* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:02] GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME [CALL TO ORDER] TO THE CITY OF DUBLIN ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD HEARING. UM, FOR THOSE WHO ARE WATCHING THIS VIA THE LIVE STREAM, THIS IS BEING HELD AT 5 5 5 5 PERIMETER DRIVE IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS. YOU CAN ACCESS VIDEO OF THIS MEETING AND PASS MEETINGS THROUGH THE CITY'S WEBSITE. UM, THE MEETING PROCEDURE FOR CASES THIS EVENING WILL BEGIN WITH A STAFF PRESENTATION FOLLOWED BY AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE APPLICANT TO MAKE A PRESENTATION. THE BOARD WILL THEN ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF THE STAFF AND THE APPLICANT WILL THEN SEE IF THERE HAS BEEN ANY PUBLIC COMMENT SUBMITTED. THAT PUBLIC COMMENT CAN COME VIA EMAIL OR IF THERE'S SOMEONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK AND THEN WE'LL DELIBERATE AND, UM, WHEN APPROPRIATE. UM, ISSUE, ISSUE A RULING OR FINDINGS. UH, WE START ALL OF OUR MEETINGS WITH THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. SO IF YOU'D ALL STAND AND FACE THE FLAG. JUDY, WILL YOU CALL THE ROLL PLEASE? MS. DAMER? HERE. MR. JEWEL? HERE. MS. COOPER? HERE. MR. ALEXANDER? HERE. MR. KOTTER IS EXCUSED. OKAY. ALRIGHT. [ACCEPTANCE OF DOCUMENTS and APPROVAL OF MINUTES] IS THERE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE DOCUMENTS INTO RECORD AND APPROVE THE A RB MEETING MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 21ST? SO MOVED. SECOND. MR. JEWEL? YES. MS. DAMER? YES. MR. ALEXANDER? YES. MS. COOPER? YES. ALRIGHT. OUR BOARD IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REVIEW OF CONSTRUCTION AND MODIFICATIONS OR ALTERATIONS TO ANY SITE IN THE AREA SUBJECT TO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING CODE SECTION 1 53 0.170. UH, THIS BOARD HAS A DECISION MAKING RESPONSIBILITY ON THESE CASES. ANYONE WHO INTENDS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON CASES THIS EVENING MUST BE SWORN IN. SO IF YOU ARE GOING TO ADDRESS US, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND ANSWER IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THIS BOARD? OKAY. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. AND JUST A REMINDER, UH, IF YOU DO COME UP TO ADDRESS US, WE'LL ASK YOU TO BOTH INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND GIVE US YOUR, YOUR ADDRESS. UM, IN, IN ORDER FOR OUR AGENDA TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE EFFICIENT, UM, HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT MAKING A CHANGE TO THE ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED AGENDA SO THAT WE HEAR CASES 24.017 AND 24.014? UH, FIRST, BUT, BUT TO CHANGE THAT WE NEED A MOTION. CHANGE THE AGENDA. WE NEED A MOTION AND A VOTE. THAT'S FINE. SO MOVED. YEP. SO MOVED. SECOND. OKAY. MR. JEWEL? YES. MS. DAMER? YES. MR. ALEXANDER? YES. MS. COOPER? YES. OKAY, THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, WE'LL START [Case #24-017ARB & Case #24-014ARB-CP ] WITH THE TWO CASES I MENTIONED. UM, THIS IS A PROPOSAL FOR DEMOLITION OF A LANDMARK OUTBUILDING WITH A WAIVER REQUEST TO RECLASSIFY AS BACKGROUND AND A PROPOSAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF ATTACHED GARAGE WITH LIVING SPACE WITH A WAIVER REQUEST REGARDING MATERIALS. THE 0.3 ACRE SITE IS ZONED HD HISTORIC RESIDENTIAL AND IS LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF SPRING HILL LANE AND SOUTH RIVERVIEW STREET. SO, SARAH, WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN AND GOOD EVENING BOARD MEMBERS. UH, THIS IS INDEED 55 SOUTH RIVERVIEW STREET AND THE LOCATION, THE SITE LOCATION IS AT THE INTERSECTION OF SOUTH BLACKSMITH LANE, SPRING HILL LANE AND SOUTH RIVERVIEW STREET. THE SITE IS WITHIN THE HISTORIC RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT WITH HISTORIC SOUTH TO THE WEST AND HISTORIC CORE TO THE NORTHWEST. THIS IS A VERNACULAR STYLE HOUSE BUILT AROUND 1900. THE FRONT PORCH THAT YOU SEE IN THE PHOTO WAS ADDED IN 1991 AND IN 2008 THERE WAS A SIGNIFICANT ADDITION ONTO THE REAR OF THE HOUSE. AND YOU CAN SEE IT KIND OF STARTING BEHIND THE LARGE TREE AND THEN HEADING TO THE RIGHT IN THE RIGHT HAND PHOTO, THIS IS ANOTHER VIEW OF [00:05:01] THE DOUBLE LOT THAT THE HOUSE SITS ON. NOTE THE METAL FENCE, WHICH WILL BE REPLICATED IN ADDITIONAL LOCATIONS. I'LL SHOW THOSE IN A MOMENT. AND THEN THE GARAGE, WHICH SUBJECT OF THE DEMOLITION REQUEST IS ON THE FAR RIGHT HAND SIDE IN THIS PHOTO, THIS IS THE FRONT OF THE EXISTING GARAGE AS IT FACES SOUTH BLACKSMITH LANE. IT'S CURRENTLY LISTED AS LANDMARK IN THE HISTORIC AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT AND ON OUR MAP. AND WE BELIEVE THAT THIS IS LIKELY A MISCLASSIFICATION. THE OWNERS HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REQUEST A WAIVER TO RECLASSIFY THIS STRUCTURE AND, UM, THEY WOULD LIKE TO DEMOLISH THIS GARAGE TO MAKE ROOM FOR THE ADDITION THAT WE'LL SEE AS PART OF THIS PROJECT. SO TAKING A LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN, THE EXISTING HOUSES OUTLINED IN BLUE, THE FRONT PORCH IS AT THE STAR AND THE ADDITION IS IN THE GRAY. THE GARAGE REQUESTED TO BE DEMOLISHED IS AN ORANGE HERE. THERE ARE EXISTING LARGE TREES ON THE SITE THAT WILL BE PROTECTED AND ALSO THE LANDSCAPE SCREEN IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER. THE PATIO WILL BE EXPANDED IN THIS LOCATION HERE. AND THEN THE LOCATION FOR ADDITIONAL FENCING IS HERE. AS INDICATED, STARTING WITH THE HISTORIC FACADE, WE SEE THE, UM, EXISTING FACADE ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE AND THE OWNERS WISH TO ADD A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL TO THE HOUSE. AND AGAIN, THAT PORCH WAS ADDED IN 1991 WITH THE COLUMNS AND BRACKETS AS SHOWN. AND SINCE IT APPEARS A LITTLE BIT UN UNDER SUPPORTED FOR THE VOLUME OF THE PORCH, WE SUGGESTED THAT IT MIGHT BE POSSIBLE TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL COLUMN AND SOME BRACKETS. AND SO THIS IS PART OF THE REQUEST THAT'S BEFORE US TONIGHT. LOOKING AT THE NEW ADDITIONS, THIS IS THE NORTH ELEVATION WITH RIVERVIEW TO THE LEFT HAND SIDE. YOU SEE THE LOW HYPHEN CONNECTING TO THE 2008 EDITION AND THE TWO STORY GARAGE AND BONUS ROOM FACING SOUTH BLACKSMITH LANE. THE HEIGHT OF THE ADDITION IS JUST BELOW THE ORIGINAL HOUSE AND THE WINDOWS ARE APPROPRIATELY LOCATED PER THE GUIDELINES. THE REAR OR WEST ELEVATION FACES SOUTH BLACKSMITH. THIS IS OBVIOUSLY THE GARAGE ENTRANCE AND WE SEE A SECOND FLOOR CROSS GABLE WITH WINDOWS. THE GARAGE DOOR MATERIAL IS SUBJECT OF A WAIVER THAT I'LL TALK ABOUT IN A LITTLE BIT. UM, THE APPLICANT SHOWS THE REQUIRED SILLS AND LENTILS AND THE THREE CAR GARAGE MEETS THE DRIVEWAY CRITERIA AT THE RIGHT OF WAY. THIS IS THE SOUTH ELEVATION ADJACENT TO THE NEIGHBOR. THAT WAS A, A SORT OF A POINT OF DISCUSSION AT INFORMAL. UM, IT SHOWS INTEGRATION WITH THE PREVIOUS EDITION, BOTH IN FORM AND HEIGHT. AND HERE PLEASE NOTE THE SKYLIGHTS THAT HAVE BEEN ADDED IN LIEU OF THE HORIZONTAL WINDOWS THAT WE SAW AT INFORMAL. AND THIS AREA OF THE GARAGE WAS REFINED TO BETTER MEET THE GUIDELINES. THIS VIEW IS THE INTERIOR ELEVATION THAT CONNECTS TO THE EXISTING HOUSE. WE SEE THE SAME CROSS GABLE FORM. AGAIN, THE MAN DOOR HERE IS SUBJECT OF A WAIVER FOR THE MATERIAL. AGAIN, I'LL DISCUSS THAT IN A MOMENT AND NOTE THE AWNING DETAIL OVER THIS DOOR. SO MOVING ON TO MATERIALS, WE'LL START WITH THE ROOF AND THE SIDING. THE OWNERS ARE REQUESTING TWO ROOFING OPTIONS AS DIFFERENT POTENTIALS BASED ON AVAILABILITY. THE FIRST CHOICE IS AN ART LOCK, DIAMOND SHAPED ASPHALT SHINGLE THAT MATCHES PREVIOUS ROOFING THAT WAS USED ON THE ORIGINAL PORTION OF THE HOUSE. IT'S SHOWN HERE IN PEWTER SO THAT YOU CAN SEE THE TEXTURE. BUT THE, UH, REQUESTED COLOR IS CHARCOAL BLACK. THE SECOND CHOICE IS TIMBERLINE, HDZ AND APPALACHIAN SKY STAFF SUPPORTS OF EITHER CHOICE WITH A RECOMMENDED CONDITION OF APPROVAL. AND THEN BELOW THAT IS, UM, AN ACCENT STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF IN BLACK. YOU HAVE A, UM, SAMPLE [00:10:01] UP ON THE DEUS THERE. TAKE A LOOK AT, THAT'S FOR THE EXISTING BAY WINDOW ON THE 2008 EDITION. AND ALSO FOR THE UM, MANOR AWNING HARDY PANEL IS PROPOSED FOR THE SIDING IN A BOARD AND BATTEN DETAIL THAT MATCHES THE 2008 EDITION USING THE SAME DIMENSIONS. AND THE SIDING IS TO BE PAINTED SNOWBOUND, WHICH IS A SHERWIN-WILLIAMS 7 0 0 4 TO MATCH THE REST OF THE HOUSE. THE WINDOWS ARE PELLA LIFESTYLE. THEY'RE WOOD CLAD AND POPLAR WHITE ALUMINUM. AGAIN, YOU HAVE THAT SAMPLE UP ON THE DEUS. THESE MATCH THE 2008 EDITION AND THEY'LL BE INSTALLED IN A TWO OVER TWO CONFIGURATION WITH SIMULATED DIVIDED LIGHTS WITH SPACERS. PER THE GUIDELINES. THE SKYLIGHTS ARE TO BE FROM VEX AND THEY ARE LOCATED APPROPRIATELY PER THE GUIDELINES AND FINISHED IN A MATTE DARK BRONZE. THE MAN DOOR IS A STEEL DOOR FROM THERMA. TRUE. AGAIN, THIS REQUIRES A WAIVER. THE SMOOTH TEXTURE IS REQUESTED. STAFF SUPPORTS THIS BASED ON ITS LOCATION AND IT WILL BE PAINTED THAT SAME SNOWBOUND COLOR. THE GARAGE DOORS, WHICH ALSO REQUIRE A WAIVER, ARE FROM CLOPAY, THE COACHMAN COMPOSITE. UH, THEY ARE A CROSS BUCK STYLE WITH THE WINDOWS AS SHOWN AND WE SUPPORT THAT WAIVER AS WELL. THEY ARE TO ALSO BE PAINTED SNOWBOUND. THE DETAILS FOR THE HOUSE INCLUDE THAT MANDO AWNING THAT I MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY. THAT'S GONNA BE CONSTRUCTED OUT OF ALUMINUM IN THIS SMITH SCROLL DESIGN THAT YOU SEE UP ON THE, UM, SLIDE HERE FINISHED IN IN BLACK AND WITH THAT STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF. AND THE PROPOSED LIGHTING IS FROM KICHLER AS SHOWN AND IT'S APPROPRIATELY SIZED FOR THE GUIDELINES. THE LANDSCAPE DETAILS, UH, INCLUDE THIS FENCING TO MATCH THE FENCING THAT IS ALREADY EXISTING ON THE SITE. AND THEN THE STAMP CONCRETE FOR THAT PATIO EXTENSION, WHICH IS A MATCH TO WHAT'S EXISTING ALREADY. MOVING ON TO OUR LANDMARK GARAGE. UM, MR. BATAR HAS ACCESS TO THE ODOT HISTORIC AERIAL MAPS AND WAS ABLE TO SEE THAT THIS GARAGE APPEARS BETWEEN 1947 AND 1956. SO THAT'S A, A GOOD INDICATION AS TO THE AGE OF THE STRUCTURE. THESE PHOTOS ALSO DETAILED THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE GARAGE NOTE, THE MORE MODERN FRAMING AND SHEATHING AND THE MODERN CMUS FOR THE FOUNDATION. OUR CONSULTANT ALSO AGREES THAT THIS IS NOT A HISTORIC STRUCTURE AND YOU SEE THAT MENTIONED IN HER LETTER AND IN THE REPORT. SO MOVING ON TO OUR WAIVERS. THE FIRST ONE IS FOR THE LANDMARK CLASSIFICATION FOR THE GARAGE. AND UM, MOST CRITERIA ARE MET TO OR NOT APPLICABLE AND THAT'S FULLY DETAILED IN YOUR REPORT. THE SECOND WAIVER COMBINES THE COMPOSITE GARAGE DOOR AND THE STEEL MAN DOOR WHERE WOOD OR CLAD WOOD IS PERMITTED BY CODE. CRITERIA ONE AND FOUR ARE NOT MET AS A MATTER OF CONVENIENCE. HOWEVER, WE FEEL THAT THEY ARE BALANCED THROUGH EASE OF MAINTENANCE IN NON-VISIBLE AREAS. ALL OTHER CRITERIA ARE MET OR NOT APPLICABLE FOR THE ACTUAL DEMOLITION OF A. NOW A BACKGROUND BUILDING, IF THE BOARD AGREES ONE OF THE THREE CRITERIA NEED TO BE MET, STAFF HAS DETERMINED THAT TWO ARE AS DESCRIBED IN THE STAFF REPORT. AND FINALLY, FOR THE MINOR PROJECT REVIEW CRITERIA, THESE ARE MET OUTRIGHT, MET WITH WAIVERS OR NOT APPLICABLE. ONE CRITERION IS MET WITH BOTH THE WAIVER AND THE PROPOSED CONDITIONS. [00:15:02] SO STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF ALL WAIVERS INCLUDING RECLASSIFICATION OF THE GARAGE AS BACKGROUND, THE USE OF COMPOSITE GARAGE DOORS AND THE STEEL MAN DOOR. AND THEN STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE MINOR PROJECT WITH THE CONDITIONS INCLUDING PROVISION OF UTILITY PLANS PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT AND USE OF EITHER ROOFING CHOICE. AND WITH THAT I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, ANY INITIAL QUESTIONS. JUST TO CLARIFY CLARIFICATION FOR EVERYBODY. SARAH, YOUR, UM, STAFF IS FINE WITH THE ADDITION OF THE COLUMN BECAUSE THE CONDITIONS ARE DIFFERENT THAN THE TRIM THAT WE REQUESTED THEY REMOVE FROM THE PREVIOUS DESIGN. THAT'S RIGHT. THAT PORCH WAS ALREADY APPROVED. IT'S ALREADY IN PLACE. IT HELPS MEET THE APPLICANT'S GOAL OF ADDING A LITTLE BIT MORE ORNAMENTATION. IF WE WERE STARTING FROM SCRATCH WITH A BRAND NEW PORCH, WE'D PROBABLY HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION ABOUT THAT. AND IT'S NOT TRIM ON THE ORIGINAL VERNACULAR STRUCTURE. THAT'S RIGHT. WHICH IS WHAT'S WE OBJECTED TO LAST TIME. THAT'S THE APPLICATION OF TRIM TO THE ORIGINAL VERNACULAR STRUCTURE. YEP. OKAY. IT IS A 1991 EDITION AND WE HAVE APPROVED THOSE MATERIALS FOR DOORS FOR OTHER PROJECTS, RIGHT? THAT IS CORRECT. YEAH. SO, OKAY. UH, WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO MAKE A PRESENTATION? JIM WRIGHT RESIDENTIAL DESIGN SOLUTIONS 78 44 FLINT ROAD, WORTHINGTON? UH, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD. I'M JUST HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE. OKAY. ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FROM MR? I DO NOT. NOT OKAY. ALRIGHT. , THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UM, HAVE WE HAD ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? WE HAVE NOT PROJECT. OKAY. ALRIGHT. ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE GONNA SPEAK TO THIS? OKAY. ALRIGHT. SARAH, COULD YOU PUT UP THE, UH, THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THAT YOU POSTED? YES. AND, UM, OUR SWAG FRIENDS CAN JUST, THERE WE GO. PERFECT. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT. ALRIGHT. SO DOES, LET'S, LET'S JUST WORK OUR WAY THROUGH THOSE. DOES ANYBODY HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE RECLASSIFICATION OF THE GARAGE? NO. NO. NO, I DON'T. OKAY. AND OKAY. WITH THE WAIVERS FOR THE DOORS? YES. OKAY. SO OBVIOUS, ASSUMING THAT SINCE YOU'RE OKAY WITH RECLASSIFICATION, YOU'RE OKAY WITH THE DEMOLITION. OKAY. ALRIGHT. UM, AND ANY QUALIFICATIONS ABOUT THE CONDITIONS? OKAY. SO ARE THE APPLICANTS AWARE OF THE CONDITIONS YOU OKAY. WITH THE CONDITIONS? OKAY. ALRIGHT. OKAY. UM, DO WE NEED TO, I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE A MOTION FOR EACH ONE OF THESE. YEAH. MM-HMM. , SO, YES. OKAY. SO IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE WAIVER TO RECLASSIFY THE GARAGE FROM LANDMARK TO A BACKGROUND BUILDING? SO MOVED. SECOND. OH, YEP. YOU CAN HAVE THE NEXT ONE. READY. MS. DAMER? YES. YES. SANDER? YES. MS. COOPER? YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE DEMOLITION OF THE GARAGE? I'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR THE DEMOLITION OF THE GRUDGE. OKAY, SECOND. SECOND. MS. COOPER? YES. MS. TAMER? YES. MR. JEWEL? YES. MR. ALEXANDER? YES. OKAY. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE WAIVER TO PERMIT THE USE OF COMPOSITE GARAGE DOORS AND A STEEL MAN DOOR? SO MOVED. SECOND. MR. JEWEL? YES. MR. ALEXANDER? YES. MS. COOPER? YES. MS. DAMER? YES. ALRIGHT. AND FINALLY, IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINOR PROJECT REVIEW WITH THE TWO CONDITIONS? I'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE THAT MOTION. DO YOU WANT ME TO LIST THOSE OUT? UM, ONE BEING THE APPLICANT, UH, PROVIDE UTILITY PLANS TO DE DEVELOP DETAILING THE SCOPE OF THE WORK AT THE TIME THE BUILDING PERMIT SUBMISSION, AND THEN APPLICANT MAY USE THE GAF TIMBERLINE, HTZ AND APPALACHIAN SKY OR ART LOCK CHARCOAL BLOCK FOR ROOFING MATERIALS. IS THERE A SECOND? OKAY. MR. ALEXANDER? YES. MS. COOPER? YES. MR. JEWEL? YES. MS. DAMER? YES. [00:20:01] THANK YOU. YOU'RE APPROVED. OKAY. ALRIGHT. OKAY. OUR NEXT [Cases #23-132ARB-DEMO & Case #23-131ARB-CP ] CASES, UM, IT'S CASE NUMBER 23 DASH 1 3 2 ARB DEMO, RIVERVIEW VILLAGE AT 37 45, 53, AND 62 NORTH RIVERVIEW STREET AND PI 2 73 DASH 0 5 5 64 DEMOLITION. AND CASE NUMBER 23 DASH 1 3 1 ARB DASH RIVERVIEW VILLAGE AT 37 45, 53 AND 62 RIVERVIEW STREET AND PID 2 7 3 0 0 5 5 6 4 CONCEPT PLAN. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE DEMOLITION OF THREE BACKGROUND, BACKGROUND STRUCTURES ON A 0.1, 1.12 AND 0.16 ACRE SITES THAT ARE ZONED HD HISTORIC RESIDENTIAL. UM, THE REQUEST IS FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF A CONCEPT PLAN FOR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT ON A COMBINED 2.52 ACRE SITE, ZONED HDHR, HISTORIC DISTRICT, HISTORIC RESIDENTIAL, AND HD DASH P HISTORIC DISTRICT PUBLIC, AND ARE LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF NORTH STREET AND NORTH BLACKSMITH LANG. SO IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE REVIEWING AND DISCUSSING THE CONCEPT PLAN, BUT THEN GIVING FEEDBACK FOR THE INDIVIDUAL STRUCTURES. AWESOME. IF YOU WANNA, THANK YOU MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. UM, THE SITE IS LOCATED ON BOTH SIDES OF NORTH RIVERVIEW STREET, JUST SOUTH OF NORTH STREET AND NORTH OF WING HILL LANE. IT IS, UH, THERE ARE THREE PARCELS ON THE WEST SIDE AND TWO PARCELS ON THE EAST SIDE THAT ARE TWO. THERE WE GO. THEY, THEY ARE IN TWO DIFFERENT HISTORIC DISTRICTS. SO THE ONES ON THE WEST SIDE ARE ZONED HISTORIC RESIDENTIAL AT THIS TIME. THE ONES ON THE EAST SIDE ARE ZONED HISTORIC PUBLIC, AND AS WE'LL DISCUSS, UH, THROUGH THIS PRESENTATION, THE PROPOSAL IS TO REZONE BOTH SIDES OF THE HISTORIC CORE, WHICH IS WHAT YOU SEE ADJACENT TO IT TO THE WEST RIGHT NOW, UM, WEST OF ALONG HIGH STREET AND WEST OF BLACKSMITH LANE. THE, UH, PROCESS FOR THIS, UH, TYPE OF APPROVAL IS PRETTY LENGTHY, SO I WANTED TO JUST CLARIFY WHAT THAT PROCESS IS AND WHERE WE ARE IN THAT PROCESS. UH, YOU MAY RECALL YOU HAD SEEN AN INFORMAL PRESENTATION OR APPLICATION BACK IN FEBRUARY OF 2023, UH, FOR THIS PROJECT, WHICH ENVISIONED, UH, INCLUDING EIGHT PARCELS AT THE TIME, INCLUDING THREE PARCELS SOUTH OF THE CURRENT PROJECT SITE. AND THAT WAS, UH, UH, REVIEWED FAVORABLY AT THE TIME. AND SO ALL OF THAT FEEDBACK, UH, WAS NON-BINDING. SO WE ARE AT THE FIRST FORMAL BINDING, UH, STEP IN THE PROCESS. AND THE REASON FOR THIS, UH, BEING UNDER THAT TYPE OF REVIEW IS BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING THAT'S BEING PROPOSED, IT'S OVER 3000 SQUARE FEET. UH, THEY'RE PROPOSING NEW CONSTRUCTION, SO IT HAS TO GO THROUGH THE CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW, AND AT THE SAME TIME, THERE IS A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. I'LL EXPAND A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THAT WITH THE CITY. AND WHENEVER THERE'S A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT THE CONCEPT PLAN REQUIRES APPROVAL BY CITY COUNCIL. SO YOUR ROLE TONIGHT IS IN A RECOMMENDATION CAPACITY TO CITY COUNCIL ON THE CONCEPT PLAN. UH, BUT THE SECOND APPLICATION IS FOR DEMOLITION OF THREE BACKGROUND BUILDINGS. AND WITH THOSE ONES, THE DECISION RESTS WITH THIS BOARD. AND SO WE ARE ASKING FOR TWO MOTIONS. UH, JUST TO CLARIFY, AT THE END OF THE, UH, THE HEARING TONIGHT, ONE IS RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL OF THE CONCEPT PLAN. THE OTHER ONE IS DETERMINATION ON THE DEMOLITION OF THE BACKGROUND, UH, OUTBUILDINGS, AS I MENTIONED, IF, UH, IT MOVES FORWARD TONIGHT, IT GOES TO CITY COUNCIL FOR CONCEPT PLAN APPROVAL, AND THEN IT'LL, UM, COME BACK TO YOU FOR REVIEW OF A PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND REZONING. AND AGAIN, AS A REMINDER, REZONING, UH, YOU WOULD MAKE A RECOMMENDATION WOULD GET THEM REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. THEY WOULD MAKE A RECOMMENDATION AND FINAL APPROVAL WOULD BE BY CITY COUNCIL. SO THE INTENT IS TO, UH, COORDINATE THE TIMING OF THE REZONING AND THE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN. AND THEN EVENTUALLY THEY'LL HAVE TO COME BACK FOR FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL, WHICH WOULD BE WITH THIS BODY. SO [00:25:01] THAT'S THE PROCESS. THE, UH, YOU, YOU'RE AWARE OF SOME OF THE HISTORY I'M GONNA FOCUS ON. AND THAT WAS EXPLAINED THE, UH, REPORT THAT WE PROVIDED. I'M GONNA FOCUS A LITTLE BIT ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THIS SLIDE. UH, STARTING WITH THE INFORMAL REVIEW AND BASED ON THE BOARD'S COMMENTS AT THE TIME, UH, THERE WAS SUPPORT OF THE VILLAGE USES AND CONCEPTS. AGAIN, WE'LL EXPAND A LITTLE BIT MORE. UH, THERE WAS SUPPORT FOR REZONING TO HISTORIC CORE, WHICH WOULD BE NEEDED BASED ON THE TYPES OF USES THAT THEY ARE PROPOSING. THERE WAS SUPPOSED, UH, SUPPORT, THEY HAD SHOWN YOU A COUPLE DIFFERENT OPTIONS WITH MORE INFILL AND, AND LARGER BUILDINGS. THE BOARD SUPPORTED, UH, THE MINIMUM DENSITY, UM, VERSION, AND THERE WAS ALSO GENERAL SUPPORT FOR THE DEMOLITION OF THE BACKGROUND BUILDINGS. AFTER THAT INFORMAL REVIEW, UH, THE APPLICANT, UH, DECIDED THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE INCORPORATING THE, THE SOUTHERN THREE PARCELS. THEY HAD INDICATED EVEN FROM THE EARLY DISCUSSIONS THAT THEY HAD THAT OPTION TO DISPOSE OF THOSE. SO THOSE WERE SPLIT OFF OF THE ORIGINAL, UH, PROPOSAL AND WERE AUCTIONED OFF. AND YOU'LL BE SEEING A COUPLE OF THOSE TONIGHT UNDER THE DIFFERENT APPLICATION IN SEPTEMBER, CITY COUNCIL APPROVED THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE, UH, WITH CO HATCH, UH, UH, AS THE APPLICANT. AND AGAIN, THAT'S THE REASON WHY THE CONCEPT PLAN HAS TO GO TO COUNCIL FOR FINAL APPROVAL. SO WITH THE, UH, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, UH, WANTED TO JUST GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF A BIGGER CONTEXT HERE IN THAT, UM, THE CITY HAS AN INTEREST IN REVITALIZING THIS PORTION OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. UH, THE CITY ALSO HAD, UH, SOME INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS THAT WERE GONNA HAPPEN IN THAT AREA, SOME UTILITY SERVICES AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS. THERE ARE ALSO, UH, MASTER PLANNING EFFORTS FOR THE PARK NEXT DOOR. THE, UH, RIVERSIDE CROSSING PARK, UH, THE, THE