, THIS BOARD IS VERY DIFFERENT IN TERMS OF THE COMPOSITION OF MEMBERS THAN IT WAS WHEN THE HOUSE YOU'RE REFERRING TO CAME BEFORE US, UNFORTUNATELY, EXCUSE ME.
THIS BOARD, THE COMPOSITION OF THIS BOARD IS VERY DIFFERENT THAN IT WAS WHEN THAT HOUSE THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO CAME BEFORE THIS BOARD BOARD.
I WAS THE ONLY PERSON WHO VOTED AGAINST THAT HOUSE.
IT'S, IT'S INAPPROPRIATE IN MY OPINION.
SO TALK TO THE, TALK TO THE FOUR WHO VOTED.
NOW, ONE OF THE THINGS WE'VE DONE, BECAUSE IT'S DIFFICULT FOR EV NOT EVERYONE VISUALIZES THINGS VERY WELL.
THE, YOU'RE NOT THE FIRST PERSON WHO'S COMPLAINED ABOUT THAT HOUSE.
AND SO THE CITY HAS DEVELOPED, AND THE, AND PEOPLE OUTSIDE THIS BOARD KNOW THAT HOUSE IS A PROBLEM.
SO THE CITY'S DEVELOPED A TOOL THAT WILL ASSIST THIS BOARD, UH, TO, SO THAT PEOPLE CAN BETTER VISUALIZE THE THREE DIMENSIONAL IMPACT OF PROPOSED DESIGNS, WHICH CLEARLY WAS AN ISSUE FOR SOME PEOPLE WHEN THAT PROJECT CAME BEFORE US.
UM, THERE'S SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT, IN TERMS OF, LOOK, SOME PEOPLE, THE PROCESS CAN BE EASIER IF YOU WORK IN ANY ARCHITECTURE REVIEW SETTING, IF YOU WORK WITH A DESIGN PROFESSIONAL THAT'S WORKED IN THAT COMMUNITY BEFORE THAT.
SO YOU, WHEN YOU LOOK AT SOME PEOPLE WHO, NOW THAT DOESN'T MEAN THERE'S, THERE'S SOME ARCHITECTS WHO WHO'VE WORKED IN THIS COMMUNITY BEFORE, THEY STILL HAVE SOMETIMES HAVE COME BEFORE US FOUR TIMES FOR ONE PROJECT.
THAT DOESN'T MEAN, UM, THINGS ARE RUBBER STAMPED, BUT, BUT IT MAY APPEAR THAT SOME PEOPLE'S PROJECTS MOVE THROUGH WITH LESS, UM,
MAYBE IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE GETTING LESS SCRUTINY AND MAYBE IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE BEING TREATED DIFFERENTLY.
BUT THERE ARE PEOPLE, THEY'RE, THEY, THEY, WELL, PERRY, THAT'S PERCEPTION AND PERCEPTION IS YOU, YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND PERCEPTION.
I MEAN, IT'S, UH, IT'S, IT'S PER IT'S PERCEPTION.
BUT IF, IF PEOPLE LOOK CLOSELY AT, AT THE FACTS AND AT THE MERITS OF THE PROJECTS THAT ARE PROPOSED, IN MANY CASES, NOT ALL, BUT MANY CASES, I, I, I THINK YOU'LL SEE THAT THE PEOPLE WHO WORK WITH DESIGN PROFESSIONALS WHO DO THIS REGULARLY DO GET THROUGH THE APPROVAL PROCESS A LITTLE BIT EASIER.
BUT WE, WE HAVEN'T HAD NOBODY ON THIS BOARD THAT I'M AWARE OF HAS NO COUNCIL MEMBER HAS CONTACTED US YET.
I, I, YOU KNOW WHAT, WE COULD GO ON AND ON AND AROUND OR GROUND ABOUT THIS.
AND I, I I, I, I DON'T THINK IT'S GONNA SOLVE ANYTHING TONIGHT.
UM, I, I I WOULD DISAGREE THAT I THINK IT'S UN-AMERICAN TO ASK, UH, A RESIDENT TO USE A CERTAIN ARCHITECT.
WE'RE NOT ASKING YOU, BUT WE'RE JUST, IT'S JUST EXPERIENCE.
IF YOU LOOK AT WHO EXCELS, IF YOU, IF YOU HAD A PROFESSIONAL SPORTS TEAM, WHO WOULD YOU, WHO WOULD YOU CHOOSE? YOU WOULD CHOOSE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE BEST AT THAT PARTICULAR SPORT.
AND IT'S ANYTHING IN LIFE IF YOU'RE PICKING A DOCTOR.
BUT AGAIN, I GO BACK, LET'S, I GO AROUND AGAIN.
IT'S, IT'S THE HAVES AND THE HAVE NOTS, WHICH, WHICH THOSE PEOPLE CAN'T AFFORD.
THEY CAN'T AFFORD TO HIRE A $30,000 ARCHITECT.
CAN I CHIME IN MAYBE TOO? YEAH, MAYBE.
LET ME, LIKE TIMEFRAME WISE, I THINK THAT'S ALSO, YOU BRING UP A REALLY GREAT POINT, AND WE DID TALK ABOUT THAT IN THE MEETING THAT WE HAD A COUPLE WEEKS AGO, WHICH IS WHY I GAVE THAT BACKGROUND DISCUSSION.
'CAUSE THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF CONCERN ABOUT THE SCALE OF RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS IN PARTICULAR THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED.
AND THE PREVIOUS CODE DID NOT HAVE RESTRICTIONS ABOUT IT HAD LOT COVERAGE, BUT IT DID NOT HAVE BUILDING COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS.
AND TO GET AT THAT EXACT CONCERN THAT YOU'VE RAISED.
UM, AND WE'VE HEARD FROM OTHERS THE NEW CODE.
AND WE'RE, AGAIN, WE'RE NOT PROPOSING TO, AS GARY SAID AT THE BEGINNING, TO PROPOSE CHANGES TO THOSE STANDARDS.
WE HAVE INCLUDED A BUILDING COVERAGE STANDARD, WHICH MEANS THEN THAT YOU HAVE THAT EXTRA LEVEL OF, TO THE BOARD HAS THAT EXTRA LEVEL OF SCRUTINY IN THAT THE SIZE OF A RESIDENTIAL HOME THAT CAN BE BUILT HAS TO MEET THAT PERCENTAGE REQUIREMENT BECAUSE THAT, BECAUSE THAT HAS BEEN A PROBLEM AND THAT THE CODE DIDN'T LIMIT THAT.
SO IF YOU MET THE LOT COVERAGE YOU COULD, AND YOU HAVE A BIG LOT, YOU COULD HAVE A SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER HOME THAN THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT WOULD WANT YOU TO.
SO YEAH, I SAY I APPRECIATE YOUR SAYING.
[00:55:01]
IT'S TOO BAD.DIDN'T HAPPEN, UH, PRIOR TO WHAT, UM, I APPRECIATE THAT.
AND I DON'T WANNA TAKE UP ANY MORE TIME.
AGAIN, I'M HERE TO HELP MOVE FORWARD WHAT HAPPENED TO ME.
UH, I WOULD LIKE NOT TO HAPPEN TO ANYBODY ELSE.
AND, AND I'D LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD.
AND, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS HELP CHANGE THOSE PEOPLE THAT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE CHANGES TO, TO THEIR, UH, EXISTING HOMES WITHOUT THE INTIMIDATION OF THE A R B AND WHAT I MEAN, INTIMIDATION, I MEAN MONEY GOING FORWARD.
UM, IT'S, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO, TO, FIRST OF ALL, YOU BUDGET TO RENOVATE YOUR HOME ON THE EXTERIOR.
AND THEN YOU ALSO HAVE TO BUDGET AT THIS, I'M SORRY, I'M GONNA SAY IT.
OH, I PROMISED I WASN'T GONNA USE THAT WORD.
ANYWAY, THAT'S, THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO SAY.
I, I WOULD LOVE TO WORK TOGETHER TO TRY AND FIGURE THIS OUT.
I WOULD JUST LIKE TO CLARIFY TOO, THAT YOU MADE THE STATEMENT, GARY DID THAT, UH, YOU NEED TO WORK WITH THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL WHO HAS WORKED IN THIS AREA.
BUT I THINK REALLY WHAT GARY WAS SAYING IS YOU NEED TO WORK WITH A DESIGN PROFESSIONAL WHO HAS EXPERIENCE OF WORKING IN HISTORIC DISTRICTS.
BECAUSE WHAT WE HAVE SEEN IS SOME DESIGN PROFESSIONALS WHO HAVE COME IN AND HAVE NOT HAD REALLY ANY UNDERSTANDING ABOUT THE PRESERVATION AND THE, AND THE REQUIREMENTS FOR PRESERVATION.
BUT MY MOST IMPORTANT POINT IS, AS A HOMEOWNER, WE REALLY WANT PEOPLE TO COME IN, EVEN MAYBE BEFORE YOU HIRE A DESIGN PROFESSIONAL AND TALK WITH STAFF.
AND THEY ARE AVAILABLE TO YOU TO LOOK AT PROJECTS, GIVE IDEAS AND INFORMAL FEEDBACK FOR NO COST.
AND WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE THAT.
WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE THAT PEOPLE USE THE STAFF FOR AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE COMPLICATED RULES ARE.
SO THAT'S JUST TWO THINGS I'D LIKE TO EMPHASIZE THAT ARE A AVAIL AVAILABLE THAT WE FREQUENTLY DO NOT SEE HAPPEN.
AND, AND MARTHA, I HAVE SEEN IT IN MY, MY MID, MY MERE THREE YEARS OF LIVING HERE.
WHEN, WHEN I LIVED HERE, I NEEDED A NEW ROOF.
AND THE, THE REACTION FROM UNFORTUNATELY, CITY COUNCIL, THEIR HANDS WERE TIED AND THEY SAID, WELL, YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING UNTIL YOU GO TO THE A R B.
JUST SIMPLY PUT A TARP OVER IT.
WHICH I THOUGHT WAS ABSOLUTELY LUDICROUS.
BUT THEIR HANDS WERE TIED BEFORE I WENT BEFORE THIS BOARD.
UM, AND, AND I, I, AGAIN, I WOULD LIKE, WE COULD, WE COULD GO ROUND AND ROUND AND I, I, I'D JUST LIKE TO SEE SOME CHANGES.
I'D LIKE TO SEE THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY MORE COMFORTABLE APPROACHING THE A R B AND NOT FEELING INTIMIDATED AND SCARED.
THIS IS A COMMUNITY, APPARENTLY YOU WORK FOR US AND I APPRECIATE YOUR VOLUNTEER WORK.
UM, BUT FROM WHAT I'VE HEARD IN THE COMMUNITY, IT, IT, IT IS TIME TO COME TOGETHER AND, AND TO, TO FIND A SOLUTION TO THIS.
IT'S BEEN GOING ON FOR MANY YEARS, MA'AM.
I I'M WELL RELATIVELY NEW TO THE BOARD.
UM, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHERE THIS INTIMIDATE FEELING OF INTIMIDATION IS COMING FROM THIS STAFF.
WELL, HILLARY STAFF IS AVAILABLE SUGGEST TO SPEAK TO THE COMMUNITY
I I BUT THE CODE IS THERE, TO ME, IT'S FAIRLY CLEAR.
WHAT I GET A SENSE OF IS THAT PEOPLE COME IN WITH A PREDETERMINED IDEA OF WHAT THEY WANT AND THEN THEY FEEL IN TURN IN.
UNLESS YOU EXPERIENCE THE LITTLE THAT I EXPERIENCED, UH, YOU DON'T HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING.
I I, AND AGAIN, I HATE TO SHUT IT DOWN LIKE THAT, BUT YOU REALLY DON'T.
AND I WAS MET WITH, UM, GO AWAY, COME BACK IN ANOTHER MONTH.
GO AWAY, COME BACK ANOTHER MONTH.
I, I I DON'T WANT TO, I I, I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU DO ANYWAY.
WOULD ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK TO US? COME ON UP.
UM, I JUST WANNA SAY I'M KATE VESSELS.
I LIVE AT 63 SOUTH RIVERVIEW STREET AND I KNOW GARY KNOWS WHO WE ARE.
[01:00:01]
DUBLIN AND EVERYBODY REALLY LOOKING AT THESE RULES AND LOOKING AT THE PROCESS BECAUSE THAT'S REALLY A FIRST STEP OF, UM, CHANGE AND ENGAGING THE COMMUNITY.AND SO, UM, I, MY GOAL IS NOT TO TRASH TALK PEOPLE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
I JUST REALLY HOPE THAT YOU LISTEN TO HER COMMENT AND 'CAUSE SOMETIMES IT SEEMED LIKE THERE WAS A DEFENSE AND THERE WASN'T LIKE, OH, TELL ME MORE ABOUT THAT.
