[00:00:01]
ALL RIGHT.[CALL TO ORDER]
GOOD EVENING EVERYBODY.LET'S, UH, CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER.
WELCOME TO THE CITY OF DUBLIN ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING BEING HELD AT 5 5 5 5 5 PERIMETER DRIVE.
THE MEETING CAN ALSO BE ACCESSED VIA LIVE STREAM VIDEO RECORDED ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE.
WE WELCOME PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, INCLUDING PUBLIC COMMENT ON CASES.
THE MEETING PROCEDURE FOR EACH, EACH CASE.
THIS EVENING WILL BEGIN WITH A STAFF PRESENTATION FOLLOWED BY AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE APPLICANT TO MAKE A PRESENTATION.
THE BOARD ASKS CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF STAFF FIRST AND THEN THE APPLICANT.
THE BOARD WILL THEN HEAR PUBLIC COMMENT FROM THE PODIUM.
EACH SPEAKER MUST PROVIDE THEIR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD FOLLOWING PUBLIC COMMENT, INCLUDING THOSE SUBMITTED BY EMAIL.
THE BOARD WILL DELIBERATE ON THE CASES PRIOR TO RENDERING A DECISION.
AND AS WE DO BEFORE EACH MEETING, WE WILL START THE MEETING WITH THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG.
TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC STANDS VIS WITH LIBERTY.
LIBERTY, LIBERTY, AND JUSTICE.
JUDY, COULD YOU CALL THE ROLE? YES, MR. COTTER? HERE.
SO, UM, FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS.
SO, UH, FIRST THING WE'LL DO IS I WILL,
[ADJOURNMENT TO EXECUTIVE SESSION]
UH, MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE DISCUSSION OF PERSONNEL MATTERS CONSIDERING THE APPOINTMENT OF A PUBLIC OFFICIAL.WOULD I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
SO, UM, WE WILL READ, UH, COME BACK TO THE MEETING.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT, WHAT ADJOURN THE OPPOSITE OF THAT IS.
UH, SO, UH, WOULD SOMEONE LIKE TO MAKE A
[ELECTION OF OFFICERS]
MEMBER, UH, MAKE A MOTION TO, UH, THE POSITION OF A RB CHAIRMAN FOR THE TERM OF ONE YEAR? YES.I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE FOR SEAN KOTTER TO BE THE CHAIRMAN OF THE A RB FOR THE UPCOMING YEAR.
IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND THAT.
SECOND, WOULD, UH, SOMEONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR THE POSITION OF A RB VICE CHAIR FOR THE TERM OF ONE YEAR? UH, MAKE A MOTION TO NOMINATE HILLARY DAMER AS THE VICE CHAIR FOR ONE YEAR TERM.
[ACCEPTANCE OF DOCUMENTS AND APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES]
I'LL MOVE TO ACCEPT THE DOCUMENTS INTO THE RECORD AND APPROVE THE A RB MEETING MINUTES FROM MAY 9TH, 2024.MR. COTTER, YOU HAVE TO, NEVERMIND.
UNLESS I MISSED SOMETHING, BUT READY? MS. COOPER? YES.
WHAT DO YOU MR. YES, MS. DAMER? THAT'S FINE.
JUDY, DID I MISS SOMETHING? NO, THAT'S FINE.
SO, UM, FOR THE CASE PROCEDURE, SO THE ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REVIEW OF CONSTRUCTION AND MODIFICATIONS OR ALTERATIONS TO ANY SITE IN THE AREA SUBJECT TO THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW.
UNDER THE PROVISION OF THE ZONING CODE SECTION 1 53, UH, 0.170, THE BOARD HAS THE DECISION MAKING RESPONSIBILITY ON THESE CASES.
ANYONE WHO INTENDS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON THESE CASES ON THESE CASES THIS EVENING MUST BE SWORN IN.
SO ANYBODY WHO, UH, IS GOING TO ADDRESS THE BOARD, PLEASE, UH, RAISE THEIR RIGHT HAND AND, UH, REPEAT AFTER, UH, AND SAY, HERE, ANYBODY MUST RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND, AND ANSWER IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THIS BOARD TONIGHT? YES.
[Case #24-072-MSP]
TO CASES.SO WE HAVE THE FIRST CASE, UH, 24 DASH 0 7 2 M-R-M-P-R 37 WEST BRIDGE STREET MINOR PROJECT REVIEW.
IT'S THE INSTALLATION OF AN APPROXIMATELY SEVEN SQUARE FOOT WALL
[00:05:01]
SIGN ON AN EXISTING BUILDING LOCATED IN THE HISTORIC IN HISTORIC DUBLIN.THE 0.2 ACRE SITE IS ZONED HDHC, HISTORIC CO HISTORIC CORE DISTRICT, AND IS LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF WEST BRIDGE STREET AND MILL LANE.
GOOD CASE PRESIDENT, MR. CONDO.
YOU CAN GO TAKE CASE PRESENTATION.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN AND GOOD EVENING BOARD MEMBERS.
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR VIEW AND APPROVAL OF A MINOR PROJECT AT 37 WEST BRIDGE STREET.
THE SITE IS OUTLINED IN YELLOW AND IS LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF WESTBRIDGE STREET AND MILL LANE.
SIDEWALKS ARE LOCATED ALONG BOTH OF THESE STREET FRONTAGES.
VEHICULAR ACCESS IS PROVIDED TO THE SITE FROM SURROUNDING SURFACE LOTS ON SELLS ALLEY AND MILL LANE SAR AND BLUE IS THE PROPOSED SIGN LOCATION.
THE SITE IS ZONE HISTORIC DISTRICT HISTORIC CORE, RECENT DEVELOPMENT.
HISTORY OF THIS SITE INCLUDES A MINOR PROJECT REVIEW APPROVED IN 2021 FOR EXTERIOR MODIFICATIONS AND A PATIO ENCLOSURE.
THIS SITE FEATURES AN EXISTING SINGLE STORY FRONT GABLE CORE AND A REAR TWO STORY FLAT ROOF ADDITION.
THE ORIGINAL CORE OF THE BUILDING IS STONE MASONRY WITH A SLATE ROOF AND A STONE FOUNDATION.
THE ADDITION IS A CONCRETE BLOCK STRUCTURE.
THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 1944 AND HOUSED BOTH THE DUBLIN AND PERRY TOWNSHIP FIRE DEPARTMENTS PICTURED HERE ARE BUILDING ELEVATIONS AS WELL AS THE EXISTING SANDWICH BOARD SIGN FOR DEAN INSURANCE GROUP, WHICH IS LOCATED NEAR THE LANDSCAPE BED IN FRONT OF THE PATIO.
THE CURRENT SIGN, UM, WOULD NEED TO BE REMOVED IF THE APPLICATION IS APPROVED AND, UM, IT WOULD EITHER NEED TO BE REMOVED OR IT WOULD NEED TO BE BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE WITH CODE.
CODE PROVIDES REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDING MOUNTED PROJECTING SIGNS, NOTING THAT PROJECTING SIGNS MUST HAVE EIGHT FEET OF CLEARANCE WENT ABOVE SIDEWALK BECAUSE THE PROPOSED SIGN IS PROJECTING OVER A LANDSCAPE BED, WHICH IS CLEARLY DELINEATED FROM A, THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK.
STAFF HAS NO CONCERN RELATED TO THE SIGN.
HAVING A FIVE AND A FIVE AND A HALF FEET OF CLEARANCE BELOW THE SIZE OF THE PRIMARY SIGN FACE WILL BE TWO AND A HALF FEET BY TWO FEET, AND THE SECONDARY SIGN BENEATH WILL BE ONE FOOT BY TWO FEET.
THE SIGN FACE WILL HAVE, WILL BE THREE QUARTER INCH THICK PVC WITH HALF INCH RAISED LETTERS.
LETTERING WILL BE IN PURE WHITE ON A TRICORN BLACK BACKGROUND.
THE MAIN LOGO WILL READ DIG DEAN INSURANCE GROUP, AND THE SECONDARY PANEL WILL READ 5,000 ACRES FARM STAND ON THE PATIO, WHICH IS FOR A TEMPORARY USE FOR A FARMER'S MARKET ON THE PATIO.
THE SIGN MEETS ALL CODE SIGN REQUIREMENTS.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A SIGN HANG FROM A CUSTOM TWO AND A HALF FOOT BY ONE FOOT BRACKET WITH A BLACK FINISH MOUNTED ON THE EAST STONE FACADE.
STAFF HAS CONCERNS RELATED TO THE PROPOSAL TO MOUNT THE SIGN BY DRILLING DIRECTLY INTO THE STONE WALL.
INSTEAD, STAFF RECOMMENDS THE APPLICANT MOUNT THE SIGN BRACKET IN THE NEAREST MORTAR JOINTS TO THE APPROVED SIGN LOCATION IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE HISTORIC INTEGRITY OF THE WALL.
THE MINOR PROJECT REVIEW CRITERIA ARE MET, MET WITH CONDITIONS OR NOT APPLICABLE.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE MINOR PROJECT REVIEW WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT MOUNT THE SIGN BRACKET IN THE CLOSEST MORTAR JOINTS RELATIVE TO THIS APPROVED LOCATION, RATHER THAN DRILLING DIRECTLY INTO THE EAST STONE FACADE IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE HISTORIC FABRIC OF THE BUILDING.
WITH THAT, I WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD.
UM, THAT LOWER SECTION, THAT 5,000 ACRES FARM STAND ON THE PATIO, HOW'S THAT ATTACHED TO THE OTHER SIGN? IS IT HANGING FROM THAT SIGN AND NOT ON A BRACKET? UH, IT IS HANGING FROM THAT SIGN AND IT IS ALSO REMOVABLE.
SO IN KIND OF THE OFF SEASON, I THINK THE INTENT IS TO REMOVE IT.
YEAH, THAT WAS MY NEXT QUESTION, SO THANKS.
YOU HAD MENTIONED REMOVING A SIGN.
YOU MEAN THE TENT SIGNS, THE GROUND SIGNS? SO THE SANDWICH BOARD SIGN, UM, SANDWICH BOARD, THAT'S WHAT THE CURRENT SANDWICH BOARD SIGN THAT IS THERE IS NOT CODE COMPLIANT.
SO IT WOULD EITHER NEED TO BE, YOU KNOW, A SEPARATE APPLICATION WHERE IT WAS BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE WITH CODE, UM, OR IT WOULD NEED TO BE REMOVED.
SO WHATEVER THE APPLICANT CHOOSES TO DO IN THAT CASE, IT'S NOT COMPLIANT RIGHT NOW.
I'LL, I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT WITH THE ASSUMPTIONS THAT ARE IN THAT QUESTION.
I'M GOOD BECAUSE THAT WAS MY OTHER THING BECAUSE IS THERE A, IS THAT A CON? I'M NOT SURE.
