[00:00:02]
          CAN WE GET STARTED? POSSIBLY HMM. AT THIS TIME, I'D LIKE TO CALL THE ORDER. THE NEW ALBUM 
          [I. Call to Order]
AIRCRAFT ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD. FOR NOVEMBER. 14TH 2022 CAN I HAVE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE. 
          MR HENSON HERE. MR EATON HERE, MR STROLLER HERE, MR. MALLETS HERE. MS MOORE HERE, MR THOMAS. 
          AND MR BROWN. MR DEREK HERE. IS THERE ANY COMMENT OR ACTION ON THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER OF OUR 
          [III. Action of Minutes: October 10, 2022]
MEETING FROM OCTOBER 10TH 2022. READ THEM. THEY LOOK DELIGHTFUL . BUT I WASN'T HERE SO I WOULD COME REELECTED, SAYING WE SHOULD APPROVE THEM UNTIL SOMEBODY ELSE SAYS THAT THEY'RE OKAY. BUT WELL WRITTEN. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ALL SECONDS. MR MORALES ? YES MR BIDEN? YES, MR STRILER STAIN. MR MISS MORE. MR HENSON? YES. STAFF IS THERE. ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO 
          [IV. Additions or Corrections to Agenda]
THE AGENDA FOR THIS EVENING? THANK YOU. AND I'LL SWEAR IN ANY WITNESSES AT THIS TIME THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE SWORN IN. SEEING NONE. UH. THEN THERE ARE ANOTHER VISITORS HERE TONIGHT. 
          [VII. Cases:]
FOR ITEMS NOT ON FINANCE AGENDA. SEEING NONE WILL MOVE FORWARD WITH CASE A OR B 1 27 2022 FOR CERTIFICATE APPROPRIATENESS FOR NEW SIGNAGE AT 14 SOUTH HIGH STREET AFRICANS CARDS OF DESIGN GROUP CAN HAVE A STAFF REPORT, PLEASE. THANK YOU. CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. THE APPLICATION SITE IS LOCATED AT 14 SOUTH HIGH STREET. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE HISTORIC VILLAGE CENTER AND IS OWNED URBAN CENTER. THE SITE IS LOCATED NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF HIGH STREET AND MAIN STREET. THE AIR B HAS REVIEWED AND APPROVED OTHER APPLICATIONS AT THIS SITE THIS YEAR. AH CURRENTLY THE BUSH TAX COMPANY IS REQUESTING ONE ARCHITECTURAL CANOPY SIGN. IT IS WORTH MENTIONING THAT THE SITE OR, UM, BUSINESS HAS A GROUND MOUNTED SIGN CURRENTLY THAT THE BOARD HAS NOT YET APPROVED. UM SHOULD THE BOARD APPROVED THE CURRENT APPLICATION BEFORE YOU TONIGHT? AFRICA MENDS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT THE CURRENT GROUND MOUNTED SIGN. UM COME BACK BEFORE THIS BOARD AT A LATER DATE ON A SEPARATE APPLICATION. THE PROPOSED SIGN IS TO BE INSTALLED ABOVE THE MAIN ENTRANCE ALONG SOUTH HIGH STREET. IT IS TO READ BUSH TAX COMPANY LLC. THE SIGN PANEL IS MADE OUT OF ALUMINUM, WHICH IS A PERMANENT MATERIAL. THE SIGN APPEARS TO MEET ALL STANDARDS OF CHAPTER 11 69, INCLUDING SIZE, LOCATION, LIGHTING AND NUMBER OF COLORS. THERE ARE THREE COLORS WHITE LETTERING, A BEIGE TRIM AND BLUE BACKGROUND. ONE POINT OF CLARIFICATION STAFF WILL NEED FROM THE APPLICANT AT THE TIME OF PERMITTING IS WITH REGARD TO THE RELIEF OF THE SIGN. THE SIGN SHALL BE FLUSH WITH THE CANOPY. ANOTHER POINT OF CLARIFICATION IS WITH REGARD TO THE LETTERING ON THE SIGNAGE. THE LETTERS DO APPEAR TO MEET THE SIX INCH HEIGHT MAXIMUM. HOWEVER THIS WILL NEED TO BE INDICATED ON THE PLANS, THE TIME OF PERMITTING THE BOARD APPROVED THE APPLICATION STAFF RECOMMENDED CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT AT THE TIME OF SUBMITTING THEIR PERMIT APPLICATION, THE PLANS MUST CLEARLY SHOW THE EXACT HEIGHT OF THE LETTERING PROPOSED AND THAT THE SIGN WILL BE FLUSH WITH THE CANOPY. OTHER THAN THOSE TWO POINTS OF CLARIFICATION. THE PROPOSED ARCHITECTURAL CANOPY SIGN APPEARS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER OF THIS SITE, AS WELL AS THE OVERALL VILLAGE CENTER, AND IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR THIS SPACE. AND WITH THAT I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. HELP ME IF YOU CAN. JUST THIS IS WE'VE INTRODUCED A NEW. STEP HERE, IN 
          [00:05:04]
WHICH THE BOARD TYPICALLY ISN'T AWARE OF THE PERMIT APPLICATION IN SO WHAT WE HAVE NOW IS A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR A SIGN. APPARENTLY, THEY NEED TO DO SOMETHING ELSE RIGHT . SO ONCE THE BOARD APPROVES A SIGN APPLICATION THEY STILL HAVE TO GET THE PERMIT THROUGH. UM THIS CITY. SO YOU ARE THE FIRST STEP. THEY GO BEFORE THE BOARD AND THEN AFTER YOU APPROVE THEIR PROPOSAL, THEY WOULD GO THROUGH THE PERMITTING PROCESS THROUGH OUR OFFICE. BUT, UM. WOULDN'T WE AND HELP ME HERE WHEN I'M PUT THIS DOWN A BIT ECHOING, UM WOULDN'T WE JUST APPROVED THIS SIGN? THE APPROVAL IS SUBJECT TO THE ACTUAL SIGN IS FLUSH. IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT WE'VE APPROVED TO DESIGN THAT'S FLASH. WE DON'T CARE WHAT THEY SAY ON THEIR PERMIT APPLICATION WE'VE APPROVED TO SIGN THAT'S FLUSH. AND THEN SECONDLY, THE EXACT HEIGHT OF THE PROPOSED LETTERS, PRESUMABLY WE DON'T WANT TO. IT'S FAR AS THE BOARDS CONCERNED WHAT THE HEIGHT IS. WHAT WE WHAT WE WANT IS HEIGHT WITHIN. THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE. AND SO WE, YOU KNOW WHAT WE'RE APPROVING IS A SIGN. UM THAT IS FLUSH AND WE'RE APPROVING A, UM, LETTERING HEIGHT. OF SIX. WELL LESS THAN SIX INCH OR CAN IT BE? SIX ANDREW? CODE REQUIRES A MAXIMUM. HIGH OF SIX INCHES 36 OR LESS. IT'S NOT FIVE AND 31 30 SECONDS. I GUESS THAT THAT'S MY QUESTION, BECAUSE WHAT I'M USED TO DOING HERE IS NOT DEALING WITH THE PERMIT AT ALL. AND AGAIN WE DON'T RIGHT SO THAT IF WE APPROVE ALL THAT STUFF ON THE PERMIT UM, IT JUST SEEMS TO ME THAT THIS BOARD WOULD WANT TO KNOW WHAT WE'RE APPROVING AS A SIGN. THAT HAS LETTERS SIX INCHES OR LESS SUBJECT TO STAFF APPROVAL. NUMBER ONE AND NUMBER TWO THAT THE LETTERING IS FLUSH AND I DON'T CARE WHAT IS ON THE APPLICANT. WHAT'S ON THE PERMIT? SO THE SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND THE STAFF REPORT FOR BASED ON UM, THEIR PROPOSED SIGN MEETS CODE AND ALL ASPECTS EXCEPT FOR THOSE TWO ITEMS WERE NOT CLEAR PROPOSAL. SO WE JUST WANT IT TO BE CLEAR WHEN THEY SUBMIT FOR THE PERMIT. UM AND IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE THE CONDITIONS. THAT'S CERTAINLY YOUR BACK TO CHRIS AND STEVE. 