AND, UM, YOU KNOW, WHAT SHE'S SAYING IS VERY CORRECT.
I MEAN, WE HAD MONEY TO BE ABLE TO DO THINGS.
WE HAD TO GO THROUGH THREE SEPARATE MEETINGS AND LIKE ONE THING WAS CHANGED AT A TIME AND UM, WE HAD LESS RULES AND THINGS LIKE THAT AT THAT TIME.
BUT IT WAS JUST VERY FRUSTRATING BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE, I DON'T KNOW WHO SPECIFICALLY IT IS, BUT SOMETIMES MONEY IS NOT ON YOUR MINDS.
IT FEELS LIKE, BECAUSE YOU'RE JUST LIKE, OH, WELL NO, WE SHOULD TWEAK THIS.
AND SO PEOPLE ALREADY BUY THIS EXPENSIVE HOME.
WE DIDN'T EXPECT TO GET EVERYTHING WE WANTED.
WE WANTED SOME INPUT, BUT WE DIDN'T WANT IT TO BE SUBJECTIVE INPUT WHERE IT WAS LIKE, WELL, YOU KNOW, I THINK YOU MISSED AN OPPORTUNITY HERE.
AND, AND OH, I THINK THESE DIFFERENT THINGS, OR I'D PREFER THIS COLOR.
WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY COMING FOR THAT.
WE, WE DO WANNA WORK WITH YOU.
THOSE ARE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE WOULD GET BACK THAT WOULD BE REALLY FRUSTRATING BECAUSE WE DID HAVE AN ARCHITECT THAT WAS FAMILIAR WITH THE AREA.
SO OUR EXPERIENCE WAS NOT WHAT YOU SHARED WITH JANE.
AND UM, I JUST REALLY HOPE THAT YOU WILL TAKE IN FEEDBACK AND I DON'T THINK ANYBODY'S HERE TO BE MALICIOUS OR ATTACK OR MAKE ANYBODY UNCOMFORTABLE, BUT IT'S KIND OF THAT INSIGHT TO KNOW, HEY, IF SOMETHING'S GOING ON, MAYBE WE'RE IN THIS GROUP THINK POSITION AND WE'RE NOT REALLY HEARING OR SEEING 'CAUSE WE DON'T LIVE IN THIS AREA AND KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE.
WE, THAT'S REALLY WHAT THIS WHOLE CONVERSATION'S ABOUT THE RELAXED DEMOLITION REQUIREMENTS ARE COMING ABOUT BECAUSE OF THE THINGS WE'VE HEARD MM-HMM.
UM, SO THAT PROJECTS CAN COME BEFORE US.
AND RECENTLY, THIS DIDN'T USED TO BE THE CASE, BUT WITHIN THE PAST FEW MONTHS, THE STAFF HAS PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN TABLED.
THEY'VE BEEN BACK ON THE AGENDA THE NEXT MONTH.
SO THERE HASN'T BEEN THE LENGTH OF TIME THERE USED TO BE BETWEEN TABLING A PROJECT, GETTING THE DRAWINGS BACK, GETTING IT BACK ON THE AGENDA.
SO MAYBE IT'S NOT CLEAR THAT WE'RE BEING AS RECEPTIVE TO PEOPLE'S CONCERNS, BUT WE'RE, WE CERTAINLY ARE TRYING AND THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ABOUT.
AND THIS, IN THE, THIS ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW WE'RE GONNA TALK ABOUT HERE IN A MOMENT IS, WILL BE ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF HOW WE ARE, UM, TRYING TO BE, TRYING TO BE MORE RESPONSIVE.
SO, AND THAT'S REALLY ALL I THINK THE COMMUNITY WANTS AND JUST TO WORK TOGETHER AND, UM, YOU KNOW, AND JUST MAKE THIS PROCESS AS, UM, YOU KNOW, OBJECTIVE FOLLOWING THE RULES.
AND MAYBE, WELL, I WON'T EVEN GET INTO THAT, BUT
AND SO, UM, YOU KNOW, MY HUSBAND FOUGHT LIKE HELL TO GET WHAT WE HAVE AND WE'RE GRATEFUL FOR THAT.
AND THAT YOU GUYS APPROVED EVENTUALLY WHAT WE HAVE.
HELLO, UH, MY NAME IS LINDY LYON.
I LIVE AT 1 4 3 SOUTH RIVERVIEW STREET.
UM, LAST TIME I WAS HERE WAS ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO.
UM, WHEN WE WERE TOLD OUR HOUSE WAS HISTORIC, WE'RE ACTUALLY REALLY, UM, THANKFUL FOR, UH, THE CHANGES THAT STAFF AND CITY COUNCIL HAVE PUT TOGETHER, UM, IN HOPES TO BRING MORE CLARITY AND REASON AND, UM, HOPEFULLY SOME MORE FAIRNESS TO HOW PEOPLE FEEL.
AND, UM, JUST THE UNREASONABLE AND, AND SLIGHTLY IMPOSSIBLE BURDEN OF, UM, DEMOLITION CRITERIA THAT WAS ON US.
SO WE ARE, WE'RE INCREDIBLY THANKFUL
[01:05:01]
AND, UM, WE ACTUALLY FEEL LIKE EVEN A LITTLE BIT MORE CHANGE WHY WE'RE DOING THE CHANGE WOULD BE WONDERFUL.UH, I AGREE WITH THE INTIMIDATION SITUATION THAT PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT.
AND IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS THAT WE, WE HAVE HAD, PEOPLE ARE SO MUCH MORE VOCAL ABOUT HOW THEY FEEL AND WHAT'S GOING ON, BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT SITTING IN THIS INTIMIDATING ROOM WITH, YOU KNOW, THE JUDGES UP HERE AND THE PEASANTS APPROACH, YOU KNOW? UM, THAT IS TRULY HOW IT FEELS FOR PEOPLE.
AND THE DIS I I, I, I TALK TO COUNTLESS MEMBERS OF THE BOARD WHEN THEY USED TO SIT AROUND A RA A COMMUNITY TABLE, AND JUST FEELING THAT COMMUNITY FEEL.
IT WAS STILL THE SAME AUTHORITY THE BOARD CARRIED, BUT IT WAS A CO-LABORING AND IT WAS A PRIVILEGE TO GET THE EXPERTISE, AND IT WAS SO MUCH MORE OF A COMFORTABLE FEELING.
AND WE DID, WE WENT DOOR TO DOOR.
AND THAT WAS ONE THING PEOPLE SAID, OLDER, OLDER, ELDERLY, YOUNGER, THEY JUST, THIS, THIS PROCESS ISN'T INTIMIDATING IF YOU DON'T FEEL LIKE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT ARCHITECT OR YOU DON'T.
I MEAN, IT IS, IT IS, IT IS NOT FUN AND IT IS INTIMIDATING.
AND I WOULD PROPOSE THAT WE WOULD GO BACK TO THE COMMUNITY TABLE.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE INCREDIBLE.
UM, AND I THINK IT WOULD JUST MAKE EVERYONE, LIKE, MAYBE EVEN JUST, JUST ENSURE THE RESPECT, THE, THE FEELING OF RESPECT, RESPECT FROM THE BOARD TO THE PEOPLE AND THEN THE PEOPLE BACK TO THE BOARD.
UM, SO THAT I, INTIMIDATION IS SOMETHING WE HEARD EVERYWHERE.
UM, AND I DO THINK ELECTED OFFICIALS LIKE CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE THE ONES THAT SIT, SIT UP HERE.
AND I DO THINK EVERYBODY ELSE SHOULD BE AROUND THAT COMMUNITY TABLE TOGETHER AS VOLUNTEERS.
UM, I ALSO, THE SUBJECTIVITY SITUATION, I KNOW WE DON'T LIKE TO USE THAT WORD, LIKE IT'S AN INSULT OR SOMETHING.
I DON'T THINK, UM, THE BOARD COULD OPERATE ANY OTHER WAY.
SO I DON'T THINK IT'S LIKE NECESSARILY LIKE A BOARD MEMBER WHO ISN'T DOING THE RIGHT THING.
I THINK THE NATURE OF THIS IS, LIKE WE SAID, IT'S A ART, NOT A SCIENCE TYPE OF THING.
UM, SO I DON'T THINK, IT'S NOT LIKE A, A, UM, AN INSULT TO TALK ABOUT SUBJECTIVITY.
IT IS A PART OF THIS BOARD'S PROCESS, BUT I THINK AS PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THE COMMUNITY, WE DON'T FEEL OVERLY REPRESENTED BY THE BOARD.
UM, WE DEFINITELY NEED TO HAVE A RESIDENT THAT'S ON THE BOARD.
I WOULD EVEN ARGUE THAT COULD WE POSSIBLY HAVE A ELECTED RESIDENT? SO WE DO FEEL LIKE SOMEBODY WHO HAS LIKE SKIN IN THE GAME WHO LIVES THERE WITH US, IS REPRESENTING US SOMEHOW ON THIS BOARD.
WE, THERE, THERE, WE, I MEAN, I DON'T THINK MY PEOPLE WANT ME, BUT I MEAN, WELL, THERE, THERE, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'VE, WE'VE LOOKED FOR VOLUNTEERS.
AND, AND UM, YOU KNOW, THE PREVIOUS CHAIR WAS A RESIDENT, SO, AND THE MAYOR WAS ONCE ON THIS BOARD.
SO WE DO WANT PEOPLE WHO ARE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY.
I JUST LOVE THE IDEA OF, AND THERE'S A, AS SOMEONE ELECTED, THERE'S SOME ACCOUNTABILITY.
IT JUST, IT FEELS HEALTHIER, LIKE HEALTHIER GOVERNMENT TO ME.
AND, AND WE DON'T MAKE THESE DECISIONS TO THE COUNCIL MAKES A DECISION WHO'S UP HERE, NOT US.
SO IF YOU APPLY ONLINE, UM, YEAH, YEAH, PLEASE DO.
AND THEN THE LAST THING I JUST WANNA SPEAK TO IS THIS, UM, THE MONEY INFLUENCE COMMENT.
AND I, I UNDERSTAND, UM, AGAIN, THIS IS NOT AN INSULT, BUT I FEEL LIKE THE BOARD IS EQUALLY UNFAIR TO EVERYBODY.
SO I DON'T THINK IT, IT'S LIKE, OH, IF YOU HAVE MONEY AND WHATEVER, THEN YOU'RE JUST STREAMLINING, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK THAT, I DO THINK IT IS EQUALLY HARD FOR EVERYBODY.
UM, BUT IF YOU DO HAVE MONEY AND YOU DO, ARE ABLE TO USE, YOU KNOW, THE ARCHITECTS IN THE AREA, IT MAKES IT POSSIBLE.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD HAVE A SYSTEM THAT'S SET UP WHERE THAT WORKS.
THAT IF YOU HAVE ENOUGH PEOPLE AND MONEY, LIKE YOU CAN MAKE IT, CAN MAKE IT THROUGH THE STORM.
YOU KNOW? AND THAT IS WHAT IT FEELS LIKE.
AND ONE LAST THING JUST TO MAKE A COMMENT TO YOUR, UM, BEST ATHLETE, PROFESSIONAL ATHLETE THING.
THAT, THAT'S THE KIND OF THING AS US DOWN HERE, WE'RE LIKE, YOU KNOW, HOW MUCH THAT COSTS.
LIKE, I REALLY BELIEVE IF WE ARE GOING TO HAVE THESE LANDMARK, I MEAN, IT IS A PRIVILEGE TO OWN THOSE PROPERTIES.
IT IS A PRIVILEGE, BUT IT IS ALSO A FINANCIAL BURDEN.
LIKE STEVE SAID, THERE SHOULD BE A FUND.
DUBLIN HAS ALLOCATED JUST FOR THAT TYPE OF THING.
PEOPLE CAN APPLY FOR GRANTS, PEOPLE CAN, WHAT I MEAN, IF IT'S, IF, IF THERE'S SO MUCH SCRUTINY AND AUTHORITY OVER WHAT YOU CAN AND CAN'T DO, THEN IT'S LIKE, SHOW US THE MONEY.
LIKE, YOU GOTTA HELP OUT WITH THAT KIND OF THING.
YOU CAN'T JUST TELL PEOPLE WHAT TO DO.
THE, THE MAYOR LIVES IN YOUR COMMUNITY.
YOU SHOULD TALK TO THE MAYOR ABOUT THAT.
I THINK THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.
I WOULD AGREE BECAUSE I I, BEFORE THESE BOARDS REPRESENTING CLIENTS, AND I WOULD AGREE, IF YOU DON'T DO THIS ALL THE TIME, IT'S INTIMIDATING.
LIKE, MY HEART'S POUNDING AND NOT, AND I'M OKAY.
[01:10:01]
YOU'RE RIGHT.AND THAT WAS PART OF WHY I, YOU KNOW, I, I, THAT'S PART OF WHY I'M, I'M ALWAYS AN ADVOCATE.