WEST SECTION OF IT. UH, THERE'S AN INTEREST IN THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES. AND SO ALL OF THOSE CAME TOGETHER IN TERMS OF DRAFTING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. AND THE IDEA IS THAT THIS WOULD WORK AS A COHESIVE, UM, VILLAGE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE SURROUNDING AREA. SO THE EXISTING ATCH BUILDING, THE NORTH HIGH BREWING, THE, UH, STREET IMPROVEMENTS, THE, UH, PROPOSED PROJECT HERE WOULD ALL WORK TOGETHER WITH THE CITY IMPROVEMENTS AS A COHESIVE PROJECT. IT'S SOMEWHAT OF A UNIQUE, UM, OPPORTUNITY. AND THAT ATCH WOULD BE OFFERING SOME, UM, UH, SMALL BUSINESS INCUBATION OPPORTUNITIES, SOME, UH, EMPLOYMENT, UH, UNIQUE EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES, UM, OUTDOOR SPACES THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC, AND SEVERAL OTHER, UM, INCENTIVES THAT WERE COORDINATED WITH THE CITY. AND SO THE UM, UNIQUE PART OF THIS IS THAT TYPICALLY WHEN WE, UH, PRESENT APPLICATIONS TO YOU, THE PARKING AND ACCESS AND TRAFFIC AND UTILITIES ARE ALL THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPLICANT. IN THIS CASE, THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, UH, SPLITS THE, UH, RESPONSIBILITY, RESPONSIBILITY BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE APPLICANT. SO I'LL EXPLAIN SOME OF THOSE STEPS AS WELL. THE, UH, I MENTIONED THE BIGGER, UM, UH, PICTURE THERE. THE STREETS THAT YOU SEE IN BLUE ARE ONES THAT THE CITY IS, UH, EXAMINING RIGHT NOW FOR IMPROVEMENTS. THOSE WILL INCLUDE, UH, CONCEPT DESIGNS TO START WITH IN TERMS OF WHAT THE CHARACTER OF THOSE STREETS, UH, HOW YOU ACCOMMODATE THE DIFFERENT MODES OF TRANSPORTATION WITH EMPHASIS ON PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLINESS AND, UH, OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES. UH, POTENTIAL BURIAL OF UTILITIES, STREET LIGHTING, UM, VARIOUS OTHER, UM, UTILITY RELOCATIONS. AND TO THE EXTENT FEASIBLE, UH, POTENTIAL ON STREET PARKING. THE, UH, PARK IMPROVEMENTS AS WELL ARE AT THE CONCEPTUAL STAGE RIGHT NOW, BUT THAT WOULD BE, UH, COORDINATED WITH THE PROJECT SO THAT ACCESS TO THE PARK AND THE OUTDOOR AMENITIES THAT WOULD BE PROVIDED BY THIS PROJECT WOULD BE COORDINATED AS WELL. SO WITH THAT, THE PROPOSAL AS, UM, YOU HAVE IT BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS FOR THE RENOVATION OF THREE EXISTING, OR FOUR, I'M SORRY, FOUR EXISTING HISTORIC HOUSES AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF ONE NEW, UH, OFFICE BUILDING. AND THE THREE HOUSES THAT ARE LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF NORTH RIVERVIEW ARE INTENDED TO BE TURNED INTO SMALL OFFICE SUITES. UH, THEY WOULD REMAIN, UM, IN THEIR EXISTING FOOTPRINTS FOR THE MOST PART WITH SOME RENOVATIONS TO REVIVE THE HISTORIC FIELD, UH, OF THE VILLAGE. THE [00:30:01] HOUSE AT 62 NORTH RIVERVIEW, WHICH IS ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE STREET, IS PROPOSED TO BE RENOVATED AND CONVERTED TO A RESTAURANT, A DRINKING AND AND EATING ESTABLISHMENT. AND THE NEW BUILDING WOULD BE USED FOR OFFICE CO-WORKING SMALL EVENT SPACES. AND, UH, THOSE TYPES OF USES, THERE WOULD BE SOME DECKS ADDED TO BOTH OF THE STRUCTURES ON THE EAST SIDE OF NORTH RIVERVIEW. AND AT THIS POINT, THE, I WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT I MENTIONED THE REZONING A LITTLE BIT EARLIER. THE, UH, AT THIS POINT WE ARE LOOKING AT THE PARCELS AS THEY EXTEND ALL THE WAY TO THE RIVER, BUT ONCE ALL OF THE DETAILS ARE FINALIZED, THERE WILL BE A LOT SPLIT. THAT WOULD ONLY CONVEY TO THE APPLICANT THE PORTION THAT THE BUILDINGS WILL SIT ON AND EVERYTHING ELSE REMAINS AS PART OF THE PARK AND WOULD RETAIN THE HISTORIC PUBLIC ZONING. SO AT, WITH THAT, WITH THAT HAVE HAVING THE FINAL DETAILS YET, WE CAN'T ATTEST YET TO THE LOT COVERAGE FIGURES. THOSE WILL BE, UH, REQUIRED AT THE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN STAGE AND THE, UH, FINAL DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT PLAN STAGE. SO, UH, BUT AS A REMINDER, IN THE HISTORIC CORE LOT COVERAGE COULD BE UP TO 85% AND THE EXISTING STRUCTURES, UM, MEET THAT REQUIREMENT AT THIS TIME. AND THERE MAY BE SOME SLIGHT SETBACK VARIATIONS, BUT ALL OF THEM ARE EXISTING NON-CONFORMING. THE ONE I WANTED TO POINT OUT THOUGH IS THE HOUSE AT 37 NORTH RIVERVIEW RIGHT NOW ENCROACHES SLIGHTLY INTO THE WING HILL LANE RIGHT OF WAY. UH, AGAIN, THAT'S LEGAL NON-CONFORMING AT THIS POINT, BUT AS WE'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT, UH, LATER, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO ADD A PORCH ON THE EAST SIDE THAT MAY, UH, TURN TO MAKE IT INTO A WRAPAROUND, UH, CONFIGURATION. AND THAT MAY ENTAIL AN ENCROACH SLIGHT ENCROACHMENT THERE TO MEET THE EXISTING, UH, PORCH LINE. AND THAT WOULD REQUIRE BETWEEN NOW AND THE TIME THAT WE GET BACK TO YOU WITH THE FUNNEL OR WITH THE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN, THERE WILL NEED TO BE SOME RESOLUTION TO THAT ISSUE IF THERE'S GONNA BE AN ENCROACHMENT. SO IT MAY BE AN ADJUSTMENT, A RIGHT OF WAY PROMO OR ADJUSTMENT TO THE RIGHT OF WAY, LINE OR DIFFERENT PLANS, BUT WE'LL, UH, WE'LL BE BRINGING THAT BACK TO YOU. UH, SIMILARLY, THE, UH, CITY CONSULTANTS ARE RIGHT NOW IN THE MIDDLE OF STUDYING THE, UH, TRAFFIC AND PARKING AND WHERE TRAFFIC IS ORIGINALLY WILL BE ORIGINATING, WHERE TRAFFIC WILL BE GOING SO THAT, UH, THERE IS A PLAN AND DETERMINATION WHETHER A FULL TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY WILL BE NEEDED. AGAIN, THAT, UH, ONE OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IS THAT THOSE TYPES OF DETAILS WILL NEED TO BE PRESENTED AT THE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN STAGE. THE PARKING BASED ON THE CURRENT SQUARE FOOTAGES AND THE CURRENT USES THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED WOULD BE, UH, 71 SPACES AND PARKING IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT IS, UH, PERMITTED EITHER ON SITE, ON STREET, WITHIN A CERTAIN, UH, WITHIN THE PROPERTY LINES OR THE EXTENSION OF THE PROPERTY LINES OR ON PUBLIC WITHIN PUBLIC PARKING LOTS, WITHIN 600 FEET OF THE AREA. SO, UH, AGAIN, THAT WILL BE CLARIFIED AS WE UNDERSTAND THE USES, UH, MORE. AND THOSE DETAILS WILL HAVE TO BE BROUGHT BACK AT THE, UH, PRE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN STAGE. THERE'S ALSO A, A FLOODPLAIN AND A FLOODWAY ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE SITE, YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO SEE THAT THE BUILDING GOES OVER THE FLOOD PLANE LINE. SO THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE SOME MITIGATIONS, UH, MITIGATION MEASURES THAT ARE, UH, PRESENTED AT THE TIME OF PRE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND ALSO A SURVEY, UH, WITH AN INVENTORY OF THE EXISTING TREES AND AND TREE REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENTS. IN TERMS OF THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE BUILDING, THE, UH, GUIDELINES REQUIRE NEW CONSTRUCTION TO BE COMPATIBLE IN MASSING WITH THE, UH, ADJACENT STRUCTURES. IN THIS CASE, THE PROPOSED NEW BUILDING IS, HAS A MUCH BIGGER FOOTPRINT THAN THE EXISTING, UH, RESIDENCES, BUT CONSISTENT WITH THE GUIDELINES, THE MASSING IS BROKEN UP SO THAT IT TAKES ON A FORM THAT IS, UH, TO OUR FINDING COMPATIBLE WITH THE, WITH THE MESSING OF THE, UH, ADJACENT BUILDINGS, UH, THAT IS DONE BY, UH, DIFFERENT ORIENTATIONS OF THE DIFFERENT GABLES, AND ALSO TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE FACT THAT THE, UH, BUILDING SITS, UH, A LITTLE BIT LOWER THAN THE OTHER BUILDING. SO EVEN THOUGH THE HEIGHT TO THE, UH, MID GABLE IS APPROXIMATELY 20 FEET, WHICH IS WITHIN [00:35:01] THE HEIGHT LIMIT, IT STILL IS NO HIGHER GENERALLY THAN THE ADJACENT BUILDINGS. AND SO, UM, IT GETS LARGER AS YOU GO DOWN THE HILL ON THE OTHER SIDE, IN A VERY SIMILAR MATTER TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AT 62 NORTH RIVERVIEW, A COUPLE OTHER VIEWS, THIS IS FROM THE NORTH SIDE LOOKING SOUTH, IT SHOWS THE DECKS BEHIND 62 AND THE NEW BUILDING. AND AGAIN, THE LAYERING OF THE DIFFERENT ROOF LINES, STARTING WITH EXISTING STRUCTURES A LITTLE FURTHER WEST AND GOING DOWN TO THE, UH, TOWARDS THE, AND A COUPLE OTHER VIEWS, THE, UH, AS I MENTIONED, THE EXISTING HOUSES WOULD BE RENOVATED IN THEIR EXISTING FOOTPRINTS. AND THEN THIS IS FROM LOOKING FROM THE RIVER, UH, TOWARDS THE, UH, TOWARDS THE BUILDINGS. THE MATERIALS AT THIS POINT FOR THE NEW BUILDING ARE, UH, PROPOSED TO BE STONE WOOD, UH, SAND SEA, MELLOW ROOF, AND ALUMINUM THREAD WOOD WINDOWS. UH, WE WILL NEED TO GET MORE DETAIL AT THE PRELIMINARY PLANT STAGE IN TERMS OF THE COLORS, TEXTURES, HOW THE DIFFERENT MATERIALS ARE APPLIED. AND ALSO THERE IS, UM, UH, IN THE CODE, FLAT ROOFS ARE NOT ALLOWED UNLESS THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT THEY'RE APPROPRIATE. IN THIS CASE, THERE ARE SEVERAL FLAT ROOF, UH, COMPONENTS THAT WE BELIEVE ARE IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF ACCOMMODATING THE MASSING THAT THAT'S BEING BROKEN DOWN. SO, UM, WE WILL NEED TO UNDERSTAND SCREENING OF MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT, ANY ROOF MOUNTED EQUIPMENT, OR ANY DETAILS SIMILAR TO THAT, UH, AS DETAILS BECOME, UM, AVAILABLE. SIMILARLY, TRASH ENCLOSURE, DELIVERY SERVICES, ANY PS TO ANY OF THE BUILDINGS LIKE EXHAUST OR, UM, OTHER DETAILS WILL HAVE TO BE REVIEWED AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME AS WELL. AGAIN, A FEW OTHER VIEWS JUST TO SHOW SOME OF THE PUBLIC PLAZAS THAT ARE PART OF THE, UH, INTENDED PROPOSAL. AGAIN, THE STREETS HERE ARE SHOWN CONCEPTUALLY BECAUSE THOSE ARE IN THE DESIGN STAGE, THEY MAY LOOK DIFFERENT WHEN, UH, THE PROJECT IS DONE. UH, BUT THE APPLICANT ALSO PROVIDED SOME CHARACTER IMAGES, UH, FOR THE NEW CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING SOME OF THE AMENITIES IN BETWEEN THE, THE BUILDINGS THAT THEY WOULD BE PROVIDING. AND THIS SHOWS A LITTLE BIT OF HOW THE ROOF LINES ALIGN AND, AND THE OPEN SPACES AROUND THE BUILDINGS THAT ARE BEING PRESERVED. SO AS WE GET INTO THE CORE OF THE VILLAGE, AGAIN, THE INTENT OF THIS WHOLE EFFORT WAS TO TRY TO PRESERVE THE VILLAGE, FEEL AND APOLOGIZE FOR HOW GRAINY THESE PICTURES ARE. BUT THEY'RE KIND OF INTERESTING IN TERMS OF, UH, THE DATE AND HOW LITTLE THOSE HOUSES HAVE CHANGED. THEY, SOME OF 'EM HAVE HAD A LITTLE BIT OF NEW SKIN. THE HOUSE AT 62 APPEARS TO HAVE HAD OPEN PORCHES ON THE EAST SIDE THAT HAVE BEEN ENCLOSED AT SOME POINT, BUT THE CHARACTER HAS REMAINED GENERALLY THE SAME OVER THE YEARS. SO GOING THROUGH THESE, UM, INDIVIDUALLY, THE ONE AT 37 NORTH RIVERVIEW, UH, WHICH IS A WHOLE ON PARLOR, UH, STRUCTURE, THE DATE IS LISTED AS, UH, UH, LATE 18 HUNDREDS I BELIEVE. I THINK THERE IS SOME, UM, INDICATION THAT IT MAY BE AN EARLIER STRUCTURE THERE. AND SO 1900 SEEMS TO BE A UNIVERSAL DATE THAT IS ALWAYS LISTED ON THE COUNTY AUDITOR'S WEBSITE WHEN THEY DON'T REALLY KNOW THE DATE OF CONSTRUCTION. BUT NEVERTHELESS, THE, UH, APPLICANT'S INTENT IS TO, UH, UM, POTENTIALLY ADD A NEW PORCH ON THE EAST SIDE THAT AGAIN WOULD WRAP AROUND AND TIE INTO AN EXISTING PORCH ON THE SOUTH SIDE. THAT'S WHEN I MENTIONED THAT POTENTIAL ENCROACHMENT INTO THE RIGHT OF WAY, AND THEN POSSIBLY RAISING THE ROOF ON THE BACK ADDITIONS AND IMPROVING THE MATERIALS ON THE BACK SO THAT THEY, UH, BLEND IN A LITTLE BIT BETTER WITH THE EXISTING, UH, WOOD SIDING. UH, ONE THING THAT IS INTERESTING ABOUT THE STRUCTURE IS THERE ARE AT LEAST THREE DIFFERENT TYPES OF HORIZONTAL SIDING ON THE SAME STRUCTURE, DIFFERENT WIDTH, DIFFERENT PROFILES. AND SO, UM, THIS WILL BE A UNIVERSAL COMMENT ON ALL STRUCTURES. UH, WE ARE ASKING THE BOARD TO AUTHORIZE THE APPLICANT TO DO SOME, UH, CAREFUL PEELING OFF OF CERTAIN MATERIALS TO INVESTIGATE WHAT THE ORIGINAL CHARACTER MAY BE, AND THAT WOULD HOPEFULLY INFORM SOME OF THE DESIGN DECISIONS AS WE GET BACK TO YOU WITH, WITH THOSE FINAL DETAILS. THE STRUCTURE AT 45 [00:40:01] NORTH RIVERVIEW IS, UH, A GABLE L AND AGAIN, THAT HAS CHANGED LITTLE OTHER THAN AT SOME TIME. THE FRONT PORCH WAS ENC ENCLOSED AND USED AS INTERNAL SPACE. THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL IS TO, UH, IMPROVE ON THE, UM, AESTHETIC OF THAT ENCLOSED PORCH BY REMOVING THE, UM, METAL CANOPIES AND, UH, ADDING WOOD COLUMNS IN THERE, WHICH WOULD BE MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE GUIDELINES AND PROPOSING TO ALSO REARRANGE THE WINDOWS SO THAT THEY'RE MORE IN SCALE AND DECIDING TO BE A LITTLE BIT NARROWER SO THAT IT'S DISTINCT FROM THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE. UM, ONE ITEM THAT WE NOTED THOUGH IS THAT THE HOUSE CURRENTLY HAS ALUMINUM SIDING ON IT. UM, THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT THAT SIDING WAS MUCH NARROWER UNDERNEATH. AND SO AGAIN, THE RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO REMOVE THE SIDING, RESTORE THE ORIGINAL TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE. AND IF THE ENCROACHED PORCH NEEDS TO BE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT IN TERMS OF MAKING THE DISTINCTION WITH THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE, THAT THAT WOULD BE REFINED. IDEALLY, WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT PORCH, UM, RENOVATED TO ITS ORIGINAL CHARACTER, WHICH, UH, YOU CAN SEE, UH, THIS IS A DIFFERENT HOUSE ON BRAND ROAD THAT IS FROM THE SAME ERA AND ALMOST THE EXACT SAME DESIGN. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THAT THE HASSET 45 HAD A PORCH ON ONLY ONE SIDE VERSUS THE L-SHAPED PORCH ON THIS ONE. THAT'S EVIDENCED BY INTERNAL, UH, PEELING OFF OF MATERIALS AS WELL AS THIS AERIAL FROM 1963. AND THE APPLICANT SEEMED TO BE AMENABLE TO CONSIDER OPENING THE PORCH AND GOING BACK TO SOMETHING MORE THAN, UH, LIKE THE ORIGINAL. UH, WE WOULD SUPPORT EITHER SOLUTION WITH A PREFERENCE FOR GOING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL, THE ONE AT 15, UH, I'M SORRY, 53 NORTH RIVER VIEW, WHO HAS A 1920 DATE OF CONSTRUCTION. AND THERE'S ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO INDICATE THAT THE NORTHERN PART WAS ADDED LATER. IT HAS A DIFFERENT FOUNDATION AND YOU CAN SEE EVIDENCE INSIDE THIS ONE. AND UNDER THE INFORMAL REVIEW WAS PROPOSED FOR DEMOLITION BECAUSE IT HAD VERY LOW CEILINGS AND NOT MUCH USABLE SPACE, BUT AS THEY INVESTIGATED THE INTERIOR, THEY BELIEVE THEY CAN MAKE IT WORK AND, AND BE A VERY NICE, UM, ADDITION AND KEEP THAT VILLAGE CHARACTER. AND SO THEY ARE PROPOSING A COUPLE OF CHANGES HERE. THE PORCH ITSELF HAS A VERY LOW CEILING, SO THEY ARE PROPOSING TO OPEN THAT UP AND ADD SOME CRAFTSMEN LIKE ELEMENTS. UH, STAFF WOULD SUGGEST THAT, UH, THEY CONSIDER THE ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION OF THAT PORCH AND WHETHER IF THE FRONT IS REMOVED, THE FRONT MATERIALS ARE REMOVED, PERHAPS THE STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS OF THE ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION, UH, ARE MADE VISIBLE SO THAT THOSE DETAILS ARE, UH, SO, UH, CORRECT TO THE PERIOD OF THE HOUSE. AGAIN, THOSE DETAILS WILL HAVE TO BE FINALIZED AS, UM, THEY MOVE FORWARD. ON THE NORTH SIDE THERE WAS, I MENTIONED THE ADDITION, UM, IT WAS SUBSEQUENT TO THE HOUSE. IT HAS A VERY SHALLOW PITCH AND AGAIN, CONTRIBUTES TO THE LOW CEILING, UM, ON THE INTERIOR. SO THEY'RE PROPOSING TO ADD A MANSARD ROOF HERE TO, UH, EVEN ADD THE GABLE AND CREATE A LITTLE MORE HEADROOM AND, AND MAKE IT LOOK A LITTLE MORE INTENTIONAL BACK THERE. AND AT THE SAME TIME, IF YOU LOOK AT THE, UH, AREA UNDERNEATH THE PEAK OF THE GABLE, THERE'S ONLY ONE WINDOW AND IT'S NOT CENTERED. SO THEY'RE PROPOSING TO ADD A SECOND WINDOW TO CREATE SOME BALANCE. AND THOSE ARE NOTED IN THE, UH, RED CIRCLES. UM, WE ARE SUPPORTIVE OF THAT CHANGE. UH, WE BELIEVE THAT WOULD ENHANCE THE NORTHERN PART OF THE, UH, STRUCTURE, WHICH IS VERY VISIBLE, UM, FROM OUTSIDE THE PROJECT. MOVING ON TO 62 NORTH, UH, RIVERVIEW, AGAIN, THIS IS LISTED AS BUILT IN 1900. UM, THERE'S ENOUGH EVIDENCE THERE THAT IMPLIES THAT IT MAY HAVE BEEN AN EARLIER STRUCTURE, ESPECIALLY THE STONE, UH, COMPONENT IN HERE. THE, UH, AERIAL FROM 1947 AND 1963, UH, SHOW A LITTLE BIT OF AN OVERHANG WHERE THIS ARCH WINDOW IS RIGHT NOW. ONE OF THEM IMPLIES A PEDESTRIAN ACCESS, THE OTHER ONE IMPLIES VEHICULAR ACCESS. SO, UH, THE ARCH WINDOW IS NOT AN ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION AND THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHER, UH, WINDOW TYPES ON THAT STRUCTURE. WE BELIEVE THAT, UH, UM, DIVIDED CASEMENT WAS THE ORIGINAL, UM, [00:45:01] AT LEAST TO THIS CONSTRUCTION, THE 1900 CONSTRUCTION. AND, UM, YOU CAN SEE THAT THAT'S WHAT'S BEING REFLECTED IN THE APPLICANT'S DRAWINGS AND WE WOULD SUGGEST, UM, AGAIN, LOOKING AT THOSE DETAILS AS WE MOVE FORWARD. UM, AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE, THIS IS A MAP FROM 1856 OF FRANKLIN COUNTY, UH, YOU CAN SEE THE, UH, WHERE THE STRUCTURE IS LOCATED THAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN THE SAME STRUCTURE, BUT THE PROPERTY IS LISTED AS A 10 YARD, UH, WHERE THEY, UH, TREATED, UH, HIDES AND, AND ANIMALS CAN TO, TO MAKE LEATHER BASICALLY. AND SO THERE IS HISTORY OF THAT USE ON THAT SITE, WHICH IS, UH, KIND OF RELEVANT TO ANOTHER, UH, STRUCTURE THAT'S ON THE PROPERTY WITH THAT. UM, WITH 62, AGAIN, THE INTENT IS TO RENOVATE IT AND RESTORE THE EXTERIOR. THEY WOULD BE ADDING A COUPLE OF, UH, PERGOLAS ON THE NORTH AND EAST SIDES OF THE BUILDING ALONG WITH THE DECKING. AND TO GAIN ACCESS ACCESSIBLE PATH TO THE LOWER DECK, THEY'RE PROPOSING TO HAVE AN ELEVATOR WITHIN THE NEW CONSTRUCTION THAT WOULD HAVE A PATH FROM THE LOWER LEVEL OUT TO THE NEW BUILDING. THERE IS A, THE REMAINS OF A STONE STRUCTURE, UH, JUST SOUTH OF THE, OF 62, UH, NORTH RIVERVIEW. AND, UH, WE BELIEVE THAT THOSE MAY HAVE BEEN PART OF EITHER THE TAN, UH, TANNING YARD OR AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS AT THAT SITE. UM, THERE, THIS IS A VIEW FROM THE SOUTH. YOU CAN SEE THE RED HOUSE, UH, AT THE TOP OF THE PICTURE. WE BELIEVE THAT, UH, RIGHT NOW THE PLAN IS TO REMOVE THOSE TO ACCOMMODATE THE BUILDING. UM, AND WE THINK THAT THERE MAY BE A WAY TO INCORPORATE THOSE IN SOME FASHION. YOU CAN SEE ON THE 1963 AERIAL THAT THE STRUCTURE ACTUALLY STILL EXISTED. SO YOU CAN START SEEING SOME OF THE DETAILS BASED ON THE ANGLES. AND THERE WAS A LOW WALL, UH, ONE OF THE, SIMILAR TO THE HISTORIC STONE WALLS, THAT THERE ARE STILL REMNANTS OF THAT, THAT ARE IN THE SAME CONFIGURATION THAT STILL REMAIN. UH, THE POOL MAY HAVE BEEN PART OF THE FARMING OR TANNING OPERATIONS, I'M NOT SURE, BUT NO LONGER EXISTS BASED ON THE SURVEY THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT. THE FOOTPRINT OF THAT STRUCTURE WOULD BE RIGHT UNDERNEATH A NEW BUILDING. BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE GRADES, THERE MAY BE AN OPPORTUNITY AGAIN THAT IT SITS BELOW THE LOWEST LEVEL OF THAT STRUCTURE. AND SO THERE MAY BE, UH, A POSSIBILITY AGAIN OF INCORPORATING IT EITHER WITH ACCESS THROUGH THE STRUCTURE OR WITH ACCESS THROUGH THE PARK ON THE OUTSIDE. AGAIN, WE ARE AT THE EARLY STAGES. THE APPLICANT HAS EXPRESSED WILLINGNESS TO CONSIDER, UH, THAT WE BELIEVE THAT WOULD, UH, RESPECT THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA AND THE, UH, USES ALONG THE RIVER THAT EXISTED IN DUBLIN'S PASS. AND THIS IS JUST A GENERAL VIEW OF WHERE WE THINK IT MIGHT BE UNDERNEATH THE BUILDING, AT LEAST IN TERMS OF THE LOCATION. SO WITH THAT, I'M GONNA, UM, MR. HENDERSON IS GONNA SHARE SOME, UH, 3D VIEWS THAT WERE INCORPORATED INTO THE, UH, CITY'S GISI WANTED TO MENTION REALLY QUICK THAT SINCE WE HAVE ANOTHER, UH, APPLICATION AFTER THIS THAT'S IN THE SAME AREA, WE'VE INCORPORATED ALL STRUCTURES FOR BOTH PROJECTS INTO THIS, UH, VIDEO. BUT I'LL STOP HERE, JAY, TAKE OVER AND THEN I'LL WRAP IT UP. THANK YOU BASSAM. UH, UH, GOOD EVENING BOARD MEMBERS. UM, TODAY I'LL BE PRESENTING A 3D WALKTHROUGH, UM, IN IMAGES OF RIVERVIEW VILLAGE AND 17 AND 27 NORTH RIVERVIEW STREET, UM, PROJECTS THROUGH THE CITY'S GIS MAPPING SYSTEM. SO THESE MODELS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANTS ARE PLACED INTO THE CITY'S GIS WITH EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY. UM, THEY ARE SCALED AND POSITIONED TO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITY, UH, TO PROVIDE THE BOARD, UM, WITH ALTERNATIVE VIEWPOINTS FOR PROJECTS PROPOSED IN HISTORIC DISTRICT. UM, SO BEFORE WE GET INTO THE VIDEO, I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW A FEW IMAGES, UM, FROM DIFFERENT VIEWPOINTS IN DUBLIN. SO THE FIRST IMAGE ON THE LEFT IS FROM THE DUBLIN LINK BRIDGE, WHICH LOOKS TOWARDS THE REAR OF 62 NORTH RIVER VIEW AND THE PROPOSED NEW BUILDING. AND THE IMAGE ON THE RIGHT IS AN AERIAL VIEW FROM BLACKSMITH LANE LOOKING NORTHEAST AT RIVERVIEW VILLAGE. AND THE NEXT TWO IMAGES ARE AERIAL VIEWS OF BOTH RIVERVIEW VILLAGE AND THE PROPOSALS FOR 17 AND 27 NORTH RIVERVIEW STREET [00:50:01] AND RELATION TO THE SURROUNDING AREA. SO WE'LL BEGIN THE VIDEO WALKTHROUGH BY GOING EAST ON NORTH STREET, GETTING VIEWS OF 62 NORTH RIVERVIEW IN THE NEW PROPOSED BUILDING. AND WE'LL CONTINUE HEADING SOUTH ON NORTH RIVERVIEW, LOOKING AT THE REMODELED HOMES AT 53, 45 AND 37 NORTH RIVERVIEW. SO CROSSING THE INTERSECTION OF WING HILL AND NORTH RIVERVIEW. WE VIEW THE PROPOSED ADDITIONS AT 27 AND 17 NORTH RIVERVIEW STREET. AND SO WE'LL JUMP ACROSS UP TO EAST EAST BRIDGE STREET AND HEAD NORTH ON BLACKSMITH LANE, GETTING VIEWS FROM THE WEST FACADE OF 17 AND 27 NORTH RIVERVIEW ADDITIONS. SO WE'LL THEN ALSO GET VIEWS OF THE WEST FACADE FOR THE PROPOSED REMODELED HOMES AT 37 45 AND 53 NORTH RIVERVIEW. AND WE'LL END THE TOUR GOING DOWN RIVERVIEW STREET, LOOKING BACK TOWARDS THE DEVELOPMENT. SO THANKS FOR ALLOWING ME TO PRESENT. UM, AND I'M HAPPY HE DID ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AFTER THE PRESENTATION. THOSE ARE GREAT. THANK, THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YEAH, GREAT STUFF. ANY INITIAL QUESTIONS ABOUT THE THREE DS AND THAT OKAY. YEAH, I'D LIKE TO SEE IT AGAIN. . YES. SLOWER. DO YOU NEED TO SEE IT AGAIN? I'D LOVE TO SEE IT AGAIN. YEAH. ACTUALLY IN THE FUTURE, IF WE COULD, CAN YOU SLOW IT DOWN TOO? YEAH, I'VE TRIED SLOWING IT DOWN. I CAN, YOU DON'T HAVE TO TRY WORK THIS ONE, BUT YEAH, JUST IN THE FUTURE WHEN YOU DO THESE, OF COURSE, THESE ARE FABULOUS. IT'S ABSOLUTELY FABULOUS. THANK YOU. THANKS. ONE, ONE THING THIS REMINDED ME OF THAT I SKIPPED OVER IS OBVIOUSLY THE COLORS YOU MAY HAVE NOTICED ARE, UM, PROPOSED TO BE DIFFERENT. MOST OF THE HOUSES THAT ARE THERE RIGHT NOW ARE WHITE, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE RED HOUSE, AND THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO PAINT THOSE WARMER COLORS. UM, WE WOULD SUGGEST THAT THOSE WOULD BE FROM THE APPROVED COLOR PALETTE, BUT PERHAPS A LIVELIER, UM, SET OF COLORS TO BRING PEOPLE IN. SO THAT'S ONE OF THE, UM, CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THAT WE PUT IN THERE AS WELL. BUT, UH, WOULD THAT, I'D LIKE TO MOVE ON TO THE DEMOLITION, UM, REQUEST. AND THAT INVOLVES THREE STRUCTURES THAT ARE ALL ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE THREE HOUSES ON NORTH RIVERVIEW. UM, ALL OF THEM ARE ALONG BLACKSMITH LANE, AND AS YOU MAY BE ABLE TO SEE IN THE MAP ON THE RIGHT, AT LEAST A COUPLE OF THEM ENCROACHING TO THE BLACKSMITH LANE RIGHT OF WAY. AND THE STRUCTURES THEMSELVES ARE IN DILAPIDATED CONDITION. UH, THE ONE AT 37, WHICH IS THE SMALLEST OF THE STRUCTURES UNFORTUNATELY, WAS FOUND BY THE APPLICANT AFTER THEY FILED THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION, UH, [00:55:01] LEANING ON ITS SIDE AND DAMAGED. AND SO FOR SAFETY PURPOSES, THAT WAS REMOVED, I BELIEVE, UH, SOMETIME IN DECEMBER. SO IT STILL REQUIRES YOUR APPROVAL, BUT WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT THAT, UH, IS NO LONGER THERE. BUT THE, UH, OTHER TWO, YOU CAN SEE THE ONE AT 45 NORTH RIVERVIEW, UM, IT'S LISTED, BUT ALL THREE OF 'EM WERE LISTED AS BACKGROUND STRUCTURES AND THE, UH, INVENTORY. AND YOU CAN SEE THE, UH, HOW IT'S LEANING AND, AND TILTING AND, AND PRETTY BAD SHAPE. AND THEN THE ONE AT 53 NORTH RIVERVIEW IS ALSO, UH, IN, IN BAD SHAPE AND BACKGROUND AND, AND ENCROACHING THE, UH, CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF DEMOLITION OF BACKGROUND BUILDINGS. YOU, YOU NEED TO MEET ONE OF THE, UH, CRITERIA, I'LL GET BACK TO THE CONCEPT PLAN, UM, IN A SECOND, BUT FOR BACKGROUND BUILDINGS, YOU NEED TO MEET ONE OF THE THREE CRITERIA. UH, WE BELIEVE THAT THE ONE THAT, UH, THIS DOES MEET IS IMPEDING THE PROPER DEVELOPMENT, UH, OF THE AREA. UH, WE BELIEVE THE, UH, RIGHT OF WAY IMPROVEMENTS IN THAT AREA ARE CRITICAL TO, UH, THE PLANS FOR THE CITY AND ENABLING ALL TYPES OF, UH, ALL MODES OF TRANSPORTATION AND THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL BRING LIFE TO THE CITY THAT THOSE STRUCTURES WOULD IMPEDE. SO WE BELIEVE THAT THEY MEET THAT ONE CRITERIA, UH, THEY HAD, WERE NOT REQUIRED TO, OR, UM, PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF ECONOMIC HARDSHIP. AND THE, UM, WE, WE THINK THAT STRUCTURES WERE BUILT AROUND THE SAME TIME AS THE PRINCIPLE STRUCTURES THERE. SO WITH THE, I'LL STAY WITH DEMOLITION HERE FOR A SECOND. GOING OUT OF ORDER, UM, WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH THE CONDITION THAT A SITE RESTORATION PLAN BE PROVIDED AT THE PERMIT STAGE TO THE SATISFACTION OF STAFF. UH, IF YOU APPROVE THE DEMOLITION, THEY MAY PROCEED AT ANY TIME THAT DOES NOT REQUIRE COUNCIL APPROVAL. SO THE RESTORATION WOULD BE UN THE SITE RESTORATION UNTIL THEY'RE ABLE TO PROCEED WITH THE OVERALL PROJECT. WOULD THE CONCEPT PLAN, UH, WE INCLUDED THE, UH, CRITERIA IN YOUR REPORT. UH, THEY EITHER MEET OR, UH, MEET WITH CONDITIONS OR THE CRITERIA, UM, UH, TO OUR FINDINGS. AND SO THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE, UH, CONCEPT PLAN. IT SAYS DEMOLITION HERE SHOULD SAY CONCEPT PLAN, UM, TO APPROVE THE CONCEPT PLAN WITH FIVE CONDITIONS, INCLUDING THE SAME DETAILS I MENTIONED DURING MY PRESENTATION. AND I WOULD BE GLAD TO GO OVER THOSE, UH, IF NEED BE. BUT WITH THAT, I'LL STOP HERE AND BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. TWO CLARIFYING QUESTIONS. UM, AND, AND MAYBE, MAYBE A THIRD, YOUR PRESENTATION'S REALLY GOOD. THE INFRASTRUCTURE, WHERE'S THE BRIDGE? BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T HAVE THE BRIDGE ON YOUR DRAWING AND THAT BRIDGE CAN HAVE, THE CHANGE IN THAT BRIDGE CAN HAVE AN ENORMOUS IMPACT ON ALL OF OUR APPLICANTS TONIGHT. AND SO IN TERMS OF WHERE THAT IS IN THE PROCESS, I DON'T THINK PEOPLE KNOW THE BRIDGE IS POTENTIALLY GONNA BE REBUILT. THE, UH, OH, YES, THAT'S, UH, YES, I THINK THAT'S BEING TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WITH THE, UH, CONSULTING ENGINEER THAT'S WORKING WITH THE CITY ON THE PLANS FOR THAT AREA. AND THAT'S ALSO BEING TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WITH THE PARK PROJECT. AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE APPLICANTS TO KNOW THAT, AND ALSO AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO SEE WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE AND IF THERE ARE ISSUES OF CONNECTION EITHER THROUGH THE BRIDGE OR DOWN FROM THE BRIDGE. SO I JUST, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY IS AWARE OF THAT. WHO HAS A STA WHO'S A STAKEHOLDER HERE IN THIS, IN THIS PROJECT. SO, UM, THE SECOND CLARIFYING QUESTION IS, UM, THE SITE RESTORATION PLAN, IS THAT ONLY NEEDED IF THEY WANT TO DO DEMOLITION BEFORE CONSTRUCTION STARTS? YES. WE, WE ARE EXPECTING THAT FOR SAFETY PURPOSES. THEY'RE GOING, GOING TO WANT TO DEMOLISH THE BUILDINGS RIGHT AWAY. OKAY. AND AS WE TALKED THROUGH THE APPROVAL PROCESS, IT'S GONNA BE A WHILE BEFORE THEY'RE STARTING, BUT, SO YES. BUT IF, OKAY, BUT IF FOR SOME REASON THE DEMO WAS DELAYED UNTIL THEY STARTED MOVING EARTH, THEY WOULDN'T NEED TO DO THAT SEPARATE PLAN, RIGHT? CORRECT. OKAY. UM, AND THEN IN TERMS OF OUR PROCESS TONIGHT, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE CONCEPT PLAN, BECAUSE YOU WERE SO DETAILED IN EACH ONE OF THE BUILDINGS, I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE VALUABLE FOR US TO RESPOND TO THOSE COMMENTS NOW IF THE APPLICANTS WANT. AND SO THEY [01:00:01] SEE WHETHER THE BOARD WOULD SUPPORT THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS THE STAFF MAKES. SO, UM, JUST IN TERMS OF, IN TERMS OF OUR PROCESS, UM, BOARD MEMBERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY, UH, I WANT TO ASK THE APPLICANTS IF THEY WANNA COME UP AND SPEAK, BUT DO YOU HAVE ANY INITIAL QUESTIONS FOR BOSTON? NO, I THINK YOU HIT ALL THE KEY ONES AND OBVIOUSLY I KINDA HEARD ABOUT THE BRIDGE TOO. . I WAS, BUT, UH, PULLING THAT IN, BUT, UM, NO, I THINK GOOD. THE SITE RESTORATION, I DIDN'T SEE IT AS BEING THAT SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE OF THOSE BUILDINGS FOR VERY SMALL SINGLE LEVEL. PROBABLY DON'T HAVE A FOUND MUCH OF A FOUNDATION UNDERNEATH OF THEM, BUT GOOD CALL OUT. OKAY. MR. LAI OR MS. MS. LAI, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A PRESENTATION? HI, UH, GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS TIM LA UH, MY ADDRESS IS, UH, 4 0 1, UH, EAST, UH, SORRY, WESTTOWN STREET, COLUMBUS, OHIO. AND I ACTUALLY DON'T HAVE MUCH TO ADD TO IT. I WOULD RATHER, IF THERE'S ANY QUESTION I WOULD OKAY. BE HOPEFULLY BE ABLE TO ANSWER AND ANY INITIAL QUESTIONS? NO. OKAY. MAYBE WHEN WE GO THROUGH EACH STRUCTURE, THERE MIGHT BE SOME QUESTIONS. OKAY. OKAY. ALRIGHT. HAVE WE HAD ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? WE HAVE NOT. OKAY. ALRIGHT. OKAY, WELL LET'S START WITH THE, THE, THE FIRST MOTION, THE DEMOLITION. ANYBODY HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH THE, THE DEMOLITION? I KNOW WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE ON THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL, CORRECT? UH, I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS SO I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH IT. NO, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT EITHER. OKAY. ALRIGHT. JUST WANNA MAKE A MOTION. YEAH. YEP. I'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION TO, TO APPROVE THE DEMOLITION OF THE THREE BACKGROUND BUILDINGS, UH, WITH THE ONE CONDITION THAT WAS LISTED. SECOND. MS. COOPER? YES. MR. ALEXANDER? YES. MR. JEWEL? YES. MS. STAUS, SIR? YES. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. ALRIGHT. UM, DO WE WANNA TALK ABOUT THE CONCEPT PLAN A LITTLE BIT? YOU WANNA GO AHEAD AND PULL THAT UP ON THE SCREEN THERE? DO WE WANT TO GO THROUGH THIS, UM, HOUSE BY HOUSE JUST BASED ON THE COMMENTS THAT THE STAFF HAD? YEAH, I THINK THAT'S GONNA BE THE BEST WAY TO DO IT BY ADDRESS. OKAY. YEP. OKAY. AND I MADE, I MADE A LIST OF, OF SOME OF THEM AND, AND SO LET'S TALK ABOUT 37 NORTH RIVER VIEW. ARE WE OKAY WITH THE ADDITION OF THE PORCH? 'CAUSE THAT WOULD BE A CHANGE. THE STRUCTURE ON THE EAST SIDE, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE WRAPAROUND TO THE NORTH SIDE AS WELL? YEP. UM, I THINK IT WAS, I THINK IN THIS VERSION WE'RE ADDING IT ON THE EAST SIDE ON 30, ON 37. YES. IT WOULD BE ADDED ON THE EAST SIDE, THAT WRAPAROUND. SO IT KIND OF COMPLETES THE, THE CORNER RIGHT HERE ON THE LOWER RIGHT PICTURE THERE. MM-HMM. , RIGHT? YEAH. RIGHT NOW IT'S JUST YOU STEP DOWN OR YOU STEP DOWN. YEAH. RIGHT NOW IT'S JUST A, A PLATFORM OR A DECK. OKAY. SO EVERYBODY'S OKAY WITH THAT? YEAH. AND WE HAVE AN EASEMENT ISSUE WITH THAT ONE. RIGHT? WE WOULD LIKE AND THAT'S GRANDFATHERED IN, I GUESS WHICH WE WOULD NEED TO RESOLVE. UH, IF, IF THE BOARD IS COMFORTABLE WITH THE GENERAL APPROACH, THAT'S AN ISSUE THAT THE CITY YEAH, I'M FINE WITH THAT. OKAY. YEAH. YEAH. SO, SO WE'RE ALL COMFORTABLE WITH THAT, OKAY. YES. YEAH, I WON'T IF THE CITY AND THE APPLICANT AGREE ON A MODIFICATION OF THE EASEMENT SO THAT THE NEW STRUCTURE IS NO LONGER IN THE EASEMENT. 'CAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE PROBLEM LIES. CORRECT? YOU CAN'T, CAN'T BUILD SOMETHING NEW. MARTY, I'M SORRY. YOU CAN'T, THE PROBLEM LIES WITH YOU CANNOT BUILD A NEW STRUCTURE THAT GOES INTO THE EASEMENT. YES. IT'S IN THE ACTUAL PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. SO IT WOULD EITHER NEED TO HAVE A SPECIAL, UH, RIGHT OF WAY PERMIT OR THE RIGHT OF WAY LINE WOULD NEED TO BE ADJUSTED. SO RIGHT. THERE'S NO EASEMENT RIGHT NOW, IT'S THE RIGHT OF WAY ISSUE. CORRECT. AND IT WOULD JUST BE THAT, I'M SORRY I MISSED NOMMED, BUT UNDERSTAND AND IT WOULD JUST BE THAT CORNER WHERE IT MEETS THE CORRECT. RIGHT. 'CAUSE THE OTHER IS A PREEXISTING CONDITION, SO, OKAY. YES. OKAY. THE O ANOTHER POINT WAS, UM, THE ADDITION ON THE BACK WITH THE SHED ROOF, WHICH HAS THE VERY [01:05:01] LOW, UH, LOW INTERIOR PITCH IS NOT ORIGINAL TO THE HOUSE FROM, FROM YOUR PRESENTATION. SO THE SUGGESTION IS TO, IN THE DESIGN IS TO RAISE THAT ROOF TO GET MORE HEAD. EVERYBODY OKAY WITH THAT? YEAH. ANY CONCERNS? MM-HMM. . OKAY. THE, UM, BAAM IN YOUR PRESENTATION, YOU ASKED US THAT WE NEEDED TO AUTHORIZE OR, UM, SORT OF GIVE OUR BLESSING TO ALLOW THEM TO DO SOME MINOR DEMOLITION TO REMOVE, TO REMOVE THE, THE EXTERIOR FINISH TO SEE WHAT'S UNDERNEATH. YES. UH, FOR EXAMPLE, THE STONE, STONE FRONT PORCH, THANK YOU. UM, APPEARS TO NOT BE ORIGINAL AND THERE IS, UH, SOME EVIDENCE THAT THE SITING MAY BE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT BEHIND IT. SO THAT'S ONE EXAMPLE. THERE'S MULTIPLE WAYS OF, TO FIND OUT A LITTLE MORE ABOUT THE ORIGINAL DETAILS. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY, ANY ISSUES WITH THAT? I, I THINK IT, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. I THINK IT'S A GREAT IDEA. I WOULD WANT TO HEAR THE RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION AS PART OF THE PLAN. HOWEVER, WHICH WAY YOU DECIDE TO GO FORWARD. I WOULD JUST WANNA KNOW WHAT THE RESULTS WERE. YES. IS THAT, DO YOU HAVE IT DOWN AS A CONDITION THAT THEY MUST DO THAT? IT'S NOT SO MUCH THAT WE NEED TO GIVE OUR APPROVAL, BUT SHOULDN'T IT BE A CONDITION? WE, WE LISTED IT AS A CONDITION TO GET IT OUT THERE SO THAT IT'S PART OF, UH, YOUR MOTION, WHETHER IT'S REALLY A CONDITION OR AUTHORIZATION, BUT WE JUST WANTED YOUR BLESSING TO ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN. YEAH. IT IT, IT SOUNDS LIKE A DEMOLITION THOUGH. WELL, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE ALL COMFORTABLE WITH MM-HMM? . OH YEAH, YEAH. OF IT HAPPENING. AND I LIKE, OKAY. MARTY'S IDEA OF SEEING THE RESULTS . I, I, YEAH, I THINK THE STAFF REPORT SAID THEY, THEY WOULD HAVE COMMUNICATION WITH THE RESULTS AND WHAT MIGHT IMPACT LATER DEC LATER DECISIONS. UM, ANY OTHER ISSUES WITH 37? OKAY. NO. UM, 45, UM, 45 NORTH RIVERVIEW, THE STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED THE PORCH. THAT PART OF IT APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN ENCLOSED AT, UM, SOME POINT THE, THAT THE OPENED BACK UP THE HOUSE IS VERY SMALL FOOTPRINT. I CAN SEE SQUARE FOOTAGE IS IMPORTANT. UM, FEELINGS ABOUT THE NEED TO RETURN THAT TO THE ORIGINAL PORCH. I KIND OF SAW IT'S THE, IT'S NOT REALLY GONNA CHANGE, IT'S JUST YOU'RE CHANGING THE FRONT STRUCTURES, THE SUPPORT STRUCTURES ON THE FRONT AND CHANGING THE WINDOWS ON THE SIDE. I DON'T THINK THE, WHAT'S THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ACTUALLY GONNA CHANGE? WELL, WHAT'S DRAWN AND WHAT'S RECOMMENDED BY THE STAFF ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. OKAY. SO THIS, SO WHAT'S DRAWN IS KEEPING THE EXTENT OF THE ENCLOSURE BUT DIFFERENTIATING IT MORE, UM, AND THAT'S WHAT'S SHOWN IN THE RENDERING WITH THE DIFFERENT S SIDE. CORRECT. THAT'S WHAT I SEE ON THE RENDERING. AND THEN I THINK THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THAT AREA THAT HAS THE DIFFERENT SIDING BE OPENED UP TO RETURN TO ORIGINAL LARGER PORCH. JUST, JUST MAYBE TO CLARIFY, STAFF IS COMFORTABLE WITH EITHER OPTION IF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE IS NEEDED, WE ARE COMFORTABLE WITH THE APPROACH THAT THE APPLICANT IS TAKING. OKAY. WE MAY NEED TO WORK ON THE DETAILS, UH, PENDING THE OTHER INVESTIGATION. OUR PREFERENCE, IF THE SPACE IS DETERMINED, IS, COULD BE SACRIFICED, IS TO GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL. SO WE ARE COMFORTABLE WITH THE EITHER OPTION, JUST THE PREFERENCES TO GO BACK. OKAY. BOARD MEMBERS HAVE A STRONG FEELING ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. I'M COMF I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THEM MAKING, RETAINING IT OR OPENING IT. YEP. WHICHEVER IS BEST FOR THE FUTURE OF THE STRUCTURE. OKAY. YEP. I'M COMFORTABLE. I AGREE. I AGREE WITH THAT AS WELL. ALRIGHT, GOOD. UM, NOW I'M ASSUMING THERE ARE NO OBJECTIONS TO THE RECOMMENDATION TO REMOVE THE ALUMINUM SIDING . OKAY. ALRIGHT. OKAY. ALRIGHT. ANY, ANY OTHER ISSUES WITH OR QUESTIONS ABOUT 45? OKAY. ALRIGHT. UM, 53. NOW THAT, THAT I BELIEVE IS THE ONE WITH THE ENCROACHMENT. UM, ON THE NORTH SIDE? NO, NO, THE ONLY ENCROACHMENT 37. 37. OKAY. I'M SORRY. OKAY. WAS ON THE SIDE, ALL THIS CEILING, THIS IS THE ONE WHERE YOU'RE OPENING UP THE PORCH CEILING. YEAH. SO, OKAY. SO WHAT'S SHOWN [01:10:01] IS POTENTIALLY NEW STRUCTURE AND AN OPEN GABLE END. UM, IT'S CLOSED RIGHT NOW. UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDING, UH, IF I INFER WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, YOU'RE, YOU MIGHT BE OKAY OPENING IT UP IF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE BEHIND IT WAS PRESERVED AND EXPOSED. IS THAT RIGHT? YES. THE PICTURE THAT YOU SEE ON THE BOTTOM IS FROM THE INTERIOR WHERE THE PORCH ROOF WAS TIED INTO THE MAIN STRUCTURE. SO YOU CAN SEE A LITTLE BIT OF THE INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION. IT'S A LITTLE HARD TO TELL FOR SURE. UH, BUT THE THOUGHT IS THAT IF IT, IT, IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHERE IF SOMEBODY DECIDED TO RESTORE IT IN THE FUTURE, IS IT POSSIBLE TO RESTORE IT WITH THAT, UH, MAKING MAJOR CHANGES? SO IF SOMEBODY WERE TO GO BACK, IF THEY OPEN IT NOW AND IF SOMEBODY WERE TO GO BACK AND PUT SHINGLES BACK ON THE FRONT THAT IT WOULD BE BACK TO ITS ORIGINAL CHARACTER. SO, BUT IF IT'S GONNA BE OPEN, I, OUR THOUGHT IS DEPENDING ON WHAT THEY REVEAL, THAT MAYBE THE EXISTING CONSTRUCTION IS A MORE HONEST APPROACH. IF IT LOOKS APPROPRIATE. WAS THE ADDITION OF THE CRAFTSMAN DETAILING TO THAT BASED ON LIKE SOME ARCHEOLOGICAL RESEARCH THAT MAYBE IT WAS A CRAFTSMAN PORCH OR, UM, SO THE CRAFTSMAN STYLE, UM, KIND OF APPROACH IS NOT BASED ON HISTORICAL RESEARCH. IT'S, IT'S REALLY JUST A, UM, ATTEMPT TO CREATE A MORE KIND OF, UH, OPEN UP THAT PORCH AND THAT ENT ENTRY A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN WHAT IT IS NOW, WHICH IS VERY COMPRESSED. IT'S, IS IT'S REALLY LOW. LIKE, I THINK IT'S LIKE PROBABLY LIKE SEVEN AND A HALF FEET, YOU KNOW, UH, AT THE, AT THAT, THAT BOTTOM LEVEL. SO WE FEEL LIKE, UM, IF WE OPEN IT UP, IT JUST, IT WOULD FEEL A LOT MORE USABLE AND, YOU KNOW, FOR THE MODERN USE, I WOULD SAY. OKAY. OKAY. YEAH. AND THAT'S FACING EAST, SO YOU WOULD DEFINITELY GET THE SUNSHINE IN THE MORNING AND, AND WARMTH FROM THAT. AND THEN IT WOULDN'T BE UNBEARABLE IN THE AFTERNOON. SO THINK IT, IT'S A NICE VIEW. MAYBE THIS STYLISTIC TERMINOLOGY WAS A LITTLE OVERSTATED. I MEAN, I, BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE HEAVY BRACKETING OR YOU'RE NOT, THE COLUMNS ARE NOT REALLY SLOPING OUT. SO IF, IF THE GOAL IS MORE WHAT YOU'VE DESCRIBED AND NOT TO APPLY A STYLE ONTO THE PORCH. MY, MY ONLY LITTLE BIT OF HEARTBURN WAS, IT WAS WHEN I READ THE REPORT AND SAID, WE'RE MAKING A CRAFTSMAN PORCH. AND, AND BECAUSE WE'VE TRIED TO, WHEN THINGS ARE ORIGINAL, WE'VE TRIED TO NOT IMPOSE A NEW STYLE ON IT. BUT THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S THE ONLY, BUT THEN THAT'S, THAT'S MINOR, RIGHT? IT'S, IT'S MORE LIKE INSPIRE, I GUESS. RIGHT. YOU'RE RIGHT. I MEAN, MOST OF THE HOUSES DOESN'T HAVE STYLE REALLY. IT'S VERNACULAR. SO, SO, OKAY. UM, AND HOW DO WE PEOPLE OKAY WITH OPENING THE PORCH CEILING UP? YEAH, I AM. YEP. OKAY. ALRIGHT. UM, ALRIGHT. ONTO 62 NORTH RIVER. IF, IF I MAY, UH, JUST THE OTHER PART OF 15 IS THE, UH, ADDITIONAL WINDOW AND THE MANSARD ROOF ON THE NORTH SIDE. OH YEAH. THE BA AND YOU WERE GOING TO THE ROOF AND THE WINDOW, CORRECT? CORRECT. YOU WERE GOING TO GABLE THAT IT BASICALLY, THEY WOULD BE ADDING A, I'M GONNA CALL IT FAKE MANSARD. IT WOULD BE A PITCH THROUGH A HIGHER PITCH. OKAY. YEAH. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT, ESPECIALLY. DID YOU SAY THAT, THAT IN THE UPPER LEFT PICTURE, THE RIGHT HAND PART OF IT IS YOU THINK A NEWER ADDITION ANYWAY? YES. OKAY. YES. YEAH. AND THIS IS THE, THIS HAD THE PROBLEM WITH THE LOW CEILINGS INSIDE AS WELL, CORRECT? NO, I, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH EITHER ADDING THE EXTRA WINDOW OR THE ADDITIONAL WINDOW. EXCUSE ME. NOT THE EXTRA WINDOW AND ADDITIONAL WINDOW AND THE ROOF CHANGES TO THE ROOF. YEAH. I'M, I'M OKAY WITH IT AS WELL. OKAY. SO I THINK EVERY, EVERYONE'S OKAY WITH THAT. ANYTHING ELSE ON THAT ONE? NO. OKAY. ALRIGHT. UM, NORTH RIVERVIEW STREET, SO THIS IS ACROSS THE STREET, YOU HAD TALKED ABOUT THAT ELEVATOR ACCESS [01:15:01] THAT'LL COME OUT OF THE NEW CONSTRUCTION OF THE, THE NEW BUILDING, RIGHT. TO GET TO THE LOWER LEVEL OF THE STRUCTURE. IS THAT AN OKAY WITH AN EDA COMPLIANCE ISSUE? YEAH. I SEE THE DETAILS WILL HAVE TO BE, UH, RESOLVED AT THAT TIME WHEN, WHEN THEY HAVE MORE DIMENSIONS. BUT YES, THE, THE INTENT IS TO, UH, PROVIDE THAT ACCESS SO YOU CAN GET TO THE RESTAURANT, THE DECKS, UM, IF, IF YOU NEED IT. IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S NOT MUCH, THEY'RE NOT MAKING IT STRUCTURAL CHANGES TO THAT. COULD YOU GO THROUGH WHAT THE DISCUSSION WAS ABOUT THAT FRONT WINDOW, BUT IT'S, YOU SUSPECT IT'S NOT ORIGINAL. HOW DOES THAT CHANGE STAFF'S? WE WOULD SUGGEST, UH, STUDYING THAT AREA A LITTLE BIT MORE TO, UH, MAKE IT MORE COMPATIBLE WITH THE REST OF THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING. THE, UH, THAT WINDOW HAS, I'M GONNA CALL 'EM FAKE MOUNTAINS. THEY'RE ONLY ON ONE SIDE AND, UH, THE, UH, THE, IF YOU LOOK AT THE PROPORTIONS OF THE GRIDS ABOVE A CERTAIN LINE, THEY JUST DON'T, UM, THE, THE PROPORTIONS ARE NOT CORRECT, I GUESS IS WHAT I'M SAYING. SO WHAT WE'D LIKE TO HAVE IS CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT ON DEFINING WHAT THAT DETAIL 'CAUSE THE WINDOW'S GONNA HAVE TO BE REPLACED ANYWAY. MM-HMM. . AND THEN THE REST OF THE WINDOWS, YOU CAN SEE THERE'S A VARIETY OF, UH, INFILL WINDOWS. LIKE THE OTHER ONE IN THE FRONT. THE RECTANGULAR ONE WAS CHANGED AT SOME POINT TO JUST A PICTURE WINDOW. AND SO THE PROPO, THE RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THEY GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL STYLE FOR THE REST OF THE WINDOWS. OKAY. WHICH ARE EVIDENT ON OTHER SIDES OF THE BUILDING. EXCEPT THAT LARGE WINDOW WOULD BE NICE FOR A RESTAURANT TO HAVE A TABLE RIGHT IN FRONT OF IT. BUT YEAH. NOT, NOT OPPOSED TO A WINDOW THERE, JUST THE, THE DESIGN DETAILS. IT'S A DIFFERENT STYLE. RIGHT. YEAH. EVERYBODY OKAY WITH WHAT YOU'VE SEEN SO FAR? YEAH. MM-HMM, . OKAY. SO THE ONE BUILDING WE HAVEN'T COVERED IS THE, THE THE NEW ONE. THE NEW ONE. I DO HAVE A MINOR COMMENT GOING BACK TO, UH, 62. IT ISN'T CLEAR AT ALL TO ME WHERE, UM, AND I KNOW THIS IS A CONDITION, BUT THAT, UM, THERE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE ANY PLANNING AHEAD YET FOR WHERE WASTE, ESPECIALLY FOR A RESTAURANT WILL BE BECAUSE YOU'RE, YOU'RE DESCRIBING IT AND YOUR RENDITIONS ARE SHOWING, YOU KNOW, OPEN PARKS AND BEAUTIFUL SPACES, BUT YET, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT LIKE THE DUMP TRUCK CAN PULL UP BEHIND INTO THE PARK AND ACCESS IT, OR THERE'S NO ENCLOSURE OR APPROPRIATE LARGE RECEPTACLES THAT WILL BE NEEDED REFLECTED IN THE FRONT. RIGHT. AND I'M, I'M GUESSING THAT IT WOULD NOT BE RIGHT IN THE FRONT, BUT THAT IS WHAT, WHAT THE CONDITION IS ABOUT, IS UNIVERSALLY LOOKING AT THE VILLAGE, IF YOU WILL, WHERE DELIVERIES, WHERE TRASH, HOW THEY, UH, DEAL WITH THOSE WOULD BE NEEDED AT THAT TIME. BUT IN PARTICULAR WITH THE RESTAURANT, THERE WILL BE A LOT OF REFUSE VERSUS OFFICE BUILDINGS. CORRECT. IN FORMER SINGLE FAMILY HOMES OR EVEN, UM, THE SIZE OF THE NEW CONSTRUCTION COULD ACCOMMODATE, UH, I, I CAN MAKE A LITTLE CLARIFICATION. SO, UH, CURRENTLY, UM, THERE'S NO PLAN TO ACTUALLY HAVE FOOD OR LIKE A RESTAURANT TYPE USE. IT IS MORE LIKE A BAR. SO IT IS REALLY JUST BEVERAGE AND DRINK. I MEAN, THERE'S STILL GONNA BE TRASH. I MEAN, AND WE STILL NEED TO FIGURE OUT WHAT'S THE BEST WAY TO HANDLE THAT, BUT IT'S NOT LIKE A FULL SERVICE RESTAURANT THAT WOULD HAVE, UH, YOU KNOW, A KITCHEN AND, AND YOU KNOW, COOKING AND THAT KIND OF THINGS. I MEAN, JUST, JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT. IT'S, IT'S STILL GONNA HAVE TRASH. LIKE I SAID, YOU KNOW IT, BUT NOT AS MUCH AS IF YOU HAVE A, A FULL SERVICE RESTAURANT, A TYPICAL ONE. SO I, I, I THINK THAT'S AN ISSUE THAT, UM, THEY'LL HAVE TO ADDRESS. AND, AND I, I DON'T THINK WE NEED, I I THINK YOU'VE MADE THE POINT NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED. UM, AND I'M SURE, I'M SURE IT WILL BE, BUT I THINK FOR AT THE CONCEPT STAGE, WE PROBABLY DON'T NEED TO. YES. CERTAINLY AT THIS STAGE WE PROBABLY DON'T NEED TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT. NO, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM. OKAY. OKAY. JUST WANTED TO BRING IT OUT ON THE RECORD. OKAY. ALL THE, UH, OKAY. THE O THE LARGER BUILDING, THE OFFICE BUILDING. ANY FEELINGS ABOUT THAT? I HAVE THE PICTURE OF THAT FAMILY, BY THE WAY. . ALL THE STRAIGHT FACES THOSE PICTURES. LOOK AT THE SNOW. [01:20:01] ALRIGHT, WELL LET'S TALK ABOUT THE NEW BUILDING FOR A MOMENT. SORRY, GARY . ALRIGHT, WELL I WANNA COMPLIMENT, UH, SINCE NOBODY'S STARTING, I WANNA COMPLIMENT THE ROOF, THE ROOF FORM, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT'S POSSIBLE. THERE ARE, THERE ARE ISSUES WITH OUR CODE THAT CAN'T BE, THAT OUR CODE IS NOT WRITTEN FOR A BUILDING WITH THIS FOOTPRINT. AND SO IF YOU TRIED TO PUT A STEEPLY PITCHED ROOF ON A BUILDING WITH THIS FOOTPRINT AND MET OUR CODE REQUIREMENT, THE ROOF WOULD BE ENORMOUS. SO I, I THINK THIS IS AN, IS AN EXCELLENT STRATEGY FOR, UM, FOR BREAKING THE MASS UP. MM-HMM. KEEPING THE ROOF DOWN, CREATING SOMETHING THAT'S COMPATIBLE. AND I DO THINK THERE'S AN, THERE ARE EASY WAYS TO HIDE THE MECHANICAL BASED ON THE ROOF STRATEGY THAT, THAT YOU'VE COME UP WITH. SO I'S I, I THINK THAT'S VERY POSITIVE AND, AND I, I THINK THIS IS REALLY AN APPROPRIATE USE OF A FLAT ROOF IN THE DISTRICT. I DON'T KNOW HOW THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS FEEL ABOUT THAT. WELL, AND IT SHOWED UP WHEN YOU DID THE 3D WALK AROUND IT, YOU CAN SEE THE IMPACT OF THE WAY THEY'VE DESIGNED IT, HOW IT HELPED KEEP THAT MASS DOWN A LITTLE BIT. SO I LIKE IT. OTHER THOUGHTS ABOUT THE BUILDING? WELL, I GUESS TOO, SINCE THIS IS A CONCEPT, WE'RE NOT INTO THE DETAILS OF DOWN TO REFINING IT. SO AS A CONCEPT, I THINK IT'S GREAT. IT'S A GREAT PLACE TO PUT IT BECAUSE THE ELEVATION CHANGES GOING BACK TO THE RIVER. IT'LL HAVE A GOOD PRESENCE COMING FROM THE EAST SIDE OF THE RIVER ACROSS THE BRIDGE TO THE WEST SIDE. I THINK IT'LL LOOK, IT'LL JUST GIVE IT THAT GOOD LOOK FROM THAT ANGLE TOO. 'CAUSE WE DON'T REALLY SEE THAT IN THE THREE DS OF WHAT'S IT LOOK LIKE FROM BRIDGE OR ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE RIVER. YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT'S ANOTHER GOOD VIEW THAT WE ULTIMATELY OUGHT TO START THINKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT'S THAT VIEW LIKE FROM THE BRIDGE? WHAT'S THAT VIEW LIKE FROM, UH, RIVERSIDE DRIVE? UM, BECAUSE AS WE MOVE DOWN TO THE STRUCTURES, AS WE MOVE DOWN CLOSER TO THE BRIDGE, WE, WE NEED TO BE LOOKING AT THAT VIEW FROM WHAT PEOPLE ARE SEEING COMING EAST TO WEST ACROSS THE BRIDGE. 'CAUSE THAT ALSO SPEAKS OF DUBLIN. SO I THINK THIS WILL PRESENT WELL, I, YEAH, I WANT TO GIVE AS MUCH FEEDBACK AS POSSIBLE HERE BECAUSE THE MORE FEEDBACK THEY RECEIVE AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE, I THINK IT, IT CAN SHORTEN THE PROCESS LATER. UM, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S DIFFICULT. WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO, THERE ARE THINGS LIKE THE WINDOWS DON'T ALIGN, WHICH I THINK IS FINE. UM, BUT OUR CODE SAYS WINDOWS SHOULD ALIGN, IT SHOULD MATCH PATTERNS ELSEWHERE. SO I, BUT I THINK THERE'S A, THERE IS A RHYTHM THAT'S CREATED BY THE WALL ARTICULATION AND BY OPENINGS THAT DOES MEET THE INTENT OF THE CODE. I, I WANTED TO, NONE OF YOU STAFF BOARD MEMBERS, MAYBE JUDY'S THE ONLY ONE WHO WAS HERE WHEN WE APPROVED ATCH AND WHEN WE APPROVED THE OFFICE, THE LITTLE OFFICE BUILDING THAT IS IN THE SOUTH OF OUR HISTORIC DISTRICT. AND IF YOU LOOK AT THOSE BUILDINGS AND, AND OUR, THERE ARE THINGS THEY DON'T MEET IN OUR CODE AND, BUT THEY'RE STANDALONE BUILDINGS. THEY'RE STANDALONE BUILDINGS, THEY'RE NOT ADDITIONS. SO IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE ATTACHING IT TO A HISTORIC STRUCTURE. BUT THEY DO ADDRESS THE BIGGER ISSUES LIKE SCALE MASS. THERE ARE DETAIL INTERPRETATIONS OF THINGS IN THE DISTRICT. SO YOU MIGHT SEE A LENTIL AND SILL THAT'S VERY DIFFERENT THAN THESE TWO BUILDINGS. UM, BUT IT, BUT IT RESPONDS TO THE NEED TO CONTINUE THE TRADITION OF SOME ARTICULATION AROUND THE WINDOW. AND I BRING THAT UP TO SAY WITH THOSE TWO BUILDINGS, AND WHEN WE APPROVED KATCH, THERE WERE SOME IN THE STAFF THAT HAD A LITTLE HEARTBURN WITH THE KATCH, BUT THEY, THEY MEET THE BIGGER THEY, THEY MET THE BIGGER ISSUES. AND THE KATCH BUILDING MOST, YOU PROBABLY DON'T KNOW, WON AN AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS DESIGN AWARD. HMM. UM, SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT YOU UNDERSTAND WHEN YOU, WHEN WE APPLY SOME OF THE STANDARDS, WHEN THERE ARE PLACES WHERE IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE, I THINK IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT FOR THE COMMUNITY TO PROMOTE THINGS THAT ARE REALLY WELL DESIGNED. SO I JUST, YOU KNOW, THOSE TWO BUILDINGS PEOPLE LOOK AT AND SAY, WELL, THERE'S VERTICAL SIDING ON THE PROJECT THAT'S ON THE SOUTH SIDE, BUT THAT VERTICAL SIDING DOESN'T MATCH THE HOUSES, BUT IT MATCHES THE BARN. AND, AND, AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE WAY SOME OF THE LARGER WINDOWS ARE BROKEN UP TO LOOK LIKE SOME OF THE SMALLER WINDOWS. SO I JUST, YOU KNOW, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT, 'CAUSE THIS MAY BE THE LAST TIME I SEE THIS PROJECT IN, IN THIS ENVIRONMENT. YEAH. SO I JUST WANTED TO PROVIDE YOU [01:25:01] ALL A LITTLE BACKGROUND AND SAY, YOU KNOW, THERE'S, THERE'S PRECEDENT FOR WHAT THE PREVIOUS BOARD DID IN SOME OF THEIR APPROVALS FOR APPROVING A PROJECT LIKE THIS THAT, AND OUR CODE SAYS BUILDINGS SHOULD REFLECT THE TIME THEY WERE BUILT. OKAY. SO JUST A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND. I WANTED TO POINT OUT, I UNDERSTAND THIS IS JUST A CONCEPT, BUT THE STONE CHIMNEYS MATCH THE STONE CHIMNEYS OF 62 AND ACROSS THE STREET AS WELL. AND I LIKE THAT. UM, IT BROUGHT SOME COHERENT, SO SOME COHERENCE TO ME. UM, AND IT JUST APPRECIATED THE REFLECTION OF THE OTHER BUILDINGS IN THE NEW ONE AT THE SAME TIME. IT'S DEFINITELY A NEW BUILDING. THE, THE WINDOWS AND THE, UM, THE WHOLE, THE, THE FLAT SIDING AND EVERYTHING. BUT I, I, I JUST, I LIKE THE STONE BEING REPEATED, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE DON'T NEED REAL CHIMNEYS ANYMORE. , ARE THERE ANY MORE, UM, COMMENTS ABOUT THE SPECIFIC POINTS OF THE DESIGN AND THEN WE'LL GET BACK TO THE MOTION AND THE CON AND THE CONCEPT PLAN. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR US? WELL, I THINK, UM, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE, THE NEXT STEP THAT WE ARE IN OUR DEVELOPMENT OF THE, UH, THE, THE BUILDING ELEVATION AND FACADE IS THE MATERIAL. UM, AND AS YOU SAID, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THE, THE IDEA IS THAT WE'LL HAVE A STONE BASE, YOU KNOW, WITH THE WATER TABLE AND, AND THE CHIMNEYS. AND THEN THE QUESTION IS THE CLADDING OF THE, OF THE, THE MAIN, YOU KNOW, BODY OF THE FACADE. AND, AND I KNOW BASSAM MENTIONED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WOOD SIDING AND WE DO HAVE WOOD SIDING PRETTY MUCH EVERYWHERE IN THE, IN THE DISTRICT. UM, SO, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, WE WERE THINKING ABOUT, OKAY, YOU KNOW, SHOULD WE JUST CONTINUE THAT OR, OR DO YOU SEE SOME OTHER, UM, POSSIBILITY OR THINGS THAT YOU, YOU MIGHT FIND IT APPEALING. I'M JUST ASKING FOR OPINION. , DO YOU WANNA GO BACK? WELL, YOU'RE THE DESIGNER. WHY DON'T YOU TELL US WHAT YOU WANT WHAT YOU'RE, WHAT YOU WANT IS WE DON'T, YOU'RE THE DESIGNERS. YOU, YOU TELL US WHAT YOU'RE THINKING AND THEN WE CAN REACT TO THAT. WELL, I, I'M NOT, WELL THE THING IS BECAUSE WE ARE STILL RIGHT NOW, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY FOR THIS CONCEPTUAL PLAN, WE ARE TRYING TO PRESENT OBVIOUSLY THE COLORATION AND GENERAL AESTHETIC MASSING SCALES AND ALL THAT. AND, AND I THINK WE ACHIEVED THAT. AND YOU KNOW, IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE A FEW OPTIONS, YOU KNOW, THAT IS, YOU KNOW, NATURAL MATERIAL. OBVIOUSLY WOOD SIDING IS DEFINITELY ONE, YOU KNOW, WE CAN ALWAYS DO THAT. UM, YOU KNOW, BRICK IS ANOTHER OPTION, UM, THAT WE DON'T NECESSARILY SEE A TON, UM, IN THIS CORNER, EVEN THOUGH WE DID THE BRICK IN THE FRONT, YOU KNOW, LAST YEAR AT, YOU KNOW, UH, WING HILL AND HIGH HIGH STREET. UM, AND ALSO THERE ARE OTHER BRICK BUILDING IN THE DISTRICT. OBVIOUSLY A LOT OF THEM ARE PAINTED TO THE SOUTH OF, UH, OF BRIDGE STREET. UM, AND BRICK ALSO HAVE POTENTIALLY HAVE SOME DETAILING OPPORTUNITY TO KIND OF CREATE SOMETHING INTERESTING, UH, TRADITIONAL DETAILING. UM, AND THEN, AND NOT ONLY IF I WANNA MENTION LIKE STONE, BUT YOU KNOW, I THINK STONE IS PROBABLY THE MOST, MAYBE LESS APPROPRIATE IN THIS CASE, MEANING THAT LIKE SMOOTH STONE, YOU KNOW, LAST FORMATS OR MEDIUM FORMAT, SMOOTH STONE, YOU KNOW, UH, LIMESTONE. SO I'M NOT EVEN GOING THERE. BUT, SO THOSE ARE KIND OF, WE'RE THINKING ABOUT THOSE THINGS. I'M NOT, YOU KNOW, COMMITTED TO ANYTHING YET. WELL, BRICK IS A MATERIAL THAT'S ON OUR LIST OF APPROVED MATERIALS. SO THERE, I DON'T THINK YOU'D HAVE IT, IT'S ELSEWHERE IN THE DISTRICT. IT MAY NOT BE RIGHT NEXT TO IT, BUT I DON'T THINK THERE WOULD BE ANY ISSUES WITH USING, WITH USING BRICK, UNLESS, UNLESS NOW THAT'S ASSUMING YOU DON'T COME BACK WITH SOME BRIGHT ORANGE BRICK OR SOMETHING. SO, OR PAINTED BRICK. YEAH. YEAH. PAINTED BRICK . I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO GET TO THAT DETAIL YET, RIGHT. WITH THE CONCEPT. NO, WE, WE DON'T, AND I KNOW WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM, BUT I THINK THE MORE STARTING TO THINK ABOUT, OKAY, WHERE ARE WE GONNA GO WITH THIS NEXT STEP? I UNDERSTAND, BUT I THINK THERE HAVE BEEN TIMES WHEN THE APPLICANTS HAVEN'T GOTTEN ENOUGH FEEDBACK AND THAT MAKES SENSE. AND SO I THINK, UM, THE MORE FEEDBACK WE CAN GIVE THEM, I THINK THE BETTER. SO HE'S NOT THINKING ABOUT, YOU'RE NOT THINKING LIKE IN STUCCO MATERIALS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. UM, THE OTHER QUESTION IS, I WOULD SAY WE ARE INTERNALLY, WE'RE LOOKING AT IF THERE'S, SO THE BASE OF THE BUILDING, AS [01:30:01] YOU CAN IMAGINE, UM, IS VERY TALL, RIGHT? BECAUSE THIS THE, JUST THE SLOPE GOING DOWN TO THE PARK AND I MEAN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, MORE THAN 20 FEET, MAYBE MORE OF JUST, YOU KNOW, BASE OF THE BUILDING. AND SO, YOU KNOW, WE ARE ALSO LIKE THINKING ABOUT, OKAY, WELL STONE IS DEFINITELY ONE WAY TO DO THAT. UM, BUT VERY EXPENSIVE . UM, SO, AND IT'S JUST NOT, I MEAN, IT'S JUST THE BOTTOM OF THE BUILDING, LITERALLY. RIGHT? UM, AND SO I KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, SSOM IS PROBABLY STILL TRYING TO WORK WITH US TO FIGURE OUT THE, THE, YOU KNOW, HOW DO WE GO AROUND AND MAYBE FEATURE THAT, THAT STRUCTURE, YOU KNOW, UNDER, UNDER OUR BUILDING. UM, BUT YOU KNOW, I WAS THINKING OUT LOUD ABOUT IF THERE'S ANY MORE CREATIVE WAY TO, TO UM, TO FINISH THAT SERVICE THAT IS, UH, I DON'T KNOW, LIKE WE ARE PLAYING WITH LIKE MAYBE STAMP CONCRETE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BUT ON A WALL APPLICATION OR, OR SOMETHING PANEL SYSTEM SO THAT IT IS, YOU KNOW, IT STILL HAVE THAT TEXTURE OF THE STONE, BUT IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IS IT'S LESS COSTLY, LET'S JUST SAY. SO ANYWAY, SO THAT'S JUST ANOTHER THOUGHTS ON, ON THAT BASE. AND THAT STILL COMES BACK TO LIKE WHAT I WAS SAYING TOO. THIS IS GONNA HAVE HUGE EXPOSURE FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF THE, THE BRIDGE. SO IT'S GONNA BE PROMINENT. SO YEAH, YOU HAVE TO KIND OF THINK ABOUT THAT TOO. IT'S GOTTA HAVE SOMETHING THAT LOOKS MORE NATURAL OR NOT Y YEAH, THAT MATERIAL WE HAVEN'T SEEN. SO, YOU KNOW, YOU MAY, I I I THINK THAT'LL REQUIRE SOME EDUCATION ON EVERYBODY'S PART. NOW THE ONE QUESTION I HAVE FOR YOU ABOUT THE BASE IS, AND YOU MAY HAVE HAD MORE EXPERIENCE IN THIS THAN I HAVE, BUT IN SITUATIONS WHERE HAVE BUILT IN FLOOD LINES LIKE THAT, WE HAVE TO OPEN THE BASE OF THE BUILDING UP TO ALLOW UNOBSTRUCTED PASSAGE OF WATER IN THOSE AREAS. SO IF THAT NEEDS TO OCCUR HERE AS AN EASY WAY TO MITIGATE POTENTIAL BUILDING IN THE FLOODWAY, DOES THAT HELP YOU GET SOME RELIEF ON THAT? ON, ON DOWN THERE, ON THAT, ON THAT WALL? I MEAN IF THERE, IF THERE, IF THERE'S SOME PUSHING BACK OF THE SURFACE, BUT YOU, YOU'D HAVE TO LOOK TO SEE WHAT THEY'RE GONNA, UM, ANYTHING ELSE? NO. OKAY. UM, ALRIGHT. SO HERE IS THE POTENTIAL MOTION. ARE YOU OKAY? BASE COULD, I WAS JUST THINKING OUT LOUD THAT THE BASE COULD BE JUST ONE MORE COMMENT. IT COULD BE MORE OF A MIXED MATERIAL, MAYBE TO GIVE YOU INTEREST BUT NOT HAVE IT JUST BE A SOLID BRICK OR STONE WALL PUBLIC ART . OKAY. COULD BE. ALRIGHT. OKAY. WELL YOU'LL BE, YOU'LL BE REVIEWING THAT, SO I'LL LEAVE THAT UP TOO. YOU IN THE NEXT, IN THE NEXT BOARD. UM, ARE YOU OKAY WITH THE CONDITIONS? UM, FIRST IS THE APPROVAL OF THE DEMOLITION AND UM, THEN WE'RE GONNA MAKE, AND THEN WE'RE JUST GONNA MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON THE CONCEPT PLAN. SO ARE YOU OKAY WITH ALL THESE CONDITIONS? YEAH, I, I AM OKAY WITH THAT. YES. UM, I THINK MAYBE ONE OF THE COMMENT, I KNOW THAT ABOUT THE, THE COLOR, I MEAN, WE DEFINITELY CAN PICK SOME OF THE APPROVED COLOR, YOU KNOW, FROM THE, FROM THE DISTRICT. UM, THERE ARE A LOT OF THEM, YOU KNOW, I LOOK AT THEM BEFORE. UM, BUT I, I WANT TO SAY THAT SOMETIMES COLOR, YOU KNOW, I MEAN HISTORICALLY OBVIOUSLY YOU LOOK AT THOSE HOUSES, IT IS VERY WHITE. IT'S VERY LIKE LIGHT COLORS. AND WE TRY TO INTRODUCE SOMETHING A LITTLE BIT DEEPER, A LITTLE BIT GROUNDED. UM, AND WE DO RECOGNIZE WE HAVE A RED HOUSE, SO OBVIOUSLY IT'S VERY BRIGHT IN COLORS. AND SO WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE A VERY BRIGHT COLOR ON EVERY SINGLE HOUSE. WE WANT TO CREATE SOME CONTRAST. SO, YOU KNOW, I HOPE THAT YOU WON'T BE DISAPPOINTED NEXT TIME WE SEE THAT THEY'RE NOT ALL PRIMARY COLORS , UM, YOU KNOW, FOR THESE HOUSES. SO THEY WOULD, THEY WOULD HAVE, SOME OF THEM WOULD NEED TO BE MORE NEUTRAL, I THINK, TO, TO HAVE A NICE BALANCE AND, AND, AND COMPOSITION. SO IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S A NEGOTIATING, I MEAN, REALLY THE, THE EXTENT I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S, AND WE'LL WORK WITH THEM TO FIGURE THAT OUT. NEGOTIABLE. OKAY. ALRIGHT. OKAY. SO IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE DEMOLITION WITH THE CONDITIONS AS LISTED WITH THE FIVE CONDITIONS LISTED? I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE, UM, APPROVE DEMO. IT'S A, I'M SORRY, IT'S A CONCEPT [01:35:01] PLAN. THERE'S A TYPO ON THE SLIDE I WAS GONNA ASK YOU. WHAT'S THAT? WE ALREADY DID, WE ALREADY APPROVED THE DEMOLITION, RIGHT? WE ALREADY DID THE DEMOLITION APPROVAL. ALL WE'RE DOING IS THE CONCEPT PLAN WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS. YEAH. SO SUBSTITUTE CONCEPT PLAN FOR VICTIM FIVE CONDITIONS. I WAS WONDERING WHAT, WHY WE HAD ALL THOSE CONDITIONS. OKAY, SO I'M MAKING A MOTION TO PROVE THE CONCEPT PLAN WITH THE FIVE LISTED CONDITIONS. I WILL SECOND IT. MS. COOPER? YES. MR. JEWEL? YES. MS. DAMER? YES. MS. ALEXANDER? YES. THANK YOU. IT LOOKS, LOOKS GREAT. LOOKS GREAT. WE LOVE THE STONE. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I WAS ALL RIGHT. LIKE WHAT NOW YOU'RE GONNA CHANGE IT. ALRIGHT. UM, OUR NEXT CASE. [Case #24-029ARB-MPR ] UM, THIS IS 17 NORTH RIVERVIEW STREET. THIS IS A MINOR PROJECT REVIEW. THIS IS A PROPOSAL FOR ADDITIONS TO A RESIDENCE AND HISTORIC DISTRICT, A 0.1 ACRE SITE, ZONED HDHR, HISTORIC RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. IT'S LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 70 FEET SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF WING HILL LANE AND NORTH RIVERVIEW STREET. UM, SARAH, WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. THANK YOU AGAIN, MR. CHAIRMAN. AND HELLO AGAIN, BOARD MEMBERS. THIS IS 17 NORTH RIVERVIEW STREET, THE MINOR PROJECT. THE SITE IS LOCATED BETWEEN NORTH BLACKSMITH LANE AND NORTH RIVERVIEW STREET, SOUTH OF WING HILL LANE. IT'S WITHIN THE HISTORIC RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND ADJACENT TO BOTH HISTORIC CORE AND HISTORIC PUBLIC. THE EXISTING HOUSE IS A 1920S CRAFTSMAN BUNGALOW. IT'S A LANDMARK BUILDING WITH ORIGINAL FEATURES INTACT. UH, THE LANDMARK OUTBUILDING FACES BLACKSMITH LANE AND THE APPLICANT WOULD EVENTUALLY LIKE TO DEMOLISH THAT BUILDING. WE'LL START WITH LOOKING AT SOME OF THE BASIC ZONING REQUIREMENTS. THE LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS ARE MET. THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT IS SHOWN AT ALMOST 136% OF THAT ALLOWED BY CODE. AND SO THAT WILL REQUIRE A VARIANCE FROM THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS. THE REAR SETBACK IS SHOWN AT 16 FEET WHERE THIS BOARD COULD PERMIT, UH, 31.8 FEET. SO THAT VARIANCE ROLE REQUEST WILL NEED TO GO TO THE BZA AS WELL. TAKING A LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN, THE HISTORIC HOUSE IS SHOWN IN THE DARKER GRAY AND THE PROPOSED EDITION IS IN THE LIGHTER GRAY. AND HERE IN THE ORANGE IS THE LANDMARK SHED. THE HIGHWAY EASEMENTS, UM, AS DESCRIBED IN THE STAFF REPORT ARE SHOWN IN RED HERE. AND THE BLACKSMITH RIGHT OF WAY IS IN THE PINK STAFF. AND THE APPLICANT HAVE AGREED THAT THIS NEW BUILDING ADDITION MAY START FIVE FEET BEHIND THAT REAR RED LINE. AND THAT IS TO MINIMIZE INTERFERENCE BETWEEN VEHICLES, BLOCKING THE RIGHT OF WAY AND FUTURE SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS. AS MR. BATAR EXPLAINED WITH RIVERVIEW VILLAGE, ALL OF BLACKSMITH LANE IS MEANT TO BE UPGRADED WITH SIDEWALKS AND POTENTIALLY PARKING AND, AND OTHER SUCH IMPROVEMENTS. SO WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT, UM, THESE, THESE CONFLICTS ARE MINIMIZED. SO, UM, RELOCATING THE ADDITION BETWEEN THE NEXT STEP AT BZA AND HERE BACK AT A RB WILL NEED TO BE ACCOMMODATED. THE CODE REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK IS SHOWN IN THE LIGHT BLUE AND THE DESIRED REAR YARD SETBACK IS SHOWN IN THE DARK BLUE. AGAIN, WITH THAT CAVEAT THAT, UM, THE FIVE FOOT DIFFERENCE NEEDS TO BE ACCOMMODATED, STAFF MAY WANT TO, UH, HAVE A SHARED DRIVEWAY IN THIS LOCATION, AGAIN TO ALLOW FOR MAXIMUM PARKING ALONG BLACKSMITH LANE. THE CITY HAS THE ENGINE, OR THE CITY ENGINEER HAS THE ABILITY TO REQUIRE THIS. AND, UM, YOU'LL SEE WITH OUR RECOMMENDATION THAT THERE'S A NOTE TO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH STAFF TO, UM, [01:40:01] FIGURE OUT WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN WITH THAT. AND HERE WE HAVE A COUPLE OF TREES THAT ARE PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED WITH THE PROJECT. THIS IS THE FRONT ELEVATION OF THE EXISTING HOUSE. IT SHOWS AGAIN, THE BUNGALOW IN BLUE WITH THE ADDITIONS BEHIND IT. UH, SOME ITEMS TO POINT OUT IS THAT THE MASSING OF THE ADDITION MAY NOT BE SUBORDINATE AS REQUIRED BY CODE. THE HEIGHT OF THE ADDITION IS TALLER THAN THE ONE AND A HALF STORY ORIGINAL HOUSE. AND THE EAVES THAT ARE SO IMPORTANT ON THE ORIGINAL HOUSE ARE NOT PRESENT ON THE ADDITION. COULD BE A GOOD WAY TO TIE THESE TWO TOGETHER. THIS IS THE NORTH ELEVATION AND IT EMPHASIZES THE HEIGHT AND THE SCALE DIFFERENCES. AND, UM, ALSO THE DIFFERENT STYLE BETWEEN THE MODERN AND THE CRAFTSMEN. WE HAVE SOME ORIGINAL WINDOWS HERE THAT ARE PROPOSED TO BE CHANGED. THERE'S A BASEMENT WINDOW ADDED HERE. WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IMPACTS ON THE SITE THAT WILL HAVE. UM, AND AGAIN, PLEASE NOTE THE LACK OF EAVES, SILLS AND LENTILS FOR THE WINDOWS. UM, AND THEN THE ELEVATION ALONG BLACKSMITH THAT IS UNARTICULATED FROM THIS SIDE AS WE'LL SEE IN THE NEXT ELEVATION. IT DOES HAVE SOME BETTER ARTICULATION. THIS IS THE SOUTH ELEVATION, AGAIN, SCALE AND MASSING VERY MODERN WINDOW AND DOOR PLACEMENT. THERE'S A BOX BAY WINDOW THAT, UM, FACES BLACKSMITH, ALTHOUGH DOES HELP PROVIDE SOME OF THAT ARTICULATION THAT WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT. UM, BUT YOU CAN SEE HERE THAT IT, THE ELEVATION EMPHASIZES WHAT OUR CONSULTANT NOTED, THAT WE REALLY HAVE TWO DIFFERENT STYLES OF BUILDINGS BEING PUT TOGETHER. THIS