          WE'VE NEVER DEALT WITH PERMITS. WHY WOULD WE? WHY WOULD WE START DEALING WITH PERMIT? NOW LET ME NOW. I THINK WHAT HE'S SAYING IS , IF WE JUST THE COMMITTEE APPROVES. THIS PROPOSAL. WE'RE APPLICATION OR WHATEVER. WE'RE GONNA CALL IT HERE WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT IT MEETS THE SIX INCH ELEVATE SIZE OF THE LETTERING. IT MEETS THE COLOR STANDARDS. IT MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS. THEN WE APPROVE IT ONLY IF THEY COME BACK WITH A PROPOSAL FOR PERMIT THAT MEETS THOSE CONDITIONS. ISN'T THAT YEAH, I THINK THAT'S WHAT HE'S SAYING EVEN NEED TO REFERENCE. 
          THE JUST DOESN'T WANT TO PUT PERMIT IN THERE BECAUSE WE APPROVAL OTHER THAN TO SAY, BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO MANAGE THE PERMIT WHEN THEY GET WHEN YOU GET THE PERMIT. IF IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT WE'VE PROVED, AND YOU SAY, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO PROVE IT JUST SEEMS TO ME THAT RELEVANT TO WHAT'S IN THE PERMIT. THAT'S THAT'S WE'RE APPROVING A SIGN. WE DON'T CARE WHAT WHAT'S ON THE PERMIT. YOU EITHER ISSUE THE PERMIT OR NOT BASED UPON WHAT WE APPROVE? YEAH, AND THAT'S TRUE. AND THIS IS REALLY JUST A NEW PRACTICE. WE HOPE TO GET JUST SO WE HAVE THOSE DETAILS. I DEFINITELY AGREE WITH YOU. WE WOULD NORMALLY LOOK TO SEE TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU KNOW THE SIGN PERMIT MATCHES WITH THE AIR BE APPROVED JUST SORT OF THE BEST PRACTICE BECAUSE WHAT WE DO IS WE KEEP ASSIGNED DATABASE FOR ALL SIGNS WITHIN THE VILLAGE CENTER. AND SO DID HELP BUILD THAT. AND SO WE KNOW THE EXACT SPECIFICS OF THE SIGN THAT THE AIR BE APPROVED. WE ASKED THOSE ADDITIONAL DETAILS BE ADDED ONTO THE PERMIT AND NOT TO SAY THAT IT WILL CHANGE ANYTHING, AND WE ALL KNOW THAT IT'S STILL NEEDS THE CODE REQUIREMENTS THAT WILL MATCH WITH THE AIR B. IT'S REALLY JUST FOR RECORD KEEPING REASONS I WOULD SAY IS IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED ONCE I'VE APPROVED THIS IF YOU GET A PERMIT THAT DOESN'T HAVE IT. AND THEN YOU COULD SAY TO THEM FILL THIS IN THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. AND I DON'T KNOW WHY I'M TELLING THAT FLORIDA SO IT'S THAT'S THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I AM. I DON'T KNOW WHAT WHAT THE BOARD THINKS ON THIS. BUT IT JUST SEEMS TO ME THAT TELLING THEM SAYING WHAT A PERMIT HAS TO HAVE PROVEN ASSIGN, NOT HOW THEY FILL OUT A FORM. HOW IS THIS ANY DIFFERENT THAN THAT WERE SUBJECT TO STAFF APPROVAL. IF THERE IS SOMETHING ON AN APPLICATION THAT WE REVIEWED IN THE PAST THAT EITHER NEEDS A CLARIFICATION, BUT PERHAPS APPROVED, AS NOTED, IF 
          [00:10:03]
YOU WILL, THEN WOULDN'T THAT BE THE SAME IN THE SAFE IN THIS CASE TWO. WE HAVE TWO ITEMS THAT ARE ALLEGEDLY MEET THE CODE, BUT IT JUST NEEDS TO BE APPROVED BY YOU. UH IF CLARIFICATION IS NEEDED, I THINK THE YOU DON'T WANT TO HITCH OUR APPROVAL TO THE WAGON OF A PERMIT IS WHAT I'M HEARING AND I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT, TOO. IF YOU GUYS ISSUE THE PERMIT OR NOT BASED ON WHETHER IT IS IT IS IT IS ALIGNED WITH WHAT WE HAVE APPROVED. BUT THAT'S WHAT I THAT'S WHAT I PROPOSE TO DO. SO YEAH, I THINK THAT'S FINE, TOO. IF YOU WANTED TO DO THAT, YEAH. I MEAN, THEY ARE LINKS. I MEAN, AS JUST LOOKED LIKE A NEW BUILDING. SO THIS IS THE FIRST STEP AS CHELSEA MENTIONING ENTITLEMENT STAGE. THERE ARE ADDITIONAL DETAILS WE GET WITH A SIGN PERMITS THAT ARE BEYOND THE CODE REQUIREMENTS PER SE FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS THAT THE AIR B REVIEWS. THIS COULD BE THINGS LIKE FOR GROUND SIGN LIKE FOOTERS. YOU KNOW, IT COULD BE HOW THE SIGN IS ATTACHED TO THE WALL OR CANOPY. IN THIS CASE, THERE IS SOME BUILDING CODE ITEMS THAT ARE INSPECTORS LOOK AT. AND SO THIS IS JUST AN OPPORTUNITY. WE THOUGHT TO ADD THAT ADDITIONAL SPECIFICITY TO THE TO THE SIGN, BUT IF YOU WANT TO RESISTING IT , THAT'S FINE, TOO. YEAH, IF YOU JUST WANT TO STAY IN SUBJECT TO STAFF APPROVAL, I WILL SAY YEAH, THAT'S ALSO COMPLETELY ACCEPTABLE. ONE CRITICISM OF THIS SAYS THE PLANS MUST CLEARLY SHOW THE EXACT HEIGHT OF PROPOSED LETTERS. AND SO OKAY, WE'VE NOW SAID THEY HAVE TO DO THAT, AND THEY COME BACK WITH EIGHT INCHES. WE'VE GOT APPROVED . YEAH OKAY, THEY SAID IT'S EIGHT INCHES. WE DON'T WANT ANY CHANGES. SO I TELL ALRIGHT. YEAH I WOULD. I WOULD MOVE APPROVAL. 
          PLEASE GO AHEAD, STAFFORD DEMANDING THAT THE EXISTING GROUNDS LINE COME BACK. THE LATER DATE BEFORE THEY CAN INSTALL THIS SIGN, OR IS THAT IS INDEPENDENT. INDEPENDENCE WE'RE JUST LIKE THEM TO COME BACK. I THINK THERE IS JUST A MISCOMMUNICATION. THEY WERE ORIGINALLY IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION IN THE VILLAGE CENTER AND WHEN THEY MOVED LOCATIONS, GROUND SIGN WENT IN. IT'S BEEN VERY NICE TO WORK WITH, BUT WE JUST ENSURE THAT THE ENTITLEMENT ISN'T PERMITTING SOMEPLACE THAT THEY COME BACK TO THE AIR B AND OUR STAFFS CURRENTLY WORKING WITH THEM TO SCHEDULE THAT FOR A FUTURE MEETING. SO I WOULD MOVE. I JUST ASK ONE QUESTION TO COLLECT THE PATIENT. I KNOW YOU'RE IN THE PROPOSAL HERE IS TO GO FROM ONE ENTRY DOOR TO THE TWO FRENCH DOORS. I WAS A LITTLE CONFUSED IS THIS IS GOING TO BE A LOGO ON THIS DOOR. HE'S DONE A PICTURE THAT NO LOGO ON THE DOOR, RIGHT? NO, JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THAT WITH THAT SIGNAGE DETAIL, HALF INCH ONE FT . THE SIGNAGE IS ON THE CANOPY ITSELF ABOVE THE DOOR WHILE THEY ARE CHANGING OUT THE DOOR THAT IS CONSIDERED A MINOR MODIFICATION THAT CITY STAFF CAN IMPROVE ADMINISTRATIVELY, AND WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH FACILITY . ARCHITECT HOLD DOWN BLIND THINGS BEHIND THE DOOR THAT WILL HAVE SOMETHING BIGGER THAN WHAT IT'S CALLED, BUT THAT'S YEAH. 
          SORRY YEAH, WE SHOULD RAISE THAT. CAN I MAKE MY MOTION? NO I JUST ALL RIGHT. SORRY. I MOVE APPROVAL OF RB 1 27. 2022. WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT THE EXISTING GROUND SIGN COME BACK BEFORE THE BOARD AT A LATER DATE AS A SEPARATE APPLICATION. YEAH, AND THAT THE SIGN IS APPROVED IF WITH LETTERS SIX INCHES OR LESS AND THAT THE SCIENCE FACE FLUSH WITH THE CANOPY PHASE. SECOND. 
          MR WIGHTMAN? YES, MR HENSON? YES? MR STROLLER? YES MR MALLETS? YES, MISS MORE? YES. 