WHERE DOES THAT FIT? IT'S A NON-COMPLIANCE SIGN.
HOW, WHAT, HOW, HOW DOES THAT, UH, IS THAT FROM CODE INFOR? WHERE, WHERE WERE THE, HOW WOULD WE ENSURE THAT IT WENT AWAY? IS THAT CODE ENFORCEMENT OR ARE WE JUST, ARE WE HAVING THE APPLICANT KIND OF AGREE TO THAT? I'M NOT SURE IT'S A CONDITION.
'CAUSE IT'S A DIFFERENT KIND OF THING.
[00:10:04]
THE APPLICANT CAN AGREE TO REMOVING THE SIGN.YEAH, I CAN JUST, THE APPLICANT CAN AGREE TO REMOVING THE SIGN HERE.
IT'S NOT, BUT IT WOULDN'T BE A CONDITION OF THIS, RIGHT? COULD IT? I MEAN, 'CAUSE IT'S, IT SITS IN, IT'S A NONCOMPLIANT C SIGN, SO IT'S NOT OKAY.
WE'LL JUST, WE'LL TALK TO THE, IF, IF THE BOARD FEELS MORE COMFORTABLE WITH IT BEING A CONDITION OF APPROVAL, WE CAN CERTAINLY TYPE THAT UP AND PUT IT IN THE RECORD.
IN EFFECT, IT SHOULDN'T BE THERE NOW.
IT'S NOT REALLY, SO CODE COULD HAVE, IS IT CODE? ARE THEY THE ONES THAT WOULD GO ENFORCE ULTIMATELY? ULTIMATELY IT WOULD START WITH, UM, ZONING INSPECTOR.
AND THEN MOVE TO CODE IF NECESSARY.
I I DO THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA THAT WE'RE NOT SILENT ON IT, EVEN THOUGH IT MIGHT BE LIKE AN APPLES AND ORANGES SITUATION WHERE THIS IS AN ONGOING CODE VIOLATION IF THEY USE IT.
AND IN THE MEANTIME, WE ARE APPROVING THIS NEW SIGN.
SO, BUT I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE, IT CAN'T HURT TO MAKE IT A CONDITION.
I'M NOT WELL, OR AT LEAST OBSERVE THAT THE MM-HMM.
I WOULD SAY I, I THINK IT'S PROBABLY MORE ON THE RECORD THAN IT IS IN THE CONDITION, BUT, UH, OKAY.
SARAH, WE GOOD WITH THAT? OR I, I KNOW A LOT OF USE OF SANDWICH BOARDS THROUGHOUT THE DISTRICT.
SO ARE, IS THAT STAND, I MEAN, THERE'S A LOT OF BUSINESSES USING THE SANDWICH BOARD, SO THIS IS NOT AN ISOLATED CASE.
THEY'RE OUT ALONG SOUTH HIGH STREET OR WHATEVER.
SO ARE WE WALKING DOWN A PATH THAT
THERE ARE ALSO A LOT OF, UM, UNAPPROVED BRACKET SIGNS.
AND WE HAVE BEEN, I THINK, DETERMINING HOW TO BEST APPROACH THAT.
WE, WE LIKE TO CONTINUE TO TAKE A MORE GENERAL APPROACH AND ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO COME IN AND ENCOURAGE THEM TO BE IN COMPLIANCE RATHER THAN COME DOWN HARD.
THIS IS, UM, ONE OF THOSE AREAS WHERE WE LIKE TO TRY AND FIND THAT, THAT RIGHT MIX.
SO WE'RE AWARE THAT THERE'S A NUMBER OF SIGNS OUT THERE THAT NEED SOME ATTENTION.
WE WILL, WE'LL COME BACK AND SEE IF WE WANNA CONDITION OR WE'LL TALK TO THE A ATHLETE APPLICANT IF YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE A QUICK PRESENTATION OR IF YOU HAVE ANY DISCUSSION POINTS OR ANYTHING WE YOU TO CLARIFY.
I'M THE PRESIDENT AT AMERICAN SCIENCE STUDIO, UM, SIX 70 LAKEVIEW PLAZA BOULEVARD, UH, WORTHINGTON, OHIO.
UM, THE SANDWICH BOARD WAS NOT PART OF FINN'S SIGN PACKAGE THAT WE PRESENTED TO DIG OR SOLD.
UM, WE WERE SURPRISED THIS WEEK WHEN IT SHOWED UP.
UM, HOWEVER, UM, WE DID ASK HER TO REMOVE IT FOR, UM, THE FUTURE.
WE UNDERSTAND THE COMPLIANCE ISSUES.
THE, UM, SHE HAD NO PROBLEM WITH THAT.
AND ALSO WE DIDN'T KNOW THAT THERE WAS A CERTAIN CODE FOR, UM, A-FRAME SIGNAGE.
SO THAT'S KIND OF FUN FOR US 'CAUSE WE LIKE FUN DESIGNS.
UM, SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN WORK ON WITH HER.
UM, THERE'S NOTHING NEW DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WAS PRESENTED IN, IN THE MEETING.
SO SHE WAS WILLING TO, TO BRING IN THE, THE A-FRAME AND BASED ON WHAT YOU WERE, YOU'RE REVIEWING TONIGHT, IT DIDN'T SEEM TO BE AN ISSUE FOR HER TO, TO BRING THAT IN.
BUT ON THE OTHER CONDITIONS, SO REDOING THE BRACKET TO MAKE SURE IT, IT SPANS THE MORTAR JOINTS AS OPPOSED TO THE, AS OPPOSED TO OH YEAH.
THAT PART OF THE CONDITIONAL WHERE WE'RE GOING TO, UM, GET IT AS CLOSE TO THE, UM, MORTAR JOINTS AS POSSIBLE.
THAT'S PART OF OUR INSTALLATION PROCESS.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT? THAT'S ALL? NO, WE'RE GOOD.
ANY DISCUSSION WITH US? NOPE, I'M GOOD.
SO JUST FROM THE CONDITION STANDPOINT, DO WE, BECAUSE THE PRESENTER'S NOT THE OWNER.
I MEAN, MIGHT BE HERE BETTER TO LEAVE IT AS A CON.
I'M JUST ASKING IS IT BETTER TO LEAVE IT HERE OR IS IT, WHAT DO YOU, WHAT DO YOU I THINK MY POSITION WAS THAT, UH, IT DIDN'T HAVE TO BE A, A CONDITION, ESPECIALLY, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE, PRIOR TO THE INSTALLATION OF THE APPROVED SIGN.
IT'S MORE OR LESS I WAS TRYING TO MAKE THE POINT, UH, OF AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT THIS, 'CAUSE THIS IS
[00:15:01]
OUTSIDE OF OUR JURISDICTION REGULATING THE SANDWICH SIGN.BUT IF WE WANTED TO ADD IN AS AN OBSERVATION THAT THERE APPEARS TO BE A NONCOMPLIANT SANDWICH BOARD SIGNED AT THE PROPERTY THAT NEEDS TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE, EITHER THROUGH AN APPLICATION HERE OR REMOVAL, THAT WOULD BE HOW I WOULD PHRASE THAT CONDITION.
THAT'S JUST MY OPINION THOUGH.
I'M OKAY WITH, UH, FOR ME THAT, OR JUST MAKE SURE THAT IT'S IN THE MINUTES.
EITHER ONE IS FINE, BUT I AGREE.
I DON'T THINK IT'S, IT'S A CONDITION, BUT I, I DON'T THINK IT'S A CONDITION THAT WE WOULD, THAT WOULD ALMOST BE PUTTING US INTO AN ENFORCEMENT ACTION, THAT COMPLIANCE THING THAT WE'RE NOT IN ON.
SO FOR ME, I THINK THAT THAT'S GOOD.
SO IF WE STRIKE THAT AND THEN I MEAN FROM THE ABSENT YOU, UH, OR, OR THE, THE APPLICANT ON RECORD HERE.
SO, AND FROM THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT YOU HAD THAT THEY WILL REMOVE THAT.
WE'LL TAKE THAT AS A, WE WILL MINUTE THAT IN, UH, JUDY, IF WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT'S CLEAR IN THE MINUTES, THEN WE'LL TAKE THAT AS AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT YOU SEE THAT'S NON-COMPLIANT AND YOU'LL REMOVE THAT.
WITH THAT, I WILL MOVE FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE MINOR PROJECT REVIEW WITH THE STATED CONDITION.
NOW THE ONE CASE, UH, ONE CASE A NIGHT THAT'S, UH, UNUSUAL, BUT NOW WE'LL MOVE ON TO MORE ON
[Case #24-012-ADMC]
A, ON A DISCUSSION CASE 24, UH, 0 1 2 A DMC, UH, HISTORIC DISTRICT CODE AND GUIDELINE UPDATE PHASE TWO.DALE CLARION JOINS ME TONIGHT FROM CINCINNATI.
HE'S HERE TO, UM, HELP US WALK THROUGH THIS DISCUSSION AND, UM, TAKE THE REACTIONS AND THE THOUGHTS BACK TO GREG DALE.
LAST APRIL, WE CONFIRMED THIS PROJECT DIRECTION WITH THE BOARD.
AND SO TONIGHT, AS PROMISED, THIS IS OUR, OUR PROGRESS, UH, REPORT.
AND YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU THE DRAFT LANGUAGE THAT'S READY TO DISCUSS.
WE ARE HOPEFULLY AIMING FOR, UM, BRINGING THIS BACK BEFORE YOU IN AUGUST FOR A FORMAL RECOMMENDATION.
WE'RE NOT SEEKING THAT TONIGHT.
UM, BY WAY OF REMINDER, THE ADOPTION PROCESS IS THAT THE BOARD, THIS BOARD WILL RECOMMEND APPROVAL OR WHATEVER TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, WHICH WILL MAKE THEIR RECOMMENDATION.
AND THEN THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS ALL GO BEFORE CITY COUNCIL.
AND THEN THERE THERE WILL BE TWO READINGS.
AND ON THE SECOND READING PLUS 30 DAYS IT BECOMES ENACTED.
YOU'LL REMEMBER PHASE ONE, UH, THAT WAS THE, OBVIOUSLY THE FIRST PART OF THIS EFFORT LAST YEAR THAT RESULTED IN THE NOMENCLATURE CHANGE FOR THE DIFFERENT BUILDING TYPES, THE IDENTIFICATION OF AN ERA OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE, UH, HISTORIC DISTRICT.
BETWEEN 1830 AND 1920, WE ADDED ADDITIONAL UNIQUE ASSETS TO THE LANDMARK STATUS.
UH, AND ALL OF THOSE SHOWED UP ON THE HISTORIC DISTRICT MAP THAT LIVES IN OUR GUIDELINES ON PAGE 37.
AND FRANKLIN AND SOUTH RIVERVIEW STREETS WERE RECLASSIFIED TO BACKGROUND.