NOW, MAYBE I'M BIASED, BUT HAVE SOMEBODY WHO'S DONE IT BEFORE.
BUT, BUT THERE PROBABLY ARE WAYS THAT, AND, AND WE HAVE TRIED TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO BRING US SKETCHES SO WE COULD HAVE INFORMAL CONVERSATIONS AND JUST SAY, YEAH, THIS MEETS THE GUIDELINES, THIS DOESN'T.
SO THAT IT COULD, OUR PROCESS COULD HAVE, COULD FEEL A LITTLE LESS FORMAL AND GET SOME EARLY FEEDBACK, BUT, UM, YEAH, MAYBE THERE ARE WAYS WE CAN IMPROVE, IMPROVE THAT.
EVEN IF IT WAS AN OPTION AND THERE WAS GOVERNMENT FUNDING OR SOMETHING TO HAVE ACCESS TO WHAT ARCHITECT PEOPLE LIKE, OR, YOU KNOW, OR THEY COULD SIT DOWN WITH YOUR ARCHITECT.
IT'S GOTTA BE SOME, I MEAN, WE ARE IN A SITUATION WHERE WE HAVE A, OUR UNCLE IS A PHENOMENAL BUILDER, SO THAT IS GONNA SAVE US MONEY AND WE SHOULD BE, AND WE HAVE, HE HAS AN ARCHITECT THAT HA LIKE, WE, YOU HAVE TO BE, IT'S AMERICA.
IF YOU HAVE CONNECTIONS WITH PEOPLE WHO CAN HELP YOU SAVE MONEY, THEN YOU GOTTA SAVE MONEY.
AND YOU CAN'T BE FORCED TO OR FEEL LIKE YOU'RE FORCED TO GO A DIFFERENT ROUTE THAT PEOPLE OTHER, SOME PEOPLE CAN AFFORD AND SOME PEOPLE REALLY CAN'T.
THANK, THANKS FOR YOUR COMMENTS.
UH, WE PROBABLY SHOULD, UNLESS THERE'S ANYBODY ELSE DYING TO TELL US SOMETHING DIFFERENT, I THINK WE'VE HEARD A LOT.
UM, JENNY, HAVE WE GIVEN YOU FEEDBACK ON THIS FIRST PART ABOUT OUR, OUR CONCERNS? DO, DO WE NEED TO VOTE ON THIS? BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS, UM, IT'S JUST DISCUSSION.
SO THE CODE AND THE GUIDELINES WE'RE ASKING FOR A RECOMMENDATION OF REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
UM, IF YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH HOW THE, THE CODE AND THE GUIDELINES HAVE BEEN DRAFTED BEFORE YOU, SO WE HAD SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT, UM, LOOKING AT APPENDIX G.
SO I MEAN, WE COULD DO SOME CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IF YOU FELT COMFORTABLE, YOU WANTED THIS TO MOVE FORWARD.
WE COULD LOOK INTO THE APPEND LOOKING AT THE APPENDIX G, UM, AND ADDING ANY OTHER, UM, PROPERTIES TO THAT, THAT YOU FELT LIKE NEEDED TO UNDERSTAND THAT, UM, NOMENCLATURE AND THEN ALSO ABOUT THE SITE, UM, RESTORATION PLAN, IF WE NEEDED TO MAKE THAT MORE CLEAR.
UM, AGAIN, I THINK THERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE REVIEW CRITERIA AND HOW WE'RE, HOW MANY AND HOW WE'RE APPLYING THAT.
SO IF YOU DON'T FEEL, AGAIN, I THINK IT'S UP TO YOU ALL HOW COMFORTABLE YOU FEEL WITH HOW IT'S CURRENTLY DRAFTED.
IF YOU WANT SOME ADDITIONAL CHANGES, I'M HAPPY TO IMPLEMENT THAT ON YOUR BEHALF AS THIS MOVES FORWARD TO PLANNING COMMISSION.
OR IF YOU WANT SOMETHING TO CHANGE AND COME BACK TO YOU, I CAN DO THAT AS WELL.
SO HOW, HOW DO YOU FEEL BOARD MEMBERS? WELL, I MEAN, THE QUE I MEAN OKAY, LISTENING THERE.
SO, UM, I MEAN I THINK WE HEARD TWO SIDES ABOUT STRINGENT, NOT STRINGENT, ABOUT, UH, WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.
AND THEN WE'RE HERE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DEMO SPECIFICALLY.
AND ABOUT ARE THE CRITERION CORRECT? NOW WE'RE NOT CHANGING 'EM, RIGHT? THEY'RE THE SAME AS A, THE WAY WE HAVE IT HERE, IT WOULD BE THE SAME.
BUT THAT'S, IF YOU ALL FEEL I'M SOMETHING ELSE, SOMETHING WE SHOULD LOOK AT IN THAT, I MEAN, FOR ME, IT DOESN'T CHANGE TODAY.
IS THAT GOOD OR BAD? I'M NOT SURE, BUT NO, IT SEEMS LIKE THE MORE DRASTIC CHANGES, WHAT PROPERTIES ARE INCLUDED AND WHAT PROPERTIES ARE NOT.
WHICH PROPERTIES ARE SUBJECT TO THE HIGHER CRITERIA, WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO, AND WE'RE, THERE ARE MORE THAT WILL BE PUT INTO THE LESSER STRINGENT STANDARD.
THAT'S REALLY ALL WE ARE CONSIDERING TONIGHT.
OTHERWISE THE LANGUAGE DOESN'T CHANGE.
UNLESS WE THINK, THINK IT'S NOT CORRECT.
WELL, THE PROCESS, THE LANGUAGE OF THE PROCESS IS CHANGING.
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE LANGUAGE OF QUALIFICATION.
NO, THE LANGUAGE HASN'T CHANGED.
I MEAN, OTHER THAN WHAT WE, WE'VE CHANGED WHAT PROPERTIES LAND, YOU KNOW, WELL WE'RE CHANGING THE, THE LANGUAGE IN THERE TO LANDMARKS AND THEN WE'RE SAYING YEAH, BUT THE NON, THE NON LANDMARKS CAN BE DEMOLISHED WITHOUT HAVING A PLAN.
THAT WHAT WE'RE JUST DOING IS CHANGING, CONTRIBUTING, NON-CONTRIBUTING, ADDING MORE TO NON-CONTRIBUTING.
THAT'S FOR ME THE FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE.
THE BIGGEST CHANGE TO ME IS THE, THE NOMENCLATURE.
YOU'RE USING THE TERM, NOT EVEN THE DEFINITION.
DEFINITION IS BASICALLY STAYING THE SAME.
THE TERM IS CHANGING AND THE MAP IS CHANGING.
THAT'S WHAT IS MOST SIGNIFICANT.
AND THAT NONSIGNIFICANT NON CONTRIBUTING IS GOING TO A LESSER CRITERIA AFTER IT'S BEEN CHANGED.
NO, IT'S, NO, IT'S NOT SAME CRITERIA, BUT THE ABILITY.
BUT MORE PROPERTIES ARE NOW CONSIDERED BACKGROUND SLASH NON-CONTRIBUTING.
BUT THE ABILITY TO HAVE A LOT THAT'S VACANT FOR AN INDETERMINED AMOUNT OF TIME IS A, IS A CHANGE THAT'S NO, IT'S ALWAYS BEEN THERE, IT'S ALWAYS BEEN THE SAME FOR NON-CONTRIBUTING.
THIS IS NEW FOR, TO THE DISTRICT.
THAT THE DISTRICT WAS CONSIDER, WELL, AGAIN, IT'S THE SAME IDEA, BUT DISTRICT STRUCTURE, EVERY STRUCTURE WAS CONTRIBUTING.
AGAIN, WE'RE CHANGING THE MAP, RIGHT? YEAH.
SO IF WE DON'T LIKE THE MAP, THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT.
I'M WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN THE MAP.
EVEN IF WE CHANGE THE MAP, WHICH I LIKE,
[01:15:01]
I I, I'M SUPPORTIVE OF, OF THE MAP IN THAT CHANGE.BUT MY, MY CONCERN IS SOME PROTECTION FOR THE RESIDENTS BECAUSE THE WAY THIS IS WRITTEN, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE OPEN LOTS THERE AND WE DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THE LOT'S GONNA BE RESTORED TO LANDSCAPE MATERIAL.
SO, UM, IS IF THERE'S SOME PROTECTION THAT AVOIDS EPT LOTS, IF THERE'S A REQUIREMENT FOR A SITE RESTORATION PLAN, IF BUILDING IS NOT IMMINENT, THEN I'M, THEN I'M FINE.
BUT I THINK THAT'S A HOLE IN, IN THIS RIGHT NOW.
THAT WAS YOUR QUESTION TO JENNY BEFORE THAT YOU WERE SAYING.
YEAH, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I THINK IS, IS THAT'S, SINCE THERE'S NO SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT APPROVAL OF THE NEW CONSTRUCTION AT THE TIME THAT DEMOLITION IS APPROVED, THEN WE COULD ADD SOMETHING THAT SAYS THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE.
SO I MEAN, FOR THE LANDMARK BUILDINGS, WE COULD REQUIRE THAT THEY COME FORWARD AND GET SOMETHING APPROVED BEFORE IT'S DEMOLISHED FOR A BACKGROUND BUILDING.
THEY COULD, THEY COULD BE REQUIRED THEN TO PROVIDE A SITE RESTORATION PLAN SO THAT YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT INTERIM CONDITION'S GONNA LOOK LIKE, CORRECT.
SO IF THEY WANNA TAKE TWO YEARS BEFORE THEY COME FORWARD WITH THE PLAN, THEY STILL HAVE TO PUT THE SITE INTO A MINIMUM STANDARD.
YEAH, I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S THE KEY THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR.
I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE OTHERWISE YOU'RE, YOU ARE RUNNING THE RISK OF HAVING IT INTERPRETED AS BEING A WHOLE
SO WITH THAT SEEMS LIKE IT'S THE ONLY ADJUSTMENT THAT WE AS A, AS A BOARD WOULD RECOMMEND.
THAT AND LOOKING AT APPENDIX G, SO APP G APP APPENDIX G.
WE WANT VALIDATING CEMETERIES.
SO DO WE NEED, UH, SETTING CONDITION LANGUAGE FOR MOTION? SO YES.
SO IT'D BE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION WITH THE, WITH THE AMENDMENTS.
LET, LET'S GET, I KNOW WE KNOW WHO YOU'RE, BUT WE NEED TO GET YOU FORMALLY ON THE RECORD.
SAY AGAIN? OH YEAH, TOM HOL TOM HOLTON FIVE NINE.
FIVE SEVEN ROUNDSTONE PLAY DUBLIN.
UM, ON THE, UM, THE GRAY, THE SET OF STRUCTURED BUILDINGS THAT ARE, THAT ARE GRAY, UM, WE TALKED ABOUT THE, EARLIER WE TALKED ABOUT, GET MY NOTE HERE.
OH, BACKGROUND STRUCTURES MAY OR LANDMARK STRUCTURES MAY TRANSITION TO BACKGROUND.
I BELIEVE THAT THAT WAS A COMMENT EARLIER.
NO, SEAN WAS ASKING ABOUT THAT.
WE HAVE NOT, THAT'S NOT A PART OF THIS.
IS THAT JENNY? WELL, IS, SO THE CURRENT CODE POSSIBLE WOULD ALLOW SOMEONE, BUT THEY COULD NOW, THEY COULD NOW THEY COULD NOW HAS TO BE NON CONTRIBU CONTRIBUTING TO DOWN TO NON-CONTRIBUTING.
SO THIS IS SUGGESTING THE SAME THAT THEY WOULD'VE TO COME TO THE BOARD AND MAKE THAT REQUEST.
IS IT POSSIBLE THAT A, THE TERMINOLOGY WE KEEP CHANGING THE WORDS HERE, IS IT POSSIBLE THAT A BACKGROUND STRUCTURE BUILDING COULD BECOME A LANDMARK BUILDING WITH TIME? SURE.
I MEAN, AGAIN, THAT, I THINK THAT'S PART OF THIS LARGER DISCUSSION AFTER 50 YEARS, RIGHT? SOMETHING IS TECHNICALLY HISTORIC.
SO EVEN IF IT'S NOT HISTORIC NOW DOESN'T MEAN IT COULDN'T BE.
SO AGAIN, I THINK THAT'S PART OF THIS EVALUATION.
WE'LL HAVE TO BE MONITORING THAT OVER TIME.
SO I'M SURE IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO MAKE THAT REQUEST AT THIS POINT, WE LEAVE IT TO THE OWNER TO MAKE THAT REQUEST.
BUT THE CITY WOULD HAVE IN THEIR PURVIEW TO REEVALUATE.