          [VIII. Other Business]
THANK YOU WILL MOVE ON TO OUR OTHER BUSINESS, WHICH IS A WAIVERS. CODE UPDATE. WHICH I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO. YES THANK YOU. SO I THINK MOST OF THE FOLKS WERE HERE COUPLE MONTHS AGO, WILL MEET FIRST INTRODUCED THIS PROJECT TO YOU ALL. WE WERE ASKED TO COME BACK WITH SOME EXAMPLES OR SOME CASE STUDIES TO LOOK AT AGAINST WHAT THE CHANGES THAT WERE POTENTIALLY BEING PROPOSED. SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TONIGHT. JUST TO GO OVER BRIEFLY WITH YOU ALL AS A REMINDER HAS BEEN, UH, 60 DAYS. I'M SURE WE'VE ALL HAD OTHER THINGS ON OUR MIND. BUT WE ARE LOOKING AT TAKING OUR WE ARE TAKING A LOOK AT THE WAIVER CODE SECTION. THIS IS THE MECHANISM OF RELIEF THAT APPLICANTS CAN USE IF THEY DO NOT WANT TO MEET A CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT STANDARD OR CODE REQUIREMENT. WAIVER APPLICATIONS ARE REVIEWED AND APPROVED OR REVIEWED AND 
          [00:15:04]
EVALUATED RATHER BY THIS BOARD ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD. SO OUR CITY CODE STATES THAT IN ORDER TO APPROVE A WAIVER APPLICATION, THE REALLY A MANDATES THE AIR B. THEY CAN ONLY APPROVE AWAY REPLICATION IF ALL OF THE CONDITIONS ALL OF THE YES, THE CONDITIONS ARE MET THESE FOUR CONDITIONS THAT ARE LETTERED HERE A B, C AND D. DRILLING DOWN A LITTLE BIT FURTHER. THE USE OF THE WORD AND HERE THAT IS CIRCLED IN RED SUGGESTS THAT ALL FOUR CONDITIONS MUST BE MET IN ORDER FOR A WAIVER REQUEST TO BE GRANTED. THIS HAS COME UP BY SEVERAL BOARD MEMBERS. YOU KNOW, OVER THE YEARS, THE USE OF REALLY WHERE WE'VE KIND OF BEEN TRIPPED UP HIS LETTER C HERE WHICH STATES THAT A WAIVER IN ORDER TO BE GRANTED MUST BE NECESSARY FOR REASONS OF FAIRNESS DUE TO UNUSUAL SITE SPECIFIC STRENGTHS. SO WE'VE HAD A CHALLENGE THAT THE BOARD HAS HAD A CHALLENGE HISTORICALLY OF FITTING EVERY WAIVER REQUEST INTO MEETING THAT SPECIFIC CRITERIA, WE'VE HAD DIFFICULTY PROVING AN UNUSUAL SIGHT. 
          SPECIFIC CONSTRAINTS EXIST. SO TWO MONTHS AGO, WE IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CITY LAW DIRECTOR, WE'VE PUT TOGETHER THREE OPTIONS FOR HOW THIS CODE SECTION COULD BE AMENDED. 
          SPECIFICALLY THE LETTER C AGAIN COULD BE AMENDED TO POTENTIALLY ADD SOME MORE CONSIDERATIONS BEYOND JUST A SITE SPECIFIC CONSTRAINT. SO OPTION ONE, I GUESS FOR ALL OPTIONS, THE CITY LAW DIRECTOR AS A REMINDER RECOMMENDS, IN ORDER FOR CONSISTENCY BETWEEN OUR CODES, ACTIONS THAT WE CHANGED THE WORD FROM CONSTRAINT TO CONDITIONS TO MATCH THE BURBAGE USED IN OUR VARIANTS. CODE SECTIONS, SO OPTION ONE WOULD BE SIMPLY TO KEEP THE LANGUAGE AS IT EXISTS TODAY. BUT SIMPLY CHANGED THE WORD CONSTRAINTS CONDITIONS OPTION TO PROPOSES TO ADD IN BUILDINGS SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SO IN ADDITION TO SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS WOULD ALSO BE LOOKING AT BUILDINGS SPECIFIC CONDITIONS. OPTION THREE IS PROBABLY THE MORE BROAD OPTION OUT OF ALL THE THREE OF THEM ARE INTRODUCED. INTRODUCED SYSTEM. UM YEAH, MORE VARIABLES CAN COMPARED TO THE OTHER TWO STATES THAT THE EDITOR IS THAT IT BE NECESSARY FOR REASONS OF FAIRNESS DUE TO UNUSUAL SITE OR BUILDING SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OR OTHER CONDITIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES THAT DO NOT RESULT FROM THE ACTION OF THE APPLICANT SO THAT EXPANDED LANGUAGE ABOUT THESE OTHER CONDITIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES WAS ACTUALLY PULLED DIRECTLY OVER MARK VARIANTS CRITERIA, WHICH ARE PLANNING COMMISSION AND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS. I HAVE BEEN USING FOR YEARS. UM. SO DURING OUR LAST MEETING, I THINK THE CANADA CONCLUSION THAT WE CAME TO IS THAT ON THE OUTSET, IT APPEARED THAT OPTION TO SEEM TO BE MOST FAVORABLE FOR THE TO THE BOARD. IT DID NOT. KIND OF MAKE THINGS TOO BROAD, BUT IT ALLOWS A LITTLE BIT MORE FLEXIBILITY, OR AT LEAST SOME MORE THINGS TO CONSIDER, WHEN EVALUATING WAIVER REQUESTS. BUT WE WERE ASKED TO BRING BACK SPECIFIC. HOW DO WE CAN APPLY THESE OPTIONS TO SPECIFIC CASE STUDIES? THE UH, INTERRUPT JUST FOR A SECOND, UM I'VE GOT A I THINK I THINK WE SHOULD GO THROUGH THE CASE STUDIES IN A SECOND, BUT EVERY NOW. THANK YOU FOR SETTING THE LANGUAGE. I PLAYED AROUND WITH IT. MAYBE MAYBE WE COULD WORK ON ANY REFINEMENTS TO OPTION TWO, ASSUMING WE STILL HAVING SLEPT ON IT AND STUDIED IT FOR THE PAST FEW MONTHS, EVERYONE FEELS CONTINUES TO LIKE IT. BUT IF WE I'D LIKE TO KICK THE TIRES WITH THAT, AS POTENTIALLY AMENDED WITH A COUPLE WITH WHAT WITH ONE OR TWO PROPOSALS. HERE SO LET ME FIRST QUESTION I HAVE AND MAYBE LOSE THIS TO MR MALLETS INITIALLY. BUT THEN EVERYBODY AS WELL. IN. 11 57, WHICH IS OUR GENERAL SECTION. THERE'S TWO TERMS THAT ARE USED. KIND OF BACK AND FORTH ONE. CHARM IS A STRUCTURE. AND THE OTHER TIME IS BUILT. TO ME, NOT BEING A DESIGN OR ARCHITECTURE PROFESSIONAL. BUILDING WOULD ALWAYS BE A STRUCTURE, BUT NOT ALL STRUCTURES WOULD BE BUILDINGS. I THINK THAT'S I THINK THAT'S FAIR . ABSOLUTELY OKAY. I WAS GONNA ASKED THE QUESTION BACK TO YOU. BECAUSE WE DID DISCUSS THIS AT OUR LAST VIEW OF THIS WAS I HAD A SIMILAR COMMENT ABOUT SITE VERSUS BUILDING BECAUSE SITE IN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT WE UNDERSTAND ARCHITECTURALLY. WOULD INCLUDE A BUILDING A BUILDING WOULDN'T BUILDING INHERENTLY SITS ON THE SITE, BUT IT'S THE SAME SORT OF 
          [00:20:05]
RELATIONSHIP THERE TOO, BECAUSE I THINK I HAD. I THINK I HAD ARGUED OR MADE THE CASE FOR JUST SAYING SITE SPECIFIC. I DIDN'T SEE WHERE THERE WAS ANY VALUE IN ADDING THE WORD BUILDING. IT FELT REDUNDANT TO ME. BUT ONCE AGAIN, I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT THAT. BUT YES TO ME. I THINK YOU'RE COMMENT ABOUT THE STRUCTURE IS ACCURATE AND. AND SO THAT OBVIOUSLY I MEET AGAIN. 