AS A PART OF LAST YEAR'S CODE UPDATE EFFORT, WE HAD A NUMBER OF NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS AND THERE WERE SOME VERY CLEAR REQUESTS FROM THE ATTENDEES.
AND THESE WERE ALL, UM, PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE DISTRICT OR APPENDIX G.
THE FIRST WAS TO CLARIFY HOW BACKGROUND BUILDINGS WILL BE REVIEWED, AND THE REQUEST FROM THEM WAS TO AVOID A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT ARCHITECTURAL DETAIL.
FROM STAFF'S POINT OF VIEW, WE WANTED TO FOCUS ON SCALE MASSING AND COMPATIBILITY.
UM, THE BOARD AT THAT TIME HAD MENTIONED THAT THEY WERE, UH, ALL RIGHT WITH STAFF TO APPROVE CERTAIN ASPECTS OF BACKGROUND PROJECTS THAT DID NOT INCREASE EITHER
[00:20:02]
BUILDING VOLUME OR FOOTPRINT.SO THINGS THAT ARE APPLIED TO THE EXISTING FORM OF THE BUILDING.
THE BOARD SUPPORTED US DOING ADMINISTRATIVELY FOR BACKGROUND ONLY.
SO, UM, THAT LANGUAGE IS IN YOUR DRAFT.
AND THEN THE SECOND ITEM THAT CAME OUT OF THOSE DISCUSSIONS WAS TO HAVE MORE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL PROJECT TYPES.
AND THAT'S ALSO INCLUDED IN YOUR LANGUAGE.
LOOKING MORE CLOSELY AT THE BACKGROUND LANGUAGE GOALS, UH, WE WANTED TO ENSURE THAT THE CODE READER UNDERSTANDS THE APPLICABILITY BETWEEN LANDSCAPE AND, I'M SORRY, LANDMARK AND BACKGROUND BUILDINGS.
UM, THAT'S IN 1 53 0.170 RIGHT UP FRONT.
AND THEN UNDERNEATH SITE DEVELOPMENT IN 1 53 0.173, WE EMPHASIZE THE COMPATIBILITY BETWEEN THE TWO TYPES, BACKGROUND ADJACENT TO LANDMARK.
AND THEN IN 1 53 0.176, WE HAVE A REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES THAT AGAIN REINFORCES THAT RELATIONSHIP.
SO WE INCLUDED THAT LANGUAGE IN A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT PLACES IN THE CODE.
AND THEN TO ACTUALLY TALK ABOUT HOW ALL OF THIS WOULD BE ACHIEVED, WE TURNED TO THE GUIDELINES AND WE CONCENTRATED ON THE USER'S GUIDE AND THE IMPLEMENTATION SECTIONS.
SO SECTION 3.3, UM, THE IMPORTANCE OF THE BROADER ELEMENTS OF HEIGHT, SETBACKS, MASSING, ROOF SHAPE, WINDOWS AND DOORS, EAVES AND OVERHANGS.
AND THOSE APPLY TO THE BACKGROUND BUILDINGS.
AND THAT BECOMES KIND OF OUR CONSISTENT FOUNDATIONAL ELEMENTS OF THOSE BACKGROUND REVIEWS.
SECTION 3.4 TALKS ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BLOCKS AND AREAS THAT ARE ENTIRELY BACKGROUND BUILDINGS VERSUS A MIX WITH SOME LANDMARK BUILDINGS.
SO WE REALLY SAW SORT OF A TIERED APPROACH, UH, FOR THOSE KINDS OF REVIEWS.
SECTIONS FOUR, FIVE, AND SIX REFERENCE BACK TO SECTION THREE FOR CLARITY.
THE REASON FOR THAT IS WE FIND THAT OFTEN PEOPLE WILL JUST GO TO THE SECTION OF THE GUIDELINES THAT THEY THINK APPLY AND KIND OF FORGET ABOUT THE OTHER SECTIONS.
SO WE WANTED TO HAVE THAT CONNECTION.
AND FINALLY, SECTION 4.12 HAS SPECIFIC LANGUAGE THAT BACKGROUND ADDITIONS ARE ACCEPTABLE TO THE SIDE OR THE REAR IF OTHER FACTORS ARE MET.
AND IT'S ONLY LANDMARK BUILDINGS WHERE THE ADDITIONS NEED TO BE SUBORDINATE AND DISTINGUISHABLE.
WE'VE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT LATELY.
SO WE FELT THAT THAT WAS AN IMPORTANT POINT TO MAKE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS.
WE ADDED A CLAUSE, SPECIFICALLY DELEGATING THE APPROVAL AUTHORITY TO THE DIRECTOR TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THAT SORT OF LEGAL CONNECTION, IF YOU WILL.
AND THEN, AS WE HAD PREVIOUSLY TALKED ABOUT, WE HAVE THE BUMP UP CLAUSES AND THESE WERE INCLUDED AND EXPANDED.
AND THERE ARE SPECIFIC, UM, OPPORTUNITIES FOR STAFF TO BUMP IT UP TO THE BOARD FOR THE APPLICANT TO BUMP IT UP TO THE BOARD IN CASE THEY WANT ANOTHER OPINION.
UM, IF THE MAGNITUDE OF THE REQUEST ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW IS, IS GONNA BE VERY, UM, AFFECTING THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THAT'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO BUMP IT UP.
AND THEN, UM, THE CATCHALL PHRASE OF, YOU KNOW, ANYTHING ELSE DETERMINED BY STAFF, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE FLEXIBILITY IN THAT THE LIST OF ELIGIBLE ADMINISTRATIVE OF APPROVAL PROJECT TYPES INCLUDE SOME CLARIFYING LANGUAGE FOR THE EXISTING, FOR EXAMPLE, ADJUSTMENT TO PARKING LOTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REGULATIONS.
THAT'S AN IMPORTANT CLAUSE TO INCLUDE.
UM, AND RELOCATION OF NON HISTORIC WALLS.
SO WE FELT THAT THAT WAS IMPORTANT AS WELL.
AND THEN WE ADDED IN THE PROJECT TYPES THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED BACK IN APRIL, WHICH INCLUDES THINGS LIKE LIGHTING, RESIDENTIAL LANDSCAPING, SINGLE SIGNS, FOR EXAMPLE,
[00:25:01]
OTHER CODE LANGUAGE.THERE'S KIND OF A, ANOTHER BUCKET HERE OF JUST, UM, A, A MIX OF THINGS.
WE ADDED DOORS AND GARAGE DOORS UNDER THE WINDOWS SECTION THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY SOMETHING THAT HADN'T BEEN MENTIONED IN THE CODE.
SO WE FOLDED THAT IN TO MAKE THAT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR.
WE ALSO CLARIFIED THAT LANDSCAPE.
I KEEP SAYING LANDSCAPE LANDMARK FENESTRATION, UM, IS ALL OF THOSE CRITERIA APPLY TO LANDMARK BUILDINGS.
AND ALL OF THOSE FENESTRATION DETAILS LIVE IN ONE PLACE.
NOW, UH, WE ALSO CLARIFIED THAT MASTER SIGN PLANS, COMMERCIAL LANDSCAPES AND HISTORIC WALL REPAIR REQUIRE BOARD APPROVAL.
WE ADDED IN THE HISTORIC WALL REPAIR AFTER WE SAW AN UNFORTUNATE EXAMPLE IN THE DISTRICT.
AND, UM, SO WE WANTED TO BE SURE TO INCLUDE THAT.
UH, WE ALSO ADDED SOME LANGUAGE THAT PRELIMINARY PLATS AND FINAL PLATS NEED THIS BOARD'S APPROVAL AND RECOMMENDATION BEFORE GETTING TO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.
AND IN APRIL WE TALKED ABOUT POTENTIAL EXTENSIONS TO FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS.
THIS, UH, PROPOSED LANGUAGE DIDN'T QUITE MAKE IT INTO THE PACKET, BUT WE HAVE IT BEFORE YOU TONIGHT.
UM, AND JUST GOING THROUGH IT VERY BRIEFLY, FOR AN APPROVED FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, THE APPLICANT MAY REQUEST A ONE-TIME EXTENSION FOR ONE YEAR, UM, BY THE DIRECTOR.
AND ACTUALLY THAT SHOULD SAY BY THIS BOARD, IF THE APPLICANT HAS DOCUMENTED IN WRITING ONE OF THE FOLLOWING, A FINANCE ISSUE, A DELAY IN REQUIRING BUILDING OR UTILITY PERMITTING PRESENCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL OR OTHER PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUES OR OTHER UNIQUE REASONS DEEMED PERMISSIBLE BY THE DIRECTOR.
AND THAT WAS JUST TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT SOMETIMES THESE PERMITTING PROCESS DO TAKE A WHILE.
SORRY, IF, IF MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I COULD, UM, YOU HAVE AN, AN APP IN THE INTRODUCTORY PARAGRAPH.
IT SAYS, AN APPROVED FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHALL BE VALID FOR A PERIOD NO MORE THAN TWO YEARS.
AND YET DOWN BELOW IN THE RED IT SAYS A ONE TIME EXTENSION FOR ONE YEAR.
ANOTHER, SO NUMBER TWO, THAT OKAY.
THE GRAY PART IS WHAT EXISTS RIGHT NOW.
AND THEN THE RED PART IS WHAT WE ARE, UM, PROPOSING.
AND WE KNOW WE NEED A LITTLE BIT OF TWEAKING WITH THAT LANGUAGE TO MAKE, MAKE IT MESH.
UM, WE, WE JUST WANTED TO GET THAT CONCEPT BEFORE YOU AS WE WERE DISCUSSING IT TONIGHT.
SO ACTUALLY NOW I JUST SAW IT.
SO THIS WOULD BE AN EXTENSION OF ONE YEAR ON TOP OF THE TWO YEARS.
I DIDN'T, I THOUGHT THE GRAY WAS YES.
NOW WE HAVE A NEW TOPIC FOR CONSIDERATION TONIGHT.
YOU'LL REMEMBER THAT 17 AND 27 NORTH RIVERVIEW HAD TO GO TO THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS FOR A COUPLE OF VARIANCES.
THIS WAS CHALLENGING FOR THE BCA, NOT BECAUSE OF ANY LACK ON THEIR PART.
THEY SIMPLY ARE NOT FAMILIAR WITH OUR CODE, OUR GUIDELINES, THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE REQUIREMENTS.
AND IT JUST BECAME A LITTLE BIT CHALLENGING.
AND IT WAS ALSO A SEPARATE APPLICATION THAT THE APPLICANT HAD TO DO AND A SEPARATE MEETING.
SO STAFF WONDERED IF THERE WAS A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS.
SO WE DID A LITTLE BIT OF DIGGING.
AND PRIOR TO 2021, WHEN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT WAS UNDER THE BRIDGE STREET CODE, THE A RB HAD SOLE PURVIEW OVER VARIANCES, AND THERE WASN'T A NUMERIC LIMIT TO THOSE VARIANCES.