I THINK IT THINK IT WAS ONE OF THE COMMENTS CAME UP IN ONE OF THE PUBLIC MEETINGS WAS THAT THE 50 YEAR MARK CHANGES EVERY YEAR.
SO ONE, A BUILDING BECOMES CLOSER TO, GETS CLOSER TO 50 YEARS EVERY YEAR.
ON THE SECOND THING, JUST TO ON THE SITE RESTORATION, I THOUGHT THAT WAS A GOOD COM A GOOD POINT.
UH, IT'S AS HARD AS IT IS TO IMAGINE SOMEBODY'S LEAVING A SITE OPEN WITH THE VALUE OF LAND AS POSSIBLE.
BUT IF, UM, IF THE APPLICANT WANTS TO DEMOLISH AND LEAVE THE SITE OPEN, THEY SHOULD EITHER HAVE A TIMELINE, UH, PRESENT A TIMELINE FOR DEMOLITION OR THAT SITE RESTORATION OR TIMELINE, EXCUSE ME, FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION OR SITE DEMOLITION.
I THINK ONE OR THE OTHER SHOULD BE ACCOMPANYING THAT DEMOLITION REQUEST A, A TIMELINE FOR THE NEW NEW, EITHER FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION OR A SITE RESTORATION PLAN.
BUT DO YOU THINK SOME MINIMUM LEVEL OF, UM, SOME MINIMUM, MINIMUM LEVEL OF RESTORATION IS NEEDED JUST TO KEEP IT SAFE? WELL, THAT'S WHAT I AGREE WITH YOU, THE SITE RESTORATION PLAN FOR SURE.
[01:20:01]
THAT, THEY SHOULD GIVE YOU THAT IF THEY DON'T HAVE A TIMELINE FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION.NOW, HOW WOULD YOU LIMIT THE TIMELINE? PARDON ME? HOW WOULD YOU LIMIT THE LENGTH OF THE TIMELINE? THAT'S UP TO YOU.
I HAVE A FOLLOW UP QUESTION THOUGH.
IS THAT MEAN THAT IT IS NOT PERMITTED TO LEAVE A LOT UNDEVELOPED JUST RESTORED? BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT YOU SEEM TO BE SAYING IS THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE A EVENTUAL TIME FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, WHEREAS REALLY YOU COULD JUST ALLOW IT NOT TO BE, I I THINK, UM, MR. HOLTON'S PROPOSAL WAS E EITHER OR.
YOU, YOU EITHER HAVE A RESTORATION PLAN THEN YOUR TIME, THEN YOUR TIMEFRAME IS WAY OUT.
COULD BE WAY OUT IN THE FUTURE.
COULD BE, YOU COULD JUST SELL THE PARCEL, YOU DON'T KNOW, OR YOU HAVE A TIMEFRAME FOR WHEN, WHEN YOU'RE GONNA START THE NEW BUILD.
SO I THINK, I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S THE POINT.
I THINK THE GOAL'S JUST TO MAKE SURE THE PROPERTY WITHIN THE DISTRICT, IT LOOKS PRESENTABLE AND MM-HMM.
BUT GARY YOU MENTIONED, AND I THINK IT SHOULD BE THAT THE SITE RESTORATION SHOULD START IMMEDIATELY TO THE MINIMUM.
YOU TALKED ABOUT SOME MINIMUM STANDARDS, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY'RE PLANNING, THAT THAT SHOULD HAPPEN AT RIGHT AFTER TEAR DOWN.
THEY NEED TO RESTORE IT TO A MINIMUM DEGREE AND THEN THEY CAN TAKE, I GUESS, DEPENDING ON WHERE MINIMUM IS.
AND IF THAT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH, THEN THEY MAY HAVE TO DO FURTHER.
I, I DON'T, I LOOK TO YOU, JENNY, TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THAT LEVEL IS AND WHAT THE, WHAT THE MINIMUM IS.
AND IF THEY DON'T HAVE A A A AND THEY HAVE A CONSTRUCTION PLAN, IT'S GONNA BE BUILT IN A YEAR, THEN WE CAN STAY AT MINIMUM.
IF IT'S GONNA BE TWO YEARS, THEN THEY GOTTA BRING IT UP FURTHER.
WE CAN DEFINITELY LOOK AT THAT.
'CAUSE WE, I THINK THAT'S A GREAT POINT OF, YEAH, THERE MIGHT BE AN INTERIM, INTERIM CONDITION IF YOU KNOW IT'S IN IMMINENT THAT THEY'RE GONNA DO SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULDN'T WANNA, YOU KNOW, MAKE SOMEBODY GRADE AND SEED IF THEY'RE THEN GONNA HAVE TO REGRADE AND REDO SOMETHING ELSE, RIGHT.
SO, OR JUST DIG UP WHAT THEY JUST PAINTED.
SO I THINK WE COULD DEFINITELY INCLUDE SOMETHING ABOUT SITE RESTORATION THAT ENSURES, YOU KNOW, THE AESTHETIC COMPONENT, THE SAFETY, SECURITY PIECE OF THAT AT A MINIMUM.
AND THEN, AND THAT WOULD BE IMMEDIATE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TALKING TIMEFRAMES TOO.
UM, AND THEN AFTER THAT WE CAN, SO THAT ULTIMATELY THE FINAL PLAN COULD BE DEVELOPMENT AS AN OPEN LOT OR AN EXTENSION OF THE ADJACENT LOT.
FOR INSTANCE, IF SOMEONE HAD ACQUIRED THE ADJACENT LOT.
'CAUSE THEN WE'RE NOT STIPULATING TO YOUR POINT MS. COOPER, ABOUT LIKE IN TWO YEARS YOU HAVE TO DO SOMETHING.
'CAUSE WE DON'T, IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT, IT'S OKAY FOR IT TO BE VACANT.
I MEAN, AGAIN, I THINK THE LIKELIHOOD OF IT STAYING VACANT FOR LONG IS PROBABLY NOT GONNA HAPPEN.
SO TO CONCLUDE, I THINK WE ALL FEEL LIKE THERE SHOULD BE SOMETHING THAT ADDRESSES SITE RESTORATION OR IN BOTH SHORT TERM AND YEAH, IF INDETERMINATE AND OR, OR THE POTENTIAL TO HAVE A TIMEFRAME ESTABLISHED FOR ONE NEW CONSTRUCTION, START SOME WAY OF ADDRESSING THAT.
AND THEN THE OTHER ISSUE HAS BEEN TO EXAMINE THE, UM, APPENDIX G CORRECT PROPERTIES.
SO WITH THOSE TWO, WELL, AND THE THIRD ONE WAS, I, I'M STILL A LITTLE BIT CONCERNED ABOUT, UM, NOT NON-CONTRIBUTING, NOT OH YES.
CHANGING SOMETHING THAT IS, UH, LANDMARK TO, I, I'M ALSO MESSING UP THE NOMENCLATURE, BUT TO BECOME NON-CONTRIBUTING AND THEN TO BE ABLE TO, AT THE SAME TIME, IN OTHER WORDS, THEY HAVE TO COME TO US TO BE DECLARED NON-CONTRIBUTING AND THEN HAVE THEM ALSO COME IN WITH A PLAN BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT NON-CONTRIBUTING.
SO WE'RE DOING, WE'RE DOING AWAY WITH THE NON-CONTRIBUTING LANGUAGE.
SO THAT'S THE NO BACKGROUND CONTRIBUTING.
NON-CONTRIBUTING IS BEING ELIMINATED.
ONCE SOMETHING IS BACKGROUND, WHAT IF THEY AREN'T BACKGROUND AND THEY WANT TO BECOME BACKGROUND SO THEY CAN SUBMIT A DEMOLITION PLAN.
IS THAT A TWO STEP PROCESS OR IS THAT SOMETHING, 'CAUSE I THINK SEAN WAS BRINGING THIS UP.
DO WE CONSIDER THAT? I THINK YOU COULD.
I I COULD RUN THOSE CONCURRENTLY.
LIKE IF YOU WANT, IF YOU ARE A LANDMARK BUILDING AND YOU THINK YOU SHOULD BE DESIGNATED AS A BACKGROUND BUILDING, 'CAUSE YOU THEN WANNA DEMOLISH, I THINK WE WOULD REQUIRE YOU TO SUBMIT, YOU COULD SUBMIT BOTH THOSE APPLICATIONS TOGETHER IF YOU WANTED TO SO THAT YOU COULD BE BEFORE THE BOARD AT ONE POINT.
NOW AGAIN, IT'S A LOT OF WORK TO GET TO DEMOLITION AND WHAT YOU NEED TO MEET WITHOUT KNOWING THAT THE BOARD'S GONNA FEEL LIKE THAT.
SO AGAIN, WE ARE NOT OPPOSED TO APPLICATIONS RUNNING TOGETHER, IT'S JUST WHAT LEVEL OF WORK DID THEY WANNA PUT INTO THAT WITHOUT SURETY.
SO, BUT IT'S, THAT PROCESS IS ADDRESSED IN OUR CURRENT YES.
[01:25:01]
YES.SO THERE, THERE IS A WAY THAT THAT PROCESS IS ADDRESSED.
'CAUSE I, THAT WOULD BE CONCERNING TO ME IS THAT IT'S CLEAR WHAT THE PROCESS IS SO THAT WE'RE NOT JUST HAVING A PROPERTY OWNER ASSUMING, WELL I'M GOING TO DEMONSTRATE I AM NOW BACKGROUND OR WHATEVER.
AND AGAIN, I THINK WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING AND HERE'S MY DEMOLITION PLAN,
YEAH, NO, THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.
AND I, AGAIN, I THINK THE MAP AS PROPOSED, WERE REALLY FELT LIKE WE WENT THROUGH THAT WITH A LOT OF SCRUTINY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT OVERLY BURDENING PROPERTIES THAT WE DON'T THINK EITHER HAVE SOME HISTORICAL, SIGNIFICANT OR ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE THAT SHOULD BE, EVEN IF THEY'RE OUTSIDE THE TIMEFRAME OR NOT ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER, THAT THOSE ARE BEING PRESERVED.
SO WE REALLY WERE TRYING TO BE MINDFUL OF THAT TO AVOID THAT.
'CAUSE THAT SHOULD BE AN ANOMALY.
LIKE YOU SHOULD, THAT SHOULD BE SOMETHING.
SO I WOULD ANTICIPATE THAT BEING A REALLY HIGH THRESHOLD FOR SOMEBODY TO, TO MEET.
THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY WON'T, BUT, OKAY.
SO WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED.
BEING EXPLORED AND AND ADDRESSED IN SOME WAY.
SO WE CAN, IF YOU WANNA TABLE, IF YOU WANNA DEAL WITH THE MOTION HERE IN A MINUTE AND YOU WANNA FINISH THE CONVERSATION ABOUT WHAT YOU'VE HEARD AND OTHER FEEDBACK YOU WANT ME TO CONSIDER, WE CAN DO THAT TOO.
AND THEN MAKE A MOTION AT THE END.
SO WHATEVER YOU WELL, I WAS GONNA MOVE ON TO NUMBER TWO, THE WHAT CAN BE HANDLED IN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW.
DO WE WANNA GET THIS OFF, OFF? I MEAN, IT'S ALL PART OF THE SAME DISCUSSION AND MAYBE THAT PROVIDES SOME, ALRIGHT, SO RELIEF.
THE QUESTION IS WHAT CAN WE MOVE, ARE THERE THINGS WE CAN MOVE FOR BOTH NOW THAT WE HAVE THIS MAP THAT DESIGNATES LANDMARK AND NON LANDMARK STRUCTURES AND WE WANT TO TRY TO SIMPLIFY THE PROCESS FOR PEOPLE.
AND SO ARE THERE THINGS WE CAN MOVE TO A REVIEW THAT WOULD SIMPLY BE DONE INTERNALLY BY THE STAFF, WHICH WOULD SIMPLIFY WHAT WE DO SHORTEN TIMEFRAME? SO I'LL KICK THIS OFF 'CAUSE I, I'VE HAD A COUPLE THOUGHTS ABOUT THIS.
UM, AND THEN WE HAVE TWO, WE HAVE TWO CATEGORIES HERE.
WE HAVE LANDMARK AND NON LANDMARKS.
SO WE NEED TO KEEP THAT IN MIND.
SO MY FEELING IS PAINT COLORS, THE STAFF SHOULD DEAL WITH PAINT COLOR QUESTIONS.
WE, THAT, THAT THEY'VE ESTABLISHED GUIDELINES FOR THOSE.
I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD DEAL WITH PAINT COLORS FOR BOTH LANDMARK AND NON LANDMARK BUILDINGS.
NOW MY, MY OTHER THOUGHT IS FOR THE NON LANDMARK BUILDINGS THAT THE STAFF DEALS WITH ANY CHANGE TO THE BUILDING THAT DOES NOT MODIFY THE MASS, SO DOES NOT MODIFY THE MASS.