          I'LL OH, POSES STAFF. I ASSUME THAT IF WE HAD AN APPLICANT WHO WANTED TO BUILD NEW ALBANESE OWN MINIATURE VERSION OF STONE THAT THAT WOULD COME TO US BECAUSE IT WAS A MAJOR. IT WAS AN ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE, AND WE NEED TO APPROVE. I GUESS. STICK INSTALLATION. YEAH I THINK IT WOULD DEPEND WOULD DEPEND IF IT WASN'T A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AND THEY HAD A LITTLE MINI STONEHENGE. THE NOTE IT'S WITHIN. IT WAS IN THE VILLAGE CENTER AND IT WAS. LET'S ASSUME LET'S ASSUME FOR THE TIME BEING THAT THAT THAT UM. THAT RELIGION , YOU KNOW, RELIGIOUS THAT RELIGIOUS STRUCTURES IN FACT, IT IS A CHURCH BUT THEY WANT TO DO IS CELEBRATED OUTSIDE AMONG THE STONES. BUT THAT THAT ISN'T A BUILDING. BUT IT WOULD WE WOULD STILL APPROVE IT. HAVE TO APPROVE IT AS LONG AS IT WAS PRESUMABLY GEORGIA. I THINK THAT WOULD FALL UNDER A MINOR. SO YOU GUYS HAVE AN IMPROVEMENT SO WE WOULD WE WOULD APPROVE IT. I THINK TO KIND OF EXPAND ON WHAT YOU'RE ADDING INTO THIS DISCUSSION, OUR CITY CODE DEFINED STRUCTURES AS INCLUDING AMONG OTHER THINGS, WHILE BUILDINGS OR PATIOS. STRUCTURES DO NOT INCLUDE DEFENSES, SO IT'S CERTAINLY EXPANDS THE SCOPE OF WHAT THIS SORT OF PLAN OKAY, SO AND THE OTHER THING, I GUESS BACK TO MR MALLETS FOR AT LEAST ODDLY ENOUGH, YOU'RE. THIS IS THE CASE WHERE PROBABLY THE DEFINITION OF SITE WOULD HAVE BEEN USEFUL IN THE CODE. I'M ASSUMING THERE'S NO DEFINITION IN THE CITY CODE OF SIGHT. NOT ONE THAT WOULD SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED BUILDING IN 11 57. FOR BETTER OR FOR WORSE, THEY THEY ACTUALLY USED IN THE NUMBER OF PLACES THE PHRASE BUILDING STRUCTURE OR SITE. AND SINCE THEY'RE USING THAT, THAT WOULD THAT WOULD SUGGEST AT LEAST THAT NEWS, I WOULD THEN THINK OF MAYBE SITE BEING MORE LAND. BREAKFAST. FAIR ENOUGH, AND I THINK I THINK WE DISCUSSED THAT. AND WE HAVE A REFERENCE TO. THE NOTION OF A UNUSUAL BUILDING. 
          CONSTRAINT VERSUS UNUSUAL CYCLE . THE CYCLE STREAM MAY VERY WELL BE THE GEOMETRY OF THE SITE BUILDING CONSTRAINT. MAYBE THERE'S A VERY SMALL FREEZE BOARD ON THE CANOPY, SO THEREFORE THE SIGN AND HAS TO BE NARROW BECAUSE IT WON'T FIT ON THE THAT THAT IS NOT A SIGHT LEVEL CONSTRAINT. THAT'S THE BUILDING LEVEL CONSTRAINT. BUT IT WOULD ALL REALLY FALL UNDER SECONDS TRAIN ANYWAY IN IN THE BROADER CAST IN THE BROADER CONTEXT, BUT IN OUR CODE, SO I GUESS SO THROWING OUT NOW, TOO. TO THE BOARD AND STAFF. BECAUSE YOU'RE YOU WORK WITH THIS STUFF. 
          AND YOU HAVE TO PUT UP WITH OUR ANNOYING INTERPRETATIONS OF IT. UM THE IF WE SAID HERE UM WE COULD. I WAS TRYING TO AVOID GOING TO THE FULLEST, BUT WE COULD CERTAINLY SAY UNUSUAL SIGHT. BUILDING OR STRUCTURE SPECIFIC. ACTUALLY WE'RE GOING TO FOLLOW. IF WE'RE GOING TO FOLLOW THE LANGUAGE ELSEWHERE, WE WOULD SAY UNUSUAL BUILDING STRUCTURE OR SITE. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS THAT WAY WE WE'VE CARRIED OVER THE SAME PHRASE FROM 11 57 09. UM WE THEN IN THERE'S NO DOUBT THAT WE'RE PICKING UP STONEHENGE TO THE EXTENT THAT BECAUSE AGAIN, PRESUMABLY STONEHENGE REQUIRES A WAIVER. IT'S STILL IT'S GOT TO COME TO US, RIGHT? CORRECT TO PROVE A GEORGIAN STONEHENGE. BUT ONE THAT IS MORE PREHISTORIC MIGHT REQUIRE THE BOARD. CORRECT ALRIGHT, SO ON THAT BASIS, THEN THAT WOULD BE SO THAT THAT'S ONE FOR THE BOARD TO CARRY THAT PHRASING BUILDING STRUCTURE SITE AGAIN, IT MIGHT BE FROM A INDUSTRY STANDPOINT, A LITTLE WEIRD, BUT BECAUSE THE CODE USES IT, I WOULD PROPOSE THAT AND SO THE ONLY OTHER QUESTION FOR THE BOARD TO KICK AROUND AND STAY AGAIN FROM STAFF STANDPOINT. IS THERE ANY CONCERN WITH SITE? SITE IS A SITE IS THE SITE OF THE SIDE IF WE'RE TALKING CITED AS A PARCEL IT'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE NARROW ON ONE END. IT'S GOING TO BE WIRED AND ANOTHER ETCETERA. BUT THE QUESTION IS, IS THERE ANY REASON TO THINK ABOUT IT? HE WOULD NEED TO BE UNUSUAL. YOU KNOW EXISTING 
          [00:25:04]
BUILDING EXISTING STRUCTURE, IN OTHER WORDS, THAT THEY CAN'T COME TO US AND SAY HERE'S THE PLAN. AND BECAUSE WE'VE DESIGNED IT THIS WAY. IT'S UNUSUAL. WE'VE COME UP WITH AN UNUSUAL CONDITION WOULD ONLY APPLY TO AN EXISTING CONDITION. I THINK THAT UNUSUAL CRITERIA WOULD HAVE TO BE IN MY MIND. WOULD BE. BASED ON THE EXISTENCE AND IS THAT SELF EVIDENCE WE DON'T NEED TO ADD THE WORD EXISTING I THINK IN THE PAST WE HAVE STAFF. I THINK THE ASSUMPTION IS IT WOULD BE UNDER EXISTING, BUT I THINK CERTAINLY WE'VE APPLIED OR MAYBE HAVE APPLIED IT, BUT I THINK WE WOULD ALSO KEEP IT OPEN FOR NEW DESIGN AS WELL. SO SOMETIMES I MEAN, WE HAVE D GRS AND SOMETIMES YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT'S THE RIGHT THING UNTIL YOU SEE IT RIGHT. IT'S EASIER TO BE. YOU WANT TO LEAVE, IT OPENS OR POTENTIALLY, THEN THERE'S AN ARGUMENT WE HAVE OTHER. IF WE REALLY DON'T LIKE IT, WE CAN MAYBE DEFEATED UNDER A B OR D. WELL CLEARLY DETRIMENTALLY AFFECTING HEALTH DOES. I THINK THE WHOLE QUESTION ABOUT THIS CODE SECTION IS WE? WE DISCUSSED. THE VALUE IN IT. PROVIDING DISCRETION TO THE BOARD. BUT I STILL THINK THERE'S A CONCERN THAT IT DOESN'T WANT TO BE TOO LIBERAL TO BROADEN ITS DEFINITION, BECAUSE THEN IT BECOMES HIGHLY SUBJECTIVE AS TO WHAT IS APPROVABLE AT THAT WOULD THINK IF THERE'S LIKE AN UNUSUAL BUILDING OR SITE CONSTRAINTS LIKE THAT, IN AND OF ITSELF MIGHT NEED A WAIVER. BUT I THINK AT THE SAME TIME THAT WE DO WANT TO ALLOW FOR SOME FLEXIBILITY AND CREATIVITY FOR GOOD DESIGN. 