SO TONIGHT, THREE POSSIBLE OPTIONS TO CONSIDER, OR YOU MAY COME UP WITH ONE OF YOUR OWN, UM, WE COULD LEAVE IT THAT VARIANCES, MEANING WAIVERS OVER 20% CAN STAY WITH THE BZA.
UM, IF YOU DID HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT HEARING, YOU'LL, IT WAS, IT WAS TRICKY AND IT, IT WAS A LITTLE UNCOMFORTABLE FOR EVERYBODY, QUITE FRANKLY.
[00:30:01]
WE COULD CREATE A TWO-TIERED SYSTEM WHERE WE HAVE WAIVERS AS USUAL UP TO 20%, AND THEN A VARIANCE BEYOND THAT 20% WHERE PERHAPS THERE'S AN ADDITIONAL SET OF CRITERIA OR, OR SOMETHING TO MEET THOSE ARE YET TO BE DETERMINED.OR THE THIRD POSSIBLE OPTION IS TO REMOVE THE NUMERIC WAIVER LIMITS ALTOGETHER.
AND THAT WOULD JUST SET US BACK TO WHERE WE WERE WITH THE BRIDGE STREET CODE.
AND THEN EACH WAIVER APPLICATION IS REVIEWED ON ITS OWN MERITS.
SO SOMETHING TO CONSIDER FOR TONIGHT.
SO WITH THAT, WE HAVE SOME DISCUSSION QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
UM, AND THESE ARE PRINTED IN YOUR STAFF MEMO.
UH, WE'RE ASKING ABOUT THE ADMINISTRATIVE LANGUAGE AND, AND JUST BASICALLY TRIPLE CHECKING THAT EVERYBODY'S ALL RIGHT WITH THAT.
UM, MAKING SURE THAT THE BACKGROUND BUILDING DISCUSSION POINTS ARE APPROPRIATE IN BOTH THE CODE AND THE GUIDELINES.
ASKING ABOUT THE BOARD'S THOUGHTS ON THE VARIANCE OPTIONS THAT WE JUST DISCUSSED.
AND AGAIN, YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAVE A BETTER ONE, WE'D LOVE TO HEAR IT.
AND THEN OTHER CONSIDERATIONS BY THE BOARD.
AND WITH THAT, UM, MAX IS GONNA HELP WALK THROUGH SOME OF THIS.
AND WE HAVE THE INDIVIDUAL SECTIONS PRINTED, SO IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT YOU WANT TO EDIT, WE CAN EDIT ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW.
IF YOU FEEL THAT WORDING IS VERY IMPORTANT OR YOU CAN GIVE US A CONCEPT HOWEVER YOU, UH, WOULD LIKE TO PROCEED.
MA UM, MAX, YOU WANT TO, YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO TRY? UH, I, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD.
BUT IF YOU COULD JUST INTRODUCE YOUR, JUST INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND, OH, FOR THE RECORD? YEAH.
I'M WITH MCBRIDE LAREN, I'M A PLANNER.
UM, I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH SARAH AND GREG, UM, FOR THE LAST COUPLE MONTHS ON THESE UPDATES.
AND YOUR ADDRESS, JUST OH, AND MY ADDRESS? YES.
UH, 5 7 2 1 DRAGON WAY, CINCINNATI, OHIO.
AND SO,
CERTAINLY, UH, OVER THE NEXT, I THINK WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER IS WE'D LIKE TO APPROVE THIS, MAYBE NOT THE NEXT MEETING, BUT IN AUGUST, TRY TO GET, SO WE CAN GET A CHANCE TO REALLY KIND OF READ IN DETAIL.
SO TONIGHT YOU'D REALLY LIKE US JUST TO TALK THROUGH PLACES WHERE WE SEE INITIAL COMMENTS AND OVER THE COURSE OF THE TIME, WOULD YOU LIKE US ALSO, JUST AS I THINK THROUGH IT, AS WE READ THROUGH THIS, TO SEND YOU UPDATES, YOU KNOW, AS WE READ THROUGH IT AND WE START TO THINK ABOUT IT MORE, HOW, HOW WOULD YOU LIKE, JUST SO WE DON'T BRING IT UP IN A MEETING AND THEN WE END UP CHURNING THE NEXT MEETING, IS, WOULD YOU LIKE US AS WE TALK ABOUT IT TONIGHT AND WE UPDATE AS WE CAN THEN OVER THE COURSE OF THE NEXT MONTH AND SIX WEEKS? WOULD YOU LIKE US THEN TO CONTINUE TO REFINE AND LOOK AT THIS, SEND YOU KIND OF COMMENTS BACK IN, IN, IN A GROUP EMAIL TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE CAN SEE HOW THE THE THOUGHT PROCESS IS, AND THEN WE CAN START TO COLLATE OTHER VIEWS AS TIME GOES ON? 'CAUSE UH, I'M SURE AS WE TALK ABOUT THINGS, THINGS WILL COME UP AND WE'LL CONTINUE TO YEAH.
WHAT I ENVISION IS WE GET OUR, OUR DISCUSSIONS OUT AND OUR QUESTIONS OUT, AND THEN, UH, MAX AND GREG AND I AND BASSAM, AND WE WILL GO BACK AND MAKE THE CHANGES BASED ON THE DISCUSSION TONIGHT.
AND THEN I WOULD SEE IT WOULD COME TO YOU AGAIN FOR THE JULY MEETING WITHOUT ANY REQUESTS THAT YOU DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN GET US BACK THE COMMENTS AT THAT POINT.
SO WE'VE DONE THIS, UM, WE, WE USE THIS PROCESS FOR THE ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS AND FOR PHASE ONE, IT SEEMED TO WORK REALLY, REALLY WELL.
SO, UM, ANY FUNDAMENTAL OR FOUNDATIONAL QUESTIONS THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TONIGHT, THIS IS THE TIME FOR IT.
AND THEN STARTING IN JULY, WE GET INTO SPECIFICS AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE REALLY, I MEAN, CONCEPTUALLY TRYING TO MAKE SURE WE'RE IN THE RIGHT PATH.
AND THEN WE REALLY WORD DOWN THAT WE GET DOWN TO THE EXACTLY ACTUAL WORD, MAKE SURE WE'RE CLEAR ON EVERYTHING.
UH, SO I GUESS WE'LL JUST, WE'LL CHUNK THROUGH THEM KIND OF ONE AT A TIME.
SO IF EVERYBODY'S CHANCE, DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE LANGUAGE? IS ANYBODY, UH, I, I HAVE A QUESTION.
SO, UM, ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE LANGUAGE, IF THE DIRECTOR'S MAKING AND STAFF IS APPROVING AN AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW, DO THOSE GET REPORTED, SUMMARIZED, AND REPORTED BACK TO THE BOARD? YES, THEY DO.
EVERY QUARTER WE SEND THEM TO YOU SO THAT
[00:35:01]
YOU CAN SEE WHAT WE'RE UP TO.AND IF YOU HAVE ANY CONCERNS, THEN WE WOULD ASK FOR FEEDBACK SAYING, WHOA, WAIT A SECOND.
THAT WAS, WE DIDN'T FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THAT.
YOU CAN LET US KNOW AND WE CAN BACK OFF OF THAT OR ADJUST.
AND IF EVERYTHING LOOKS ALL RIGHT, THEN WE CARRY ON.
SO I HEARD YOU SAY YOU BRING THEM EVERY QUARTER.
SO DOES THAT DELAY PEOPLE THEN
WHAT WE REPORT TO THE BOARD IS WHAT WE HAVE DONE OVER THE PAST QUARTER.
SO EVERYBODY GETS THEIR APPROVALS BASED ON OUR BEST JUDGMENT AND THE USE OF THE CODE AND THE GUIDELINES.
AND THEN WE REPORT TO THE BOARD THAT THESE THINGS WERE APPROVED.
WE INCLUDE, UM, THE MEMO AND THE APPLICATION MATERIALS, AND THE MEMO WILL EXPLAIN WHY WE APPROVE THAT.
SO IF THERE'S ANY DISCONNECT, THE BOARD HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON THAT, IT WOULD BE AFTER THE FACT.
SO IT WOULD BE AFTER THE FACT.
I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA THOUGH, TO HAVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW.
SO I DON'T THINK I'M ANTI ADMINISTRATOR.
BUT IT DOES PROVIDE A BIT MORE OF A CHECK AND BALANCE.
AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE STARTED DOING ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THE BOARD WAS COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT WE WERE DOING.
SO IN EFFECT, OUR COMMENTS WOULD BE TO PREVENT TO, NOT TO PREVENT, THAT'S THE WRONG WORD, BUT TO ADJUST FUTURE APPROVALS RATHER THAN RETROFIT OR THAT'S RIGHT.
I WANNA PULL OFF A SIGN THAT YOU HAPPEN TO APPROVE IN THE PAST.
AND WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO BE RESPONSIVE TO WHAT THE RESIDENTS ASKED FOR LAST YEAR.
AND I THINK I COUNTED UP TODAY, WE, THE CURRENT CODE HAS 11 ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OPPORTUNITIES.
WE'RE INCREASING IT OR SUGGESTING AN INCREASE TO 19.
AND IT'S, FOR EXAMPLE, THE SIGN THAT JAMES BROUGHT BEFORE YOU TONIGHT.
WE COULD DO THAT ADMINISTRATIVELY.
AND IT JUST MAKES IT EASIER FOR EVERYBODY AND IT KEEPS THE, THE PILE MOVING, IF YOU WILL.
AND THEN THE BOARD CAN FOCUS ON THE LARGER PROJECTS.
MIKE, MARTY, ANYTHING ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE SIDE? NO.
I THINK WHAT YOU'VE DONE HERE, I THINK I GOTTA KIND OF MAYBE LOOK AT IT IN A LITTLE MORE DETAIL, BUT I, FOR ME, I'M FULLY SUPPORTIVE OF THAT.
I THINK IT'S, IT'S EXACTLY THE RIGHT THING.
I THINK IT'S WHAT YOU HEARD FROM THE, FROM THE PUBLIC THAT THERE'S CERTAIN THINGS THAT ARE PRETTY ROUTINE IN COMING TO US IS, IS, IS PROBABLY NOT VERY EFFICIENT.
SO I THINK THAT FROM THAT SIDE, I THINK IT'S, UH, EXACTLY RIGHT DOWN THE RIGHT PATH.
NOW, I KNOW THERE WAS A QUESTION I THINK YOU HAD BROUGHT UP ABOUT THE AWNING SITUATION.
THE WHAT AWNINGS? 'CAUSE THAT'S UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL.
DID WE TALK THROUGH THAT OR DID WE, WE TALKED ABOUT, UH, ABOUT SPATIAL YOUR MIC PLEASE.