IS THE VIEW FROM BLACKSMITH LANE, UH, MODERN FORMS AND MATERIALS WITH THE BOX BAY HERE. AND THEN COMPARE THAT TO THE ORIGINAL HOUSE THAT'S PEEKING OUT ON THE RIGHT SIDE. AND AS WE'VE NOTED, BLACKSMITH LANE IS ANTICIPATED TO BECOME A VERY IMPORTANT PEDESTRIAN CORRIDOR, UM, FULL OF ACTIVITY, SIDEWALKS, FRONT DOORS, THINGS HAPPENING OF THAT NATURE. MR. HENDERSON HAS ALSO PUT TOGETHER SOME INDIVIDUAL, UM, SLIDES, SOME STILLS THAT JUST COMPARE, UH, WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED HERE TO WHAT'S HAPPENING IN CONTEXT WITH RIVERVIEW VILLAGE. AND HERE WE'RE LOOKING NORTHEAST AGAIN FOR THAT COMPARISON AND CONTEXT. UH, THIS PARTICULAR HOUSE IS ON THE BOTTOM OR THE FAR RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THIS SLIDE. THIS IS THE VIEW LOOKING DIRECTLY SOUTH FROM APPROXIMATELY NORTH STREET. AND THEN THIS IS A CLOSER VIEW, UH, LOOKING AT, UM, 17 WITH THIS PROPERTY IN THE REAR . SO THE MINOR PROJECT REVIEW CRITERIA ARE, ARE NOT MET QUITE YET. UM, WE'VE EXPLAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT, UH, ABOUT THE APPROACH THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO TAKE. WE KNOW THAT THERE'S MORE WORK TO BE DONE, UM, BUT WE HAVE, UH, DESCRIBED WHAT WE FEEL IS MISSING AGAIN AT THIS POINT. AND WE HAVE SOME OTHER PROCESSES IN BETWEEN NOW AND THE NEXT TIME THAT THE BOARD MIGHT HEAR THIS PROJECT. SO THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO TABLE WITH THE FOLLOWING, UM, ITEMS NOTED. THE FIRST IS TO REVISE SIGNIFICANTLY THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN TO BETTER ADDRESS THE CODE AND THE GUIDELINES. THE SECOND IS TO OBTAIN THE VARIANCES. AND IF THESE ARE NOT OBTAINED THROUGH A BZA, THEN A REDESIGN WILL BE REQUIRED. THE THIRD IS TO ADJUST THE REAR BUILDING DISTANCE TO THAT FIVE FOOT AGREED UPON DISTANCE FROM THE HIGHWAY EASEMENT. UH, NEXT TO CONTINUE WORKING WITH STAFF ON THE POTENTIAL FOR A COMBINED DRIVEWAY AND ADJUST THE DESIGN ACCORDINGLY. AND THEN, UM, FINALLY WE WILL NEED TO SEE THAT DEMOLITION FOR A LANDMARK STRUCTURE FOR THE OUTBUILDING. AND AT THIS POINT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, ANY [01:45:01] INITIAL QUESTIONS FOR, FOR SARAH. I'M SURE WE'LL HAVE MORE. THE, UM, I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE PROCESS. IS THE CITY ENGINEER AT SOME POINT GOING TO DEFINITIVELY DECIDE BECAUSE THAT, THAT IMPACTS THE DESIGN OF BOTH THESE HOUSES? SO YOU, IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE YOU CAN GET TOO FAR ALONG, YOU CAN CERTAINLY GET FILE FOR VARIANCES, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE YOU CAN'T GET TOO FAR ALONG WITH YOUR DESIGN IF YEAH. RIGHT. SO THE, THE CITY ENGINEER IS AWARE OF THIS AND, AND INDICATIONS ARE THAT THIS MAY VERY WELL BE A GOOD IDEA TO COMBINE THESE DRIVEWAYS. WE'VE DONE A STUDY THAT SHOWS THAT UM, WE CAN GET PARALLEL PARKING ALONG BLACKSMITH LANE IF THE DRIVEWAYS ARE COMBINED. AND AGAIN, ONE OF OUR GOALS IS TO HELP GET THAT EXTRA PARKING, NOT ONLY TO SERVE THESE RESIDENTS, BUT ALSO RIVERVIEW VILLAGE. UM, WE DID MENTION THAT AT, UM, OUR PRE-SUBMIT MEETING AND THROUGH THE PROCESS. SO THE APPLICANTS NEED TO LOBBY THE CITY ENGINEER TO DECIDE SOON. AND YEAH, I'M GONNA HAVE YOU COME UP, YOU, WE WILL HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS FOR YOU I'M SURE. SO O OKAY. TOTALLY. OH, OKAY. ALRIGHT, WELL, OKAY. YOU'LL GET A CHANCE TO COME UP AND TALK. OKAY. UM, ANY OTHER INITIAL QUESTIONS? OKAY, COME ON. HERE WE GO. RICH TAYLOR, 48 SOUTH HIGH STREET. THIS IS COMPLETELY NEW. SARAH. WE HAD A VERY, VERY BRIEF DISCUSSION ABOUT A SHARED DRIVEWAY MONTHS AGO. IN THE MEANTIME, WE'VE HAD EXTENSIVE DISCUSSIONS WITH, UH, CITY COUNCIL PERSON CRAM WITH, UH, JENNY ROUSH, THE, THE PLANNING DIRECTOR, MAGEN WILLIS, THE TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR, ABOUT HAVING OUR DRIVEWAYS PASS THROUGH THE, UH, THE EASEMENT THAT WAS SETTLED, DISCUSSED. AND THE, AND THE, THE RESULT OF THAT WAS THAT WE COULD HAVE THESE DRIVEWAYS THE WAY THAT WE HAVE THEM DRAWN, AS LONG AS WE KEEP THE FACES OF THE GARAGES FIVE FEET BACK FROM THE EASEMENT. SO TO COME TO US NOW AND SAYING THAT YOU'RE CONSIDERING COMPLETELY CHANGING THIS BASED ON THIS NOTION OF A SHARED DRIVE IS OUTRAGEOUS. I CAME HERE TONIGHT PREPARED TO GIVE A VERY SUBDUED PRESENTATION, BUT I'M JUST MAD NOW THERE, THIS IS, THIS IS CRAZY. UM, WE'VE HAD THE SAME DESIGN. THE ONLY THING THAT'S MISSING RIGHT NOW IS THE SECOND DRIVEWAY FOR THE 27 HOUSE REQUIRES THE PLANNING DIRECTOR'S APPROVAL. AND I'M IN DISCUSSIONS WITH HER ABOUT, THAT HASN'T BEEN SETTLED YET, BUT SHE'S THE ONE THAT CAN APPROVE THAT. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH ANYBODY ELSE. SO, UM, UH, I GUESS THAT'S MY THING THAT I JUMPED UP HERE TO TALK ABOUT. IF IT'S ALL RIGHT WITH YOU, I'LL GO INTO MY NORMAL CALM PRESENTATION THAT I WAS GOING TO GIVE YOU BEFORE, IF THAT'S ALL RIGHT. SURE. PLEASE GO AHEAD. ALRIGHT. AGAIN, I, I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT, BUT THAT, UH, SARAH, YOU CAUGHT US COMPLETELY BY SURPRISE WITH THAT. UM, SO DO YOU HAVE THE LATEST DRAWINGS THAT SHOW THE, UH, WE SUBMITTED A, A SET OF DRAWINGS THAT WAS PUT INTO THE RECORD. THERE WAS SOME ISSUE, IT WAS INADVERTENTLY LEFT OUT, BUT IT'S BEEN UPLOADED TO THE WEBSITE AND IT WAS UPLOADED TO YOUR PACKET ON THE SITE THAT SHOWS A DIFFERENT COLOR SCHEME MATERIALS FOR THE BUILDINGS THAN WHAT YOU SAW UP HERE TONIGHT. DO YOU HAVE THAT? I, I DON'T KNOW. I SAW WHAT WAS, WHAT WAS AVAILABLE ON, UM, EARLIER THIS WEEK. HAVE THEY BEEN PROVIDED WITH THE LATEST STUFF THAT WE YES, THEY HAVE. OKAY. SO, UM, WAS THAT, WHY WAS THAT NOT PRESENTED HERE TONIGHT? THESE ARE THE LATEST DRAWINGS. NO, THE COLORS ARE WRONG ON THE BUILDINGS. WE HAVE A DIFFERENT COLOR SCHEME. THE ONES THAT WE, WE TALKED ABOUT AND THAT YOU UPLOADED TO THE SITE VERY RECENTLY. GO AHEAD SIR. WHEN DID YOU UPLOAD THESE DRAWINGS? UH, BY THE DEADLINE THAT WAS PROVIDED TO ME MARCH 11TH. MS. HOLT IS CONTENDING THAT SHE'S GOT THE MOST RECENT DRAWING, SO THE ELEVATIONS THAT ARE SHOWN, SHOWN ARE THE MOST RECENT DRAWINGS, BUT YOU DON'T, YOU'RE NOT SHOWING THE MOST RECENT THREE DIMENSIONAL DRAWINGS. SO DO YOU HAVE, UH, AND PERHAPS NOT BECAUSE IT TOOK WEEKS TO PUT THOSE TOGETHER. DO YOU HAVE THAT COLOR [01:50:01] SCHEME? ARE YOU LOOKING AT THAT FROM HERE? I CAN'T MAKE OUT COLOR FROM PERIOD. MAY I BRING IT UP TO YOU? SURE. THE MOST RECENT, UH, YEAH, AND I DID NOT INTEND TO BE COMBATIVE TONIGHT, BUT I'VE KIND OF HAD MY HAND FORCED HERE. YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND. BUT THESE 3D THE GIS SYSTEM, THEY, AS MS. HOLT SAID, THEY NEED THOSE WEEKS IN ADVANCE. SO MARCH 11 IS NOT ENOUGH TIME TO UPDATE THOSE. WELL, I WAS, UH, I MADE THE SUBMISSION BY THE ORIGINAL DEADLINE, WHICH WAS SIX WEEKS AGO, AND I RECEIVED A NOTIFICATION AND THE CHANGE MARKS ON THE CITY WEBSITE THAT SAID I HAD TO HAVE ANY UPDATED INFORMATION TO THE CITY BY MARCH 11TH OR ELSE I WOULD'VE BEEN INELIGIBLE FOR THIS MEETING. SO ALL OF THAT WAS UPLOADED BY MARCH 11TH. AND REGARDLESS OF WHAT, UH, MR. HENDERSON HAS IN THE, IN THE THREE, IN THE, UH, VIDEO, YOU SHOULD STILL HAVE THESE THREE DIMENSIONAL DRAWINGS TO LOOK AT. AND THEY'RE DIFFERENT COLOR SCHEMES AND MATERIALS FOR BOTH HOUSES THAT, THAT YOU JUST HANDED ME. UM, AND I'M NOT COLORBLIND, BUT THE ONLY COLOR I SEE, I SEE A LOT OF GRAYS AND WHITES AND THE OLIVE OF THE GRASS IN THAT XEROX. SO, BUT, BUT LOOK, I, I DON'T THINK THE COLOR IS, IS PROBABLY OUR BIGGEST ISSUE THAT, THAT WE'RE GONNA DEAL WITH RIGHT HERE. SO, YOU KNOW, I AGREE, BUT I I THINK YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED WITH THE LATEST SUBMISSIONS. THERE'S MORE TO IT THAN JUST THIS, SO, OKAY. ALRIGHT. BACK TO THE CALM PRESENTATION THAN I'D PLANNED TO MAKE. UM, SO, UM, THE VIDEO THAT MR. HENDERSON PUT TOGETHER IS, IS COMPELLING, UH, AND, AND, AND VERY INTERESTING. AND, UM, COUPLE OF COMMENTS. FIRST OF ALL, IT'S NOT THE CURRENT COLOR SCHEME THAT WE PROPOSED. SECONDLY, THE SOFTWARE THAT I DID MY DRAWINGS IN THAT WAS SENT TO HIM, THERE'S SOME GARBLING OF THE EXTERIOR. SO IF YOU NOTICED IN THOSE DRAWINGS, THERE'S SOME ODD ARTIFACTS THAT SHOW ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING THAT AREN'T A PART OF, OF THIS. MORE IMPORTANTLY, I THINK WHAT YOU SHOULD SEE FROM THOSE IS THAT THE ELEVATION DRAWINGS THAT ARE INCLUDED WITH THE PACKET AND THAT OBVIOUSLY ARE INCLUDED WITH EVERY DESIGN, UM, REALLY DON'T REFLECT WHAT YOU SEE ON THE SITE. BOTH OF THOSE HOUSES FROM CERTAIN ANGLES ARE, UH, ARE THE, THE ADDITIONS ARE ALMOST HIDDEN FROM, UH, FROM RIVERVIEW STREET. SO THE REASON THAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE 3D DRAWINGS AND THE COLORS IS I THINK THAT THAT'S THE REAL VISION OF WHAT THESE BUILDINGS LOOK LIKE. AND 2D DRAWINGS, 2D ELEVATIONS. OF COURSE, AS YOU KNOW, GARY ARE A BIT PRESIDE PRESIDENTIAL, UH, IN THAT THEY TEND TO COMPRESS THE, THE PERSPECTIVE. SO THEY TEND TO SHOW THINGS AT, AT A SCALE WHAT THEY REALLY ARE. ALRIGHT. SO SINCE THE, UH, THE REST OF MY COMMENTS ARE MOST OF THEM ARE GONNA APPLY TO BOTH PROJECTS, SO DON'T HAVE TO REPEAT MYSELF. UM, SINCE THE LAST MEETING, UM, WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THE DRIVEWAYS AND WE DID REACH AN AGREEMENT, UH, AND I WANTED, AS I DID BEFORE, I THANK JENNY JEANIE AND AMY FOR HER, THEIR HELP WITH THAT. UM, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO TAKE THREE AND A HALF FEET ROUGHLY OFF OF BOTH OF THESE BUILDINGS, WHICH WE CAN DO. UM, WE WERE VERY HAPPY WITH THAT FIVE FEET, UH, PUSHBACK AS A COMPROMISE. WE'RE ABOUT A FOOT AND A HALF OFF OF THAT LINE NOW. SO WE'RE GONNA GO BACK ANOTHER THREE AND A HALF ROUGHLY WITH BOTH BUILDINGS. THAT'S GONNA DO A COUPLE THINGS THAT'S GONNA CHANGE THE MASSING OF THESE BUILDINGS A LITTLE BIT OBVIOUSLY, BUT IT'S ALSO GONNA LOWER THE FOOTPRINT AND LOT COVERAGE NUMBERS EVEN FURTHER. UM, BUT WE'VE MADE SOME OTHER CHANGES TO THE OVERALL DESIGN. UM, WE ARE INTENTIONALLY SHOWING, UH, THE ADDITIONS AS BEING STYLISTICALLY DIFFERENT THAN THE ORIGINAL BUILDINGS FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF HIGHLIGHTING THE DIFFERENCE. SO I, WHEN I USED TO DO A LOT OF WORK IN GERMAN VILLAGE, WE HAD A A, A VERY ONGOING DISCUSSION THERE ABOUT WHETHER, UH, NEW ADDITION SHOULD REPLICATE THE EXISTING OR NOT AND, AND THE GENERAL CONSENSUS, AND THIS IS THERE NOT HERE WAS THAT MIMICKING THE ORIGINAL BUILDING TENDED TO OR MIMICKING THE ORIGINAL BUILDING WITH THE NEW ADDITION TENDED TO DEVALUE THE ORIGINAL. SO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE IS VERY CLEARLY DISTINGUISHED BETWEEN THE TWO. AS FAR AS THE MASSING, UM, WE TALKED ABOUT THE MASSING AT OUR CONCEPTUAL MEETING BACK IN JANUARY AND THIS MASSING IS SIMILAR STYLISTICALLY THEY'RE DIFFERENT, BUT IT'S SIMILAR IN THE SENSE THAT WE'VE KEPT THE ORIGINAL BUILDINGS INTACT. FOR THE MOST PART WE'VE PUT A LOW CONNECTING PIECE BETWEEN THEM WITH A LOW PITCH ROOF. AND THEN THE NEW ADDITION, THE LARGER PART IS AT THE BACK. SO WE'VE DONE A LOT TO SEPARATE THE TWO IN BOTH OF THESE HOUSES. UM, WE ARE TAKING CUES FROM THE IMMEDIATE CONTEXT, INCLUDING THE MORE MODERN ASPECTS OF THE KATCH BUILDING JUST UP THE STREET. UM, PER YOUR COMMENTS IN JANUARY, WE'VE MADE THE ADDITION ON THIS HOUSE A LITTLE BIT SMALLER. AND IN FACT WE HAVE, [01:55:02] WE'VE GONE FROM A TOTAL FOOTPRINT OF, UH, PROPOSED FOOTPRINT, WE'D BE 40% OVER TO 35.5% OR 35.9% OVER. AND WE HAVE GONE FROM A PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE OF 49.6% TO A PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE OF 41.8%. AND AGAIN, THOSE WILL GO DOWN A LITTLE BIT FURTHER, UM, AS WE MAKE THESE ADJUSTMENTS ACCORDING TO THE AGREEMENT THAT WE HAVE WITH THE, WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND WITH THE, UM, TRAFFIC OR WITH THE, UH, TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT. UM, SO, UM, OUR GOALS THIS EVENING IS WE WOULD LOVE TO GET, UH, HAVE A DISCUSSION AND GENERAL AGREEMENT ON THE OVERALL PROJECT SO THAT WE CAN START GETTING OUR CIVIL ENGINEER EVOL INVOLVED TO DO THE FINAL SITE PLANS ON THESE THAT WE'RE GONNA NEED TO GO TO BZA. UM, AND WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE YOUR POSITIVE COMMENTS ON THE, UM, SETBACKS AND, UH, AND UM, REAR YARD, UH, EASEMENTS AND VARIANCES THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR BECAUSE WE'LL NEED THOSE ON THE, YOU WON'T VOTE ON THEM, BUT WE'LL NEED THOSE ON THE RECORD FOR THE BZA MEETING WHEN WE GO TO THAT. UM, AND THEN WE'VE ASKED TO REQUEST THAT TABLE LINK TO THE MAY MEETING AND WE SHOULD HAVE THE DEMO REQUEST FOR YOU BY THEN. SO AGAIN, THAT'S THE CALM PART OF MY PRESENTATION FOR THIS BUILDING. THANK YOU. SO THE FIRST PART IS YOU WANT US TO SPEAK TO THE VARIANCES, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I'M HEARING. AND THEN ARE FEELINGS REGARDING THE VARIANCES IN THE DEGREES YOU ARE OR NOT? THAT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT THING. PROCESS, AND THEN TALK ABOUT THE ARCHITECTURAL ISSUES. CORRECT. OKAY. THE, THE VARIANCE STUFF IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING FOR THE PROCESS SO THAT WE CAN KEEP MOVING ON THIS. LET ME ASK YOU THIS AGAIN, WELL, BEFORE I ASK YOU THIS, I, OR DID WE GET ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? WE DID NOT. OKAY. ALRIGHT. WHY DIDN'T YOU REZONE THIS PARCEL THEN? THE, THE VARIANCES? UM, THE SETBACK VARIANCE STILL MAY BE IN PLAY, BUT, UM, THE COVERAGE VARIANCES WOULDN'T BE IN PLAY IF YOU'VE REZONED. WHY DIDN'T WE REZONE? MM-HMM, WELL THERE WAS NO SUPPORT FOR THAT. AND WE DISCUSSED THIS AT THE JANUARY MEETING. THE ORIGINAL IDEA, WHICH IS KIND OF SHOT TO HECK NOW, WAS THAT IT WAS A MORE EXPEDITIOUS PROCESS THAN GOING THROUGH A, A FULL REZONING. IT STILL PROBABLY IS IF WE CAN KEEP THIS MOVING. OKAY. ALRIGHT. UH, ALRIGHT. SO WHY DON'T WE START WITH THE, UM, THE VARIANCES BECAUSE WE CAN, WE CAN GRANT THE WAIVER SO WE CAN GRANT THE 20%, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT'S BEING REQUESTED HERE. NOW WE DON'T GRANT THE VARIANCE, BUT WE AT LEAST WILL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION. WE'LL HAVE A STATEMENT ON THE RECORD ABOUT HOW WE FEEL ABOUT THE VARIANCES. SO THERE ARE COVERAGE VARIANCES FOR BOTH AND THERE ARE THE, THE SETBACK VARIANCE THAT WE HAVE AND WE CAN GIVE SOME RELIEF ON THE SETBACK, BUT WE CAN'T GIVE THE AMOUNT OF RELIEF THAT'S REQUESTED. YEAH, BOTH OF THOSE ARE OUTSIDE OUR SCOPE OF BEING ABLE TO, TO APPROVE FROM THAT. UM, AND THAT BUILDING FOOTPRINT IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST ONES THAT STICKS OUT TO ME. I MEAN, IF WE WERE ONLY AT 24% OR YOU KNOW, BUT WE COULD ONLY GO TO 20, BUT WE'RE SETTING AT 35, ALMOST 36% ON THE FOOTPRINT. AND IT SEEMS LIKE MOST OF THIS HAS OCCURRED ON THE BACKSIDE, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? COMING OUT ONTO BLACKSMITH LANE. AND I DON'T SEE ANY CHANGES FROM THE LAST TIME YOU'RE HERE COMPARED TO EVEN WHERE YOU'RE HERE EXCEPT YOU SAID YOU'RE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE TO GET THE NEW REQUESTED, UH, SETBACK BECAUSE OF WHAT MAY OCCUR ON BLACKSMITH AND NOT OCCUR. UM, AND THE FIVE FOOT, YOU'RE SAYING? YEAH, THE FIVE FOOT, BUT, UM, I JUST DON'T SEE ANY, ANYTHING THAT WAS CHANGED THERE TO CHANGE THAT BACK F UH, FOOTPRINT ON THE BACKSIDE OF THE HOUSE. NOW, THE SHEER DRIVEWAY, HOW'S, HOW'S THAT COME INTO PLAY IN REGARDS TO IF THEY'RE ABLE TO SHARE BETWEEN 17 AND 25, UM, WILL THAT CHANGED THE DIRECTION OF THE GARAGES? WILL THEY BE FACE TO FACE INSTEAD OF NOT FACING BLACKSMITH? UM, WHICH WOULD BE MY PREFERENCE? YOU'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT, I GUESS I CAN TALK ABOUT 27 A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE YOUR PRESENTATION HAD A COMBINATION OF THOSE TWO IN THERE. BUT YOU KNOW, THE [02:00:01] FOUNDATION CHANGE THAT, AND I THINK YOU BROUGHT IT UP MARTHA LAST TIME, IS THE FACT THAT IF YOU'RE GONNA CHANGE THE FOUNDATION ON 27 AND LITERALLY MOVE THAT BUILDING, IS THERE A POSSIBILITY YOU CAN SHIFT THE TOWARD NORTH RIVER AND WHY MOVE IT FORWARD? JUST CURIOUS WHY I'M ASKING IF YOU HAD THOSE GARAGES, SARAH, COULD YOU PUT THE PLOT PLAN UP? THANK YOU. I CAN'T BELIEVE WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS, BUT THERE, IF YOU PUT BOTH OF THOSE AS SIDELOADED GARAGES, THERE LITERALLY IS NOT ENOUGH ROOM BETWEEN THEM TO HAVE CARS MANEUVER. OKAY. FROM ONE TO THE OTHER. JUST BRINGING UP THINGS I'M ASKING. YEAH. PUTTING OUT IDEAS AND THOUGHTS BECAUSE IF YOU'RE GONNA PHYSICALLY MOVE A HOUSE AND YOU'RE GONNA SHIFT IT, JUST TURNING IT, WHY CAN'T THAT GO FORWARD? AT LEAST IT WOULD HELP. 27. WE ASKED THAT QUESTION IN JANUARY AND YOU SAID NO, I WE DID NOT. NO, WE DIDN'T TALK ABOUT THAT MOVING THE HOUSE FORWARD. THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT SAID NO. IN FACT, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT DIDN'T WANT US TO TURN THE HOUSE. NO, I THINK PAUL, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT SHIFTING THE HOUSE, BUT HE, HE'S TALKING ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT BODIES. HE'S TALKING ABOUT PLANNING DEPARTMENT YEAH. VERSUS A CONVERSATION. OKAY. PLANNING WAS AGAINST MOVING THE HOUSE AT ALL. SO, UH, YOU KNOW, THE, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE CITY ENGINEER'S RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE IT WOULD REQUIRE A RADICAL REDESIGN. THE GARAGES WOULD HAVE TO BE ROTATED 90 DEGREES AND PUSHED BACK. IT DOES REDUCE COVERAGE POTENTIALLY, BUT REGARDLESS OF THAT, THAT RECOMMENDATION, UM, OTHER OKAY. OTHER THOUGHTS ABOUT THE OVERAGE REQUEST? COULD YOU RESTATE WHAT THE OVERAGE AMOUNT WAS CHANGED TO FROM, I, YOU, YOU STATED IT AND I DIDN'T GET IT WRITTEN DOWN. AND I WILL POINT OUT THAT THAT'S IN THE LATEST DOCUMENTS THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE, BUT COULD, IS IT POSSIBLE TO PUT UP THAT PAGE FROM THE STAFF REPORT? SARAH? I KNOW THERE, I KNOW THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT HOUSES AND THEY'RE, THEY'RE TWO DIFFERENT PAGES, BUT, UM, IT IS IN THE STAFF REPORT AND LET ME SEE IF I CAN'T FIND IT. WELL, THE STAFF REPORT REFLECTS, UH, A REQUIRED VARIANCE OF 35.9% BECAUSE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE WOULD BE WITH 20%, IT WOULD BE FI 25 40 AND THE REQUESTED AMOUNT IS 28 48. BUT I DON'T KNOW, IS THAT THE LATEST NUMBER? THAT IS INDEED THE LATEST NUMBER. AND IT IS DESCRIBED UNDER PROJECT HISTORY AND APPROACH THE DIFFERENCES THAT WERE MADE BETWEEN INFORMAL AND TONIGHT. THANK YOU. MM-HMM? , YES. SO WE WOULD BE ASKING YOU FOR YOUR 20% OF A 396 SQUARE FEET AND THEN ASKING FOR THE BZA TO GRANT US AN ADDITIONAL 470 SQUARE FEET ABOVE THAT. AND, AND GARY, TO YOUR COMMENT ABOUT THE COVERAGE, IF WE HAD THE GARAGES FACING EACH OTHER, YOU KNOW HOW FAR APART GARAGES HAVE TO BE FOR MANEUVERING, IMAGINE THAT 30 FEET GARAGE DOOR TO GARAGE DOOR AND THE WIDTH, THE TWO CAR GARAGE. THAT'S A LOT MORE THAN THE TWO DRIVEWAYS WE HAVE. WELL, YOU'D HAVE TO SHARE PAVEMENT SHARE DRIVE BECAUSE, BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE, IF YOU HAVE 24, YOU NEED 24 FEET FOR A TURNING RADIUS. SO IF I'M, I'M NOT, I'M NOT ADVOCATING. YEAH. AND I, AND I DON'T, I KNOW I I, IF I WAS AN OWNER, I WOULD HAVE RESERVATIONS ABOUT WHAT THE ENGINEER WANTS TO DO TOO, IN TERMS OF PROPERTY VALUE. WELL, SO I'M NOT, I'M NOT ADVOCATING THAT. RIGHT. UM, SO I'M JUST TRYING TO FIND WAYS OF, OF GETTING YOUR NUMBER DOWN. 'CAUSE 'CAUSE BOTH, BOTH PROJECTS DO HAVE PRETTY BIG COVER. YOU KNOW, OUR CODE, OUR COVERED AREA WE'RE INCLUDING PORCHES. IT GOES TO THE EVE LINE. SO THOSE COVERED PATIOS ARE INCLUDED. AND BOTH THOSE PROJECTS, BOTH THESE PROJECTS HAVE BIG COVERED PATIOS IN, IN ADDITION TO FRONT PORCHES. AND I, AND I WAS LOOKING AT THE CALCULATION, I THINK YOU GET DOWN PRETTY CLOSE TO OUR 20% WAIVER NUMBER. IF YOU JUST TAKE OFF LIKE COVERED PATIO, YOU CAN STILL HAVE A PATIO. YOU JUST DON'T PUT A ROOF ON IT AND, AND YOU DON'T GET OVER THAT. UM, 'CAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT, YOU [02:05:01] DON'T GET OVER THAT BUILDING FOOTPRINT. SO IT, IT SEEMS THERE ARE WAYS IN THE DESIGN THAT YOU COULD BE MODIFIED AND GET DOWN CLOSER TO THE 20% THAT WE, IT'S HARD FOR ME TO SEE THE HARDSHIP THAT THAT'S THE WHOLE, THAT THAT'S THE WHOLE QUESTION. I CAN SEE THE 16 FOOT POTENTIALLY BEING A HARDSHIP BECAUSE THE HOUSES ARE SET BACK SO YOUR BUILDABLE AREA IS REDUCED. SO I CAN SEE THE REAR POTENTIALLY SOME HARDSHIP, BUT THE AREA, BECAUSE WE INCLUDE COVERED PORTRAITS IN THERE, IT, IT JUST, IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THERE'S NO HARDSHIP. THAT'S WHY I, I WAS THINKING THE REZONING AND, AND WE'VE NEVER APPROVED, WE ALWAYS HAVE A, AN AR NOT AN ARGUMENT, BUT WE ALWAYS, WE ALWAYS HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT A HERE WHEN WE GO TO THE 20%. AND, AND OUR ISSUE IS IF THE PRECEDENT IS SET TO GO BEYOND WHAT'S ALREADY CONSIDERED A WAIVER AND AN EXCEPTION, WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN TO THE NEXT APPLICATION? THE NEXT APPLICATION? WELL, YOU KNOW, SO I, IT CREATES A PROBLEM FOR THE, I THINK FOR THIS BOARD, UH, BECAUSE WE'VE NEVER, WE'VE NEVER APPROVED OR WE'VE NEVER, WE DON'T, WE CAN'T APPROVE THAT VARIANCE. NEVER RECOMMENDED, BUT WE'VE NEVER RECOMMENDED THAT. YEAH. I AND I, I REMEMBER GOING THROUGH SOME OF THE CASES THAT I'VE SEEN WHERE WE HAVE DISCUSSED THE 20%, JUST 20% AND IT IS A BIG DISCUSSION ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE DON'T HAVE THAT THEY CAN'T BE ALLOWING TWO MORE HOUSES OR ONE MORE. IN THIS CASE I'M NOT TO DO TO MAKE IT THAT MUCH LARGER. AND AGAIN, IT'S MAINTAINING THE CHARACTER. THE CHARACTER IS SMALL HOUSES. THE THREE IN RIVERVIEW VILLAGE ARE GONNA MAINTAIN THEIR ORIGINAL FOOTPRINT. THEY'RE NOT INCREASING THOSE HOUSES. AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT THEM COMPARED, IT'S A HUGE DIFFERENCE RIGHT NEXT DOOR. OKAY. NO, HERE'S WHAT I SAID. YOU HAVE TO, HERE'S WHAT I SAID. YEAH, YOU NEED TO COME UP. WE WEREN'T AMENABLE TO THIS AND I WAS THE ONE WHO SAID, AND HERE'S WHERE I WOULD, COULD BE WILLING TO GIVE IS I SAID, I SAID ON ONE OF 'EM, OR I SAID I COULD GIVE A LITTLE, AND HERE'S WHAT I MEANT BY THAT. IF YOU FELT LIKE YOU NEEDED THE SAME SQUARE, ONE OF YOUR LOTS IS SMALLER THAN THE OTHER, IF YOU FELT LIKE YOU NEEDED THE SAME SQUARE FOOTAGE IN BOTH HOUSES, THEN THE SMALLER HOUSE, I PERSONALLY, REST OF THE BOARD MAY, MAY NOT AGREE WITH ME. I PERSONALLY WOULD, WOULD SUPPORT A VARIANCE TO GET THE SMALLER SITE. SO YOU COULD BUILD THE SAME SQUARE FOOTAGE YOU CAN ON THE OTHER ONE. OKAY. SO THAT'S WHAT I MEANT BECAUSE YOU, YOU CAN MAKE THE ARGUMENT THE ONE LOT SMALLER THAN THE OTHER. UM, AND IT, IT PRESENTS CERTAIN LIMITATIONS. AND YOU DID TAKE THE GARAGE OFF. I MEAN, YOU DID REDUCE, YOU DID GET RID OF ONE THREE CAR GARAGE, WHICH, WHICH I THINK WAS POSITIVE. SO THAT'S WHERE I WAS HEADED WHEN I SAID YEAH, I COULD GIVE A LITTLE, AND THAT'S THE AREA WHERE I COULD GIVE. BUT I, BUT I HAVE A PROBLEM ON THE BIGGER ONE WHEN I SEE THE SIZE OF THESE COVERED PATIOS AND, AND IT'S HARD TO, IT'S HARD TO MAKE THE, THE CASE THAT IT'S, IT'S A HARDSHIP NOW. WELL, I DON'T WANT TO, I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO THE DESIGN OF THE BUILDING AND THE SQUARE FOOTAGE YET UNTIL WE GO BEYOND THE VARIANCE CONVERSATION. UH, ARE THERE ANY, WOULD, WOULD, SO WHAT, WHAT IS THE FEELING HERE REGARDING, THERE ARE, THERE ARE TWO ISSUES. THERE'S THE COVERAGE. LET, LET'S, LET'S DO IT ON EACH PROPERTY, LET'S LOOK AT EACH PROPERTY SEPARATELY. COULD, IS IT POSSIBLE TO DO THAT? JUST, JUST LOOK AT LIKE, UM, WHICHEVER ONE'S EASIER TO PUT UP, SARAH. AND, AND IF YOU COULD PUT UP THE CHART THAT YOU HAVE. SO THIS IS THE CHART FOR 17 WITH THE SETBACKS. OKAY. OR THE LOT COVERAGE, THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT AND THE REAR SETBACK. OKAY. AND THEN WE'RE GONNA HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME PRESENTATION FOR 27 AS WELL. IT'S JUST THE NUMBERS, THE THE NUMBERS ARE DIFFERENT. YES. OKAY. YEAH. SO, SO 17 IS THE SMALLER OF THE TWO PARCELS. THE CHART, THE OTHER ONE. OKAY. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU. SURE. SO [02:10:01] WHAT I WAS SAYING THAT I COULD SUPPORT A VARIANCE FOR THIS ONE IF THE PERCENTAGE INCREASE ALLOWED THEM TO GET UP TO WHERE WE ARE AT 27 WITH THE 20% WAIVER. SO COULD GET, YOU COULD GET YOU UP TO 2,757 SQUARE FEET SO YOU COULD BUILD THE SAME AMOUNT ON BOTH PROPERTIES. SO THAT, THAT IS WHAT I WOULD BE WILLING TO SUPPORT THE VARIANCE THERE. AND I'D BE WILLING TO SUPPORT THE REAR BECAUSE I THINK THESE PROPERTIES, WE NEED TO PUSH THE SQUARE FOOTAGE BACK, UM, OFF THE ORIGINAL HOUSE. SO I WOULD BE WILLING TO SUPPORT THE VARIANCE AT THE REAR. OKAY. ANY OTHER, SO TO SUMMARIZE, YOU'RE SAYING THAT WE COULD, YOU WOULD SUPPORT A 20% WAIVER FOR THE PROPERTY AT 27? YES, BUT NOT, AND THEN THE, TO HAVE THAT 20% OR TO HAVE THE SAME SQUARE FOOTAGE AT 17 NORTH RIVER VIEW WOULD BE SOMEWHAT IN EXCESS OF 20%. I DON'T KNOW THE PERCENT PERCENT, WHATEVER. YEAH, I, I CAN'T, I TURNED MY PHONE OFF SO I CAN'T USE MY CALCULATOR, BUT, BUT WHATEVER THE PERCENTAGE IS THAT GETS THEM TO 2,757 ON THAT, ON THE SMALLER PROPERTY. SO THAT I, THAT I'M COMFORTABLE WITH ON 17. ANYBODY DOING THE MATH ? I'M TRYING. OKAY. SHUT EVERYTHING OFF. I GOT IT. SO WAIT A MINUTE. SO IT WOULD BE, IT, IT WOULD BE, UM, SEVEN THAT LOT AREA IS, THAT LOT AREA IS 8,469. SO WHATEVER 27 5 7 IS DIVIDED BY THAT SEVEN, RIGHT AROUND 32 7 DIVIDED. YEAH. 84. SO, SO THAT WOULD GET YOU TO 32.5 ON THAT PARCEL. SO THAT'S WHAT I COULD SUPPORT ON 17 NORTH RIVERVIEW, 16 FOOT THE REAR AND UM, THE 32.5% FOR, UM, THE REQUESTED VARIANCE. ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS, HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THAT? THEY'D STILL HAVE TO GET THE 12.5 FROM THE BZA, CORRECT? OH YEAH. YEAH. IT'S, WE'RE JUST, WE'RE JUST, OR 20% WE'RE JUST GOING ON THE RECORD SAYING, AND, AND SAYING THIS IS WHAT WE RIGHT. SO WE WOULD MAX OUT AT 20% ON THE OTHER HOUSE RIGHT. AND BRING THIS ONE UP TO YEAH. SO I'D BE OKAY WITH, YEAH, SORRY. THAT MAKES, I WOULD BE OKAY WITH THAT SIMPLE MATH AND THERE'S A REASON BEHIND IT AND WE'RE TRYING TO KEEP 'EM EQUIVALENT. I DUNNO IF THAT'S A REASON, BUT, WELL, IT, IT DOESN'T, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE FOR YOU AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO AGREE YOU THAT WHY DON'T ACTUALLY MARTY, WHY DON'T YOU SAY THAT WITH YOUR YEAH, I DON'T, I DON'T REALLY SEE AN EQUIVALENCY HERE REQUIRED BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTIES. I HAVE A ONGOING CONCERN REGARDING THE MASS OF THE PROPERTY PROPOSED ON 17 NORTH RIVERVIEW. I JUST, IT SEEMS VERY, UM, EXCESSIVE AND MAYBE IT SHOULD BE BROUGHT DOWN IN SCALE AND THEN THAT WOULD BE A WAY TO MEET THE 20% WAIVER AND NOT NEED TO GO FOR THE Z ZONING. BUT THAT'S A SEPARATE COMMENT I HAVE. YEAH. AND THAT'S A DESIGN. 'CAUSE THE ZONING PEOPLE, THEY'RE NOT GONNA CARE WHAT THE PROJECT LOOKS LIKE, RIGHT. THEY'RE JUST GOING TO DEAL WITH NUMBERS AND, AND SO THAT IS A DESIGN ISSUE AND WE, WE NEED TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION AFTER THIS. BUT I THINK IN SOME WAYS IT'S, IT'S, YOU, THE, THE PARADOX IS IF YOU [02:15:01] DON'T GIVE 'EM THIS SPACE AND YOU WANT THAT TO BE LESS MASSIVE, YOU'RE SHRINKING BOTH THE FOOTPRINT AND THE VOLUME. SO YOU'RE SHRINKING WHAT THEY CAN DO POTENTIALLY IN TWO DIFFERENT, TWO DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS. SO, UM, I AND I, I'M, I'M NOT PERSONALLY COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. I MEAN WE HAVEN'T AND WE HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT THE DESIGN YET, SO. ALRIGHT, SO IT SOUNDS LIKE, UM, THERE ARE THREE OF US THAT ARE COMFORTABLE INCREASING 17 TO 32.5%. SO WE WOULD BE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT BRINGING ITS BUILDING FOOTPRINT UP TO THE 20% ALLOWABLE ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTY. DO WE NEED A MOTION? OKAY, SO THAT JUST GOES IN THE RECORD. YEAH. LET'S TALK ABOUT ON 17 THE REAR YARD. ARE WE COMFORTABLE? WE CAN REDUCE THAT REAR YARD FROM APPROXIMATELY 40 TO 31 8 IF IT'S GONNA BE REDUCED ANYMORE, IT HAS TO GO FOR THE VARIANCE. ARE WE COMFORTABLE SUPPORTING THAT VARIANCE? I'M SORRY, WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? THE OH, THE REAR SETBACK. YEAH, THE REAR SETBACK. OKAY. SO INSTEAD OF UH, 31.8 FEET, WE WOULD BE PERHAPS EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR IT TO BE ONLY 16 FEET. IT'S STILL GOING TO BE FURTHER OFF THAN THE GARAGES THAT ARE THERE NOW. SO YOU'RE STILL GONNA BE FURTHER BACK. MM-HMM. IN THE CASE OF THE PROPERTY AT 17, CAN WE SEE A, UH, SITE LAYOUT? AND SARAH, THAT DOTTED LINE ON THE LEFT IS THE SETBACK. WHAT IS THAT? OR WHERE WERE YOUR COLORED DOTTED LINES? . LET ME, UH, LET ME SEE IF I CAN HELP. THE UM, THE RED LINE HERE IS THE EDGE OF THE HIGHWAY EASEMENT. AND NOW PER AGREEMENT WE NEED TO BE FIVE FEET BACK FROM THAT HIGHWAY EASEMENT FROM THAT. SO FIVE FEET TO THE RIGHT, WHICH IS THE 16 FOOT, IS THAT HOW YOU'RE GETTING TO THE 16 FOOT? IT'LL BE GREATER THAN 16 FEET. SO I'M CONFUSED. SO THEY WOULDN'T NEED TO ASK FOR THE 16 FEET IF THEY MET THE FIVE FEET, THE 16 FEET IS WHAT'S BEING REQUESTED RIGHT NOW IN THE DARK BLUE LINE. IF WE LOOK AT THE, THE SETBACKS, THE LIGHT BLUE LINE IS THE REAR SETBACK PER CODE? THE 31 CORRECT? OR THE 39 ACTUALLY. AND WE CAN GRANT 20% OF THE LIGHT BLUE LINE. YES YOU CAN. OKAY. , WHICH WOULD BE THE 31. GO AHEAD. UH, BECAUSE WE HAVE TO TAKE APPROXIMATELY THREE AND A HALF FEET MINIMUM OUT OF THE HOUSE. WE'D BE ASKING FOR ABOUT 12 AND A HALF FEET INSTEAD OF 16. WAIT, WAIT, WAIT, WAIT, WAIT. YOU'D BE ASKING, UM, THE 12 AND A HALF FEET PLEASE. CLEAR. FROM WHAT, LET'S CLARIFY FROM WHAT POINT, SARAH, COULD YOU PUT THAT BACK UP AND RICH, MAYBE YOU COULD POINT TO HERE'S EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. SO WE HAD THE, WE HAVE THESE, THESE LINES. SO IT'S, IT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE 16 FEET, THE DARK BLUE LINE IS WHAT THE INITIAL REQUEST, I MISSPOKE AND I'VE BEEN CORRECTED BY MY CLIENT. UM, WE'RE THE, THE REQUIREMENT IS TO STAY, UH, IS TO HAVE THAT LINE BE 30 FEET OFF OF THE PROPERTY LINE. SO WE WOULD BE HAVING IT 19 AND A HALF FEET OFF THE PROPERTY LINES. 19. OKAY. . SO I, I SUBTRACTED INSTEAD OF THAT. APOLOGIES. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. SO WE HAVE, WE'D HAVE MORE. THAT HELPS A LOT. OKAY. ALRIGHT. [02:20:01] AND, AND ON BOTH PROPERTIES? BOTH PROPERTIES, YEAH. OKAY. ALRIGHT. YOU DON'T KNOW THE EXACT NUMBER BUT ABOUT THREE AND A HALF FEET TO GET IT TO AT LEAST FIVE FEET AWAY. OKAY. ALRIGHT. SO, YOU KNOW, I, I SAID BEFORE, AND I'LL SAY IT AGAIN, WE'RE IN A LOT OF WAYS WE'RE TRYING TO DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO PUSH THE MASS. 'CAUSE THEY NEED TO ADD MASS BACK TO THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. SO I THINK THIS HELPS MEET THE DESIGN INTENT OF NOT OVERWHELMING THE ORIGINAL HOUSE. MM-HMM. I'M NOT HEARING ANYTHING. IS THAT, IS THAT EVERYONE STILL WITH ME? IS THAT I'M HAVING A HARD TIME A CHANGING THE MASS BECAUSE ALL WE'RE DOING IS PUSHING EVERYTHING TOWARD THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE. UM, WELL YOU'RE, YOU'RE PUSHING THE, THE END, THE BACK OF IT. I THINK WHAT WE'RE REALLY DOING IS CUTTING OFF SOME SQUARE FOOTAGE, RIGHT? CORRECT. YEAH, I'D LIKE TO SEE THE DRAWING AGAIN. THE THE MASS IS A WHOLE, THE MASS, THESE, THESE LINES IMPACT THE MASS, BUT IN MANY WAYS THEY'RE INDEPENDENT OF THE MASS. MM-HMM. LIKE, LIKE I SAID, THIS MAY BE A COMPLETE REDESIGN. HOPEFULLY NOT, BUT, BUT IT, IT COULD BE, BUT IT'S, WE'RE JUST ESTABLISHING THE, THE LIMITS, THE YEAH. ON THE WAIVER. SO WE CAN GRANT YEAH. ON SETBACKS. AND DO YOU WANT THE ONE WITH THE BLUE LINES? MM-HMM. . OKAY. OKAY. . ALRIGHT, SO THE, THE DARK BLUE LINE'S GONNA MOVE BACK THREE AND A HALF MORE FEET. RIGHT. AND THE, TO MEET THAT FIVE FOOT AGREEMENT THAT THEY'VE COME TO. YES. SO THE FACE OF WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING NOW WOULD NEED, WOULD NEED TO MOVE BACK SLIGHTLY, BUT WE'RE STILL GIVING THEM COMPARED TO WHERE THE LIGHT BLUE LINE IS, THAT'S A BIG DIFFERENCE IN TERMS OF WHERE THE BACK OF THAT RIGHT. IS GONNA BE. AND IT'S STILL, IT'S STILL, I KNOW THERE WERE COMMENTS ABOUT, IT'S A 12 FOOT VARIANCE NOW INSTEAD OF A 16 FOOT VARIANCE. I KNOW THERE WERE COMMENTS ABOUT THE CANYON EFFECT, BUT LOOK AT HOW MUCH CLOSER THE EXISTING GARAGE IS TO, UM, TO THE ALLEY THERE. AND SO, BUT THE EXISTING GARAGE, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT IS SO MUCH SMALLER. FAIR. YEAH. YOU KNOW, THE MASSING OF THIS ADDITION IS, IT'S NOT A SINGLE STORY EDITION. IT'S A VERY LARGE, MASSIVE ADDITION. SO THE FACT THAT IT SITS UP AGAINST THE LINE IS THAT ISN'T CHANGING THE FACT THAT THE MASSING IS VERY, VERY LARGE. THE OTHER PART OF IT, AND I KNOW THIS GOES TO LOT COVERAGE AS OPPOSED TO SETBACK, , WE'RE DRIFTING FROM ONE, IT'S ALL, THEY'RE ALL RELATED IS LOOK AT ALL THE GREEN SPACE THAT THEY'RE TAKING UP. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS, IF YOU DON'T HAVE THAT ADDITION, EXCUSE ME, DON'T HAVE THE ADDITION AND KEEP THE OLD OUTBUILDING. NOT SAYING THAT I'M HUNG ON THE OUTBUILDING, BUT THE, YOU, YOU NOTICE ALL THE GREEN SPACE THAT'S STILL THERE. RIGHT. WHICH IMITATES AGAIN, THE NEIGHBORING HOUSES, WHICH I'M NOT TRYING TO SAY THAT CONSIDERING THESE VARIANCES, THEY GO HAND IN HAND WITH THE MASSING BECAUSE I AM HAVING A LOT OF PROBLEMS WITH THE MASSING WITH THE, AND THAT GOES TO YOUR VARIANCE FOR SQUARE FOOTAGE. I JUST THINK THAT THE PROPERTIES ADDITION IS CERTAINLY NOT SUBORDINATE TO THE HISTORIC HOUSE. THE ARGUMENT THAT YOU'RE USING A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT STYLE IS TO DISTINGUISH IT IS FINE, BUT I, I JUST, I DON'T WE'RE GOING TO, THERE, THERE ARE STRATEGIES THAT COULD BE USED TO MAKE THAT APPEAR LESS MASSIVE REGARDLESS OF THE FOOTPRINT. AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT SOME OF THOSE PERHAPS S SO I, I WANT TO TRY TO GET TO, I KNOW THEY'RE RELATED, BUT I WANT TO TRY TO BRING, IF WE CAN, THE ISSUE OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST. MM-HMM. [02:25:01] TO A CLOSE HERE. WE TALKED ABOUT IT FOR THE ONE PROPERTY. UM, SO HOW DO WE FEEL ABOUT COMING, OR WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE COVERAGE ISSUES. SO HOW DO WE FEEL ABOUT SUPPORTING THAT? AND IF YOU DON'T SUPPORT IT, THAT'S, THAT'S FINE. JUST, JUST SAY SO I, I I I THINK IT'S VERY REASONABLE, THE SETBACK VARIANCE. I CAN SUPPORT THAT. OKAY. I AM NOT REALLY COMFORTABLE SUPPORTING THE SQUARE FOOTAGE VARIANCE. OKAY. ALRIGHT. UM, YEAH, I'M OKAY WITH THE SETBACK VARIANCE. I THINK I SHOULDN'T SAY I THINK YEAH, I'LL, I'LL BE DEFINITIVE. I AM SUPPORTIVE OF IT. YEAH. I THINK SETBACK IS JUST RELATIVE TO WHAT'S THE WAY IT'S WHERE PROPERTY IS, I MEAN, I'M OKAY WITH THE VARIANCE THERE. IT'S LIKE, HAVE TO DEAL WITH WHAT HAPPENS WITH BLACKSMITH LANE AT SOME POINT IN TIME ANYWAY. UH, YOU KNOW, SO WHO KNOWS HOW THAT'S GONNA CHANGE THE WHOLE, WHOLE LOOK OF EVERYTHING, BUT AS IS MM-HMM. , I'M OKAY. LOOKS LIKE WE'RE MAKING AN ATTEMPT TO GET BACK OFF BLACKSMITH TO ACCOMMODATE SO THAT THE CITY CAN STILL DO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO. AND THEY'RE ACCOMMODATING THAT BY AT LEAST ADJUSTING THEIR SETBACK TO DO THAT. WHICH I THINK IS A SMART MOVE TO AGREE TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE THAT, AND I'M OKAY WITH OUR LIMIT ON OUR VARIANCE TO APPROVE THAT. SO WE'RE ALL OKAY WITH, WITH 17 AND 27. 17 AND 27. YES. THE, THE 19 AND A HALF FOOT REQUEST FOR THE REAR SETBACK. OKAY. YES. ALRIGHT. SO WE'VE COVERED THE VARIANCE ISSUES. SO, UH, NOW AS YOU KNOW, YOU COULD STILL REZONE, YOU CAN STILL TAKE THE OPTION TO REZONE. SO, UM, YOU KNOW, JUST BECAUSE WE'VE, WE'VE COME TO THIS CONCLUSION THAT THAT DOES NOT PRECLUDE THAT AVENUE FOR YOU. SURE. SINCE YOU BROUGHT IT UP WITH THE BOARD SUPPORT RESIGNING THE HISTORIC, I'M SORRY, COULD YOU TURN ON? OH, IT IS ON, I'M SORRY. I SHOULD GET LOWER SINCE YOU BROUGHT IT UP. WOULD THE BOARD SUPPORT REZONING TO HISTORIC CORE HERE? HERE'S THE, AND GIVING US 85% LOT COVERAGE, BUT HERE'S THE CAVEAT FOR YOU. WE COULD SUPPORT THE REZONING, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE'D SUPPORT A HOUSE THAT WAS THAT BIG. MM-HMM. BECAUSE WE STILL HAVE OUR GUIDELINES THAT TALK ABOUT APPROPRIATE MASS FORM, VOLUME, ALL OF THOSE ISSUES AND SUBORDINATION SO THAT THERE'S NO GUARANTEE THAT WE WOULD SAY, THERE'S NO GUARANTEE THAT WE WOULD SAY WE'RE GONNA SUPPORT THE HOUSE THAT BIG ON THE LOT. SO, SO THERE'D BE NO ADVANTAGE TO US REZONING THEN I YOU, YOU, YOU DECIDE AFTER YOU HEAR THE REST OF THIS CONVERSATION. 'CAUSE I, BECAUSE I, I THINK, YOU KNOW, THERE, THERE, PEOPLE WANT, WANNA MAKE SOME COMMENTS ON THE OTHER POINTS TO THE STAFF, BUT, BUT THAT, THAT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT A PERFECT, IT'S NOT A PERFECT SOLUTION. OKAY. UM, OKAY. MARTY, SINCE YOU BROUGHT UP, WE'LL TALK ABOUT THE LOOK OF 17, 17, 17. YEP. OKAY. UM, I, I REALIZE THERE'S SOME QUESTION ABOUT THE, UM, WHAT THE ELEVATIONS SHOW, BUT IS IT POSSIBLE TO PUT THE ELEVATIONS UP FOR US TO, TO REFER TO THOSE? I THINK THE, THE BIG, THE FIRST QUESTION AND IT COMES UP IN THE REPORT IS, IS THE ADDITION, UM, SUBORDINATE ENOUGH? WELL, MARTY, YOU, YOU'VE SAID YOU, YOU HAVE RESERVATIONS ABOUT THIS. YES. I I JUST, THE APPEARANCE IS NOT TO ME SUBORDINATE AT ALL. AND THESE STYLISTIC THINGS THAT ARE MENTIONED IN THE, IN THE STAFF REPORT ARE EASY TO ADDRESS, FAIRLY EASY TO ADDRESS. BUT THE PROBLEM I, I REALLY HAVE, AND MAYBE I'M NOT READING THIS CORRECTLY, IS THE FINAL ELEVATION HERE FOR THE, UM, BACK OF THE ADDITION. ARE YOU, ARE YOU REACTING TO THE SIDE [02:30:01] WE'RE SEEING NOW OR THE ALLEY SIDE? BOTH. AND ALSO FROM THE FRONT, IT'S TOWERING OVER IT. THIS LOOKS WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, KIND OF LIKE A WAREHOUSE BACK HERE. THIS IS THE 3D VERSION. , I DON'T KNOW, IS THAT EASY TO GET TO SWITCH BACK AND FORTH? OKAY. THE SLIDES AREN'T RESPONDING HERE. IT'S JUST GONNA TAKE A SECOND. OKAY. YES. LIKE IN THIS EXAMPLE HERE, WHICH IS PAGE EIGHT OF THE STAFF REPORT, WHICH IS THE WEST ELEVATION FACING NORTH BLACKSMITH LANE. AND THAT STOP RIGHT THERE. TO ME, THIS JUST LOOKS VERY DISJOINTED. THE COLORING IS DIFFERENT. I UNDERSTAND YOU, YOU'RE PROPOSING DIFFERENT COLORS, BUT TO ME THE ADDITION NEEDS TO BE MORE COHESIVE. AND TO ME, THE ADDITION HERE LOOKS LIKE FOUR PARTS STUCK TOGETHER. I, I'M NOT SAYING THIS VERY ARTFULLY AND I, I APOLOGIZE, BUT I'M NOT SAYING THAT YOUR DESIGN COULDN'T WORK. MAYBE IT'S A MATERIALS THING, BUT IT JUST SEEMS THAT YOU HAVE THIS MASSIVE HEIGHT ON THE GARAGE THAT'S OVERBEARING THE FRONT. PLUS YOU ALSO HAVE THIS IRREGULAR COMPONENT HERE ON NEXT TO THE OR TO THE, THAT WOULD BE THE SOUTH OF THE, UH, GARAGE. AND MAYBE YOU COULD EXPLAIN THAT A LITTLE BETTER TO, BECAUSE TO ME THAT JUST LOOKS AWKWARD AND INCONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING GOING ON IN THE FRONT. SO IT'S THE DIFFERENT SHAPES. IT'S, IT'S THAT, UM, YOU'RE REACTING TO AND THE HEIGHT OF THE, THE PEAKED PORTION. THE GABLE, YEAH. THE PEAK IS SO HIGH. AND AS YOU CAN SEE MAYBE BETTER FROM THIS PAGE EIGHT, YOU ARE CAMOU OR YOU ARE BLOCKING THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE WITH THE BACK. I THINK ONE OF, I'M GONNA, I'LL GET THAT IS A, I'LL GET TO YOU IN A MINUTE, MR. TAYLOR. UM, I THINK ONE OF THE USEFUL THINGS OF THE 3D AS WE LOOK AT THESE IS IT SHOWS THE GRADE CHANGE AND THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDINGS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ALLEY. SO WHEN, WHEN WE LOOK AT THIS, YOU, WE NEED TO EVALUATE THE CONTEXT, BOTH OF THE STRUCTURE THAT IT'S ATTACHED TO AND THAT THAT'S CERTAINLY IMPORTANT. BUT THE OVERALL ENVIRONMENT AS WELL. AND THE THESE AS TALL AS THESE ARE, THEY'RE STILL LOWER THAN THE BUILDINGS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ALLEY. I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING HERE ALONG THESE BUILDINGS HERE. YEAH. SURE. IT THIS BACK TO YOU. I DON'T SUPPOSE, SIR. THANK YOU. UM, HOW OFTEN DO YOU SAY THAT? EVERY NIGHT? INDEED. UM, I DON'T SUPPOSE THIS IS GOING TO CHANGE ANY MINDS, BUT I, I DO THINK I WOULD LIKE YOU TO LOOK AT THE CURRENT STATE OF THIS DESIGN AND I WOULD ALSO, WHEN I DID THESE FOUR VIEWS OF THIS, I TRIED AS HARD AS I COULD TO SHOW THEM FROM THE PERSON'S EYE VIEW AND NOT FROM A HUNDRED FEET IN THE AIR, WHICH NO ONE WILL EVER SEE THAT VIEW. SO I'D PREFER IF YOU'D EVALUATE IF YOU HATE IT, HATE IT FROM THESE DRAWINGS. OKAY. . ALRIGHT, WELL I THINK WE HAVE THOSE RIGHT? YOU SAID YOU SENT THEM AND I'VE BEEN LOOKING THROUGH THE DRAWINGS. I WISH WE COULD HAVE THAT UP ON THE SCREEN. UM, ARE THERE, YOU MARTY'S STATED HER OPINION ABOUT BOTH TWO THINGS. THE THIS, THE, THE MASS AND MAYBE THE AESTHETIC OF THIS. MIKE HILLARY, YOU HAD MENTIONED BEFORE TOO, GARY, ABOUT UH, TAKING AWAY THE COVERED, UH, PORCH, UH, IN ORDER TO, UH, REDUCE SQUARE FOOTAGE. BUT I'M NOT SURE I WOULD THINK THAT THAT WAS A GOOD APPROACH FOR REDUCING THIS OR THE AESTHETIC OF THE HOUSE. SO THAT'S, I KNOW, JUST A DESIGN. MM-HMM. OPINION. BUT, AND, AND [02:35:01] THAT'S FINE. THAT THAT, THAT'S FINE. UM, I'M AGAIN LOOKING, ESPECIALLY WITH THIS ANGLE, THE, THE THREE HOUSES TO THE NORTH, WHICH ARE, YOU KNOW, THE TRADITIONAL, ORIGINAL HOUSES. AND THEN WE HAVE THIS CLUMP TO THE SOUTH AND IT JUST, IT, THEY'RE NOT RELATED. IT MAKES ME FEEL LIKE THE HOUSES ARE HAVING BABIES, ALL THAT THEY'RE RABBITS. I'M SORRY TO BE . NOT VERY PROFESSIONAL, BUT IT DOESN'T SEEM COHESIVE. IT'S MASSIVE. UM, NOW, YES, WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT THE VIDEO AND CAME THROUGH ON RIVERVIEW STREET LOOKING UP, I NOTICED ALL THE BUILDINGS THAT ARE NORTH OF THERE AND, AND IT IS THERE, THERE ARE LARGE STRUCTURES. THEY'RE UP ON A HILL. THEY DO OVERPOWER WHAT'S BELOW. BUT WALKING THROUGH THAT, YOU STILL, AGAIN, GOING SOUTH ON RIVERVIEW IN THAT VIDEO WE GO THROUGH THE SINGLE, THE, THE THREE SMALLER ONES AND THEN WE GET THIS MASSIVE STUFF THAT YOU CAN SEE THROUGH TO IT. IT'S JUST A LOT OF BUILDING. I DON'T, I, MICHAEL DO YOU HAVE ANY, ANY INITIAL THOUGHTS? YEAH, MY MIND'S PROCESSING HERE. BUT YOU KNOW, THE KEY THING WE ALWAYS TALK ABOUT MAKING SURE SOMETHING'S SUBORDINATE TO THE OTHER. AND, UM, I ALMOST FEEL LIKE THE ORIGINAL HOMES ARE SUBORDINATE TO THE NEW STRUCTURES. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? THEY'RE JUST YES. BEING ATE UP BY THE NEW STRUCTURES AND IT REALLY SHOULD BE THE OTHER WAY AROUND. UM, ONE OF THE, WELL, I THINK FROM THIS PERSPECTIVE AND, AND I THINK THIS, IT'S A GREAT RENDERING AND, BUT FROM HERE, BECAUSE WE ARE LOOKING AT IT FROM THE BACK, THE FOCUS IS ON THE ADDITIONS AND NOT THE ORIGINAL HOUSE. RIGHT? SO THIS THAT IS TRUE. THIS PARTICULAR VIEW I THINK IS UM, IS A LITTLE, IS A LITTLE, IT'S DEFINITELY MISLEADING. UM, WELL I THINK WE HAD THE VIEW FROM, 'CAUSE THE VIEW, THE VIEWS, THE THREE DS FROM THE STREET FROM RIVERVIEW, I THINK GIVE US GIVE US A BETTER SENSE BECAUSE I'M, UM, I'LL SAY MORE IF THAT, IF THAT THREE D'S COMING UP. OKAY. SO SINCE THESE TWO BUILDINGS ARE BEING PRESENTED TOGETHER, I I'LL JUST TELL YOU, TELL YOU MY, MY FEELINGS NOW. I KNOW THE STAFF REPORT FOR 27 AND YOU CAN SEE THE SHADE CHANGE ON 27 WHERE IT'S NEW, BUT IT'S MADE TO LOOK LIKE IT'S ADJACENT AND PART OF THE ORIGINAL. I KNOW THERE'S SOME RESERVATIONS ABOUT THAT. BUT WHAT I THINK IS SUCCESSFUL ABOUT THAT ELEVATION IS THE, THE CONNECTOR. SO THERE'S NOTHING LIKE A COVERED PORCH THERE THAT BLURS THE SEPARATION. THE CONNECTOR MAKES A CLEAR, IT'S PUSHED BACK. MM-HMM. IT HAS A LOW ROOF. IT MAKES A CLEAR MM-HMM. DISTINCTION BETWEEN WHAT'S UPFRONT AND, AND WHILE I, I THINK I I I UNDERSTAND THE STAFF'S RESERVATIONS ABOUT EXTENDING THE WALL OF THE EXISTING, IT DOES MAKE THE EXISTING DOMINANT, IT MAKES THAT THE MOST PROMINENT ELEMENT. AND BY, AND THAT'S CORRECT. ON 27, I THINK 17 IS THE, WELL LEMME GET TO THAT. OKAY. I'M GONNA, I'M, I'M, I'M HEADED THERE. SO, SO WHAT'S SUCCESSFUL THEN I THINK IS THEN THE WAY THE ROOF IS TALLER AND THE FACT THAT THE, THAT THE GABLE PARALLELS THE ALLEY BECAUSE WHAT, WHAT THAT DOES, AND THAT'S WHY, AND I REALIZED THERE WAS SOME FEEDBACK GIVEN AT THE LAST MEETING THAT SAID, WELL, WE DON'T KIND OF LIKE THE CANYON EFFECT, BUT WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU RUN THE GABLES THAT WAY IS ON 17, IF YOU TURN THE GABLE, WHAT YOU SEE FROM THE FRONT IS, IS A PLANE THAT'S ACTUALLY MOVING BACK AND AWAY FROM YOU. SO ON PAPER. WHEREAS WHEN YOU HAVE A GABLE LIKE THIS FACING THE FRONT, YEAH, YOU HAVE THE TALLEST PLANE OUT CLOSEST TO THE FRONT. SO WHILE THERE MAY BE MORE, BUT ALLEYS DO HAVE YOU, YOU, YOU ALL CALL THE CANYON EFFECT IN SOME PARTS OF THE COUNTRY, THEY ACTUALLY TRY TO TRY TO DESIGN THINGS CALLED MUSE LIKE APARTMENTS THAT ARE RIGHT ON TOP OF THE ALLEY AND, AND ACTUALLY DEFINE THE ALLEY AS A SPACE. SO I THINK IF THAT ROOF ON 17 HAD MORE OF THE CHARACTERISTICS [02:40:01] OF THE ROOF, NOW IT MAY NEED TO BE A LITTLE BIT TALLER. 'CAUSE BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND THAT'S, THAT HOUSE IS A SMALLER FOOTPRINT. SO WHERE DOES THE PRIMARY SUITE GO? IT'S GOING, IT'S GOING UP INTO THAT, THAT SECOND, THAT SECOND LEVEL. SO THEY NEED THE SQUARE FOOTAGE UP THERE. BUT I THINK IF THAT, IF THAT ONE, UM, ALSO RAN IN THAT DIRECTION, I THINK IT WOULD GO A LONG WAY, UH, IN TERMS OF REDUCING THE IMPACT OF IT FROM THE FRONT. AND, YOU KNOW, IT COULD KIND OF COMPLIMENT THE GABLE SIDE THAT YOU SEE ON, UM, ON 17, UM, THE CURRENT, THE CURRENT GABLE. SO I, I DO THINK THERE'S A NEED FOR GETTING SQUARE FOOTAGE IN THESE IN THESE HOMES. I THINK IT'S JUST A, A FUNCTION OF IS THE MARKETPLACE, THE ECONOMICS AND, AND, AND I, AND I THINK YOU HAVE TO LOOK AHEAD TOO. THERE MAY BE A TIME IT'S A DIFFERENT USE, BUT KATCH NEEDS TO EXPAND. SO, UM, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE'RE SEEING NOW, NOW AND, AND WE KNOW THAT BECAUSE OF THE, THE MARKET AND WHAT'S DRIVING THINGS, WE KNOW THE PROJECT FURTHER OR WE HAVE A SENSE THE PROJECT THAT'S FURTHER FROM THE FURTHEST AWAY ON THE SOUTH IS GONNA NEED MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE TOO, AND THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO PUT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE IN THE BACK. SO WE, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE THOSE THREE HOUSES WITH SIMILAR SIGHTINGS. SO I, UM, I ALSO THINK THE AESTHETIC IS SO DIFFERENT AND I UNDER THAT, I THINK THAT IMPACTS HOW YOU VIEW 17. AND, AND I UNDERSTAND THE IDEA OF, UM, DIFFERENTIATING STYLISTICALLY AND, AND THAT'S WHY I WASN'T, I KNOW THE STAFF REPORT ON 27 TALKED ABOUT THE GUTTERS AND SOME OF THOSE DETAILS BEING DIFFERENT AND MAYBE, YOU KNOW, THE SHAPE OF THE THE SHAPE OF THE FASCIA WASN'T APPROPRIATE. I THOUGHT IT ACTUALLY WAS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE YEAH, IT, IT HELPED DIFFERENTIATE. IT STILL LOOKS LIKE PERHAPS A VERNACULAR AND TRADITIONAL BUILDING, BUT IT HELPED DIFFERENTIATE IT FROM THE EARLIER ONE. BUT, BUT I THINK WITHOUT DETAIL, IT, IT ALMOST EXAGGERATES THE SENSE OF VOLUME AND MAKE AND, AND IS THAT REACTION THAT THERE, THERE AREN'T THINGS TO BREAK THE LOOK OF THE VOLUME DOWN AND THAT MAY BE CONTRIBUTING TO COMMENTS ABOUT HOW MASS OF IT APPEARS. UM, BUT, BUT I, AND I FEEL PRETTY FOR MYSELF, PRETTY GOOD ABOUT THE DIRECTION THAT JUST THE GENERAL DIRECTION 20 SEVEN'S HEADED. AND UM, NOW I KNOW YOU DON'T WANNA TAKE THE COVERED PORCH OFF 17, BUT IF YOU TAKE THE COVERED PORCH OFF 17, IT CREATES THAT SAME KIND OF CHOKE EFFECT THAT, THAT YOU'VE GOT ON THE, UM, ON THE NORTH SIDE. 20 YEAH. OF 27. YEAH. SO SEEING IT AS CONTINUOUS BY PULLING, TAKING THAT COVERED PORTION, THE ROOF COMES BACK, YOU'VE GOT A GABLE EXPOSED AT THAT END. IT'S NOT SO, DOESN'T APPEAR QUITE SO MASSIVE ALONG THERE. UM, THE, THOSE ARE, WOULD DORMERS BE OF ANY HELP TO THE ROOF HERE ON 17, FOR INSTANCE. SEE HOW ON THIS VIEW, WHICH WE'RE LOOKING AT THE NORTH SIDE, FIRST OF ALL, I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED ON THIS PICTURE, BUT WE'RE LOOKING SOUTH AND YOU HAVE THIS SLIGHT ELEVATION RIGHT HERE. SEE WHERE I'M SAYING RIGHT HERE, THIS, AND THEN IT GOES UP TO THIS MASSIVE ROOF LINE. AND MY, I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, IS IF THIS COULD BE BROUGHT DOWN WITH SOME DORMERS OR SOMETHING TO BRING THE HEIGHT DOWN JUST A LITTLE BIT. LIKE SEE HOW THIS ONE, I DON'T KNOW. YEAH, IT'S AN OPTICAL ILLUSION TO ME. I GUESS I, I THINK AND THE APPLICANT CAN ANSWER, BUT MY, MY GUESS IS, UM, 27 IS LOWER THAN 17 BECAUSE THERE'S LESS SQUARE FOOTAGE UP THERE AND, AND, BUT BECAUSE THERE'S MORE FLOOR SPACE THAT'S NEEDED IN 17 NEED TO GET THAT FASCIA HEIGHT OR THAT POINT WHERE THE ROOF SPRINGS UP A LITTLE BIT HIGHER. YEAH. AND I, I, I KNOW DORMERS CUT UP THE INSIDE OF A ROOM, BUT YEAH, ALMOST ALL YOUR PRIMARY LIVING SPACE AND 17TH IN THAT BACK SECOND LEVEL SECTION ABOVE THE GARAGE. I THINK THERE'S THREE BEDROOMS THERE. [02:45:01] NO, I THINK THE BEDROOMS ARE UP FRONT ON 17. THERE'S, AND THERE ARE THREE BEDROOMS BACK THERE. OKAY, SAY THAT AGAIN. I JUST DON'T HAVE MARTY, REPEAT THAT. SO IT GOES ON THE RECORD. WHAT, WHAT DID YOU SAY AGAIN? OKAY, SO THERE'S TWO BEDROOMS IN THE HISTORIC BUILDING IN THE OLD HOUSE AND ONE BEDROOM IN THE NEW STRUCTURE. OKAY. SEE HERE. LIKE, HERE'S THIS DRAWING WITH THE ROOF PLAN AND SEE HOW BOXY THAT LOOKS. AND I DON'T UNDER NO, HERE LOOK BACKWARDS. ACTUALLY THIS IS THE BOX, THIS IS THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE HERE. AND THIS IS, THOSE ARE THE SKYLIGHTS THAT ARE IN. YEAH, I WANNA SEE IF I CAN FIND THAT ONE DRAWING. OH, OKAY. UM, SO IT SOUNDS LIKE THE, THE CONVERSATION ON 17 IS, AT LEAST FROM THE APPEARANCE, THE REACTIONS I'M HEARING, IT DOESN'T APPEAR SUBORDINATE ENOUGH. MM-HMM. , IS THAT, IS THAT ACCURATE? YES, IT IS. AND GARY TO JUST DOUBLE UP ON YOUR COMMENT ABOUT DEROOFING THE PATIO, I I DO THINK MAKING IT A SMALLER HYPHEN THERE WOULD BE A BIG IMPROVEMENT. IT WOULD SEPARATE THEM AND MAKE IT AT LEAST GIVE A LITTLE BIT MORE IMPRESSION THAT IT'S SUBORDINATE TO THE ORIGINAL. BUT I, I THINK THE MORE YOU ASSOCIATE THE MASSES IN THE BACK WITH THE STUFF ACROSS THE ALLEY AND YOU TRY TO REDUCE, I KNOW IT'S EASY TO SAY IT HARD TO DO IT WHEN YOU WORK THE PROGRAM OUT, REDUCE THE CONNECTOR, IT, IT STILL MAY BE TALL IN THE BACK, BUT IT'S FURTHER AWAY FROM THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE. WE, AND IT'S BETTER, IT'S BETTER. YOU'RE, YOU NEED MASS IN THESE HOUSES AND IT'S BETTER TO BE BACK THERE THAN RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE RIGHT ON TOP OF THE HOUSE. YES, I AGREE. AND AS I WAS SAYING THAT WHEN YOU LOOK UP THAT HILL, THERE ARE LARGE BUILDINGS BEHIND THERE. AND SO IF THEY COME IN, UM, THE OTHER THING THAT WILL HELP ANY CANYON EFFECT THAT HAPPENS IS NOW WE'VE GOT LONGER SETBACKS. SO IT'S FURTHER BACK FROM THE ROAD ANYWAY, WHICH WILL RIGHT. MAKE IT SEAMLESS CANYON KENY AND THEY REDUCED THE GARAGE SIZE. THAT'S WHAT WAS OUR, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, THAT WAS OUR BIG REASON FOR THINKING IT WAS GONNA FEEL LIKE JUST A SET OF GARAGES ON A WHAT WAS GONNA BE INTENDED TO BE A PEDESTRIAN STREET. SO REDUCING THE GARAGES HELPED A LOT WITH THAT AS WELL. OKAY. UM, AND AND FEELINGS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, MARTY'S MENTIONED HER CONCERN ABOUT THE, THE CONTEMPORARY NATURE OF THAT. I DON'T THINK IT, IT HELPS REDUCE THE VOLUME. I I THINK IT MAY EXAGGERATE BECAUSE THERE'S NO DETAIL TO BREAK THAT UP. UM, O OTHER THOUGHTS ABOUT THAT? YEAH. PER PERHAPS SOME DETAIL WOULD TO THE STYLE WOULD HELP BREAK IT UP EVEN. YEAH, I AGREE. AM I NOT ON ? UM, YEAH, BUT HAVING AGAIN, ONE UNDIFFERENTIATED FACE IS DIFFICULT ON THE EYE AND CREATES, THERE'S NO INTEREST, WHICH MAKES IT ONE BIG PIECE. OKAY. ALRIGHT. UM, 27. UM, OKAY, SO I THINK YOU MADE, YOU MADE SOME GOOD COMMENTS ABOUT 27 LOOKING LESS THE WAY IT'S LAID OUT WITH THE, THE ROOF DIRECTION WITH THE, THE OTHER ALLEY AND WORKING OUT THERE. I THINK THAT ESPECIALLY WITH THAT ONE VIEW THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, IT, IT ALL WORKED TOGETHER. 27 I THINK. MAY I ASK A, WE WILL HAVE A SEPARATE PRESENTATION ON 27. OKAY. SO YOU'LL, THERE'LL BE LOTS OF OPPORTUNITY TO OKAY. OFFER THE SAME YEAH. 'CAUSE WE KIND OF BLENDED THE TWO TOGETHER HERE. I KNOW. YEAH. THAT WAS MY QUESTION. ARE ARE WE GONNA IT SEPARATE? RIGHT. SO I, I HEARD YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT THE MASSING AND THE, AND THE SCALE AND THE DETAIL. GOT IT. JUST TO, UH, CLARIFY, WHEN WE PUSH THE FRAUDULENT THREE AND A HALF FEET BACK, GIVE OR TAKE, YOU'RE OKAY WITH WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT IN TERMS OF THE 19 FEET AND ALL THAT. WE'RE, WE'RE YOU GUYS, I KNOW YOU'RE NOT VOTING ON THIS, BUT YOU'RE THUMBS [02:50:01] UP ON THAT. AND THEN YOU WANT US TO REDUCE FROM 34.9 TO 32.5 ON THE FOOTPRINT. IS THAT CORRECT? WE ALREADY PUT IT IN THE RECORD. AND THEN, AND THAT'S THE SMALLER LOT, RIGHT? STILL TALKING ABOUT 17, RIGHT? YEAH. YES. SO THAT'S THE SMALLER LOT. SO THAT'S THE ONE WE, WE ARE COMFORTABLE WITH. 32.5, WE WOULD, WE WOULD SUPPORT THE 32.5. OKAY. THE CALCULATION WAS THAT IF LOT 17 WAS ALSO MATCHED TO LOT 20, THE 27 PROPERTY AT 27 OR 2757, 2 7, 5 7 SQUARE FEET, WHAT WAS THE, UH, OVERAGE AND THE OVERAGE MADE IT A 32.5%, WHICH WELL THAT YEAH, THAT'S THE NUMBER THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THEN. RIGHT. AND THAT'S HOW IT WAS CREATED. OKAY, GREAT. SO CAN WE VOTE TO TABLE 17 THEN AND MOVE ON TO 27? HOW IS IT WRITTEN, SARAH? IS IT, IS IT WRITTEN THAT WE THEY HELD JOINTLY OR ARE WE GOING TO CONSIDER THEM? WE CONSIDER EACH ONE INDIVIDUALLY. OKAY. AND THE RECOMMENDATION OKAY. UH, IS TO TABLE WITH, UH, THE COMMENTS THAT YOU SEE IN FRONT OF YOU. OKAY. THERE'S NO CONDITIONS SINCE WE'RE TABLING, BUT JUST SOME GUIDANCE. ALL RIGHT. I'LL MOVE TO TABLE THE MINOR PROJECT REVIEW FOR 17 NORTH RIVERVIEW. AM I GETTING THIS RIGHT WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS NOTE, THE FIVE RECOMMENDATIONS NOTED? NO, AND I'LL SECOND THAT. DO WE HAVE TO PUT THE PERCENTAGES IN THERE, SARAH OR I HAVE IT WRITTEN DOWN AND I AM SURE THAT IT'S CAPTURED IN THE MINUTES. OKAY. THANKS. MM-HMM? ? YEAH. MIKE SECOND. OKAY. MS. DAMER? YES. MS. COOPER? YES. MR. JEWEL? YES. MR. ALEXANDER? YES. UH, ONE QUESTION ABOUT MECHANICS HERE. DOES THIS SHUT OFF AT NINE 30 OR DOES IT JUST KEEP GOING? IT'LL KEEP GOING UNTIL WE ADJOURN THE MEETING. OKAY. ALRIGHT. ALRIGHT. [Case #24-030ARB-MPR ] KATE 27 NORTH RIVERVIEW STREET. THIS IS MINOR PROJECT REVIEW, UM, PROPOSAL FOR ADDITIONS TO A RESIDENCE IN HISTORIC DISTRICT. THE 0.21 ACRE SITE IS ZONE HD HISTORIC RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND IS LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF WING HILL LANE AND NORTH RIVERVIEW STREET. LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE ALL SET INDEED. AND THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. AND WE'LL SEE EXACTLY THE SAME APPROACH AS TO THE LAST, UM, PRESENTATION. SO YOU'LL BE ABLE TO FOLLOW ALONG. UM, THE LOCATION IS AT THE INTERSECTION OF NORTH BLACKSMITH WING HILL AND NORTH RIVERVIEW STREET RIGHT ON THE CORNER THERE. AND AGAIN, THE SITE IS WITHIN THE HISTORIC RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, UH, BETWEEN BOTH CORE AND PUBLIC. THE HOUSE IS AN INTACT LANDMARK, LANDMARK GABLE L FOLK VICTORIAN STRUCTURE. THERE IS A LANDMARK OUTBUILDING, UM, AT THE REAR THAT IS THOUGHT TO HAVE BEEN RELOCATED TO THE SITE. AND SIMILARLY, THE OWNER WISHES TO DEMOLISH THIS. AS WE SAW BEFORE. UM, WE HAVE SOME SETBACKS AND LOT COVERAGE ITEMS TO DISCUSS THE LOT COVERAGE, UH, REQUIREMENTS ARE MET. THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT IS SHOWN AT 132.6% ALLOWED BY CODE, THUS REQUIRING A VARIANCE. AND THE REAR SETBACK IS CURRENTLY SHOWN AT 16 FEET WHERE THE BOARD COULD, COULD PERMIT A LITTLE BIT OVER 23 FEET AND THAT ALSO REQUIRES A VARIANCE. TAKING A LOOK AT THE SITE ITSELF, THE HISTORIC HOUSES IN THE DARKER GRAY, UH, THIS BUILDING IS PROPOSED TO BE MOVED AND STAFF HAS SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THAT. AS NOTED IN THE REPORT, THE ADDITION IS IN THE LIGHTER GRAY. THIS IS THE LANDMARK SHED SHOWN IN ORANGE. AND AS WE SAW BEFORE, UH, HIGHWAY EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN IN RED AND THE BLACKSMITH RIGHT OF WAY IS SHOWN IN PINK AND MATCHING THAT SAME AGREEMENT AS WITH 17. UM, BOTH THE APPLICANT AND STAFF [02:55:01] HAVE AGREED THAT THAT HOUSE SPACE IS GONNA START FIVE FEET BACK FROM THAT HIGHWAY EASEMENT ALONG BLACKSMITH. THE CODE REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK IS SHOWN IN LIGHT BLUE. THE DESIRED REAR YARD SETBACK IS SHOWN IN THE DARK BLUE. AND THAT, OF COURSE WILL BE ADJUSTED AGAIN BASED ON THAT AGREEMENT. AS WE NOTED PREVIOUSLY, STAFF MAY WANT A SHARED DRIVEWAY IN THIS LOCATION TO ALLOW FOR GREATER NUMBERS OF PARKING ON BLACKSMITH. AND SAME SITUATION, THE CITY ENGINEER CAN MAKE THAT CALL. THERE'S A TREE THAT'S PROPOSED TO BE MOVED LOCATED HERE. THE FRONT ELEVATION SHOWS THE FOLK VICTORIAN FORM WITH THE ADDITIONS ADJACENT AND BEHIND. AND HERE WE POINT OUT THE LIGHTWEIGHT EAVES AND THE AMOUNT OF VISIBLE ROOF. FOR COMPARISON. THIS IS THE NORTH ELEVATION WHERE THE HEIGHT OF THE ADDITION IS SIMILAR, THE HYPHEN IS APPROPRIATE. UH, WE DO NOTE THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENT EVE DETAILS THAT ARE A LOT HEAVIER. SOME WINDOWS HERE ARE ADDED IN PATTERNS CONTRARY TO THE GUIDELINES. AND THIS ADDITION, AS PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED, IS IN THE SAME PLANE AS THE ORIGINAL HOUSE. WE SEE WOOD SIDING ON THE CHIMNEY, WHICH IS MORE OF A MODERN APPROACH RATHER THAN A HISTORIC DETAIL. AND THERE'S AN UNCONVENTIONAL PATTERN OF BRICK AND SIDING ON THE FAR RIGHT HAND SIDE. THE SOUTH ELEVATION SHOWS AGAIN, AN APPROPRIATE HYPHEN. UH, WE SEE SOME COMPLEX ROOF FORMS. THE SHED ROOF IS ADDED TO THE ORIGINAL HOUSE AS SEEN HERE. THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT HYPHEN HEIGHTS AND TWO COMPETING GABLES. AGAIN, WITH THE HEAVIER EAVES AND WITH THE PROPOSED RELOCATION OF THE HOUSE. STAFF HAS SOME CONCERNS ABOUT CAN THE STRUCTURE WITHSTAND THAT MOVEMENT? WILL THE STRUCTURE BE RAISED, UM, THUS AFFECTING THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE STREET. IS THERE A BEDROCK UNDER THIS LOT THAT WOULD PREVENT MOVING OF THE HOUSE? AND THEN HOW WILL THIS WINDOW BE TREATED WITH TOPOGRAPHY AND RETAINING WALLS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. AND THIS IS THE VIEW FROM BLACKSMITH AGAIN, UM, NOTING THE AMOUNT OF VISIBLE ROOF COMPARED TO THE HISTORIC HOUSE. AND THEN AS WE HAVE NOTED, A NUMBER OF TIMES, TWO DRIVEWAYS ARE NOT PERMITTED AND THE CITY ENGINEER IS UNLIKELY TO SUPPORT THIS. UM, AND AGAIN, THERE MAY BE THE POSSIBILITY OF REQUIRING A SHARED DRIVEWAY. AND THESE ARE THE SAME VIEWS THAT MR. HENDERSON PREPARED WITH THE PREVIOUS CASE. UM, AGAIN, LOOKING NORTHEAST, LOOKING DIRECTLY SOUTH AND A CLOSER VIEW WITH NUMBER 27 IN THE FRONT. SO THE MINOR PROJECT REVIEW CRITERIA ARE NOT MET FOR THE MOST PART AT THIS POINT. UM, AGAIN, WE'VE EXPLAINED THAT IN THE STAFF REPORT AND WE'VE ALSO EXPLAINED THE PROCESS AND, UH, WHY THE APPLICANT IS ASKING TO TABLE THIS. SO THE REQUEST IS TO TABLE. UM, AND THEN WE NOTE VERY SIMILARLY TO THE OTHER PROJECT, THE APPLICANT WILL NEED TO OBTAIN THE VARIANCE FOR, UM, THE VARIOUS REQUESTS FROM THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS. IF THESE ARE NOT GRANTED, THEN A REDESIGN IS NECESSARY. THE REAR BUILDING SETBACK NEEDS TO BE ADJUSTED. UH, THE DRIVEWAYS NEED TO BE REDUCED TO ONE AND STILL MAINTAIN THE COMPLIANCE WITH THE MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY WIDTH AT THE RIGHT OF WAY. UH, CONTINUE TO COORDINATE WITH STAFF ON A COMBINED DRIVEWAY POSSIBILITY, MODIFY THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN TO BETTER MATCH THE GUIDELINES, PROVIDE A DEMOLITION LANDMARK REQUEST AT THE NEXT STEP BEFORE THIS BOARD. UM, AND THEN PROVIDE SOME DETAILED INFORMATION ABOUT MOVING THE HOUSE [03:00:01] TO ENSURE THAT WE'RE NOT GONNA DO IRREPARABLE DAMAGE. AND THEN A CONTINGENCY PLAN BASED ON BEDROCK AND THEN SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT WE NEED. AND WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, ANY INITIAL QUESTIONS? NO. OKAY. UM, MR. TAYLOR, DO YOU, MR DO I NEED TO INTRODUCE MYSELF AGAIN? SO, JUST A COUPLE QUICK COMMENTS. MOVING THE HOUSE BACK LATE LAST YEAR. AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF ALL THIS, WE CORRESPONDED WITH SEVERAL HOUSE MOVING PROFESSIONALS, STRUCTURAL MOVERS, AND THEY LOOKED AT THIS PROJECT AND UM, THEY'RE FINE WITH THAT. IT CAN BE MOVED. IT'S A PRETTY COMMON PROCESS. SO MOVING, IT'S KIND OF AN INTERESTING THING. WE DISCUSSED THIS IN NOVEMBER AT THE MEETING WITH SARAH ORIGINALLY. UM, AND SOME OF THE ENGINEERS INDICATED THAT IF WE DO THAT THEY LET, LET, LET THEM KNOW. 'CAUSE THEY'D LOVE TO BE THERE. SO IT'S A, IT'S A FUN THING TO SEE AS FAR AS THE ROCK. UM, YOU KNOW, I'VE REMODELED AND BUILT HOUSES ALONG BOTH SIDES OF THE RIVER FOR 35 YEARS. I ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE YOU THAT THERE'S ROCK THERE. UM, PROBABLY THAT'S WHY THE HOUSE DOESN'T HAVE ANY KIND OF A FOUNDATION UNDER IT RIGHT NOW. UM, AND OTHER THAN A LITTLE BIT OF ADDITIONAL COST AND A LITTLE BIT OF ADDITIONAL TIME, IT'S NO, UH, IMPEDIMENT TO BUILDING THE HOUSE WHATSOEVER. 1 43 SOUTH HIGH, UH, 180 1 SOUTH HIGH. SAME SITUATION. WE HAD TO GO THROUGH ROCK TO GET TO IT, SO NOT A BIG DEAL. UM, THE HOUSE WILL BE RAISED EXACTLY HOW MUCH WE DON'T KNOW, BUT RIGHT NOW THE FRAMING SITS ALMOST ON THE GROUND AND WE WILL RAISE IT JUST ENOUGH TO MEET THE CODE FOR WOOD STRUCTURES BEING OUT OF THE, OUT OF THE SOIL, WHICH IS ABOUT EIGHT INCHES. SO IT WON'T BE MUCH. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU. OKAY. ALRIGHT. ANY, ANY INITIAL QUESTIONS FOR MR. TAYLOR? OKAY. ALRIGHT. LET'S, LET'S JUST, WE'RE OKAY WITH THE 19 AND A HALF FOOT VARIANCE AT THE REAR OF THE SETBACK JUST TO, SINCE WE'RE SEPARATED THIS FORM LIGHT. OKAY. SO EVERYBODY'S COMFORTABLE YEP. WITH THE SETBACK. OKAY. IN MY EARLIER PRESENTATION, I INDICATED THAT I WAS NOT COMFORTABLE GOING BEYOND THE 20% WAIVER. HOW DID, HOW, I JUST WANNA GET, GO BACK, MAKE SURE WE WE'RE REAL CLEAR HOW EVERYBODY FEELS. YEP. 'CAUSE THAT WAS PART OF THE AGREEMENT WITH 17, THAT WE WOULD OKAY. SHAKE DOWN. SO WE'RE NOT, SO WE'RE NOT SUPPORTING A VARIANCE TO GO BEYOND THE 20% WAIVER AMOUNT THAT WE CAN APPROVE. OKAY. SO LET'S GO TO THE DESIGN. UM, WE'VE TALKED A LITTLE BIT, I, I'VE MADE A FEW POINTS ABOUT IT. DO YOU WANT TO GO ON ELEVATION BY ELEVATION SINCE UM, SARAH MADE HER PRESENTATION THAT WAY? MM-HMM. . SARAH, WOULD YOU MIND? IT'S, UH, IT'S UP. WE'RE JUST WAITING. DO YOU WANNA START WITH THE FRONT OR THE SIDES? WHERE WOULD YOU LIKE TO BEGIN? MAYBE START WITH THE FRONT. ALRIGHT, THERE IT IS. OKAY. SARAH, THE BLUE INDICATES THE ORIGINAL HOUSE, I'M SORRY, THE BLUE INDICATES THE ORIGINAL HOUSE. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. MM-HMM? . I MEAN THE MOD, I THINK THE ONE QUESTION THAT THAT COMES UP AND YOU SEE IT MORE FROM THE LEFT SIDE FROM THE SOUTH, IS THE PROJECTION THAT WE SEE THE ONE STORY PROJECTION WITH THE WINDOW THAT HITS THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE. UM, ON THE LEFT. ON THE LEFT. I'M SORRY, IT'S ON THE LEFT. YEAH. AND, UM, I DON'T, YOU KNOW, AND FROM THE FRONT IT, IT SEEMS, BUT WHEN WE GO AROUND TO THAT OTHER SIDE, IT DOES APPEAR, UM, LIKE IT'S PART OF THE ORIGINAL HOUSE, BUT IT'S REALLY NOT. THAT'S WHAT I WAS GONNA SAY IS THAT BECAUSE THE MATERIALS ARE SO SIMILAR, IT APPEARS TO BE THE SAME HOUSE. AND THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING IF THE BLUE OUTLINE WAS THE ORIGINAL HOUSE. UM, AND I NOTICED THAT IN SOME OF THE OTHER DRAWINGS TOO. I WAS LOOKING AT THE RECENT DRAWINGS THAT WERE SUBMITTED, UM, THAT IT DOES APPEAR TO BE THE SAME HOUSE. IS THE STAFF'S, UH, DISCOMFORT WITH THAT, THE, THE GABLE ON THERE AND THE DETAILING THAT MATCHES THE HOUSE AND OR IS IT JUST THE LOCATION OF ANY ADDITION THERE? [03:05:07] THE CODE AND THE GUIDELINES TALK ABOUT SUBORDINATE ADDITIONS AND SPECIFICALLY THE GUIDELINES INDICATE IN THAT FIGURE IN, IN SECTION 4.12, THAT ADDITIONS REALLY SHOULDN'T SORT OF POP OUT ON THE SIDE OF ORIGINAL STRUCTURES. SO THAT IS INDEED ONE ISSUE. THE SECOND ISSUE IS THERE'S A LIGHTNESS TO THE ROOF FORMS OF THIS HOUSE WITH THE AMOUNT OF ROOF THAT'S VISIBLE. THE, THE THINNESS OF THE EAVES AND THE MM-HMM. THE SORT OF, THERE'S MINIMAL DETAIL, BUT THERE'S A LIGHTNESS TO IT. AND THEN YOU COMPARE THAT TO THE, UM, ADDITIONS WITH MUCH GREATER ROOF EXPOSURE AND, UM, SOME DIFFERENT DETAILS. OKAY. YOU THAT, THAT'S, THAT, THAT'S HELPFUL. ALRIGHT. WELL MAYBE WE'LL TALK MORE ABOUT THAT WHEN WE LOOK AT THAT SIDE, THAT SIDE ELEVATION. ALRIGHT. BUT OTHERWISE THE, THE FRONT'S PRETTY MUCH STAYING INTACT. MM-HMM. . RIGHT. ALRIGHT. A QUESTION I HAD FOR YOU, AND I DON'T WANNA PUT ANYBODY ON THE SPOT, BUT THE KATCH PROJECT WHERE THEY ADDED A SECOND WINDOW TO CREATE A PAIR OF WINDOWS IN THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE. UM, HOW, HOW IS THAT DIFFERENT? AND, AND YOU KNOW, WE DIDN'T REALLY HAVE ANY RESERVATIONS WITH THAT IN THAT APPLICATION, SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE, WE HAVE, HAVE A CLEAR RATIONALE. 