          I THINK THE WAY THAT IN THE REASON IT'S NOT, UM IT DOESN'T SAY EXISTING CONDITIONS HERE IS TO ALLOW FOR THAT FLEXIBILITY OF DESIGN BECAUSE MAYBE THERE IS A BUILDING DESIGN. YOU KNOW THAT MEETS ALL OF OUR D GRS, AND IT'S SOMETHING IN THE VILLAGE CENTER, BUT IT CREATES AN UNUSUAL MORE NEEDS, OR THERE'S A WAIVER NEEDED FOR SOMETHING ELSE RELATED TO IT, SUCH AS A SIGN OR SOMETHING ELSE OR OR PARKING. I THINK IT'S ONE OF THE EXAMPLES WHERE DUE TO THOSE REASONS OF FAIRNESS, THERE'S ANOTHER WAIVER NEEDED, BUT IT'S STILL ACCOMPLISHES THE D. G. R S AND ALL THE OTHER PLANNING RECOMMENDATIONS. IT'S IT MAKES SENSE. AND ALL THEY NEED. I THINK I'M SOLD TO. I WILL NOTE THAT OPTION THREE, WHICH I THINK WE'VE ALL DECIDED THAT KIND OF COMMENTS TOO MANY WORDS. BUT NOTICE THAT OPTION THREE HAS THE OR CIRCUMSTANCES AND THAT RESULT FROM THE ACTION OF THE APPLICANT . ONE COULD ARGUE THAT ONE BY DEFINITION WOULD SAY IT CAN'T BE BECAUSE YOU DESIGNED THE BUILDING. YEAH BUT THAT SAID YEAH, I'M GONNA SEE NO EVIL, HEAR NO EVIL AND. I'M HAPPY TO. I'M HAPPY TO LEAVE IT. SO I WOULD PROPOSE THAT WE HAVE NOW WE EVALUATE WE USE OUR EXAMPLES TO EVALUATE THIS AS IF IT SAID BE NECESSARY FOR REASONS OF FAIRNESS DUE TO UNUSUAL BUILDING STRUCTURE OR SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS. FAIR ENOUGH THAT ANYBODY. EVERYBODY ELSE'S CONTENT COVERS IT. YEAH I THINK WE'RE SUPPORTIVE OF THAT. SORRY TO BLATHER ON, BUT IT'S USEFUL. I TOOK THIS TO PRAGUE AND BUDAPEST WAS STRUGGLING. THANK YOU. IN HUNGARIAN A LITTLE BIT. THERE WAS NO HUNGERING SEEMED TO MATCH SO AWESOME. THANK YOU. 
          SORRY TO INTERRUPT NO WORRIES AT ALL. SO AS REQUESTED, WE HAVE BROUGHT BACK FOR CASE STUDIES. 
          SOME OF THESE CASE STUDIES WERE SPECIFICALLY BROUGHT UP DURINGE, BUT WE REALLY WANTED TO TRY TO FIND AN EXAMPLE OF EVERY APPLICATION TYPE, CERTAINLY AT LEAST THE MORE COMMON APPLICATION TYPES THAT COME BEFORE THE BOARD AND THEN PULL MORE RECENT EXAMPLES, SO HOPEFULLY THEY'RE A LITTLE MORE FRESH ON YOUR MIND. SO WE'VE GOT BREWED I THAT WILL GO OVER. 
          THAT'S AN EXAMPLE OF THE USE OF AN EXISTING BUILDING. KITZMILLER KIDS, MY ROAD CONCRETE DRIVEWAY REQUEST EXAMPLE OF A CASE OF LABOR REQUEST THAT'S OUTSIDE OF THE VILLAGE CENTER. RICHMOND SQUARE FLATS, WHICH IS OUR MOST RECENT EXAMPLE OF A NEW BUILD CANADA CENTER AND THEN INFINITE CHURCH SIGNAGE WE THOUGHT WAS A REALLY GOOD EXAMPLE. JUST A TYPICAL NEW SIGN APPLICATION TYPE OF THE WAIVER. OKAY THROUGH THESE AND AGAIN FEEL FREE. THIS IS DEFINITELY A CONVERSATION. SO FEEL FREE TO INTERRUPT ME. SO RUDOLPH DEVELOPMENT ENSURE EVERYONE'S FAMILIAR WITH THIS. I WON'T GO SUPER IN DEPTH WITH IT , BUT THERE WERE SEVERAL WAIVERS THAT WERE REQUESTED AS A PART OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. UM A COUPLE OF THEM. I'VE PROVIDED. EXAMPLES OF ALL OF THEM ARE PROVIDED THE LIST EVOLVEMENT REQUESTED. PROBABLY CERTAINLY THE MORE DISCUSSED MORE DISCUSSED. WAIVER WAS THE ROOF SIGN. WHICH IS THE BASIS OF BRUNEI BABYLON. IF YOU'VE LOOKED AT THE BUILDING, IT WAS NOT THERE. IT IS NOT THERE, SO THE BOARD DID NOT 
          [00:30:04]
APPROVE THAT WAIVER AFTER MUCH DISCUSSION. SO CITY STAFF WAS SUPPORTIVE OF THE ROOF SIGNED WAIVER AT THE TIME AND STAFF REPORT WAS WRITTEN AND I PROVIDED KIND OF JUSTIFICATION. 
          OUR OUR EXPLANATION OF BEING SUPPORTIVE OF IT, USING THAT SEED CRITERIA, SO CURRENTLY THE CODE READS THAT THAT IT MUST BE THE WAIVER WAIVER MUST BE GRANTED FOR REASONS OF FAIRNESS DUE TO UNUSUAL SITE SPECIFIC AND STRENGTHS AND CHARACTERISTICS, SO AS YOU CAN SEE IF HE READ THE SENTENCE HERE, STAFF WAS SUPPORTIVE OF THAT WE'VE REQUEST AS. THE USE OF THE ROOF SIGN WAS APPROPRIATE DUE TO THE BARN. DOING DUE TO THE BUILDING STRUCTURE BEING A BARN TYPE OF ARCHITECTURE. THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS DISCUSSED DURING THE MEETING AND PRUDENTLY, AS YOU KNOW, DID NOT BEFORE WORD, BUT WE WERE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS WAIVER SPECIFICALLY. DUE TO A STATE SPECIFIC CONDITION. REMEMBERING CORRECTLY, WAS THERE NOT SOME LANGUAGE THAT MADE IT DIFFICULT FOR US TO EVEN THINK, TRYING TO REMEMBER WHAT THE LANGUAGE WAS MY, UM WHAT? WHAT? WHAT? ONE. I DIDN'T THINK IT WAS A CONSTRAINT. BUT MAYBE IT WOULD BE CONDITIONED, BUT THIS ONE STILL FAILS BECAUSE OF B. SUBSTANTIALLY MEET THE INTENT OF THE STANDARD THE ATTEMPT. THE APPLICANT IS ATTEMPTING TO SEEK A WAIVER FROM CORRECT COMMENT BEING IS ABOUT HOW YOU COULD SUBSTANTIALLY MEET THE INTENT OF A STANDARD THAT SAYS NO ROOF SIGNS BY HAVING ONE RIGHT. 
          THAT'S RIGHT. SO THAT KILLED IT. AND I THINK THAT THAT THAT HELPS ILLUSTRATE KIND OF SOME OF THE HEARTACHE THAT WE TALKED ABOUT DURING THE MEETING A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO. IF WE CHANGE THIS LANGUAGE, WE KIND OF OPEN UP A CAN OF WORMS TO LET ANYTHING KIND OF HAPPEN OR ANYTHING JUSTIFIABLE AND WE DID DISCUSS DURING THE LAST MEETING THAT WE STILL WHAT THESE OTHER THREE CRITERIAS STILL HAPPY MET, EVEN IF UM, AN ADVOCATE JUST DEMONSTRATE AGAIN. I GUESS THE QUESTION WOULD BE IT WOULD STILL BE, I GUESS WITHIN STAFF. NOW YOU'RE NO LONGER GOING TO SUPPORT IT BECAUSE YOU'VE DECIDED NOT TO TAKE IT. POSITIONS CORRECTED BY RECALL THE OTHER CORRECT, EVALUATED EVALUATED, BUT YOU ARE, YOU WON'T USE THE STAFF OF SUPPORTED CORRECT THAT THAT FROM THE WATER BE USED. YEAH, WE WANTED TO POINT OUT THIS ONE. I GET ALL THESE EXAMPLES ARE POINTING OUT NOT MAY NOT NECESSARILY CHANGE ANYTHING THAT'S HAPPENED IN THE PAST. IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE THEN APPLY IT AND I THINK THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I WANTED. SO THE QUESTION WAS OBVIOUSLY STAFF WAS OFFERING THE POSSIBILITY AND WOULD IN THE FUTURE WOULD OFFER THE POSSIBILITY THAT DOES THE DOES THE FACT THAT IT IS A BAR. ITS TYPE STRUCTURE. OR BARTON TYPE BUILDING. DOES THAT THEN MEAN IT IS A BUILDING SPECIFIC CONDITION. AND I GUESS THE I'M WILLING, I'M WILLING TO CONSIDER WILLING TO CONSIDER THAT I DON'T KNOW WHETHER I WOULD AGREE WITH HIM. BUT I COULD SEE IT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY IN MY VIEW. WE HAVE TO APPROVE IT. I THINK WE COULD DECIDE WHETHER THAT CONDITION THAT MERITED FRUIT. PARTICULARLY IN THE CONTEXT OF A ROOSTER. 