WE, UH, WE TALKED ABOUT, UM, SPATIAL, UH, EFFECTS SOME OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS WOULD BE, THE CONCERN I THINK I EXPRESSED WAS IF IT'S IMPACTING THE, UM, I AM AT A LOSS FOR THE CORRECT WORD, BUT THE SPACIAL, THE MASSING.
THE MASSING OR THE SPATIAL, UH, EFFECT OF THE PROJECT, THE PROPERTY, BECAUSE FREQUENTLY, FOR INSTANCE, NEW AWNINGS DO.
AND SO, UM, THAT WAS JUST A, A QUESTION WE HAD BECAUSE I DIDN'T WANT IT TO BE EXTENDED TO OTHER THINGS THAT WOULD BE, I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER IT SHOULD BE EXTENDED TO AWNINGS AND I WAS EXPRESSING SOME CONCERN ABOUT ANY, ANY ADMINIS A OR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW THAT INVOLVED AMASSING ISSUE THAT WE SHOULD PROBABLY KEEP THE MASSING ISSUES BEFORE THE BOARD.
THOSE ALWAYS SEEM TO BE THE MOST CONTENTIOUS ISSUES FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER'S PERSPECTIVE.
AND TO THEN APPEAR TO BE GIVING IT UP MAYBE ON ONE PROPERTY, BUT NOT ON ANOTHER, TO ME JUST OPENS A DOOR FOR CONFUSION AND INCONSISTENCY.
AND I THINK WE CAME UP WITH, UH, THE CORRECT LANGUAGE TO ADDRESS THAT VERY POINT.
IF YOU LOOK AT ITEM Q, IT'S A LITTLE BIT SMALL REPLACEMENT AWNINGS FOR RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS AND USES THAT CONFORM TO ALL REGULATIONS.
SO IF IT'S A NEW AWNING, IT GETS TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD.
[00:40:01]
REPLACING AN EXISTING AWNING, THEN PRESUMABLY THAT'S ALREADY BEEN APPROVED.AND IT ALSO THAT LANGUAGE, BECAUSE IT HAS THE, UH, THAT CONFORMED TO ALL REGULATIONS HEREIN.
IF IT'S REPLACING A NON-CONFORMING AWNING, YOU KNOW, ONE THAT WAS PUT IN REBELL REBELLIOUSLY OR SOMETHING ELSE, UM, THEN WE CAN CORRECT IT BEFORE THE BOARD RATHER THAN HAVE TO THE, THEN WE CAN TAKE THE FLACK AS OPPOSED TO HAVING THE STAFF TAKE THE PLAQUE ABOUT GETTING RID OF AN OLD AWNING.
AND I THINK THAT STATEMENT KIND OF GETS TO WHERE WE WANT IT TO BE.
NO, I THINK IT ADDRESSES THOSE CONCERNS.
ON THIS, I THINK WE AS A BOARD, WE LOOK AT THIS AND WE, IF WE FIND SOMETHING OVER THE NEXT MONTH AND WE FEEL LIKE THERE'S SOMETHING THAT MAYBE IS THERE OR NOT, MAYOR, WE CAN, WE, WE'LL, WE'LL IN THE EMAIL AND JUST TRY TO LOOK THAT.
BUT I THINK THIS IS A, THIS IS REALLY GOOD.
I DID HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION.
I WROTE DOWN THE CODE LA THE LANGUAGE AND THE, THE NUMBER AND IT'S, IT'S NOT THE RIGHT ONE.
SO APPARENTLY I MISSED SOMETHING BUT ON BACK, UM, IT'S NOT ON THIS PART, BUT IT'S MORE ON THE, IT'S ON BACKGROUND VERSUS, UH, OH, LANDMARK.
I THINK SO ADMINISTRATOR, I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAD THAT.
'CAUSE WE PUT IN THE LANGUAGE ON A, ON A BACKGROUND BUILDING IN THE WINDOW LANGUAGE, WE PUT DOORS AND GARAGE DOORS, WE PUT A FEW OTHER THINGS IN THERE.
WHERE WOULD SIDING BE LIKE IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO REPLACE SOME? I, I COULDN'T FIND, THAT WAS THE ONE LAST THING THAT I, I IF SOMEBODY SAYS, HEY, WE WANT TO, YEAH, SO E EXACTLY.
UM, SO IF YOU'RE LOOKING, SOMEBODY WANTS TO REPLACE YOU, LIKE FOR LIKE SIDING SOME OF THESE THINGS IN BACKGROUND BUILDINGS THAT, THAT ARE, THAT ALSO MAYBE COULD FIT IN THERE.
I WAS JUST WONDERING, WAS IT THOUGHT ABOUT, AS WE THINK ABOUT DOORS, WINDOWS ARE ALWAYS, UH, YOU KNOW, WE SEE A LOT OF WINDOWS CHALLENGES.
IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT COULD BE INTERESTING THAT, THAT SOMEBODY WANTS TO REPLACE THEIR SIDING, LIKE FOR LIKE, OR SOMETHING LIKE THIS, THAT IT COULD ALSO SIT IN MORE THAT MAYBE COULD BE A MI DEPENDING ON WHERE IT COULD SIT.
BUT HOW COULD WE TRY TO CLARIFY SOME OF THOSE THINGS TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY FIT SOMEPLACE? SO WE HAVE A LOT OF LANGUAGE THAT IN BOTH THE CODE AND THE GUIDELINES THAT TALK ABOUT, WE WANNA SEE HISTORIC MATERIALS USED IN APPROPRIATE WAYS.
AND, AND WE HAD THAT DISCUSSION WITH 17 AND 27, IF YOU REMEMBER.
SO WE HAD A, YOU KNOW, A WOOD, A TRADITIONAL MATERIAL USED IN A VERY UNTRADITIONAL WAY.
UM, WITHIN BOTH THE CODE AND THE GUIDELINES FOR LANDMARK BUILDINGS, WE ARE DEFINITELY WANTING TO USE THE HISTORIC MATERIALS AND THAT WE HAVE COVERED FOR BACKGROUND BUILDINGS.
WHERE WE BELIEVE THAT THIS IS ALSO COVERED IS IT'S NOT CHANGING THE VOLUME OF THE BUILDING TO REPLACE THE SIDING.
SO THAT'S KIND OF OUR FIRST ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL HURDLE, IF YOU WILL, THAT WE HAVE DESCRIBED IN OUR NEW CODE LANGUAGE.
AND THEN WE GO BACK TO THE GUIDELINES FOR THE SECOND HURDLE, IF YOU WILL, TO USE MORE TRADITIONAL MATERIALS.
NOW, IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT REQUIRES A WAIVER, ANYTHING THAT REQUIRES A WAIVER WILL COME BACK BEFORE YOU ALL.
SO WE FEEL LIKE WE HAVE THAT COVERED.
IT'S NOT STATED SPECIFICALLY THERE A BUT YOU LAYERED IT IN THERE THAT IT COMES TO A PLACE WHERE YOU'RE GONNA COME TO THAT CONCLUSION, EVEN IF IT'S THAT'S RIGHT.
IT'S A VERY CLEAR TRAIL IN OUR MIND.
THIS, THIS PARTICULAR SECTION TALKS ABOUT THE FENESTRATION OR THE OPENINGS IN THE BUILDINGS AND WE, WE WANTED TO HAVE THAT ALL LIVE IN ONE PLACE, I THINK ON A MINUTE.
SOUNDS LIKE ON ADMINISTRATIVE EVERY, AT LEAST FROM CONCEPTUALLY, UH, I THINK WE'RE PRETTY, PRETTY COMFORTABLE WITH THE LANGUAGE THAT SITS THERE.
AND IF THERE'S ANY TWEAKS THEN THAT'S GOOD.
WHAT WAS THE SECOND BACKGROUND? BUILDING DISCUSSION POINTS, COMMENTS ON, ON THAT? MIKE? ANYTHING FROM YOUR SIDE? MARTY? I, I, I THINK THERE, I MEAN, IT'S WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE, SO I THINK IT, IT LOOKS, IT LOOKS, IT LOOKS GOOD TO ME.
WE REALLY TRIED TO ENVISION A SITUATION ON FRANKLIN STREET WHERE THE ENTIRE STREET IS NOW BACKGROUND VERSUS SOUTH RIVERVIEW, WHERE THERE'S A LOT OF NOW BACKGROUND BUILDINGS, BUT THEY'RE MIXED IN AND AMONGST THE LANDMARK
[00:45:01]
BUILDINGS.SO WE REALLY TRIED TO COVER BOTH INSTANCES WITH, AGAIN, THIS TIERED APPROACH.
AND I THINK THE MAP DID A GREAT, THE REVISED MAP DID A GREAT JOB WITH PULLING THAT OUT, SO, OKAY.
AND I, I JUST, JUST IN THIS, WHEN I WAS THUMBING THROUGH JUST NOW IN THE GUIDELINES, I, I SAW A PARAGRAPH ABOUT HOW IF A BACKGROUND BUILDING IS LOCATED ADJACENT TO A LANDMARK BUILDING, I'M TRYING TO GET THOSE TERMS MYSELF, UM, THEN YOU HAVE TO TAKE MORE CARE.
EVEN IF IT'S AN ARCHITECTURAL DETAIL THAT THEY WANT THE STAFF TO APPROVE, I WANT THE STAFF TO BE AWARE THAT IT'S NEXT TO A LANDMARK BUILDING.
AND THAT'S, THAT WAS WHAT WE WERE WANTING TO DO,
SO TAKE MORE CARE WITH YOUR ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS, THAT'S ALL
AND I THINK THAT'S VERY CLEAR, RIGHT? I MEAN, NOW IT GIVES EVERYBODY, I THINK FROM A GUIDANCE STANDPOINT, PEOPLE KNOW IF MY, MY HOUSE IS BESIDE A LANDMARK HOUSE OKAY.
THAT IT'S GONNA TAKE EXTRA EFFORT.
I, AND I THINK CLARITY FOR EVERYBODY IS, IS GOOD AND FROM, FROM THAT STANDPOINT, YEAH.
UM, AND THEN I, AND THEN, OKAY.
YEAH, BECAUSE ON PAGE FOUR, I HAD THE SAME QUESTION ON PAGE 48 OF THE GUIDELINE, BUT IT, IT'S KIND OF RESTATING SOME THINGS ABOUT HOW NEW CONSTRUCTION FITS ALSO INSIDE OF A, IF YOU PUT A NEW CONSTRUCTION BESIDE OF THE LANDMARK BUILDING.
I THINK FOR ME, IT, IT, IT, IT CLARIFIES IT, YEAH.
IT CLARIFIES, UH, WHAT PEOPLE SHOULD EXPECT IF THEY'RE GONNA DO THIS.
AND AGAIN, WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT, UM, SOMEBODY WHO IS WANTING TO BUILD A NEW HOUSE AND THEY'RE JUST GOING TO THE NEW CONSTRUCTION SECTION OF THE, THE GUIDELINES, THEY'RE REFERRED BACK, YOU KNOW, SO WE DIDN'T LOSE THAT CONNECTION.