SO IF, IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO DO AN ADDITION AND HERE, HERE'S THE, HERE'S THE RATIONALE FOR THAT.
THE BIGGEST CONCERN WE HAVE IS NOT ABOUT WHAT THINGS LOOK LIKE.
AND SO WHEN YOU MAKE A CHANGE THAT MODIFIES THE MASS, THEN WHETHER IT'S LANDMARK OR NON LANDMARK, I STILL THINK IT SHOULD COME TO US.
BUT FOR THE NON LANDMARK, WHEN YOU MAKE A CHANGE, SAY YOU'RE CHANGING YOUR WINDOWS, NOW WE, THEY STILL HAVE TO MEET THE GUIDELINES, BUT STAFFORD REVIEW IT, YOU CHANGING THE WINDOWS, YOU'RE CHANGING, UM, THE, THE SIDING TYPE, YOU'RE CHANGING YOUR ROOF, YOU'RE CHANGING THE DOORS.
THOSE KIND OF CHANGES I THINK, UM, CHANGING LANDSCAPE, THOSE KIND OF CHANGES 'CAUSE THEY DON'T MODIFY THE MASS STRUCTURE.
I, I THINK STAFF COULD REVIEW THOSE ADMINISTRATIVELY.
UM, SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE BACKGROUND BACK BACKGROUND BUILDING THAT'S RIGHT.
AND I, AND I THINK, UM, THAT WOULD, UM, I THINK THAT WOULD SIMPLIFY THE PROCESS FOR, FOR EVERYBODY.
AND I THINK THAT'S A WAY OF BEING RESPONSIVE TO SOME OF THE CONCERNS WE'VE HEARD.
AND IT'S NOT, THERE ARE OTHER COMMUNITIES THAT HANDLED THIS, IT IT, IT'S NOT UNUSUAL MM-HMM.
SO I DON'T THINK WE, WE SHOULD FEEL LIKE WE'RE DOING SOMETHING THAT, UM,
AND I THINK IT WOULD ADDRESS SOME OF THAT INTIMIDATION FACTOR THAT PEOPLE FEEL.
UM, AND IF THEY ARE RUNNING UP AGAINST A BARRIER AT, OR THAT THEY FEEL THAT THEY'RE RUNNING UP AGAINST A BARRIER AT STAFF, THEY CAN ALWAYS COME TO US.
AND I, ESPECIALLY FOR THE BACKGROUND, LET'S START GETTING USED TO THAT TERMINOLOGY.
SO I MEAN, IF IT'S FALLING WITHIN THE
AND I THINK WE HAVE ENOUGH BACKGROUND NOW
[01:30:01]
OF WHAT WE'VE DONE, WHAT WE'VE APPROVED, WHAT WE'VE, AND IT'S IN THE, IT'S IN THE GUIDELINE OR IT'S IN THE, IT'S IN THE CODE NOW.WHAT, WHAT CAN BE APPROVED MM-HMM.
SO I THINK FROM ADMINISTRATIVE STANDPOINT, I FEEL LIKE THAT CERTAINLY MAKES IT MUCH MORE STREAMLINED.
THAT YOU COME IN WITH SOMETHING FAIRLY, I WON'T SAY ROUTINE, BUT THINGS YOU CAN DO.
THEY SHOULD BE APPROVED BY THE OKAY.
I MEAN, AGAIN, I THINK WE ARE VERY CLEAR ABOUT WHAT THE BOARD'S DIRECTION IS AND COUNCILS APPROVE THAT AND UNDERSTAND WHAT THE EXPECTATIONS ARE.
AND WE DO HAVE THAT IN LIKE, IN THE BRIDGE STREET DISTRICT, WE CALL IT THE KICKUP PROVISION.
IF WE DECIDE SOMETHING OR THERE'S AN IMPASSE THEN AND OR WE FEEL LIKE, YEAH, MAYBE IT'S WITHIN OUR AUTHORITY, BUT WE DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE PROVING THAT WE WOULD THEN HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BRING THAT TO YOU.
SO YEAH, WE COULD DEFINITELY LOOK AT THAT.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER THOUGHTS OF THINGS THAT COULD BE HANDLED ADMINISTRATIVELY? I THINK THE PAINT WAS A GOOD ONE.
'CAUSE WE PUT, THEY PUT TIME AND EFFORT TO GET THAT DONE.
AND WE'VE, WE HAVE SOMETHING SOLID THERE.
THERE MAY BE OTHER THINGS AS THEY COME ACROSS AS ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS AND THOSE THINGS, BUT I THINK THAT'S A GOOD START.
THOSE TWO, THE PAINT AND THE AND BACKGROUND HOMES THAT ARE WITHIN THE MASS GUIDELINES SHOULD NOT HAVE TO COME TO US.
WELL WHAT I MEANT BY THAT IS NOT SO MUCH IN THE MASS GUIDELINES, BUT ANY CHANGE TO THE MASS.
IT STILL MAY BE IN THE ZONING RIGHT.
BUT IF, IF IT'S A PORCH THAT'S BEING ADDED THAT'S CHANGING THE MASS.
BUT I, I'M LIKE YOU, IF THE MASKS IS UNCHANGED, THEY'RE JUST MAKING, YOU KNOW, COSMETIC CHANGES AND THOSE TYPE OF THING, MATERIAL CHANGES SHOULDN'T COME TO US.
AND WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO PUT THESE POOR PEOPLE THROUGH THAT TO COME UP AND SEE US FOR THOSE THINGS.
LIGHTS IS FOR ME THAT I HAVE EXTERIOR.
YOU HAVE AN EXPERTISE IN THAT.
THERE IS NO REASON THAT WE NEED TO BE APPROVING LIGHT FIXTURES ON BACKGROUND BUILDINGS.
AND THEN JENNY, I MEAN FROM ADMINISTRATIVE, MAYBE THE QUARTERLY WE DO, MAYBE WE GO THROUGH THEM BEFORE WE KIND OF REVIEW THEM.
MAYBE WE GO THROUGH THEM IN A LITTLE MORE DETAIL FOR THE FIRST COUPLE OF MONTHS JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT SOMEHOW WE SEE WHAT, WHAT'S, WHAT'S BEING THROUGH.
AND WE'LL BRING, WE'LL BRING SOMETHING BACK TO YOU TO REACT TO AND OFFICIALLY RECOMMEND APPROVAL.
AGAIN, WE CAN CONTINUE THIS, BUT JUST SO YOU'RE, EVERYONE'S ASSURED WE'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING WITH THAT TONIGHT.
'CAUSE WE HAVE A COUPLE ITEMS TOO, BASED ON PREVIOUS CONVERSATIONS AND THINGS THAT YOU ALL APPROVE FROM LIKE A PATTERN STANDPOINT.
LIKE HISTORICALLY, YOU'VE NOT HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS.
SO IS THAT AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THAT TO ALSO BE ADDED, RELATED TO SIGNS OR THINGS LIKE THAT? WE CAN WE'LL BRING THAT FORWARD TOO.
UM, IS THERE ANY OTHER, IT LOOKS LIKE MR. HOLTON, YOU WANNA, MAY I SUGGEST TOM, TOM HOLTON AGAIN? MAY I SUGGEST ANOTHER THING THAT STAFF MAY BE ABLE TO APPROVE? TAKE THE, TAKE THE KAUFMAN HOUSE, UH, WALKWAY, FOR EXAMPLE, PAVEMENT.
UM, THEY CAN, THE STAFF MAY BE ABLE TO APPROVE, UH, UM, WELL PAVER PAVING ISSUES, UH, DRIVEWAYS, UM, PATHS AROUND, UH, UH, PATHS AROUND, I REMEMBER WE DID ONE FOR THE, FOR A PATH AROUND A, OUR SIDEWALK AROUND THE HOUSE ONE YEAR.
TOOK FAR TOO MUCH DISCUSSION, UH, FOR, FOR A PRETTY SIMPLE PROJECT AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
ESPECIALLY IF IT'S LIKE FOR LIKE OR NEAR, LIKE FOR LIKE YEAH.
NO, I, I THINK THAT'S A, THAT WOULD BE A GOOD ADDITION AND AS LONG AS IT, IT MEETS THE ZONING, THE COVERAGE, IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY NEED TO COME TO COME TO US.
I WOULD SUGGEST LANDSCAPING IN GENERAL AS WELL.
I DON'T KNOW THAT WE NEED TO, UNLESS IT'S SOME MASSIVE TREE THAT'S GONNA ADD TO THE MASS.
UM,
UM, BUT BUSHES, THINGS LIKE THAT WE DON'T NEED TO GET INVOLVED IN.
FOR RESIDENTIAL YOU TYPICALLY DON'T SEE THAT.
SO COMMERCIAL PROJECTS, IF YOU'RE FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THAT, THAT WOULD BE, AGAIN, UNLESS IT'S SOME MAJOR OVERHAUL.
AND, AND THAT, THAT WAS ALSO ON OUR LIST AS WAS THE, UM, PARTICULARLY FOR RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS.
PEOPLE HAVING TO COME BACK FOR DRIVEWAY SIDEWALKS.
'CAUSE THAT IS A LOT OF WORK FOR SOMETHING MINOR.
UM, SO WE CAN LOOK AT THAT TOO.
I THINK, I THINK YOUR NEW DESIGNATION, UH, GIVES US A LOT OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR, FOR, FOR THINGS LIKE THIS.
UM, SO DO YOU WANT US TO GO BACK TO THE MOTION THAT THE RECOMMENDATION YES.
IF YOU WANNA MAKE A MOTION ON THE CODE AND THE GUIDELINES TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION WITH THE MODIFICATIONS WE DISCUSSED, I THINK THAT WILL SUFFICE.
SO IS THERE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE GUIDELINES THAT WERE PRESENTED WITH TWO AND THE CODE WITH TWO QUALIFICATIONS.
ONE THAT THERE BE MORE EXPLORATION OF, UM, RESTORATION.
RESTORATION OR, AND, AND TIMELINES WHEN DEMOLITION DOES OCCUR.
AND THE OTHER ISSUE IS THE APPENDIX
[01:35:01]
G PROPERTIES AND HOW THEY FIT WITHIN THIS.I I JUST WANNA THANK THE FOLKS THAT CAME UP AND THAT WAS VERY HELPFUL FOR ME.
I MEAN, I'M KIND OF NEW TO THE BOARD AND NOT THAT NEW, BUT YEAH, I THINK THERE'S THAT BIG DISCONNECT OUT THERE.
IT'S KIND OF EYEOPENING FOR ME 'CAUSE I'M NOT A MEAN GUY.
SO YEAH, I APPRECIATE IT TOO AS WELL FOR THE SAME REASONS.
I THINK, UM, I THINK THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF GOOD CHANGES TO THE BOARD OVER THE TIME PERIOD AND, AND WHY WE WANTED TO BE INVOLVED.
AND, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHY WE ALWAYS SAY WE ALWAYS ENCOURAGE CITIZENS IF THEY WANT TO BE A MEMBER OF THIS BOARD.
IT'S, UM, IT'S ANYBODY'S OPPORTUNITY.
BUT I THINK PUBLIC COMMENT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE WHEN YOU'RE HAVING, UM, SOMETHING HERE.
IF YOU HAVE A COMMENT FROM THIS, FROM THE PUBLIC ABOUT SOMETHING GOING ON, YOU CAN COME HERE AND, AND GIVE YOUR, GIVE YOUR VIEW ABOUT THAT.
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE ON ONE OF YOUR PROJECT.
IT COULD BE SAYING, HEY, WE SEE AN ISSUE THAT WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT.
SO I WOULD SAY HOPEFULLY WE'RE NOT THAT INTIMIDATING.
THAT IF YOU FEEL SOMETHING YOU COME TO THIS BOARD AND, AND YOU CAN ADDRESS IT, YOU CAN GIVE A VIEWPOINT HERE THAT WE CAN TRY TO SOLVE, EVEN IF IT'S NOT IN A, UH, WHAT DO YOU CALL IT? A, THE C THE COMMUNITY IN THE COMMUNITY, UM, GATHERINGS THAT YOU'RE HAVING NOW.
SO COME IN AND LET US KNOW THESE THINGS AND WE ALWAYS WELCOME PUBLIC COMMENT.
I, I OFTEN FEEL BEREFT WHEN WE DO AN APPLICATION, WE GO OVER IT AND CALL FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AND NOBODY'S HERE.
OUR, OUR THIRD CASE NUMBER, 23 DASH
[Case #23-081]
0 8 1 ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST.THIS APPLICATION IS REQUEST FOR A DOCUMENT THAT IS INTENDED TO SUPPLEMENT THE HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES AND SERVE AS A GUIDE FOR PROPERTY OWNERS, STAFF AND THE BOARD REGARDING THE APPROPRIATE CHOICE OF ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS WITHIN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT AND APPENDIX G PROPERTIES.
ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS REFERS TO THE USE OF NON-TRADITIONAL SYNTHETIC MATERIAL IN PLACE OF AN ORIGINAL MATERIAL OR MODERN MATERIALS USED ON NEW CONSTRUCTION.
MS. SINGH WILL BE OUR PRESENTER.
THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST IN CONTINUATION OF OUR HISTORIC DISTRICT ALTERNATIVE MATERIAL DISCUSSION AT THE AUGUST, 2023 BOARD MEETING.
THIS IS A QUICK, QUICK HISTORY OF THE PROJECT.
MOST RECENTLY AT THE LAST A R B MEETING IN AUGUST, STAFF PRESENTED ALTERNATIVE BUILDING MATERIAL DRAFT DOCUMENT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CONSULTANTS STAFF REQUESTED FEEDBACK FROM THE BOARD MEMBERS AND BASED ON THAT STAFF IS WORKING ON SHORTENING THE DOCUMENT.
TONIGHT A SAMPLE SECTION OF THE DOCUMENT IS PRESENTED FOR THE BOARD'S FEEDBACK AND INPUT.
AND TO BE NOTED, THIS IS ONLY A PART OF THE DOCUMENT TO SEEK BOARD'S FEEDBACK AND IF THAT'S THE CORRECT APPROACH FOR REST OF THE DOCUMENT TO BE FOLLOWED.
HERE IS A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT.
THE ANTICIPATED USERS OF THIS DOCUMENTS WILL BE THE OWNERS, CONSULTANTS, ARCHITECTS, STAFF, AND OF COURSE THE BOARD MEMBERS.
THE PROJECT GOAL IS TO PROVIDE A DOCUMENT THAT LISTS ALTERNATIVE BUILDING MATERIALS APPROVED BY THE BOARD IN THE PAST, USING A WAIVER DOCUMENT WILL BE VERY CONCISE AND LIMITED TO ONLY INCLUDE MATERIALS WHICH ARE NOT LISTED IN THE CODE, BUT PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY THE BOARD USING A WAIVER.
ANY MATERIAL THAT THE BOARD HAS NOT APPROVED PREVIOUSLY IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE DOCUMENT.
STAFF WILL UPDATE THE DOCUMENT ANNUALLY FOR ANY ADDITIONS OR ANY EXCLUSIONS.
TONIGHT WE'RE GOING TO PRESENT TWO CHAPTERS.
THE FIRST CHAPTER IS THE INTRODUCTION CHAPTER, WHICH BEGINS WITH AN INTRODUCTION, GUIDANCE, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOLLOWED BY A SECTION ON CHOOSING THE RIGHT ARCHITECT AND DESIGNER STAFF HAS REMOVED THE HISTORIC AND THE PRESERVATION RESOURCES AND PROBABLY WILL INCLUDE AS AN ADDITIONAL RESOURCE AT THE END OF THE DOCUMENT.
THE INTRODUCTION WILL FOCUS ON PRESERVING AND REHABILITATING THE EXISTING OR APPROVED BUILDING MATERIALS, WHICH ARE LISTED IN THE CODE AND FURTHER USING ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS.
SINCE THE GUIDELINES CURRENTLY ADDRESSES THE USING ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS IN ALL THE PROJECT TYPES, LIKE NEW CONSTRUCTION OR ADDITION STAFF HAS REMOVED THE CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA FROM THE REPORT.
THE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM IS HIGHLIGHTED HERE IN RED, WHICH WAS PREVIOUSLY INCLUDED IN THE REPORT, BUT IN THE REVISED DOCUMENT, THE STAFF PLANS TO REMOVE THAT.
TONIGHT WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS AGAIN ANOTHER SECTION,
[01:40:01]
WHICH IS THE SECTION TWO, WHICH WILL COVER THE ROOF AND THE EXTERIOR WALL MATERIALS.THIS IS JUST A SAMPLE AND THIS WILL REST THE ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED FOR THE ROOF AND THE EXTERNAL WALL IN THE FORMAT AS PRESENTED IN CHAPTER TWO, WHICH WILL MEET THE BOARD VISION.
STAFF WILL CONTINUE TO WORK ON THE REST OF THE DOCUMENT.
EACH BUILDING FEATURE WILL LIST DOWN THE ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS APPROVED WITH THE USE OF THE WAIVER AND THE CODE SECTION AND THE APPROVED MATERIALS FOR EACH FEATURE IS HIGHLIGHTED IN GREEN.
THIS IS INCLUDED IN THE DRAFT DOCUMENT AND THIS IS GOING TO BE INCLUDED FOR ALL THE MATERIALS.
BOARD HAS NOT APPROVED ANY ALTERNATING MATERIAL FOR THE ROOF UNTIL NOW IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
AND THAT IS WHY NONE OF THE ROOF MATERIALS FOR THE ALTERNATIVE ROOF MATERIALS IS INCLUDED THERE FOR THE EXTERIOR WALL.
MATERIALS BOARD HAS APPROVED WAIVERS FOR LP SMART SIDING AND TRUE EXTERIOR OR BOAL TRUE SIDING IN THE SMOOTH FINISH.
THE ALTERNATIVE WALL MATERIALS ARE ALL UNDER THE NEW CODE.
THE DOCUMENTS INCLUDES BOTH ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THESE MATERIALS.
THESE PICTURES ARE FOR REFERENCE SEEN ARE SOME OF THE PHOTOS OF THE ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS WHICH HAVE BEEN APPROVED IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT STAFF PLANS TO INCLUDE THIS INFORMATION IN THE DOCUMENT AS A REFERENCE.
PROBABLY AT THE END OF THE DOCUMENT, LP SIDING IS APPROVED FOR 94 FRANKLIN STREET IN 2022 FOR A NEW CONSTRUCTION.
IT WAS ALSO APPROVED FOR MODERN MALE SALOON IN 2021.
BOTH THE STRUCTURES ARE RECOMMENDED CONTRIBUTING BY THE HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT.
MOST RECENTLY IT WAS APPROVED FOR 91 SOUTH HIGH STREET.
THE BORAL TWO SIDING WAS APPROVED FOR 32 30 32 SOUTH HIGH STREET, WHICH IS CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION.
IT IS LISTED ON NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES.
SO WITH THIS, UM, HERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS FOR THE BOARD AND I'M ALSO HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS.
ANY INITIAL QUESTIONS? I DON'T HAVE A QUESTION.
YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE, UM, THEN I'LL, I'LL START WITH A COUPLE COMMENTS.
MAYBE WHAT, WAIT, WE'LL MAKE SOME INITIAL COMMENTS AND THEN IF MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE WANNA, UM, HAVE SOME INPUT AFTER I, I I DON'T WANNA CUT THAT OFF, BUT I JUST WANNA GET A COUPLE THINGS OUT.
UM, I THINK THE SHORTER THE DOCUMENT, THE LONGER DOCUMENT THAT WE SAW BEFORE, WITH SO MANY MATERIALS THAT WE HAVE NEVER SEEN IN THE DISTRICT, I WAS WORRIED THAT IT BECOME, IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE ADVOCATING AND RECOMMENDING PEOPLE USE ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS AND, AND SOME OF THEM WE WOULD NEVER SEE ON THE SCALE OF THE BUILDINGS.
SO I WAS ONE WORRIED ABOUT THE DOCUMENT AND THE CONTENT.
SO THIS AT LEAST BECAUSE I DON'T WANT THIS TO BE SEEN AS ADVOCACY OF USING ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS ONLY WHAT THE PRECEDENT HAS BEEN.
THEN I THINK WHAT'S IMPORTANT AND IN AN EARLIER CONVERSATION WE HAD, I THINK THE CONTEXT OF THE APPROVAL AND YOU DID THAT WITH THE PHOTOGRAPHS, I THINK IS, IS REALLY HELPFUL BECAUSE AT, AT THE YOU, THE MODERN MALE SALON, WE WERE PUTTING THAT MATERIAL ON.
I THINK IN ADDITION TO THE LANDMARK BUILDING, WE WEREN'T.
SO I THINK THE CONTEXT, BECAUSE THE ONE VALUABLE THING OF THAT LAST REPORT IS IT SAID, OKAY, SOME MATERIALS YOU COULD, YOU CAN USE ON A NON LANDMARK, SOME YOU COULD USE TO ADDITIONS TO A LANDMARK.
BUT OUR CODE IS PRETTY STRICT ABOUT WHAT YOU CAN DO ON A LANDMARK BUILDING.
SO I THINK THAT KIND OF CLARIFICATION STILL NEEDS TO BE IN ANY KIND OF DOCUMENT LIKE THIS, YOU KNOW, WHERE, WHERE IT CAN BE USED BECAUSE WE, WE DON'T WANT TO ADVOCATE, OUR CODE SAYS THE FIRST THING YOU DO IS REPAIR.
AND SO WE DON'T WANT TO ADVOCATE SOMEBODY WITH WOOD SIDING JUST TEARING IT OFF AND USING ONE OF THESE SYNTHETICS.
SO I, I THINK THAT CONTEXT IS IMPORTANT.
IF YOU DON'T MIND, I WAS GONNA, THAT WAS A BIG COMMENT I HAD AND I WAS JUST, I THINK YOU, THE LANGUAGE THAT YOU USE IN THE INTRODUCTION IN CHAPTER ONE IS GOOD.
THAT WAY IT SHOWS WHERE WE'RE, WHERE THE PRIORITIES SHOULD BE AS FAR AS WHATEVER THE MATERIAL IS OR WHATEVER THE THING IS THAT YOU WANNA REPLACE.
UM, USING THE TERM INTRODUCTION LESSONS, ITS IMPORTANCE.
UM, AN INTRODUCTION WOULD BE THESE ARE THE GUIDELINES FOR THE, THE ARCHITECTURAL REWARD RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING GUIDELINES PERIOD.
OR MAYBE A LITTLE BIT MORE IN DEPTH.
BUT THAT INTRODUCTION SECTION REALLY SETS DOWN OUR PRESUMPTIONS AND PRIORITIES AND I THINK IT SHOULD BE GIVEN MORE IMPORTANCE.
[01:45:01]
I THINK IT, I JUST REREAD IT JUST NOW BECAUSE THAT IS A CONCERN OF MINE.UM, AND MAYBE THERE COULD BE SOME MORE LANGUAGE THAT TO EMPHASIZE ORIGINAL HISTORIC MATERIALS.
UM, I LIKE THE WAY YOU PULLED OUT IN A BULLETED LIST THE PRIORITIES, WHAT YOU SHOULD DO FIRST, WHAT YOU SHOULD, YOU KNOW, IF THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE, THEN GO TO THE NEXT, UM, MAYBE A DISTINCTION ABOUT THE ORIGINAL SECTION OF THE BUILDINGS VERSUS ANY NEW BUILD.
UM, BUT JUST THE TITLE INTRODUCTION IS JUST NOT GOOD
SO MAYBE JUST A COUPLE OF PROCESS, MORE PROCESS.
SO DO, HOW DO WE SEE THIS? SO WE THINK, UH, OKAY WE HAVE A GROUP OF ALTERNATE MATERIALS THAT WE'VE APPROVED NOW AND THEY WOULD END UP IN HERE AND HOW AND WHERE WE USED THEM.
SO IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO USE A NEW MATERIAL, IT WOULD COME, I MEAN NOW IT WOULD COME VIA A REQUEST AND THEN WE WOULD APPROVE IT POTENTIALLY AS A WAIVER ON THEIRS AND IT WOULD BE ADDED TO HERE.
AND THEN AS WE HAVE ALTERNATE MATERIALS, WE WOULD IT, WOULD THIS ASK ACT AS APPROVAL OR WOULD WE HAVE TO HAVE A WAIVER FOR EVERYONE THAT COMES? THEY WILL STILL NEED TO COME WITH A WAIVER.
BUT THEY WILL KNOW THAT IF THEY COME WITH A WAIVER AND THAT QUALIFIES FOR THE WAIVER CRITERIA, THEY MIGHT GET APPROVED EVEN THOUGH THESE BUILDINGS FOR WHICH THE WAIVER WAS APPROVED WAS ANOTHER SIMILAR CRITERIA, BUT THEY KIND OF QUALIFY THE CRITERIA.
SO IF THEY'RE ABLE TO MEET THAT CRITERIA, THAT MEANS THE WAIVER COULD BE GRANTED TO THEM.
SO IF WE DO A BACKGROUND BUILDING, YOU WOULD, THAT WOULD WOULD BE AN, COULD BE AN HOW.
HOW WOULD WE DO THAT? 'CAUSE THEY COULD USE AN ALTERNATIVE.
WON'T HAVE TO COME HERE WHERE YOU WOULD ADMINISTRATIVELY GIVE THEM UH, APPROVAL.
WE WOULD HAVE, I GUESS WE COULD LOOK AT HOW, YEAH, THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION BASED ON OUR CONVERSATION TODAY.