          YEAH AND I THINK THAT WAS WHERE WE WERE COMING FROM A STARTER INTERRUPT, BUT THAT IT IS AN UNUSUAL SIGHT. SPECIFIC CONSTRAINTS. I E. IT'S IN A BARN FORM. IT'S THE ONLY ONE IN THE VILLAGE CENTER. DON'T USE CONSTRAINT. WELL YEAH, I GUESS ORIGINALLY, BUT NOW IT WOULD BE AN UNUSUAL BUILDING CONDITION, BUT I THINK THERE'S STILL NEEDS TO BE DEBATE BY THE BOARD. IF YOU KNOW REASONS FOR FAIRNESS, UNUSUAL, ONCE AGAIN, UNUSUAL. WE'VE EVALUATED THESE UNUSUAL FORMERLY KNOWN AS CONSTRAINTS, UM. I ALWAYS ASK THE QUESTION OF WELL. IS IT POSSIBLE TO PUT THE SIGNAGE ELSEWHERE? IS IT POSSIBLE TO ACCOMPLISH IT IN SOME OTHER WAY? IN THIS CASE, THERE CLEARLY IS ANOTHER WAY TO ACCOMPLISH THAT. IT COULD EVEN BEEN ON THE PORTION TO THE RIGHT. I REMEMBER WHEN WE WERE REVIEWING THIS, UM SO IT FAILS AGAIN BECAUSE THERE WAS NO EFFORT TO MITIGATE THE ISSUE TO BEGIN WITH. I MEAN, THIS IS A HARD ONE TO APPROVE, EVEN IF EVERYBODY ON THE BOARD WANTED IT. WE ALL FELT IT. I MEAN, I ACTUALLY THINK WE ALL DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR EVERYONE. IT SEEMED AS THOUGH WE ALL WERE SUPPORTIVE OF THE AESTHETIC BUT COULDN'T GET AROUND. THE ABILITY TO SAY YES TO IT. IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, THAT'S GREAT. YEAH I THINK I THINK, BUT I THINK IT'S ALSO TRUE THAT JUST TO KIND OF REMIND US THAT WE ALL REALLY WANT TO BREW DOG. GOING BACK TO MY FIRM FAMILY EXAMPLE. ARE WE OKAY WITH THAT DESIGN FUTURE THE SAME. IN BOTH PLACES. I THINK THAT'S A GREAT POINT. I THINK WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE IN A FUTURE ONE THAT WE'RE EVALUATING FIRM FATTY OR I'LL SEE IF I CAN COME UP WITH SOMETHING. EVEN SO, YES, BECAUSE WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE KNOW THAT WE'RE PROVING THAT ONE, TOO. IF IT'S A RE 
          [00:35:02]
FACING, IT JUST GOES UP THERE. SO WE HOPE AND THEN WHO WAS ON THAT? ARCHITECTURALLY WE'RE NOT ME. YEAH IT'S INCIDENT, RIGHT? YEAH MUST BE UNDER COMMERCIAL BUSINESS WITH THAT NAME, RIGHT? SO UM. OKAY LET'S MOVE ON. SURE THAT'S HELPFUL. LET'S MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ONE, OR KEEP GOING WITH THIS ONE. IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE THAT WAS IT FOR THIS ONE. SO I APOLOGIZE FOR THE WEIRD GRAPHIC HERE. BUT, UM, WE ALSO NOT OFTEN, BUT WE SOMETIMES TO ALSO RECEIVE WAIVER REQUEST. UM FOR VARIATIONS FROM OUR D G REQUIREMENTS, DESIGN GUIDELINES , DESIGN GUIDELINES AND REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPERTIES OUTSIDE OF THE VILLAGE CENTER. SOME OF THOSE THE MOST TYPICAL ARE THE MOST COMMON ONE THAT COMES BEFORE THIS BOARD IS USUALLY DRIVEWAY MATERIAL. UM HAS BEEN REQUESTED A COUPLE OF TIMES IN THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS. SO THIS PROPERTY AT 58 40 ON KITZMILLER ROAD OUR CODE STATES THAT THE MOST APPROPRIATE DRIVEWAY MATERIALS ARE ASPHALT BRICK OR GRAVEL OR STONE PAVER OR STONE PAPERS. APOLOGIES SO IT WOULD NOT PERMIT THE USE OR THE INSTALLATION OF A CONCRETE DRIVEWAY. GRAVEL DRIVEWAY. SO THE APPLICANTS, UM, REQUESTED A WAITER TO THIS REQUIREMENT AND ASKED BUT TO CONSIDER ALLOWING THEM TO INSTALL CONCRETE DRIVEWAY. THIS WAS BROUGHT UP DURING A MEETING A COUPLE MONTHS AGO. SO I JUST WANTED TO BRING IT BACK TO YOUR ATTENTION. UM I STILL DON'T THINK THE ADDITION OR I DON'T THINK IN THIS CASE, THE ADDITION OF THE WORD BUILDING OR YOU'VE BEEN, UM WHAT WAS THE OTHER ONE STRUCTURE WOULD CHANGE AT LEAST STAFFS EVALUATION OF THAT SPECIFIC CRITERIA. I DO BELIEVE THAT THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE BOARD ENDED UP DENYING THEIR REQUESTS. BASED ON AESTHETICS. UM IT WAS IT WAS NOT AESTHETICS AS MUCH AS I DO. YOU HAVE THE LANGUAGE YOU USE OR IS THAT JUST HAVE YOU JUST BRINGING THAT'S ALL THIS IS ALL I HAVE. WE DID NOT. THE ARGUMENT ON THE AFRICAN WAS. IT WAS REALLY STEVE. IT WAS AESTHETICS ANIMISTIC STEEP, AND HE THOUGHT THAT THAT CONCRETE WOULD BE LESS BREATHIN ASPHALT. AS I RECALL. RIGHT SO THE QUESTION IS UNDER THAT IF THAT'S HIS ARGUMENT IS THAT AN UNUSUAL CONDITION? THAT MEANS WE HAVE TO WELL, THEN SEE, I WAS GOING TO ASK THE QUESTION. 
          IN THE CASE OF A STRUCTURE OR A DRIVEWAY. I WAS TRYING TO THINK WHAT AN UNUSUAL SIGHT CONSTRAINT MAYBE MAYBE IT WOULD BE THAT ASPHALT CONSIDERED AS FAULT IS TECHNICALLY THIS IS MY QUESTION BACK TO YOU TECHNICALLY CONSIDERED A FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT AND THEREFORE SITS ON A CERTAIN SUBSTRATES. SO LET'S JUST ASSUME THAT THE SUBSTRATES PROBLEMATIC IN THIS EXAMPLE THERE'S A HIGH WATER TABLE AND IT NEEDS TO BE POURED OVER OVER GRAVEL WITH A REINFORCED CONCRETE GRID. SO NOW WE'VE TAKEN SO THERE'S A UNUSUAL SIGHT CONDITION. THAT'S. FORCING A RECONSIDERATION OF THE MATERIAL. THAT'S PROBABLY STRUCTURAL CONCERNS, PROBABLY A CONSTRAINT. BUT THEN THE QUESTION BECOMES, SAYS WHO. YOU KNOW, THEN YOU KNOW IS A IS IT TRUE THAT CONCRETE IS A HIGHER COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION THAN ASPHALT. DEPENDS ON HOW IT'S FINISHED. JUST BECOMES LIKE WHERE YOU GO WITH. YEAH I MEAN, THAT'S TRUE. YOU COULD PROBABLY FINISH. BRAVING THE OTHERS. 