SO BOARDS THOUGHT ABOUT THE VARIANCE REVIEW.
SO I, I ALSO WATCHED THE, THE, THE, THE BZA AND CERTAINLY YOU SAW THEIR STRUGGLE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY COULD, WHY YOU JUST CAN'T PUT THE BUILDING ON THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE.
RIGHT? UH, WELL, YOU HAVE PLENTY OF SPACE.
SO YOU SAW REALLY, AS I SAID, THEY'RE CLEAR, THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT, WHAT OUR CODE IS.
AND IT, IT TOOK 'EM A LONG TIME TO KIND OF WRAP THEIR ARMS AROUND THAT.
SO I THINK THAT, THAT IT WAS A CHALLENGING MEETING FOR EVEN FOR, UH, PEOPLE WHO WERE FROM THE STAFFERS TRYING TO FACILITATE IT.
SO I SEE THAT, YEAH, IT MAY NOT BE THE RIGHT WAY TO MAKE AN EFFECTIVE, MAKE AN EFFECTIVE CHANGE.
I THINK MORE CAN I HAVE A LITTLE MORE BACKGROUND ON THAT THOUGH? I, SINCE I'M NEW? YEP.
UM, BECAUSE I MEAN, I THINK BZA CAN BE IMPORTANT, BUT WHAT, WHAT WAS, I KNOW YOU CAN'T GIVE ME AN HOUR, BUT GIVE ME A PARAGRAPH.
WHAT, WHAT WAS THE ISSUE? WHAT, WHICH PROJECT WAS IT? SO THIS WAS 17 AND 27 NORTH RIVERVIEW.
THESE ARE TWO OF THE THREE AUCTION PROPERTIES.
JUST SOUTH OF THE ATCH PROJECT.
AND THE REQUEST FROM THEM WAS TO GAIN GREATER BUILDING FOOTPRINT AND LOT COVERAGE BECAUSE THEY WERE KIND OF SURROUNDED BY CORE ZONING.
THEY, THEY ARE A RESIDENTIAL, A HISTORIC RESIDENTIAL POCKET SURROUNDED ON TWO SIDES BY CORE, WHICH ALLOWS GREATER AMOUNTS OF FOOTPRINT AND LOT COVERAGE.
AND IN ORDER TO MAKE THE PROJECT VIABLE AND TO ADDRESS SOME OTHER EASEMENT ISSUES AND OTHER, UM, DIFFICULTIES ON THOSE SITES, THEY REQUESTED FOR VARIANCES OVER AND ABOVE WHAT THE BOARD COULD GRANT.
SO THEY HAD TO GO THE EXTRA STEP TO GO BEFORE THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS.
AND IT WAS GRANTED, UM, THE A RB EXPRESSED SUPPORT FOR THOSE VARIANCES, NOT AS A MOTION, BECAUSE THAT IS NOT OUTSIDE OF THEIR PURVIEW.
AND THEN THAT WAS CARRIED FORWARD TO THE BCA.
BUT THE BCA KIND OF FELT AWKWARD THAT THEY COULDN'T REVIEW IT A HUNDRED PERCENT ON THEIR OWN AND THEY DIDN'T WANNA STEP ON ANOTHER BOARD'S TOES.
THEY ALSO DIDN'T FEEL LIKE IT WAS, IT WAS VERY CLEAR THAT THERE WAS A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF, YOU KNOW, WHY WE NEEDED TO DO THIS.
SO IT JUST GOT, IT GOT DIFFICULT FOR EVERYBODY.
SO WHAT THIS WOULD DO THEN IS THIS WOULD GIVE THIS BOARD THE FINAL SAY YES ON EVERYTHING OR JUST CERTAIN THINGS?
[00:50:01]
WELL, IT WOULD BE, UM, THAT'S WHAT, SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DECIDE.SO THE QUESTION BECOMES WAIVERS, NUMERIC WAIVERS ARE ALLOWED UP TO 20%, EITHER ADDITION OR REDUCTION.
AND THIS COULD POTENTIALLY TAKE AWAY THAT 20% OR SAY THAT LIKE 21% AND ABOVE YOU NEED EXTRA STEPS.
SO, OR NOT HAVE OR, OR NOT HAVE IT AT ALL.
UH, SO CERTAIN, SO DOES THAT MEAN THEN CERTAIN TIERED THINGS COULD GO TO BZA, BUT WOULDN'T WE BE IN THE SAME POSITION WHERE THEY WOULDN'T UNDERSTAND? WELL THAT'S ONE CHOICE IS SHOULD IT JUST STAY WITH THE BZA OR SHOULD WE TAKE IT AWAY AND GIVE IT TO US AND WE WOULD JUST TAKE IT ALL? YEAH.
SO THAT'S WHAT'S EITHER DISCUSSION IS OKAY.
SO IT'S EITHER ALL OR NOTHING.
WELL, YES, IT'S EITHER WITH THEM OR WITH US.
WITH US, BUT NOT BASED ON THE PERCENTAGE.
IF YOU LOOK AT BULLET POINT NUMBER TWO.
AND THAT'S ACTUALLY WHAT I'M GONNA ARGUE FOR IN A SECOND, BUT OH, OKAY.
UM, BUT I DID WANNA ASK A QUESTION.
YOU KNOW WHAT, MAYBE IF YOU GO AHEAD THEN THAT'LL CLEAR UP IN MY MIND WHAT MY QUESTION IS.
BUT YOU MIGHT HAVE A, WHICH SECOND THAT THOUGHT, BUT I WANNA ASK A QUESTION FIRST.
DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHY PRIOR TO 2121 IS THAT WHEN IT CHANGED WHY THERE WAS NO CAP AT THAT TIME? I DO NOT.
AND I, I DON'T, I'M NOT AWARE OF WHY THAT CAP WAS PUT ON.
THAT'S THE COUNTER QUESTION BECAUSE RIGHT.
THE REASON THAT I LIKE THE SECOND BULLET CHOICE, THE, THE SORT OF HYBRID IS BECAUSE 20% TELLS THE APPLICANTS THAT THIS IS KIND OF THE LIMIT.
WE WANT IT TO STAY MORE LIKE WHAT IT HISTORICALLY WAS WILL MAYBE GIVE YOU 20%, AND THEN IF YOU WANT HIGHER THAN THAT, YOU BETTER PUT IN SOME REALLY GOOD REASONS FOR WHY YOU NEED IT.
AND IT CAN'T JUST BE BECAUSE I WANT IT THAT WAY.
UM, SO THAT'S THE REASON THAT I LIKE THAT SECOND ONE, AND YES, I UNDERSTAND WE'LL HAVE TO COME UP WITH THOSE REQUIREMENTS, BUT I DON'T WANT IT, I WANT TO BE ABLE TO GIVE THE POPULATION THE IDEA THAT 20% IS REALLY, YOU'RE PUSHING IT AT THAT.
UM, IF WE LEAVE IT UNLIMITED, I, I JUST, I SEE IT AS BECOMING VOLUMINOUS
AND THAT WAS OUR THOUGHT TOO, QUITE FRANKLY, AS WE REALLY, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A REASON WHY THIS CODE WAS ADOPTED.
THERE'S A REASON WHY, ALTHOUGH WE MAYBE CAN'T STATE IT, WHY THERE'S A 20% CAP AND WE DON'T WANNA OPEN THINGS UP TO, UM, YOU KNOW, HAVING IT, HAVING IT START TO APPEAR LIKE IT WAS UNDER THE PREVIOUS CODE, WHICH WAS THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF WRITING THIS CODE.
AND I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THE BZA A'S DISCOMFORT AND AM ALL FOR TAKING IT AWAY.
THAT'S THE WRONG LANGUAGE ALL FOR SHIFTING IT BACK TO US.
IT'S, AND THERE'S NO REASON FOR IT TO BE WITH THE BZA AS FAR AS I CAN TELL.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT KIND OF ADVANTAGE IT GIVES THEM, AND THEY HAVE THAT WE DON'T, IF IT'S NOT EVEN THEIR CODE, THEY'RE ENFORCING, SO.
I DON'T SEE BULLET ONE AS A CHOICE OR NOT AS A CHOICE, BUT I DON'T RECOMMEND BULLET ONE.
BUT TWO AND THREE ARE POSSIBILITIES.
I WOULD LIKE TO, AS A, I'VE SAT ON THE BZA FOR SIX YEARS AND IT IS, I THINK UNREASONABLE, MAYBE THAT'S NOT THE WORD.
THEY ARE INTELLIGENT, EDUCATED, HARDWORKING BOARD MEMBERS, BUT YOU ARE WALKING INTO A HIGHLY SPECIALIZED AREA, UH, IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
AND WE HAVE, EVEN WITHIN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, HAVE HAD SOME APPEARANCE OF INCONSISTENCY EVEN WHEN IT REALLY WASN'T, OR THERE WERE LEGITIMATE REASONS THAT THERE WERE DIFFERENCES, UH, FOR THE APPROVALS.
SO I AM ALSO VERY MUCH IN SUPPORT OF THIS REVIEW, THIS VARIANCE, UH, EXCESS, UH, STAYING WITH US.
WE JUST HAVE THE ONE, THE, THE BEST UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROJECTS AND HOW THEY INTERRELATE TO EACH OTHER AND THE, UH, OVERARCHING
[00:55:01]
GOALS OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT AND IMPLEMENTING THEM.I AM NOT SURE THAT A TWO-TIERED SYSTEM OF NUMERIC WAIVERS IS THE SOLUTION.
BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING I, I'M JUST EXPRESSING SOME, UH, RESERVATION ABOUT, OKAY, IF YOU ARE AT 19.98%, YOU'RE GOOD TO GO.
BUT IF YOU'RE AT 21.5%, WE'RE HAVE THIS LIST OF ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS.
AND I WAS WONDERING IF OTHER BOARD MEMBERS THOUGHT THAT MAYBE I AGREE THAT NOT HAVING A CAP, HAVING A CAP IS, UH, IT, IT SENDS A MESSAGE.
BUT IF WE DID NUMBER TWO, JUST HAD A CAP, A STATED CAP AND THEN SAID WITHOUT ADDITIONAL, YOU KNOW, UM, WHAT DO I WANNA SAY, ADDITIONAL CRITERIA OR EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES BEING MET, THAT THE CAP IS 20%.
BECAUSE IN OUR DECISION ON 17 AND 27 TO SUPPORT THE VARIANCE BEFORE THE BZA FOR THAT INCREMENTAL, UH, UH, INCREMENTALLY LARGER AMOUNT FOR THE ONE PROPERTY WAS TO BASICALLY GIVE THEM BOTH THE SAME RELATIVE SIZE OF MASS THAT THEY COULD WORK WITH.