WE COULD DEFINITELY LOOK AT AS WE DO THESE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS, RIGHT? THAT IF YOU'VE SAID IT'S OKAY ONE TIME.
YEAH, WE'D HAVE TO LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE IN THERE BECAUSE SOMEHOW YOU HAVE HAVE, 'CAUSE IT'S NOT APPROVED.
SO HOW WOULD YOU WAIVE IT JUST, I MEAN, YEAH, I MEAN IF WE'D HAVE TO CHANGE THE CODE OFFICIALLY TO ALLOW IT, SO THEN MAYBE THAT IS LIKE ON A YEARLY BASIS THEN IT'S, WE'VE APPROVED THESE IN THESE INSTANCES ON ALL BACKGROUND BUILDINGS SO THAT MATERIAL IS THUS AN APPROVED MATERIAL, THEN WE COULD APPROVE THAT ADMINISTRATIVELY.
I THINK THAT COULD PROBABLY WORK.
I LIKE THAT IDEA AND THAT PROCESS.
'CAUSE I THINK AS, AS MORE AND MORE MATERIAL COMES IN, THEN HOW DO WE JUST MAKE SURE THAT WE, WE KEEP UP AND CERTAINLY ON A LANDMARK BUILDING IT'S GONNA BE CLEAR.
LOOK AT IT AND MAKE SURE IT SOMEHOW IS APPROPRIATE.
AND WE'VE DONE SOME INITIAL INVENTORY OF WHERE THESE MATERIALS ARE USED.
SO NOW THAT WE SORT OF GOT A SENSE FOR WHERE COUNCIL AND YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE LANDMARK VERSUS BACKGROUND, WE MIGHT EVEN BE ABLE TO MAKE A DETERMINATION OF AND IMPLEMENT THAT CURRENT, LIKE BRING THAT FORWARD WHEN WE BRING BACK THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL CODE MODIFICATIONS, THEN MAYBE THERE ARE SOME MATERIALS THAT IN A BACKGROUND INSTANCE YEAH WE COULD OUT OF THE GATE SAY WE'RE OKAY WITH THESE AND THEN WE COULD APPROVE THEM WITHOUT PEOPLE HAVING TO COME FORWARD AND GET A WAIVER.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S A CASE, BUT YEAH, I MEAN AT LEAST THAT'LL HELP MAKE SURE WE'RE STREAMLINE HOW MOVE FORWARD.
AND THEN INSIDE THE DOCUMENT IF YOU SAY, UH, EXTERIOR WALL MATERIALS AND I DON'T, I DON'T SEE YOU'LL PUT IN HERE WHERE WE'VE USED IT OR A COUPLE EXAMPLES JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN JOG OUR MEMORY TO MAKE SURE THAT OKAY WE, LET'S GO OUT AND LOOK AT IT TWO YEARS FROM NOW AND OKAY, WE SAW LP SMART SIDING YEAH.
DO WE, SHOULD WE GO OUT AND LOOK AT, SO IF WE CAN ADD, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE ALL OF 'EM, BUT A FEW OF THEM THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED OR WHAT HAS BEEN APPROVED AND WHERE THEY ARE, THEN THEY'LL HELP JUST TRIGGER THE MEMORY OF WHERE, HOW THEY LOOK OVER THE COURSE OF TIME.
IT WOULD ALSO GIVE PEOPLE THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO VISIT THOSE SITES AND SAY, YEAH, LOOK AT THEM MATERIAL.
DID YOU, YOUR PRESENTATION HAD THE PICTURES IN IT OF EXAMPLES, YOU'RE GONNA BE ADDING THOSE PICTURES.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE ARE THINKING.
WE'LL ADD IT IN THE END PROBABLY WITH THE ADDRESS AND MAYBE PICTURES OR MAYBE JUST THE ADDRESS.
SO IF THEY WANNA LOOK AROUND MAYBE IN THE GOOGLE, SO THESE IMAGES ARE ACTUALLY FROM GOOGLE VIEW, SO UM, THEY CAN BE CAPTURED THERE OR INCLUDED IF YOU WANNA KEEP THE LENGTH OF THE DOCUMENT SHOT, PROBABLY JUST INCLUDE THE ADDRESSES AND THEN OTHERWISE BOTH.
SO WHAT UM, SO WITH THESE CHANGES, WHAT'S THE, HOW'S IT LOOKING NOW COMPARED TO WHAT 70 SOME PAGES THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT? THEY LOOK GREAT ACTUALLY BECAUSE THAT ALSO MEANS THAT WE ARE KIND OF LIMITING THE NUMBER OF MATERIALS.
WE ARE NOT ENCOURAGING, WHICH IS LESS WEAKENING THE CODE AND KIND OF REINFORCING THE CODE AND JUST ALLOWING THE MATERIALS OR JUST, IT'S MORE OF KIND OF EDUCATING THE ARCHITECTS, THE OWNERS AND EVERYONE THAT THIS HAS BEEN APPROVED IN THE PAST WITH CERTAIN CONDITIONS THAT WE'RE ABLE TO MET AND WE ARE OPEN TO ACCEPT NEW MATERIALS AS WELL.
ARE WE CONCERNED ABOUT ANY UH, ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS THAT WE HAVE THIS BOARD APPROVED, SORRY, BUT WOULD NOT WANT
[01:50:01]
TO APPROVE IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE EITHER A, IT DIDN'T WEAR WELL OR ESTABLISHED? WELL I'VE NOT BEEN ON THE BOARD LONG ENOUGH TO HAVE THE HISTORY, BUT THERE MIGHT BE SOME SITUATIONS WHERE AT THE TIME WE WERE, THE BOARD WAS PERSUADED TO APPROVE AN ALTERNATIVE MATERIAL THAT LATER DID NOT MEET THE STANDARD OF WHAT WE WANTED FOR.AND THAT'S A GOOD POINT ACTUALLY AND WE CAN CONTINUE TO LOOK AT IT BECAUSE IF SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED AND IT DID NOT HOLD UP WELL IN LAST FEW YEARS, MAYBE WE DO NOT WANT TO REALLY INCLUDE THAT IN THE DOCUMENT AND OR EVEN IF WE DO INCLUDE THAT IN THE DOCUMENT, WE WILL NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR THAT BECAUSE IT DID NOT HOLD UP WELL ANOTHER THING TO CONSIDER COULD BE WHY DID NOT AT HOLD A MAN? WAS IT THE CRAFTSMANSHIP? WHAT IS THE, WAS IT THE MATERIAL QUALITY? WHAT THINGS THAT WENT DOWN IN, YOU KNOW, IT NOT QUALIFYING IT TO BE, UM, HOLDING UP TO THAT.
AND THAT COULD JUST BE AN ADDED THAT IF FOR INSTANCE THE REASON IT DIDN'T HOLD UP IS BECAUSE IT POOR MAINTENANCE AND YOU FIGURED THAT OUT THROUGH YOUR EXPLORATION, YOU COULD ADD THAT THIS MATERIAL'S GREAT.
BE AWARE IT'S ONE OF THE DISADVANTAGES.
I GUESS IT TAKES UTMOST OR MORE MAINTENANCE, THAT SORT OF THING.
I LIKE THE IDEA THAT YOU'RE UPDATING IT ANNUALLY AND THAT WOULD BE ONE OF THE UPDATES TO DO AS WELL.
OR JUST I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT SOMETHING THAT MAYBE HAD BEEN CONSIDERED, UH, AND THIS WOULD BE MORE HISTORIC ACTIONS BY THE, THE BOARD VERSUS NOW BECAUSE THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF CHANGES TO THE CODE, UH, AND DEFINING AND WE'RE REDEFINING THE AREA.
UM, BUT THERE MAY BE CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN YOU'RE DOING THE INVENTORY THAT YOU'RE LIKE, NO, WE DON'T WANT THAT.
SO THAT'S WHAT I WOULD BE ALSO WANTING TO KNOW OR BE CONCERNED ABOUT OR IF THAT IS NECESSARY TO FLAG IT AS SOMETHING THAT THE, THE CITY WOULD NOT WANT TO APPROVE EVEN THOUGH IT MAYBE WAS APPROVED ONCE.
AND THAT'S SOMETHING WHEN WE PUT TOGETHER, MAYBE WE CAN REVIEW TOGETHER IN THE END AND SEE IF THIS IS SOMETHING THIS WAS APPROVED AND YOU KNOW, LOOKING IT UP THAT'S, YOU KNOW, IT WASN'T A WRONG DECISION BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S NOT TRULY REFLECTING THE ARCHITECTURE OR THE UM, THE CHARACTER OF THAT HISTORIC PLACE.
WE DON'T WANT TO APPROVE IT AGAIN AND THEN PROBABLY, YOU KNOW, JUST EXCLUDE IT FROM THE APPROVED MATERIALS OR WE CAN EVEN CALL IT AS RECOMMENDED MATERIALS WHICH HAVE BEEN APPROVED RATHER THAN SAYING APPROVED MATERIALS.
UM, SAYING THAT WE ARE MAKING RECOMMENDATION, NOT JUST THEY WERE APPROVED BUT YOU KNOW, MAKING RECOMMENDATION TO THE PREVIOUS APPROVED MATERIALS AND THIS IS SOMETHING WE CAN LIKE MAYBE CONTINUE TO WORK.
WELL I, AND I THINK THIS WILL HELP AS THERE'S TURN TURNOVER ON THE BOARD.
UM, THIS WILL REALLY HELP, UM, LET NEWER BOARD MEMBERS KNOW WHAT'S BEEN DONE IN THE PAST.
WELL AND I THINK WE'VE BROUGHT THOSE QUESTIONS IN UP IN THE PAST EVEN WITH US IS LIKE, HAS THIS BEEN APPROVED? YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? SO I THINK THAT'S GONNA HELP US WITH SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS.
SO I CAN'T POSSIBLY REMEMBER ALL THE PIECES THAT WILL BE APPROVED.
SO ARE THERE ANY, ANYBODY WOULD IN THE AUDIENCE WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THIS? OKAY.
UM, DO YOU NEED ANY MORE FEEDBACK FROM US ON, SO WE HAVE SOME QUESTIONS AT THE END, UM, IF YOU'VE NOT ADDRESSED THEM DIRECTLY.
I, I I, I FEEL LIKE I ADDRESSED NUMBER ONE, JUST MAKING SURE THAT THE CONTEXT IS IDENTIFIED WHERE THE MATERIAL HAS BEEN USED, WHETHER IT'S, AND YOU SHOULD USE OUR NEW LANGUAGE, WHETHER IT'S LANDMARK, NON LANDMARK, UM, OR AN ADDITION TO A LANDMARK.
UM, AND AND PERSONALLY WE'VE, THERE ARE OTHER SECTIONS WE JUST NEED TO, YOU KNOW, FILL IT OUT LIKE THE FIVE POND TRIM.
I THINK JUST A COUPLE, YOU KNOW,
I THINK THAT ONE HOUSE ON FRANKLIN, BECAUSE THREE QUARTERS OF THE HOUSE WAS ALREADY VINYL WINDOWS, WE ALLOWED THEM TO USE VINYL WINDOWS IN THE ADDITION.
I THINK THAT'S THE ONLY PLACE IN THE WHOLE, IN THE WHOLE, SINCE I'VE BEEN ON THE BOARD VINYL WINDOWS HAVE EVER BEEN APPROVED.
[01:55:01]
COUPLE I CAN THINK OF.[COMMUNICATIONS]
HAVE ANY, I SEE COMMUNICATIONS IS ON THE LIST, SO DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING FOR US ADDITIONAL? UM, YEAH I JUST THOUGHT I WOULD GIVE A LITTLE UPDATE ABOUT THE NORTH RIVERVIEW UM, PROPERTIES AND WHERE THOSE STAND.SO THE UM, ATCH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WAS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL, NOT AT THIS MEETING BUT THE PREVIOUS MEETING.
UM, SO HE WILL BE MOVING FORWARD WITH HIS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT FOR THEN THE THREE NORTHERN PROPERTIES AND THEN THE RED HOUSE ACROSS, WELL I GUESS IT'S FOUR, SO IT'S THREE ON THE EAST SIDE OR WEST SIDE AND ONE ON THE EAST SIDE.
SO, UM, SO HE'LL BE MOVING FORWARD AND BE COMING THROUGH A R B WITH PROPOSALS AND PROJECTS AND APPROVALS FOR YOU ALL TO LOOK AT AND REVIEW.
UM, SO THAT PIECE IS MOVING FORWARD AND THEN THE THREE INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES, UM, WERE UP FOR AUCTION AND THOSE ALL EACH THEN HAVE HAD A SUCCESSFUL BIDDER.
UM, SO THOSE WILL ALSO BE COMING FORWARD AND WE HAD A LOT OF STIPULATIONS AND TIMEFRAMES ABOUT UM, MEETING WITH STAFF, GETTING THOSE UP INTO A MORE, UM, APPROPRIATE PROPERTY MAINTENANCE ASPECT BUT THEN ALSO MOVING FORWARD WITH HOPEFUL RESTORATION.