          DIFFERENT GRADES OF ASPHALT. MORE COURSE VERSUS FINE SO WE WOULD STILL AGAIN. WE WANTED TO TURN THIS ONE DOWN AND IT SOUNDS LIKE WE WOULD STILL BE ABLE TO TURN IT DOWN. EVEN IF IT'S A CONDITION. I THINK SO. I WASN'T I DON'T THINK I WAS HERE FOR THIS REQUEST. BUT YEAH, WE MISSED HERE NOW IS MY CHANCE. YEAH. UM. SO IF WE IF WE SAID UNUSUAL, SIGHT, SPECIFIC CONSTRAINTS, SO WE WOULD THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO TURN OVER ON OUR MIND WHETHER THE WHETHER THE STEEP BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY. AESTHETICS IS NEVER GOING TO BE AN UNUSUAL CONDITION. BUT YOU KNOW IF I MAY THAT'S ALSO GOVERNED BY ZONING BUT ANYWAY, WHICH HAS A LIMITATION OF SLOPE OF DRIVEWAY THAT YOU CAN'T EXCEED ANYWAY. I MEAN, WE'VE RUN INTO THAT ON SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO PITCH UP TO THE DRY. IT'S TOO STEEP. IT'S AN ENGINEERING CODE SPECIFIC ENGINEERING. BUILD ONE. THAT'S TRUE, BUILD ONE, TOO, SO IT CAN. IT CAN BE DONE PHYSICALLY, BUT IT'S NOT ALLOWED. B CAN'T BE THE PROBLEM THAT YOU'RE MAKING OUT BECAUSE YOU CAN'T BUILD IT. YEAH YOU'RE NOT. YOU'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A HOME IN PHOENIX. WHERE YOU CORRECT? DRIVEN UP? YEAH. THAT'S EXACTLY I DON'T RECALL STEEPNESS , BUT REMEMBER MAINTENANCE COMING UP ONE TIME MAINTENANCE BUT CERTAINLY ISN'T THAT ISN'T UNUSUAL. AND IT IS IN SIGHT RELATED. YEAH I MEAN, ARE WE ARGUED AT THE TIME WAS THAT YOU KNOW OUR PUBLIC STREETS ARE MADE OF ASPHALT. RIGHT SO IT'S WE BELIEVE IN THEIR DURATION AND LONGEVITY, AND SO WE THINK THAT 
          [00:40:01]
YOU KNOW OF A PUBLIC STREET CAN STAND UP TO TRAFFIC BEING ASKED FAULT IN THE FIELD DRIVEWAY CAN BE AS WELL. I DO THINK THE SORT OF THE CORE PRINCIPLE IS CREATING THAT DESIGN AESTHETIC THAT UNIFORMITY THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY. UM, YOU KNOW, IT ALSO HELPS. YOU KNOW, OUR WHOLE PHILOSOPHY HERE IS, YOU KNOW, GARAGES ABUSE SECONDARY FRONT FACING WHICH WHICH IS RARE THAN THEY SHOULD BE SET BACK FROM THE PRIMARY HOME AND HAVING DRIVEWAYS BE ASKED. FALL TO THAT BLACK COLOR HELPS WE FEEL MAKES IT FADE INTO THE BACKGROUND MORE, I THINK, GRAVEL AND CONCRETE. THAT COLOR CONTRAST SEEMS TO POP MORE. AND SO IT KIND OF GOES BACK TO THAT AESTHETIC. BUT THAT'S A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND. BUT I THINK WE ALL AGREE HERE OUR STAFF THAT WE DON'T THINK ADDING STRUCTURE OR BUILDING WOULD CHANGE THIS BOARD'S ABILITY WHEN REVIEWING THESE TYPES OF WAIVER REQUESTS THIS ONE I'M SATISFIED. I'M SATISFIED. WE'VE NOT DONE SOMETHING HERE. THAT WOULD MAKE US DO SOMETHING. WE DIDN'T WANT TO. OKAY, AGREE. OKAY SO THE NEXT ONE WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT IS A NEW BUILD HERE IN THE VILLAGE CENTER IS THE RICHMOND SQUARE FLATS APPLICATION THAT WE REVIEWED ABOUT ALMOST A YEAR AGO. WHICH IS HARD TO BELIEVE. 
          DON'T REMIND ME. SO UH, IF YOU MAY RECALL THAT AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION THREE WAIVERS WHERE , UH, REQUESTED AND THE AIR B DID APPROVE ALL THREE OF THE WAIVER CLASS, PROBABLY THE TWO WAIVERS. THAT WOULD BE USEFUL. UM, KIND OF KICK THE TIRES ON WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING. TONIGHT WILL BE THE FIRST ONE. WE WERE A LOWER, UM THE LOT WIDTH TO EXCEED WHAT CAUSES WHAT CODE ALLOWS? EXCUSE ME AND THEN ALLOW THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES TO BE IN EXCESS OF THE MAXIMUM NUMBER CODE ALLOWS. SO IF YOU RECALL THE STUDY, AND THIS IS NOT A GOOD IMAGE, I APOLOGIZE. 
          THIS IS NOT SHOWING UP PRETTY VERY WELL AT ALL. BUT MAYBE WE'LL JUST LIVE HERE ON THE SCREEN. SO FOR WAIVER A. THE APPLICANTS AND TENT WITH THIS BUILDING WAS REALLY KIND OF MIRROR. UM IN A WAY, THE GENERAL FACADE OF THE MARKET MAIN, UH, MARKETING APARTMENT BUILDINGS ARE LOCATED JUST ACROSS THE STREET. THE APPLICANTS ARE THE RB DIP. APPROVAL WAIVER REQUEST TO ALLOW THOSE BUILDINGS TO BE WIDER. THERE'S LOTS TO BE WIDER THAN WHAT CODE ALLOWED IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THAT BUILDING TYPOLOGY SO YOU COULD ARGUE, UM , THE ADDITION OF THE WORD BUILDING INTO THIS CODE LANGUAGE WOULD ALLOW, UM US TO CONSIDER THIS TYPE OF SITUATION LIKE WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE A CERTAIN BUILDING TYPOLOGY OF CERTAIN BUILDING CHARACTER. THIS WAIVER MAYBE APPROPRIATE ADDITIONALLY FOR THE PARKING ITSELF. THE REAL INTERESTING THING WITH THAT ONE WAS THE APPLICANT WAS PROVIDING, AND I KEEP SAYING THE APPLICANT BUT, UH, INJURY WAS HERE. UM BUT THE APPLICANT WAS PROVIDING ALL THEIR PARKING UNDERGROUND PARKING UNDERGROUND UNDERNEATH OF THE BUILDING, AND THAT'S NOT REALLY SOMETHING CODE REALLY CONTEMPLATES AT ALL. SO I THINK THAT AT LEAST STAFF I DIDN'T LOOK SUPER CLOSELY AT THE ARGUMENT, BUT I BELIEVE THAT WE USE THAT. WE USE THAT FACT THAT WE DO NOT CONSIDER THIS BUILDING TYPOLOGY AND URGENT CENTER CODE TO BE SUPPORTIVE OF THAT LABOR REQUEST. UM, SO THOSE WERE THE TWO FOR THIS APPLICATION. I THINK IN MY CASE THEY GO BACK TO THE OTHER THREE WERE THIS ONE. 
          THAT'S AND SO THE FIRST TWO WERE EASY ONES FOR EVEN CONSTRAINT, AND THEREFORE THEY WOULD BE EVEN EASIER FOR CONDITIONAL THE INTENT OF THE EXACT YOU LAST ONE IS ONE WHERE I THINK THIS IS ONE WHERE I WAS WILLING TO WINK AND NOD BECAUSE I WAS HAVING A HARD TIME FINDING CONSTRAINT, BUT I KIND OF AGAIN. HMM BUT NOW CONDITION I THINK WOULD ALLOW US BECAUSE HERE YOU HAVE A CASE. 
          AND THIS IS MAYBE ARGUE, CONTRARY TO WHERE I THINK YOU AND I BOTH WERE THINKING. THE WHOLE THING ABOUT ALLOWING THE 17 PARKING SPACES IS BECAUSE THAT DOES MAKE SENSE BECAUSE IT'S UNUSUAL CONDITION THE CONDITION CREATED BY THE APPLICANT EXACTLY. WE HAVE UNDERGROUND PERSON WAS ALSO QUESTIONING WHETHER THAT PARKING CONDITION IS NOT SPECIFICALLY CONTEMPLATED IN THE CODE AS UNDERGROUND, SATISFYING. THE INTENT, BUT IT MEETS THE DESIRE TO PROVIDE THE PARKING AND CREATIVE ALLEGEDLY CREATIVE WAY IMMEDIATELY. INTENT. WOULDN'T THAT BE? BUT IT WASN'T IT WAS IT WAS NEVER A CONSTRAINT. NO, I DON'T THINK IT WAS VIEWED AS A CONSTRAINT CONSTRAINT, BUT I THINK WE CAN GET CONDITIONED. BUT NOW IT'S AND BUT IT'S ALWAYS IT'S ALWAYS BEEN AND THEIR TRUE . YEAH I THINK YOU'RE BOTH RIGHTS. AND I THINK THE PARKING CZAR PERFECT EXAMPLE. LIKE MR RYAN WAS SAYING WHERE THIS WASN'T A PRE EXISTING CONDITION. 