'CAUSE IT'S KIND OF A SIMILAR SITUATION HERE. IT IS KIND OF A SIMILAR SITUATION AND WE'RE VERY AWARE OF THAT, THAT, UM, FACADE ON 53, THE WINDOW IS OFFSET, WHICH LOOKS FUNNY. MM-HMM. AND VERY UNTRADITIONAL ON THIS PARTICULAR ELEVATION. WE ONLY HAVE ONE WINDOW. SO WE'RE FULLY AWARE THAT, YOU KNOW, FROM MODERN LIVING, YOU'RE GONNA WANT MORE THAN ONE WINDOW. WHAT WE WOULD HOPE TO SEE IS, ESPECIALLY WITH ALL OF THIS SPACE ON THIS FACADE, THAT THEY COULD BE MORE REGULARLY ARRANGED AS SUGGESTED IN THE GUIDELINES. WHAT OKAY. UM, CO HATCH IS DOING IS ACTUALLY KIND OF FIXING AN IRREGULAR WINDOW PLACEMENT. MM-HMM. . AND HERE WE'RE ADDING NEW WINDOWS THAT WHERE WE'VE GOT LOTS OF SPACE TO WORK WITH. AND WHAT'S BEING ADDED IS NOT IN A TRADITIONAL PATTERN. OKAY. THE OTHER, ANOTHER REACTION THAT YOU HAD IN THE REPORT IS THE FACT THAT, UM, THE ADDITION AT THE BACK OF THE FRONT PORTION OF THE HOUSE LOOKS LIKE THE ORIGINAL HOUSE BECAUSE THE PLA THE PLANE DOESN'T BREAK THERE. MM-HMM. , UM, IT JUST, IT JUST CONTINUES AND THE ROOF PLANE CONTINUES TOO. SO, UM, FEELINGS ABOUT THAT BOARD MEMBERS, YOU YEAH, I MEAN THAT'S NOT TYPICALLY WHAT WE WANNA SEE. , YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? WE WANNA SEE THIS, THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE AND THEN ADDED TO IT. EVEN GOING BACK TO THE FRONT VIEW, WHICH SHOWED THE SOUTH SIDE, WHICH EXTENDED OUT. I MEAN, WE'VE TYPICALLY NEVER APPROVED THAT FRANKLIN STREET. AND WE HAD MANY ISSUES WHERE WE SAID THAT CAN'T EXTEND OUT PAST THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? SO, BUT THE KNEE RESIDENCE THE FIRST PRESSURE ON OUR AGENDA, WE TOLD THEM, YEAH, WE DID SAY THAT. PUSH IT OUT. BUT THAT WA BUT THE REASON OF THAT WAS BECAUSE OF THE TUNNELING EFFECT. SO, YOU KNOW, IT GOES BACK TO THE COMMENT YOU HAD EARLIER. THERE ARE CERTAIN APPLICATIONS THAT WORK WITH CERTAIN THINGS AND TO IMPROVE THAT. THAT'S WHY. FAIR, FAIR POINT. YEP. BUT YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU GO TO LOOK WHAT WE'VE LOOKED AT IN THE PAST WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT AN ORIGINAL STRUCTURE, WE WANT THAT TO STAND ALONE AND WE WANT IT TO LOOK AT AS IT IS NOW, EVERYTHING ELSE THAT'S ADDED TO IT HAS TO BE SUBORDINATE TO THAT. AND WHEN YOU START MAKING MODIFICATIONS TO MAKE LIKE YOUR EXTENDING THE HOUSE TO MAKE IT, MAKE IT LOOK LIKE THE REST, THAT'S NOT WHAT WE WANT. I, BUT I THINK WE HAVE TO BE PREPARED. IF, IF, IF WE FEEL THAT THE PLANE SHOULD BREAK THERE, THE ROOF PLANE [03:10:01] PERHAPS BREAKS, IT COULD EVEN, THEY COULD EVEN BE SLIGHT. MAYBE THE MATERIAL CHANGE OCCURS THERE. MM-HMM. . BUT THE CRITICISM THAT THERE ARE TOO MANY ROOFS WE'RE BREAK, WE'RE BREAKING A ROOF AND WE'RE BREAKING A WALL. SO I THINK IF THAT'S A POSITION THAT WE TAKE, THAT WE DON'T WANT THIS TO BE CONTINUOUS, THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE EVEN SOME SLIGHT BREAK THERE BOTH ROOF AND WALL. I, I DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR THEN TO COME BACK TO THE APPLICANT AND SAY, WELL THERE'S JUST TOO, THERE ARE TOO MANY ROOF FORMS AND THERE ARE TOO MANY. SO, MM-HMM. , I LIKE WHAT THEY'VE DONE WITH 27 COMPARED TO 17 MM-HMM. IT FLOWS BETTER. UM, YOU DON'T GET THAT. THE MASS LOOKS BALANCED, EVERYTHING FLOWS A LOT BETTER. I THINK IT'S JUST THE, THE, THE DESIGN AND THE MATERIAL THAT'S, UM, NOT WORKING WELL WITH ME, BUT I LIKE THIS LAYOUT AGAIN, THAT RUNS ALONG THE ALLEY, BUT IT WORKS WELL WITH THAT, BUT IT WON'T DOMINATE THE ALLEY. THERE'S GREEN SPACE BETWEEN THERE. BUT I LIKE WHAT YOU'VE DONE WITH 27 IN REGARDS TO THIS VIEW NOW THE STAFF REPORT AND, UM, , SARAH AND I HAVE A COUPLE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THIS. I I UNDERSTAND THE RESERVATIONS ABOUT THE SIDING ON THE CHIMNEY, UM, BECAUSE IN THAT YOU CAN MAKE THE ARGUMENT, WELL IT'S NOT A MASONRY CHIMNEY, SO LET'S NOT CLA IT IN MASONRY WELL, BUT WE, WE USUALLY TAKE THE POSITION THAT THESE NEED TO BE EITHER MASONRY OR SOME KIND OF CULTURE MATERIAL THAT LOOKS LIKE MASONRY. BUT THE, THE THING WE GO, WE'VE GONE BACK AND FORTH A LITTLE BIT. WE, I MENTIONED THAT WE HAVE APPROVED VERTICAL SIDING. UM, BUT SARAH POINTED OUT TO ME AND I, AND I DON'T KNOW THE CONTEXT THAT WE DENIED IT ON A PROJECT RECENTLY, SO I'M NOT PERSONALLY INHERENTLY OPPOSED TO VERTICAL SIDING AS A BUILDING MATERIAL. IT, IT PRESENTS A NICE RELIEF FROM BADLY DONE BOARD AND BATTEN THAT WE SEE A LOT. IT PROVIDES ANOTHER, UM, AND WE WE'RE SEEING SO MUCH OF AND NOT WELL DONE BOARD AND BATTEN AND THE BARN, I MEAN, THE PROJECT THAT WE APPROVED IT ON WAS MATCHING THE BARN. YEAH. THAT'S, THAT'S THE SOUTH OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. SO I THINK HIGHLIGHTING THAT CHIMNEY AND MAKING IT INTO ATO, SOME TYPE OF A STONE STRUCTURE WOULD REALLY LOOK NICE THERE. IT KIND OF BREAK THAT UP A LITTLE BIT. UM, AND NOT DOING THE VERTICAL SIGHTING ON IT, I MEAN, THAT'D REALLY STAND OUT. I KNOW THIS IS BLACK AND WHITE, BUT IF YOU GET A GOOD CONTRAST OF GOOD COLORED STONE, THAT WOULD LOOK REALLY NICE RIGHT THERE. THE, THE STAFF REPORT COMMENTS ON THE SIZE OF THE FACIA TRIM, WHICH IS, YOU'LL NOTICE MARTY, YOU COMMENTED ABOUT THE EARLIER PROJECT HAVING NO TRIM. THIS, THIS PROJECT HAS TRIM AND, AND SOME OF IT MAY BE A LITTLE BIT WIDER THAN WHAT YOU, WHAT YOU TYPICALLY SEE IN THE DISTRICT. REACTIONS TO THAT? I LIKE THE OKAY. YEAH. I, I I THINK IT'S FINE. . YEAH, I'M, I'M FINE WITH THE TERM. OKAY. SO BECAUSE I THINK THE INTENT IS TO MAKE IT SOMEWHAT TRADITIONAL LOOKING. RIGHT. UM, BUT DIFFERENTIATE IT FROM THE HOUSE. RIGHT. BUT I THINK YEAH, THE, THE, YEAH. OKAY. WELL I'M NOT GONNA BELABOR THAT. UM, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR SARAH. WHAT'S A PORK CHOP? YES, WE DO . YEAH. I, I I WAS LOOKING THAT UP IN MY ARCHITECTURAL DICTIONARY. TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IF IT'S A PORK CHOP. UH, CAN YOU SEE THE, IT'S THIS RETURN, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE RETURN ON THE FASCIA THAT KIND OF LOOKS LIKE A PORK CHOP? YES. WHERE WHAT, WHAT WHERE YOU HAVE YOUR CURSOR. MY, UH, CURSOR ISN'T SHOWING UP, BUT IT'S AT THE END OF THE, UM, ADDITIONS EAVES AND THAT THAT RETURN OH, THAT DROPS DOWN. OH, OH, VERTICAL. I THINK SHE, YEAH, THIS RIGHT HERE IS A FORK TOP. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WELL WE TALKED A LITTLE, WE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE TRIM. SO WE'VE LEARNED SOMETHING TONIGHT. YES. [03:15:01] GONNA ADD THAT TO MINE. OKAY. UM, WE TALKED ABOUT THE CHIMNEY. OKAY. OH, HOW ABOUT THE ALLEY? OKAY, WELL WE CAN TALK ABOUT THIS ONE. YOU WANNA, I'M SORRY. DO YOU, WOULD YOU LIKE TO GO BACK? IT DOESN'T MATTER. NO, NO. IT JUST, WHATEVER'S EASIEST HERE. . OKAY. OKAY. SO LET'S FINISH UP THE CONVERSATION ABOUT THE, THE GABLE. THAT IS A ONE STORY GABLE THAT'S NEAR THE EXISTING TWO STORY GABLE. SO, UM, NOW IT DOES HELP CREATE THE PINCH POINT BETWEEN THE MM-HMM. , UM, THE ADDITION AT THE REAR AND THE ORIGINAL HOUSE. I LIKE IT. DID YOU SAY YOU DO OR DON'T? I DO. HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT IT HAVING, IT HAS SIDING AND MA IN SOME CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EXISTING HOUSE BECAUSE THE SIDING HERE IS, IS MATCHING WHAT'S ON THE EXISTING HOUSE AND, AND THE TRIM, THE TRIM DETAIL IS CLOSER TO THE EXISTING HOUSE YES. THAN THE, SO IT, AS I LOOK AT IT, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S BLURRING A LITTLE BIT. MM-HMM. WHAT'S NEW AND WHAT'S ABSOLUTELY. SO I COULD SEE THE NEED AND THE BENEFIT OF IT, BUT MY CONCERN IS SHOULD IT BE EXACTLY LIKE THE HOUSE AND MORE LIKE WHAT'S BEING ADDED? I CAN'T BELIEVE THINK IT SHOULD BE DIFFERENT. AND I LIKE THE LOOK OF IT, BUT IT, IT, BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE THAT'S THE ORIGINAL HOUSE. MM-HMM. . SO I THINK IF IT HAD DIFFERENT MATERIALS, IT WOULD, WE WOULD DEFINITELY IN THAT CASE RECOGNIZE WHAT IS THE ORIGINAL HOUSE AND THAT'S THE INTENT OF THE CODE. OKAY. THE, THE METAL ROOF IN THE BACK THAT'S OVER THAT GABLE. MY, MY GUESS IS THAT'S NEEDED. AND MR. TAYLOR CAN TELL ME I'M CONFIRMED THIS OR MAYBE THERE'S A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT REASON. IT'S A GREAT HEAD ROOM FOR THE STAIR THAT'S GOING UP IN THAT LOCATION. MM-HMM. . SO, UM, VISIBLE. PARDON? IT'S NOT VISIBLE. CORRECT. YEAH. IT, IT'S HIDDEN. IT'S HIDDEN THAT THAT PLANE IS ACTUALLY BACK. SO IT SHOWS UP IN OUR DRAWING, BUT YOU, IT, I DON'T THINK YOU'D, IT'D HAVE MUCH IMPACT AT ALL ON THE, WHEN YOU'RE STANDING ON THE SIDE. OKAY. RIGHT. YEAH. AND I, AND I, I THINK THE HOUSE NEEDS IT, IT NEEDS A, UM, OBVIOUSLY IT NEEDS A NEEDS HEAD, NEEDS A REASONABLE STARE. YEP. WHAT I, WHAT I LIKE IS POSITIVE HERE IN THE ROOF IS THERE'S A CLEAR DISTINCTION OF MATERIALS BETWEEN THE, THE EXISTING ROOF, RIGHT. AND, AND THE, AND THE NEW ROOF. WE TALKED ABOUT THE AREA BEYOND THAT. THAT'S IN ADDITION, BUT, BUT I THINK THAT'S POSITIVE THAT, THAT, UH, DIFFERENTIATES THAT. OKAY. WE TALKED ABOUT THE TRIM WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE OTHER SIDE. SO REALLY ALL THAT'S LEFT IS THE, IS THE ALLEY SIDE. OH, COULD WE SEE THE, THE ALLEY SIDE? YES. . OKAY. OKAY. SO, UM, NOW THERE'S ANOTHER MATERIAL THAT'S INTRODUCED HERE, AND WE SAW IT A LITTLE BIT ON THE NORTH SIDE. WE SEE THE INTRODUCTION OF THE BRICK. SO THERE'S NEW MATERIAL. UM, THERE IS A COMMENT IN THE STAFF REPORT ABOUT, AND, AND, AND I THINK THE COMMENT IS, IS I, I THINK IT'S ACCURATE ABOUT THERE'S MORE ROOF THAN A WALL THAT'S VISIBLE HERE COMPARED TO THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, UM, WHERE IT'S MORE WALL AND LESS ROOF. BUT I DON'T, I DON'T FIND THAT PROBLEMATIC. I THINK IT'S BENEFICIAL. IN FACT, IT MAKES, MAKES THIS LOOK SMALLER. ANY, ANY CONCERNS WITH THE THIRD MATERIAL WITH THE BRICK AT, I THINK THAT'S JUST AN EXTENSION OF WHAT WE SAW ON THE NORTH SIDE ON THE BACK PORTION OF THE HOUSE. LOOKS LIKE IT'S JUST A CONTINUE OF THE SAME MATERIAL. OKAY. HOW ABOUT THE, THE DORMER THAT'S CENTERED OVER THE GARAGE DOOR AND NOT CENTERED IN THE ROOF? I MEAN, IT'S BALANCED ON ONE THING. , IT'S BALANCED ON THE, SO AT LEAST IF IT'S [03:20:01] GONNA BE SOMEWHERE IT'S EITHER IN THE MIDDLE THERE OR BALANCED OVER THE DOOR, SO YEAH. OKAY. WITH IT WHERE IT IS. YEAH. YEAH. I I THINK COMPOSITIONALLY YOU PROBABLY MAKE THAT CONNECTION DOOR TO DORMER MORE THAN IF THE DORMER WAS CENTERED IN THE ROOF. SO I'M I'M FINE WITH THAT. I'M FINE WITH THAT TOO. UM, AND THEN WE GOT THE GARAGE, THE SEPARATE GARAGE THAT HAS TO YEAH. NOW THAT'S REALLY NOT, HE, HE, IT'S THE DRIVEWAY. IT'S NOT, WE CAN APPROVE A SEPARATE GARAGE, BUT YOU, YOU KNOW, WHETHER, WHETHER THEY'LL APPROVE THE DRIVEWAY TO IT HIS WHOLE ANOTHER STORY. RIGHT. A SECOND CUTOUT. RIGHT. SO SARAH, YOU SAID THAT IT, WHEN AGAINST CODE TO HAVE TWO DRIVEWAYS, IF THEY HAD ONE HUGE DRIVEWAY, WOULD THAT BE OKAY? OR IS IT JUST THERE'S A MAXIMUM WIDTH OF 20 FEET AT THE RIGHT OF WAY. SO YOU COULD HAVE A THREE CAR WIDE DRIVEWAY, BUT IT NEEDS TO TAPER DOWN TO THE RIGHT OF WAY TO MEET THAT CRITERIA. AND THEY MAY NOT HAVE ENOUGH ROOM TO DO THAT. MM-HMM. . OKAY. RIGHT. GOT IT. AND I THINK THEY DID RESPOND TO, TO THE COMMENTS ABOUT AT THE MASS ALONG THE ALLEY BY STEPPING THAT BACK, DROPPING IT DOWN. YEAH. MM-HMM. THEY KEPT THE THIRD CAR GARAGE, WHICH WE HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT. BUT, BUT, UM, I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO THAT DRIVEWAY WITH US OUT OF OUR , SOMEBODY ELSE WILL DEAL WITH THAT PROBLEM. . YEAH. NOW THE ONE, THERE WAS A NOTE ABOUT LENTILS AND SILLS, UM, THE STAFF UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE, THE PROPOSED LENTILS AND SILLS HERE. SO THE, ONE OF THE DISTINCTIVE FEATURES ON THIS HOUSE IS THE LITTLE PEAKED LENTILS ON THOSE WINDOWS. AND THEY'RE, THEY'RE VERY DISTINCTIVE. THAT'S, YOU KNOW, UM, APART FROM THE PORCH THAT IS THE ORNAMENTATION ON THE HOUSE. SO THE QUESTION BECOMES DO WE WANNA REPEAT THAT FORM OR HONOR IT IN SOME WAY OR GIVE A NOD TO IT WITH THE ADDITION TO JUST, UM, ELEVATE THAT. DOES ANYBODY KNOW? 'CAUSE WHEN I LOOKED AT THAT, IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE THERE'S ALUMINUM COIL STOCK OVER WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN TRIMMED THERE. EXACTLY. SO, SO WE DON'T REALLY KNOW THE CONDITION OF WHAT'S THAT'S RIGHT UNDERNEATH THERE. OKAY. THAT'S RIGHT. WE DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS CAREFULLY DONE TO PRESERVE THE FORM OR IF, YOU KNOW, THEY WERE SORT OF LOPPED OFF AND THEN COVERED FLAT AND, AND WE USUALLY FROWN. WE WE'RE IN OTHER AREAS WE'RE, WE'RE TELLING THE APPLICANTS DON'T DUPLICATE EARLIER CONDITIONS. AND WE, THAT'S WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT WITH THE, WITH THE ADDITION TO THE LEFT. SO IT SEEMS LIKE MAYBE SOME RELATIONSHIP YOU, I THINK YOU'RE LOOKING FOR PERHAPS A STRONGER RELATIONSHIP BUT NOT NECESSARILY DUPLICATING IT. WE'RE NOT LOOKING TO DUPLICATE, WE'RE JUST LOOKING TO HONOR THAT KIND OF UNIQUE DETAIL THAT OKAY. MAKES THIS HOUSE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN MOST OTHERS. HOW WOULD THAT BE? HOW WOULD WE, HOW WOULD YOU PROPOSE THAT? I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED TO HONOR. RIGHT? SO HOW WOULD THAT BE ACHIEVED? WELL, THERE'S A FABULOUS ARCHITECT WORKING ON THIS PROJECT, SO I'M SURE HE CAN COME UP WITH SOMETHING . WELL, IN A WAY IT, IT, IT WOULD JOIN THE TWO STRUCTURES. MM-HMM. IF WE'RE TELLING THEM TO MAKE SIDING DIFFERENT, THE BIG THINGS DIFFERENT, THE SIDING, THE ROOFING, THEN IF YOU HAVE THE LITTLE DETAILS, THE LENTILS, IT WILL REFLECT THE OTHER AND COMBINE THEM MORE. WHICH I LIKE. I LIKE THAT IDEA TO TAKE A UNIQUE FEATURE FROM THE OLD AND PUT IT IN THE NEW. IT'S NOT AN OVERWHELMING FEATURE. IT'S NOT, I I, YEAH, IT'S A NOD TO IT. IT'S NOT A DEFINING FE WELL IT WOULD BECOME A DEF DEFINITION. OH LOOK AT THE HOUSE WITH THE LENTILS. BUT IT WOULD, I LIKE IT. I THINK IT WOULD, IT'S A SIMILAR IDEA OF THE CHIMNEYS. YOU KNOW, IF YOU MAKE IT A SIMILAR, IN THIS CASE BRICK CHIMNEY, IT WILL BRING THOSE TWO TOGETHER WITHOUT BEING A, AN EXACT COPY. OKAY. OKAY. AND I THINK IT WAS MENTIONED EARLIER ABOUT A STONE ON THE CHIMNEY, BUT ACTUALLY I THINK THE BRICK ON THE CHIMNEY WOULD BE E EITHER. YEAH. AND IT DOESN'T MATTER. AND, AND THAT WAS JUST AN EXAMPLE. I, IT WAS JUST, [03:25:01] YEAH. A SUGGESTION OF BESIDES THE WOOD, THE VERTICAL WOOD RIGHT. OR SITE. GOT IT. OKAY. UM, IS THERE ANYTHING WE HAVEN'T COVERED ON THIS HOUSE? HMM. BUT THE VARIANCES, ARE WE DONE? YEAH, WE'VE DONE THE PLEASE. NOW WE GOT THE RECOMMENDATIONS HERE. ALRIGHT. APPLICANTS, DO YOU HAVE MORE QUESTIONS FOR US, ? WELL, LEMME START BY SAYING THANK YOU FOUR OF YOU FOR YOUR WORKING WITH ME AND I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT. UH, ON THIS HOUSE, THERE ARE TWO ADDITIONS, UM, THAT YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT ARE BOTH EXTRUSIONS OF THE EXISTING HOUSE. SO THE ONE THAT WE GO TOWARDS THE, THE TWO STORY, ONE THAT GOES TOWARDS THE WEST, UM, WHAT OUR INTENT WAS, I MEAN, WE CAN MESS AROUND WITH PINCHING THAT OFF AND DROPPING THE ROOF AND ALL THAT, WHICH I AGREE WITH GARY IS GONNA BE, IS GONNA ADD MORE ROOF COMPLEXITY. BUT WE WERE KEEPING THE EXACT SAME FORM OF THE BASIC L-SHAPED HOUSE AND JUST MAKING IT A LITTLE BIT LONGER. UH, I'M, I'M WONDERING IF SOMEONE'S OTHER SUGGESTION ABOUT WINDOW PLACEMENT MIGHT MITIGATE THAT AND ALLOW US TO STILL DO THAT. I CAN BREAK THOSE WINDOWS APART AND GET A A, YOU KNOW, AN UP AND DOWN WINDOW PATTERN TO FILL THAT KIND OF EMPTY VOID BACK THERE. SO THAT'S ONE THOUGHT. THE ONE THAT COMES OFF TOWARDS THE SOUTH, THERE ACTUALLY IS AN ADDITION THAT COMES OUT TO THE SIDE ALREADY WITH A SHED ROOF ON IT. IT WAS A LATER ADDITION TO THE HOUSE. IT'S A MESS INSIDE. SO WE'RE EXTENDING THAT AND CHANGING IT FROM A SHED ROOF TO A GABLE ROOF. SO IT ALREADY STICKS OUT FROM THE HOUSE. IF YOU LOOK AT THE FLOOR PLAN, THERE'S A NOTATION ON THERE WHERE THE EXISTING AND THE NEW STARTS. SO IT'S, THAT'S ON 27. PROBABLY ON 27. RIGHT. OKAY. SO THAT WAS JUST AN EXTENSION OF WHAT IS ALREADY THERE. YOU'RE JUST EXACTLY IT OUT. WE'RE CHANGING THE ROOF FROM A SHED TO A G AND TAKING IT OUT A LITTLE FURTHER. BUT SHOULD YOU, YEAH, I CAN UNDERSTAND THE RATIONALE FOR THAT EXTRUSION. 'CAUSE IT'S NOT ORIGINAL TO THE HOUSE, SO IT WAS LIKE, WE'VE SEEN ONE OF THE EXAMPLES WITH, WITH ATCH, BUT SHOULD YOU MAKE IT LOOK LIKE THE ORIGINAL HOUSE? I THINK THAT'S, IS THAT A RHETORICAL QUESTION? PARDON ME? IS THAT A RHETORICAL QUESTION? YEAH, IT'S, IT'S A QUESTION. YEAH. THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE WE'RE COMING FROM. IT'S COMING FROM ORIGINAL, BUT WE DON'T WANT, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? YEAH. I THINK I'M OKAY WITH WHERE IT'S LOCATED AND WHAT IT'S DOING. IT'S A QUESTION OF SHOULD IT LOOK LIKE THE ORIGINAL HOUSE OR SHOULD IT LOOK LIKE THE ADDITIONS? YEAH, THE, THE EARLIER PROJECT YOU MAY NOT HAVE BEEN HERE AND 'CAUSE THE KNEE RESIDENTS, WHEN THAT FIRST CAME TO US, WE ASKED 'EM, THERE WERE SO MANY ADDITIONS, WE ASKED 'EM TO TRY TO CLAD, CLAD 'EM ALL THE SAME WAY SO WE COULD SEE HOUSE AND ADDITIONS. SO I, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THREE MATERIALS, BUT I'M JUST THE IDEA OF DIFFERENTIATING THE ADDITION FROM OKAY, WE'LL TRY SOMETHING. I THINK I'LL, I'LL REVISE THE WINDOW PATTERN EITHER WAY. 'CAUSE I I AGREE THAT BLANK AREA IS A LITTLE BLANK. YOU KNOW, YOUR SUGGESTION OR YOUR FIRST SUGGESTION, I WISH YOU COULD MAKE, I DON'T THINK YOU CAN FUNCTIONALLY 'CAUSE WHAT YOU PUT IN THAT, THAT SPACE, IT EXTRUDES BACK THERE. BUT I WISH YOU, YOU COULD ALMOST, UM, FILL IT WITH WINDOWS AND MAKE IT LOOK LIKE A SLEEPING PORCH OR MAYBE IT'S PENALIZED OR, BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE A WAY OF DOING BOTH WHAT, WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. UM, IT'S A GOOD SUGGESTION YOU'LL COME UP WITH BETTER I'M SURE. BUT, BUT IT'S JUST, UM, A WAY OF DOING WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH. KEEP IT IN THE SAME PLANE. BUT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS, UM, DIFFERENTIATE IT FROM THE ORIGINAL PART OF THE HOUSE. GREAT. I CAN, I CAN WORK WITH THAT FOR SURE. SO, SO GREAT. SO THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR FEEDBACK. APPRECIATE IT. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND IS THIS THE LAST TIME I'M GONNA SEE YOU IN THIS CHAIR? OH YEAH. . UNLESS YOU'RE ON THE WEST LIFETIME REAL SARAH. SARAH'S SHAKING, SHAKING YOUR HEAD. SO THERE MAY BE APRIL MEETINGS THAT I'M HERE. SO I, I HEARD THEY WERE MAKING YOU STICK AROUND TILL MAY, IS THAT CORRECT? MAY OR DOESN'T HE KNOW THAT? I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY. I, I'LL I'LL BE HERE AS LONG AS THE TERM ENDS, BUT IT'S ENDING . WELL IF I DON'T SEE, AGAIN, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR ALL THESE YEARS AND I APPRECIATE, UH, YOUR GUIDANCE AND YOUR WILLINGNESS TO WORK WITH ME. VERY HELPFUL. YOU'RE VERY KIND, SO THANK YOU. OKAY. ALRIGHT. UM, DO WE NEED TO VOTE TO TABLE IT? YEAH, WE DO NEED TO VOTE. MM-HMM. ? YEP. OKAY. SO I CAN MOVE TO TABLE 27 NORTH RIVERVIEW WITH THE EIGHT NINE. YOU HAD IT UP THERE, THE EIGHT OR NINE RECOMMENDATIONS BY STAFF? EIGHT. EIGHT. THE EIGHT RECOMMENDATIONS THAT STAFF I'LL SECOND THAT. YES. YES. MR. JEWEL? YES. MS. DAVIS, SIR? YES. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. OKAY. [03:30:08] . ALL RIGHT. [COMMUNICATIONS] COMMUNICATIONS AREN'T, AREN'T YOU GLAD WE DECIDED NOT TO HAVE GREG DALE ON THIS AGENDA? ? ABSOLUTELY. YES. , YES INDEED. THERE WAS NO ROOM FOR . ONE OTHER THING, UM, I WANTED TO JUST MAKE SURE THAT NO ONE ELSE HAD ANY COMMENTS ON THE ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS DOCUMENT. WE GOT SOME FROM SEAN. UM, ANY, ANY OTHER TAKERS? I I'VE BEEN DELINQUENT. I'LL, I'LL, I HAVE, I'LL TRY TO, WITH ALL THE OTHER THINGS I'VE HAD TO REVIEW, I'LL, I'LL TRY TO DO IT THIS WEEKEND. OKAY. ALRIGHT. ALRIGHTY. FINE. AND THEN, UM, WE WILL BE HEARING THAT HOPEFULLY ADOPTING IT ON THE 17TH OF APRIL AT OUR SPECIAL MEETING. UM, LET'S SEE. HAS THE TIME BEEN SET FOR THAT SIX 30? SIX 30 AS NORMAL? MM-HMM. ? YEP. YEP. UM, ALSO AT THAT MEETING, UM, WE'RE GONNA DO A KICKOFF WITH GREG DALE FOR THE SECOND PHASE OF THE CODE UPDATES. AND I BELIEVE WE'RE GONNA HAVE A PRESENTATION ON THE HISTORIC DISTRICT SPECIAL AREA PLAN FOR THE COMMUNITY PLAN UPDATE. YEAH. YEAH. UH, LET'S SEE. AND SPEAKING OF COMMUNITY PLANS, I PUT A FLYER AT EACH OF YOUR CHAIRS THERE ON THE 2ND OF APRIL. THERE IS, UM, AN A COMMUNITY MEETING TO DISCUSS THE COMMUNITY PLAN. SO YOU'RE ALL INVITED. PLEASE COME. SHOULD BE VERY INTERESTING. UM, I DID WANNA NOTE THAT APRIL'S REGULAR MEETING IS ALSO FULL. IT'S GONNA BE A, A LONG AGENDA, ALTHOUGH PERHAPS NOT AS LENGTHY DISCUSSION AS WE'VE HAD TONIGHT. UM, WE HAD OFFICE HOURS AT THE CHAMBER AGAIN TODAY. WE HAD ONE PERSON COME LAST MONTH. WE HAD NO PERSON. SO I THINK WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IS GO TO A QUARTERLY APPROACH AND THEN OUR NEXT TIME WE'LL BE IN JUNE, THE SAME DAY OF THE A RB MEETING. YEAH. YEP. I DID NOT HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO REPORT. I THINK WE SET A NEW RECORD TONIGHT. ? YES. PROBABLY. ALRIGHT, LET'S WAIT FOR THE DRINK CARD TO COME AROUND. IS THERE A MOTION BEFORE I SAY ANYTHING ELSE? IS THERE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? SO MOVED. OKAY, WE'RE ADJOURNED. . ALRIGHT. HOWEVER, LET'S DISCUSS THE LIFE APPOINTMENT. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.