UM, AND THE, THE LOCATION OF THOSE PARTICULAR HOUSES, HOW THEY BECAME AVAILABLE FOR PRIVATE OCCUPATION WERE ALL VERY EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
EVEN THEIR LOCATION ON THE LOT, HOW THEY WERE SET, WHICH WE HAD NO CONTROL OVER, NOR DID THE PROPERTY OWNERS.
SO I, THAT'S WHERE I GET INTO THIS CONCERN MAYBE ABOUT ENUMERATING ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND MAYBE HAVING SOMETHING A LITTLE, WELL, MAYBE YOU JUST SAID IT MORE NUANCED.
YOU USED THE TERM EXTENUATING.
I, YOU KNOW, AND I I, WE, WE HAVEN'T COME UP WITH THE LIST OF CRITERIA, WHICH I THINK IS PROBABLY A GOOD TERM, BUT, UM, THAT EXTENUATING AND I DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO IT, BUT UNUSUAL CRITERIA, SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE, BUT BZA, I MEAN, BZA USES THE CRITERIA, THE REASON THEY GAVE THE WAIVER, THEY WERE THE, I THINK THEY, THEY HAD TO BE ONE OF THREE OR THEY HAD THREE DIFFERENT THINGS.
SO THEY HAVE A CRI, THE, IT'S B, C, A, SO THEY HAVE A, A REQUIREMENT ABOUT UNIQUENESS.
THERE'S OTHER THINGS THAT THE BCA USED MM-HMM.
SO THERE ARE NOT LIKELY TO OCCUR AGAIN,
I THINK THAT WAS ONE OF, YEAH.
SO I THINK THERE ARE CRITERIA THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE PIGGY BACK A LITTLE, WE COULD ADD IT FITS IN WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEY'D HAVE TO PROVE TO US THAT IT FITS IN WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT WOULD, AND I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN WHERE, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 20% AND 21.5%, BUT WE HAVE TO DRAW, WE HAVE TO PUT A NUMBER IN SOMEWHERE.
AND I'M UNDERSTAND YOU'RE, I'M IN SUPPORT OF A NUMBER.
I'M NOT SAYING THAT THE 20% IS A GOOD GUIDELINE.
UH, BUT I'M ALSO SAYING YOU GET INTO A LITTLE BIT OF A QUICKSAND, IF YOU WILL, UH, OF WORDAGE.
IF YOU ARE SAYING, OKAY, WELL 20% IS IT, BUT YOU KNOW, IF WE ALLOW 22.25%, THIS PROPERTY WILL ALSO HAVE THREE BATHROOMS, LIKE THE ONE NEXT DOOR THAT KIND OF, I'M JUST MAKING THIS UP, BUT I'M TRYING TO SAY THAT THE, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE OR HOW THIS ISSUE CAME UP WAS LITERALLY THESE TWO AWKWARDLY SAT PROPERTIES, UH, ORIGINAL PROPERTIES OR STRUCTURES AND HOW THEY WERE GOING TO INCORPORATE THEM MEET OUR OTHER GUIDELINES, LIKE SETTING IT BACK, NOT TOO MUCH MASSING, ET CETERA.
UH, HOW THEY WERE GONNA MEET ALL THAT AND MAKE THE ONE PROPERTY, UH, FISCALLY VIABLE, I THINK IS A GOOD PHRASE, OR, YOU KNOW, WORTH IT FOR THE INVESTMENT, WHICH THEY PAID, YOU KNOW, GOOD MONEY MM-HMM.
AND THEY HAD, AND EVERY, EVERY PROPERTY IT SEEMS THAT WE'VE HAD DOWN THERE, NOT TOO MANY PEOPLE HAVE SAID, YES, I'D LIKE TO KEEP THE, UH, 1200 SQUARE FOOT COTTAGE.
YOU KNOW, IT'S A 1200 SQUARE FOOT COTTAGE WITH A 2,500 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION ON THE BACK AND SOME DECKS AND SO FORTH ALONG, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? SO I THINK YOU'VE LISTED A BUNCH OF REALLY GOOD CRITERIA RIGHT THERE.
FISCAL NEED THE, UH, UNIQUE SITUATION.
[01:00:01]
HARDSHIP IN MEETING ALL THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS, UM, WITHIN, AND I, I WAS TALKING ABOUT FITTING IN THE, THE SURROUNDING, MATCHING THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.AND IN THIS CASE, WE ARE, LIKE SARAH POINTED OUT, WE'RE IN CORE ANYWAY, SO THERE ARE ALREADY EXISTING, UM, GREATER, YOU KNOW, RIGHT, RIGHT AROUND COVERAGES ALLOWED SO, AND SO I WOULD SEE ALL THAT AS WHAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO PROVE TO US IN ORDER TO GET THAT 21.5% OR IN ORDER TO GET 40% OR TO WHATEVER THEY WANNA GET OR TO YEAH.
TO SATISFY THAT THEIR VARIANCE AMOUNT WOULD BE NOT OVERSTEPPING.
AND I CAN'T THINK YOU PUT ALL THAT ON PAPER TOO, ALL THAT CRITERIA IN, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? IT'S JUST LIKE THE DEMOLITION STUFF THEY ALL HAVE TO PROVE TO US.
SO I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO GET DOWN IN THE WEEDS OF PUTTING ALL THAT DETAIL IN THERE, BUT KNOWING THAT IF WHEREVER 20% CAME FROM AT WHAT, 10 YEARS AGO OR WHEREVER THAT MAGIC NUMBER CAME UP TO, THAT'S FINE.
IT'S JUST LIKE YOU SAY, I THINK THEY JUST NEED TO BE PREPARED.
BUT I DEFINITELY THINK WE NEED TO KEEP IT OUT B Z'S HAND.
I JUST DON'T THINK THAT'S FAIR TO THEM.
A LOT OF THE THINGS THAT THEY DO REVIEW ARE THINGS THAT HAVE TO DO WITH, UH, PIS THAT HAVE MAYBE ONE OF THE LOTS ENDED UP HAVING A UNIQUE SITUATION.
AND THEY, THE HISTORIC DISTRICTS HAVE A LOT MORE, UH, WEEDS IF YOU WILL, OF DETAIL TO GO THROUGH THAN, UH, WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT.
COULD I MAKE A SUGGESTION? BECAUSE I, I, LIKE, I THINK IT MIGHT BE GOOD TO SAY THAT 20% IS THE CAP AS A GENERAL RULE.
AND IF THERE ARE EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES AS AN EXAMPLE, AND JUST MAYBE A FEW OF THOSE AND STAFF COULD COME BACK WITH THOSE AS AN EXAMPLE, THEN A RB WILL CONSIDER THAT AND MAYBE LEAVE IT THAT WAY.
THAT WAY YOU'RE, YOU'RE SAYING THERE NEEDS TO BE A CAP.
AND I AGREE BECAUSE I THOUGHT, OH, WELL WHY DON'T WE GO TO 30%? WELL NOW YOU'RE STARTING TO, YOU CAN REALLY RUIN THE HISTORIC CHARACTER SUPREME.
BUT, UM, BUT BY, BY SAYING YOU COULD PROPOSE THAT FOR EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES, JUST GIVE A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES BUT NOT SAY YOU ABSOLUTELY.
AND THEN, YOU KNOW, STAFF WILL BE ABLE TO MEET WITH THEM, TALK WITH THEM ABOUT, YOU KNOW, AS WE GO ON, WHETHER THAT IS SOMETHING YOU THINK WE WOULD EVEN CONSIDER.
AND THEN THEY CAN COME IN AND MAKE THEIR CASE.
AND, AND AGAIN, THAT COMES DOWN TO SAYING, JUST BECAUSE WE NEED MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE, WELL THAT'S NOT THE RIGHT ANSWER.
SO, YOU KNOW, THEY NEED TO BE A LITTLE MORE SPECIFIC ON THAT.
YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAY, WHEREVER 20% CAME FROM, IT'S BEEN A GOOD NUMBER FOR US AND WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO FIT MOST OF OUR VARIANT OR OUR WAIVERS WITHIN THAT 20%.
I THINK WE KEEP IT OUT B Z'S HAND AND THEN CLARIFY THAT SO THAT THEY KNOW IF THEY'RE COMING TO US FOR SOMETHING OVER 20%, THEN IT'S GOTTA BE SOMETHING THAT'S, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE RIGHT WORD IS, BUT, SO SARAH, I THINK ON THAT, I THINK IT, IT SOUNDS CLEAR, AT LEAST FROM WHAT WE'VE DISCUSSED HERE.
NO, I WAS GONNA SAY, AND THE NUMBER OF PROPERTIES IT IS ACTUALLY IS GONNA COME UP AS DIMINISHING THE MORE THAT THE DEVELOPMENT IS BEING COMPLETED IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
SO I THINK TWO TIER, I THINK WE'RE CLEAR.
BZA, I MEAN, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE IN BZA, I THINK A NO LIMIT.
ALSO, I THINK WE HEAR HERE IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.
UH, SO TWO TIER, I THINK EVERYBODY'S COMFORTABLE.
20% HAS SEEMED TO WORK OKAY FOR US, UH, AS A WAIVER.
I DON'T KNOW IF WE'LL CALL IT VARIANCE ABOVE THAT.
I MEAN, I, I, I DON'T KNOW FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT, IF IT'S US APPROVING A VARIANCE AND WE'LL HAVE TO, I DON'T, MAYBE YOU CAN HELP US THINK THROUGH IS IT WAIVER, WAIVER PLUS OR IS IT VARIANCE? WHAT, WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE? AND THEN FROM THAT STANDPOINT, A FEW CRITERION THAT BZA USES UNIQUENESS, THESE THINGS, OR A FEW THAT WE DO DEMOLITION ECONOMIC AND THINK MAYBE WE CAN THINK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHY DO PEOPLE COME TO US AND WHY IS, WHY IS IT SOMETIMES AS IMPORTANT THAT THEY GET A, NOW I'M TALKING ABOUT A VARIANCE ABOVE THE WAIVER AND TRY TO COME SOME THAT, THAT, THAT HELPS 'EM FIND THEIR WAY.
BECAUSE I THINK CLARITY, WE HEAR THAT ALL THE TIME.
SO IF WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CLEAR THAT IT'S 20% AND THEN CLARITY ABOVE THAT, IF YOU NEED MORE, AND THERE HAS TO BE A REASON THAT I THINK, AS MIKE SAID, WE DON'T, IT'S NOT BECAUSE YOU NEED MORE, I WANT MORE SPACE.
YOU WANT MORE SPACE, OR YOU NEED MORE SPACE BECAUSE OF PRICE SPECIFIC.
[01:05:01]
ENOUGH FOR THE MOMENT? IT IS.YOU ALL PROVIDED SOME WONDERFUL EXAMPLES OF SPECIFIC PHRASEOLOGY AND I'VE BEEN OVER HERE TYPING THEM DOWN, SO I HAVE CAPTURED THEM AND I BET MAX CAUGHT THEM AS WELL.