          THIS IS SOMETHING NEW THAT WAS CREATED THAT MET ALL OF OUR D GR REQUIREMENTS AND CODE REQUIREMENTS AS FAR AS LIKE LOCATION AND PARKING GOES WE'LL ALWAYS SUPPORT PARKING GARAGES, 
          [00:45:01]
AND SO THERE'S NO LIKE SURFACE PARKING. SO TO ME, THIS IS A GREAT EXAMPLE WHERE THE BUILDING LIST DESIGNED AS SUCH. WHERE EVEN WITH THIS WAIVER, YOU KNOW IT IT JUSTIFIED IN AND OF ITSELF , BECAUSE IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SEE THE PARKING, YOU KNOW, THEN WHY NOT JUST MAXIMIZE WHAT'S UNDERNEATH THE BUILDING THERE? EXCELLENT POINT, AND THAT JUSTIFIES YOUR ENTIRE EXISTENCE HERE TONIGHT. THANK YOU. I'M GONNA LEAVE BACK. NO NOT YET. WE DON'T HAVE ANY MORE EXAMPLES. 
          THE LAST EXAMPLE IS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. SO THAT THIS IS THE INFINITE CHURCH SIGNAGE. SO 11 LETTER, THE LETTER F ON THE SIGN WAS LARGER THAN WHAT CODE ALLOWED AND AGAIN WE WENT THROUGH THE WAIVER PROCESS TO GET THIS APPROVED AND WE BROUGHT UP THE FACT THAT THERE REALLY WASN'T A SITE SPECIFIC CONSTRAINTS. UM STAFF ARE GIVING . WE ARE GIVING OUR STAFF REPORT THAT THERE WAS A BUILDING SPECIFIC CONDITION. ARE CONSTRAINED AT THAT TIME WE USE THE WORD CONSTRAINT. BUT IN THIS CASE, WE SAY THAT THERE IS A BUILT BUILDING SPECIFIC CONDITION AND THE FACT THAT THE BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED AND PROVIDED THIS. YOU CAN'T SEE IT VERY WELL. BUT THERE IS A DIFFERENT PATTERN OF BRICK USED. AROUND THIS AREA HERE IN THE MOUNTAIN LINING TO KIND OF FRAME IN WHERE ASSIGN SHOULD GO AND THE APPLICANT WHILE IT WAS LARGER THAN WHAT THE CODE ALLOWED, THE APPLICANT WAS STILL WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THAT SIGN FRAME THAT WE CREATED WHEN THEY CONSTRUCTED THE BUILDING. SO I THINK THAT THAT WE THINK THAT THAT POTENTIALLY WOULD SATISFY THAT BUILDING CONDITION AND I THINK WE I REMEMBER THIS ONE, TOO, AND I THINK WE DISCUSSED THE APPROPRIATENESS OF SCALE. AS IT RELATES TO THE EXISTING YOUR POINT EXISTING CONDITIONS RIGHT AND I WINKED AND NODDED. AND I WOULDN'T HAVE TO, IF NOW THAT WE HAVE TO CORRECT. IN THAT CASE, THE LANGUAGE THAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED WOULD BE MAKE IT EASY, EASIER TO FOLLOW THAT LOGIC. CORRECT? YEAH. SO THESE ARE THE THESE ARE THE EXAMPLES THAT WE HAVE. WE HOPE TO TAKE THIS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION NEXT WEEK WITH SOME ACTUAL REDLINE LANGUAGE. THIS IS A GOOD TEST. I MEAN, THESE ARE GOOD EXAMPLES. THERE'S ANY OTHER INSTANCES THAT I CAN REMEMBER WHERE WE TURNED SOMETHING DOWN BECAUSE OF THE CONSTRAINT ANOTHER ONE IN RETURN DOWN BECAUSE I DID A SEARCH. THROUGH LIKE RECENT HISTORY, AND THESE ARE THE ONES THAT I WERE. 
          I NOTICED A LOT OF CONVERSATION . THE OTHER PLACE WHICH WE APPROVED, WHICH THIS WOULD REALLY HAVE HELPED WAS THE BARN THERE ON WHATEVER MARKETS READ OR WHATEVER. KIRBY'S BARN? YEAH. 
          WHICH WAS A HISTORICAL YEAH, WE ALL WANTED AND I WAS TRYING TO THINK. IS THERE A CONSTRAINT? AND I FINALLY DECIDED AGAIN. I WAS GOING TO THAT WOULD BE A NEW, UNIQUE CONDITION AS IT WASN'T HISTORICAL BARBER PROPERTY, OKAY? THANK YOU FOR DOING THAT. I KNOW THAT WAS WORTH WORK. UM SO AGAIN GOING BACK, JUST MAKE SOME UP. I WOULD HAVE THIS SAY, AS I SAID BEFORE , AND I THINK WE HAVE THIS BE NECESSARY FOR REASONS OF FAIRNESS DUE TO UNUSUAL BUILDING STRUCTURE OR SITE. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS. YEAH SO THE BOARD I THINK THE INCLUSION OF THE WORDS NOW THAT WE'VE GONE THROUGH IT, IT MAKES SENSE. I AGREE. WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THIS OR NOT, BUT THAT'S THAT'S WHAT I THINK AS A MATTER OF CONSENSUS THAT WE WOULD RECOMMEND TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MIGHT MAKE SENSE TO THE GUY WHO'S GONNA HAVE TO PASS IT. I THINK IT MAKES SENSE. THE ADDITIONS THAT YOU ATTITUDE STRUCTURE, AND I THINK IT'S PRETTY CLEAR IT GIVES YOU ENOUGH. LATITUDE TO MAKE DECISIONS, ESPECIALLY LOOKING AT THE EXAMPLES. I THINK IF YOU MAKE A MOTION WHEN IT'S JUST SUPPORTED THAT YOU AGREE SO I USED TO US AND THEY CAN TAKE IT FORWARD AND SAY THAT PARTICULAR COMMITTEE YEAH, WELL APPROVED JUST THIS OPTION. SHOULD IT BE COME FORWARD. WHAT WILL I MOVE THAT WE RECOMMEND TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT CAN THAT SUB CONDITIONS SEE BE MODIFIED TO SAY BE NECESSARY FOR REASONS OF FAIRNESS DUE TO UNUSUAL BUILDING STRUCTURE OR SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS. GREAT 2ND 2ND. MR EATON FOR CLARIFICATION. WOULD THAT BE SITE KARMA BUILDING. BUILD BUILDING COMMA STRUCTURE COME UP OR SITE HYPHEN SPECIFIC. CONDITIONS. THANK YOU. MR WRITTEN? YES. MR CHARLOTTE? YES. 
          MR MALINS? YES, MISS MORE. MR HANSON? YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER. COMMENTS FROM 
          [IX. Poll members for comment]
OUR MEMBERS. CONTINUE TO BE EXCITED AND PLEASED TO SERVE WITH THIS BOARD. WE DO GOOD WORK. AGREED AGREED JOE AND STAFF. THANK YOU. GOOD WORK NICELY DONE. APPRECIATE SPEAKING WITH STAFF. WE ALSO HAVE A NEW CLERK, SO JOSIE WILL BE WITH US TO THE END OF THIS YEAR. AND 
          [00:50:04]
THEN WE'RE WELCOMING CHRISTINA. SO SHE'S OUR NEW DEPUTY CLERK OF COUNCIL SO SHE WILL BE QUITTING ALL OF OUR BOARDING COMMISSION MEETINGS. UM I GUESS FROM HERE ON OUT, SO WE'RE REALLY HAPPY TO HAVE HER AND SHE'S BEEN HELPING OUT WITH US WITH OUR PACKETS AND INFORMATION AS WELL. YOU GUYS WILL ALL HEAR FROM HER MORE IN THE FUTURE UNLESS YOU AFTER THIS MEETING. SHE REALLY THINKS BOY. 
          I GOT TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET OUT OF THIS. SHE SAID THAT AFTER THE PLANNING MEETING, YEAH. 
          THANK YOU. WELCOME WELCOME. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT SECOND. MR HANSON? YES MR CLAYTON? YES, MISS MORE.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.