THAT'S OUR ULTIMATE GOAL HOPEFULLY IS RESTORATION.
UM, WE'VE BEEN VERY CLEAR ABOUT THAT.
SO THOSE WILL ALSO BE COMING FORWARD.
SO A LOT OF GREAT STEPS, UM, AND THINGS HAPPENING IN THAT PARTICULAR AREA DOWN THERE.
SO THOSE THREE PROPERTIES THEN THAT SOLD.
SO WHAT'S THE ZONING GONNA BE ON THOSE THEN? HOW ARE THEY GONNA BE ZONED? SO THOSE ARE CURRENTLY HISTORIC RESIDENTIAL AND WE INTENDED FOR THOSE TO STAY ALSO HISTORIC RESIDENTIAL.
SO THEY, I MEAN THE OWNER WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BRING SOMETHING FORWARD, BUT OUR GOAL FOR THAT TO REMAIN RESIDENTIAL.
SO THAT WOULD BE, THAT'S WHERE WE ARE NOW.
AND ARE THEY CONSIDERED LANDMARK OR BACKGROUND? THOSE ARE ON THE LANDMARK LIST.
AGAIN, 'CAUSE AS A WHOLE, I THINK WE FELT LIKE THOSE WERE SOMEWHERE WITHIN THE TIME PERIOD, BUT THEN SORT OF AS THAT NEIGHBORHOOD FEEL ON THAT NORTH SIDE, WE FELT LIKE THAT WAS APPROPRIATE.
AND THEY WERE ALREADY ON THE MAP THAT WAY, MARK MM-HMM.
IS THERE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? NO, I JUST HAVE ONE MORE JUST, I MEAN, JUST LISTEN TO HAVE ALL PUBLIC COMMENT AND I SAW INSIDE OF HERE WHERE YOU WERE GIVING SOME OF THE BULLET POINTS ABOUT WHAT YOU HEARD IN YOUR, IN YOUR, UM, I DUNNO WHAT YOU CALLED THEM AND YOU'RE GONNA HAVE ONE ON THE 11TH.
WOULD IT BE APP FOR US? FOR ONE FOR US TO BE THERE? I'M, I'M JUST TRYING, I DON'T WANNA, I DON'T WANNA DAMPEN DOWN THE, BUT CERTAINLY YOU HEAR COMMENTS AND I PUT, YOU KNOW, SUBJECTIVE POINT TO, YOU KNOW, IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT 0.2 AND 0.6 ARE REALLY ABOUT SUBJECTIVITY.
WHICH WE'VE USED THE WORD DISCRETIONARY, THAT'S WHY SHE SENSITIVE TO THAT BECAUSE I SAID, I SAID SUBJECTIVITY AND THEN OUR GREG DALE, OUR CONSULTANT, HE'S LIKE, LET'S USE DISCRETIONARY.
BUT IT'S INSIDE THE, THE THING YOU SAID HERE INSIDE OF YOUR CALLS, YOU SENT THOSE IN THE PUBLIC IT SAYS SUBJECTIVE.
AND IF WE HAVE ANY, I MEAN ARE THERE ANY VERBATIMS JUST, I MEAN DID ANYBODY JUST WRITE DOWN EXACTLY WHAT PEOPLE SAID? I MEAN, WE HEARD, I HAVE NOTES.
I DEFINITELY HAVE SOME NOTES THAT I CAN SHARE.
I DON'T HAVE MINUTES, BUT WE HAVE NOTES.
I MEAN YOU'RE, IT'S A PUBLIC MEETING.
YOU'RE MORE THAN WELCOME TO COME.
UM, YOU MAY HEAR AGAIN ADDITIONAL COMMENTS, WHICH IS GOOD.
AND I THINK IN THAT PRESENTATION, UM, WHICH YOU BROUGHT UP A GOOD POINT IS WE HAVE HEARD A LOT OF CONCERNS AND ARE TAKING, HAVE TAKEN STEPS AND ARE TAKING STEPS TO TRY TO ADDRESS THAT, AT LEAST FROM AN ADMINISTRATION STANDPOINT OF AGAIN, HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THE TIMEFRAMES ARE AS QUICK AND THOROUGH AS THEY CAN BE TO KEEP PEOPLE MOVING.
I THINK THE CONVERSATION TONIGHT ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH STAFF APPROVING, THAT GOES A LONG WAY TOO.
UM, WE'RE LOOKING AT OUR WEBSITE AND HOW TO UPDATE THAT SO THERE'S MORE OF A CLEARINGHOUSE FOR INFORMATION FOR THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
UM, I APPRECIATED SOMEONE, I CAN'T REMEMBER WHICH ONE OF YOU SUGGESTED, YOU KNOW, MEETING WITH STAFF.
WE DEFINITELY ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO DO THAT, UM, TO BE HELPFUL.
AND WE ALSO DO HAVE OUR ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANT FROM A HISTORIC PERSPECTIVE, SO WE CAN ALWAYS OFFER THAT UP FOR THEM TO COME AND MEET AND GET SOME ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK.
I WOULDN'T WANT THEM TO BE THE DESIGNER OBVIOUSLY, BUT THEY COULD HELP PROVIDE SOME GUIDANCE.
UM, SO AGAIN, WE REALLY ARE LOOKING AT HOW TO MAKE THIS AS USER-FRIENDLY AS WE CAN.
UM, I THINK A LOT, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF GOOD STEPS, BUT YEAH, CERTAINLY IF, IF GET FEEDBACK LIKE THAT, YOU HEAR THIS MM-HMM.
AND I THINK IT WAS, IT WAS GREAT TO YEAH, ABSOLUTELY.
BUT CERTAINLY IF WE, PEOPLE THINK WE'RE SUBJECTIVE, IT'S PERCEPTION ABOUT THAT.
AND CERTAINLY IT'S GOOD FOR US TO HEAR AND, AND TRY TO UNDERSTAND HOW, HOW WE'RE PERCEIVED AS BEING SUBJECTIVE WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO FIND YOUR WAY THROUGH.
A GOOD
SO IT'S IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
WE HAD THE FIRST ONE AT THE LIBRARY.
SO BECAUSE WE'RE AT THAT CONFERENCE.
WHAT TIME DOES THAT MEAN IBEL? I'LL HAVE TO CHECK THE TIMEFRAME YOU'RE GONNA BE AT THE CONFERENCE TOO.
WELL, I MEAN, OUR SESSIONS ARE DONE.
IF YOU'RE GONNA COME BACK, IT'S ONLY LIKE AN HOUR DRIVE TO GET HERE.
YOU'RE GONNA DRIVE OVER AND DRIVE BACK.
I DON'T WANT DAM, I MEAN, I DON'T WANT
[02:00:01]
SOMEBODY THERE TO DAMPEN OR, OR DISTRACT FROM PEOPLE GIVING COMBAT.SO I, I, I MEAN I'D BE INTERESTED GOING ON, BUT I CERTAINLY IF, IF I, I DON'T WANT THE WHOLE BOARD THERE EITHER.
WELL, IF THE WHOLE BOARD'S THERE, THEN WE'D HAVE TO NOTICE IT AND IT BECOMES A MEETING.
AND I'M NOT GOING TO BE EITHER, SO WE SHOULDN'T HAVE A MAJORITY.
SO REALLY JUST TWO OF US SHOULD, CAN GO.
WELL, I'LL CONFIRM THE, I'LL, I'LL SEND YOU ALL AN EMAIL CONFIRMING THE DATE AND LOCATION JUST AGAIN, AND THEN YOU ALL CAN YEAH, GOOD POINT.
DECIDE IF THERE'S A DELEGATE THAT WANTS TO COME, OR AGAIN, WE CAN JUST REPORT BACK.
THEN PEOPLE FEEL COMFORTABLE SHARING WHAT THEY WANT AND THEN YOU ALL CAN UNDERSTAND THAT.
WELL, IT'S LIKE I SAY, BE HAPPY TO HAVE PEOPLE YEAH.
THAT'S OKAY ON THAT SIDE TOO, BUT, UM, BUT I ALSO DON'T WANT TO, THAT'D BE DISTRACTING.
I HAVE ONE, UM, FURTHER COMMENT THAT WILL REQUIRE I THINK, A LITTLE BIT MORE RESEARCH ON YOUR PART.
I THINK THE ONE INDIVIDUAL'S COMMENT ABOUT THE SETTING IS INTIMIDATING IS ACCURATE.
AND I DO THINK, UM, IF WE HAD, NOW WE ARE SO TIED TO TECHNOLOGY MM-HMM.
I THINK SHE'S ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
THESE KIND, AND WE'RE NOT THE ONLY BOARD THAT SITS IN ONE.
MOST OF THE BOARDS, MOST OF THE BOARDS OUTSIDE OF COLUMBUS ARE USING THEIR CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
AND, AND YOU KNOW, IF WE COULD CHANGE THE WAY EVEN WE'RE SEATED, YOU KNOW, OUR, OUR LOCATION AT THE OLD CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, I THINK WHEN WE, WHEN WE HAVE MEETINGS THERE AND THEY PUT THE TABLES IN THE MIDDLE AND THE CEILING'S LOWER, IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE INTIMATE.
UM, I THINK IT'S SOMETHING, IT'S, WELL, WHETHER IT'S THERE OR SOMEPLACE, I THINK THIS, I THINK SHE'S ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
AND, AND, UM, YOU KNOW, THE, WE'RE A BOARD THAT DEALS WITH DESIGN.
THE DESIGN OF THIS ROOM IMPACTS THE WAY PEOPLE FEEL AND SHE'S RIGHT.
SO I THINK IF WE COULD FIND ANOTHER WAY OR ANOTHER SETTING OKAY.
IT MIGHT MAKE PEOPLE FEEL, I, I DON'T THINK, AND, AND I'M GLAD THIS WE'RE STILL ON MEET ON THE, UH, ON THE CAMERA BECAUSE I, I'M, I DON'T THINK THESE MEETINGS WILL EVER BE UNINTIMIDATING FOR PEOPLE WHO'VE NEVER BEEN THROUGH IT BEFORE.
SO I DON'T THINK THAT WE CAN LIMIT SOLVE THAT.
UM, BUT IF WE CAN GET, IF THERE'S NOT SUCH A DISTANCE WHERE IT DOESN'T SEEM QUITE SO FORMAL, I THINK IT MIGHT HELP.
YEAH, WE CAN DEFINITELY LOOK AT THE, AT WHETHER THAT CAN BE HAPPENING HERE.
I THINK PART OF IT'S THE STREAMING PIECE OF THAT.
SO YEAH, LET US LOOK INTO WHAT SOME OPTIONS MIGHT BE, UM, AND HOW TO DO THAT.
'CAUSE I THINK THE ABILITY TO STREAM IS VERY HELPFUL, BUT YES, IT DOES.
AND THE MICROPHONES ABSOLUTELY.
AND WE HAVE PORTABLE MICROPHONES NOW, SO THAT IS ALSO POSSIBLE.
HAVING THE SCREENS HERE, DESKTOP ARE VERY HANDY RATHER THAN, WELL MAYBE THAT'S, YEAH.
SO THAT MIGHT BE A COMPROMISE, RIGHT? THAT YOU BRING, BRING OUR TECHNOLOGY AND JUST MAKE SURE IT'S WORKING AND AT LEAST BRING OUR LAPTOPS AND MAKE SURE AT LEAST THREE OF THEM ARE WORKING AROUND.
BUT ONE THING TOO IS FOR INFORMAL REVIEWS, THOSE MAYBE SHOULD, COULD BE DONE MORE INFORMALLY THEN.
WELL, WE DON'T HAVE AN INFORMAL REVIEW.
NO, WE, EVERYBODY BRINGS THE STUFF TO US.
SO EVERY REVIEW IS LIKE, IS LIKE THIS.
WELL, EVEN WE THOUGH, WE TELL 'EM BRING A SKETCHES.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO, BUT I, I THINK, I THINK SHE'S RIGHT.
THE OTHER PROBLEM WE WOULD HAVE IS MAKING SURE THAT ONE PERSON TALKS AT A TIME.
AND WHEN YOU GO INFORMALLY, YOU DON'T HAVE THAT WHEN YOU'RE FORMAL.
SO I MEAN THAT THE CHAIR, THAT'S TRUE.
AND, AND IF THEY'RE DOING A REASONABLE JOB, THEY CAN MM-HMM.
WELL, LET ME GET, LET ME LOOK AT SOME OPTIONS AND TALK TO THE CLERK'S OFFICE AND SEE WHAT WE CAN DO AND WHAT THAT MIGHT LOOK LIKE AND GO FROM THERE.
SO APPRECIATE THAT SUGGESTION.
I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION WE ADJOURN.