SO, UM, AND WE ARE IN DISCUSSION WITH THE LAW OFFICE ON THIS TOO, TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT MISSING ANYTHING THAT IS CRITICAL.
SO, SO YOU THINK THAT THIS MAY BE END UP IN, SO DURING THIS LANGUAGE, UH, WE WILL TRY TO HOPEFULLY IF WE CAN GET THE LEGAL AND EVERYBODY INVOLVED YEP.
AND WE CAN, WE CAN INSERT THIS IN THE IN THIS REVISION? YES.
AND YOU'LL HAVE SOMETHING BEFORE YOU IN, UH, JULY THEN TO PONDER.
YEAH, BUT THIS IS VERY GOOD DIRECTION.
WAS THERE ONE MORE ON THERE OR IS THAT THE LAST? YEAH.
ANY OTHER CONSIDERATIONS? ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY NO, I READ THROUGH IT.
I MEAN, THE RED HIGHLIGHTS MADE, IT, MADE IT EASY FOR ME TO REVIEW AND SEE WHERE THE CHANGES WERE.
SO I THINK THE ONLY ONE I ORIGINALLY HAD, I THINK IT WAS ON PAGE 34 OR 4 34 OR 35 OF, OF, OF THAT 48 PAGE DOCUMENT.
BUT I THINK I ANSWERED MY OWN QUESTION, SO.
WAS THAT THE CODE OR THE GUIDELINES? UH, IT WAS IN THE, UH, IN THE CODE.
IT WAS IN THE, AND, UH, CODE DRAFT.
BECAUSE I THINK I INITIALLY TALKED ABOUT THE CONCEPT PLAN AND THEN THE MINOR PROJECT, BUT THEN I DIDN'T SEE MINOR PROJECT SHOW UP TILL LIKE EIGHT PAGES LATER.
UM, LEMME SEE HERE, WHICH PAGE YOU OWN? MINE.
THE MINOR PROJECT IS SEPARATED FROM CONCEPT PRELIMINARY FINAL.
THEN I SAW CONCEPT PLAN, THEN IT WENT TO SOMETHING ELSE.
MINOR, UH, MINOR PROJECT WAS LISTED LIKE FIVE PAGES DOWN LOWER.
SO I JUST INITIALLY, BUT I FOUND, I WAS GOING LIKE, OOH, WHERE'S IT TALKING ABOUT THE MINOR PROJECT? BUT I THINK IT WAS LIKE FIVE PAGES DOWN BELOW.
BUT THEY WERE REFERENCED KIND OF TOGETHER IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH, SO, HMM.
YOU CAN, I, YOU HAVE IN, IS IT F YEAH, EEE MENTIONS BOTH.
AND THEN, UM, F IS HAVING TO DO WITH CONCEPT PLAN AND IT MUST BE THAT THERE'S JUST A LOT TO TALK ABOUT WITH THE CONCEPT PLAN.
AND SO IT'S LIKE, THEN YOU, YOU GET TO AND THEN IT GOES TO THE OTHER ONE OR WHATEVER THE, THE MINOR PROJECT IS.
YOU JUST GOTTA KEEP YEAH, THERE IT IS.
YOU JUST GOTTA KEEP GOING UNTIL YOU GET TO G.
SO WHAT WE WANTED TO DO IN E WE ADDED MINOR PROJECT AS BEING ELIGIBLE FOR AN INFORMAL MM-HMM.
BECAUSE THE WAY IT WAS PREVIOUSLY STATED, IT MADE IT LOOK LIKE THE ONLY TIME YOU COULD DO AN INFORMAL WAS FOR A CONCEPT PLAN.
WE KNOW THAT THAT'S NOT THE CASE.
SO IT WAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO JUST A LITTLE BIT OF HOUSEKEEPING CLEANUP.
I WAS GONNA LIKE, BUT WHERE'S IT AT? YEAH.
THAT'S WHY THAT SHOWED UP THERE.
I THINK I, YOU, YOU'RE GOOD, MAX.
SO IF ANYBODY HAS COMMENTS, THEY READ THROUGH IT AND THINK ABOUT IT.
THEY HAVE COMMENTS, SE SEND THEM THE, UH, ANYTHING TO SARAH AND, YEP.
WE REVIEW IT AGAIN NEXT MONTH AND THINK ABOUT THEN AUGUST TO, UH, GIVE A FINAL, FINAL GO AHEAD.
WILL WE BE ABLE TO GET A HARD COPY? YOU KNOW, I LOVE PAPER.
I I WAS GONNA ASK THE SAME QUESTION.
I'M, I'M OF A CERTAIN GENERATION TOO WHERE A HARD COPY, WHERE I CAN WRITE ON IT IS, UH, IS ACTUALLY, UH, HELPFUL FOR ME ALSO.
I DON'T, I DON'T LIKE SCROLLING.
I'LL MAKE SURE HARD COPIES ARE AVAILABLE.
UH, IF THERE'S NOTHING, I THINK OF NOTHING ELSE ON THAT PARTICULAR TOPIC, THEN I THINK WE MOVE ON.
[COMMUNICATIONS]
TO COME BACK TO MY COMMUNICATIONS DESK.UH, THE ONLY THING I HAD WAS A REMINDER THAT FRIDAY AT 11 IS THE BROWN HARRIS CEMETERY DEDICATION.
AND, UM, I'M NOT SURE IF I'M GONNA BE ABLE TO MAKE IT, BUT I HOPE, I HOPE I CAN.
IT WOULD BE REALLY FUN IF WE COULD ALL BE THERE.
[01:10:01]
I'LL BE THERE ALSO.YEAH, I'LL BE THERE TOO BECAUSE OF THE HISTORICAL SOCIETY, SO.
I THINK THERE'S LIKE 110 SO FAR THAT ARE COMING.
YEAH, I, I, SVP, SO I'M GONNA COME.
UH, THE ONLY OTHER THING I HAVE IS THIS SOFTWARE UPDATE, UM, ON OUR CITY ISSUED DEVICES.
UH, YOU'RE RECEIVING THIS EMAIL 'CAUSE THE CITY ISSUED DEVICES RUNNING OLD SOFTWARE.
PLEASE BRING THE DEVICE TO THE SERVICE DESK SO WE CAN UPDATE IT.
AND IT SAYS, I DON'T, DIDN'T SAY HOW LONG WE HAVE, BUT IT WILL BE EVENTUALLY LOCKED OUT.
I ACTUALLY TALKED TO HIM AND UH, YOU CAN DROP IT OFF.
YOU CAN DROP IT OFF AT THE SERVICE CENTER BUILDING.
THEY'RE UPSTAIRS AND IN THE FAR CORNER.
HE WAS ON VACATION LAST WEEK, SO HE'S BACK THIS WEEK.
SO ANYTIME HE, I DID NOT GET A, HE NEVER MENTIONED TO ME HOW LONG THAT PROCESS TAKES.
AND, BUT ALSO DID YOUR EMAIL, 'CAUSE MINE DID SAY TAKE EVERYTHING OFF OF IT OR IT'LL BE YEAH, SAME.
'CAUSE IT'LL BE SCRUBB CLEAN AND I'M LIKE, I DON'T THINK I HAVE ANYTHING ON IT THAT ISN'T THE CITY.
SO IT'S JUST NICE TO HAVE SOME OF THOSE OLD ONENOTE, UH, DOCUMENTS THERE.
SO THAT WAS MY OTHER QUESTION.
IF IT'S GONNA GET WIPED OUT, WILL WE LOSE EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE HAD ON? ARE YOU TAKING YOUR OWN NOTES? 'CAUSE THE ONENOTE WILL BE, OR THE, IF YOU'RE TAKING A NOTE ON ONENOTES, THEY MIGHT GO AWAY.
YEAH, WELL THAT IF YOU'RE KEEPING ON THE CLOUD, THEY'LL BE, THEY'LL BE THERE.
I'M ASSUMING THE ONE THAT WE'RE USING FROM THE CITY IS ON THE CLOUD.
SO YEAH, THOSE SHOULD BE AVAILABLE TO US.
I DON'T TAKE ANY OTHER SITES STUFF.
SO WHERE'S THE CITY CENTER? SIX FIVE SHIRE RINGS ROAD.
WHERE ARE YOU NEXT TO THE RECYCLE? I WAS GONNA SAY WHERE I DUMP MY PUMPKINS EVERY YEAR.
THAT'S BY THE DAY BY THE OSU NEW OSU OUTPATIENT CENTER.
THEN YOU GO TO THE RIGHT THERE VERSUS TO THE LEFT, TO THE, WELL, IF YOU PARK IN THE OSU NEW, UH, OUTPATIENT CENTER, IT'S RIGHT.
SO IF YOU GO TO 6 5, 5 SHIRE, YOU GO TO THE SECOND ROUNDABOUT ON SHIRE AND GO RIGHT IN LEFT, CORRECT? YES.
AND THAT DOESN'T PERTAIN PER SE TO MINUTES OR ANYTHING, BUT WHAT IS OUR DOCKET LOOKING LIKE FOR NEXT MONTH? IT IS LOOKING FULL AND WE HAVEN'T FINALIZED EVERYTHING YET, BUT IT WILL BE A FULL AGENDA, UM, FOR ALL OF OUR BENEFITS.
ARE THERE SOME COMING BACK THAT WE'VE HAD BEFORE? SO WE MIGHT WANNA REVIEW OLD MEETINGS.
ABOUT 27 WILL BE BACK TO ADDRESS ALL OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.
UM, SO FAR THEY'VE DONE A REALLY GOOD JOB ADDRESSING THOSE.
UM, SO I THINK, I THINK THAT SHOULD BE FAIRLY EASY.
UM, BECAUSE THERE'S FIVE IN JULY, WE MAY HAVE 1622 NORTH HIGH COME BACK FOR AN INFORMAL, AND THIS IS TO, IT'S A STEP BACKWARDS FROM THE CONCEPT PLAN THAT YOU LAST HEARD, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THE MASSING AND THE ARCHITECTURE IS STARTING TO LOOK RIGHT.
WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THEM VERY CLOSELY BEHIND THE SCENES AND THEY WANNA, UM, BEFORE THEY PUT TOO MUCH MORE EFFORT INTO IT, THEY WANNA COME BACK AND, AND JUST DO A DOUBLE CHECK WITH YOU ALL.
UM,
POSSIBLY, UM, HOPEFULLY 87 SOUTH HIGH NEEDS A PAINT APPROVAL.
UM, AND J L'S, THEIR DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE AND SOME, UM, PARKING LOT ADJUSTMENTS.
SO I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'VE GOT.
SO PROBABLY FIVE, FIVE THINGS FULL ENOUGH.
AND THE, THE DUE DATE, THE LAST POSSIBLE DUE DATE WAS TODAY.