[1:09] Audience farewell,

[1:20] please.

[1:53] ნლლ-ნ჈დვ჌სივლრ Hashtag ლლილლბლსკ aᗜიიიივიბღიʃიიიი ე მიიგიეეციი ფიიიიიიი ეიიიეიმიიიიიიითიი

[3:36] adds

[3:51] Construction

[4:40] ៸ Trucking ninete

[4:43] r

[4:59] r

[5:03] r

[5:04] r

[5:37] doğru

[5:50] ὅᾳᶦ᾵᦬를ἒᚔᬟ἗ᶠᾳʰᬢἦἤἔἐ ῍἟ἱἴ἟ἤἤἳἻἱἱἱἵἲἥἸἳἷἱἜἱἜἱἱἱἱἱ ἦἴἽἱ ἱἦἱἯἦἱἱἱἴἯἱἸ

[5:56] ◕Ἰἱἱἱἱἱἱἱἱἱ

[6:15] ἵἤἭἱ�

[6:49] record

[6:56] හහස්ඥෟිවවන්ම්යින් ම්තු� squeeze,

[6:58] සිරතුවතුන්හ් මතුමීමීට්මතු,

[7:09] සහ්තිතිති඼ැමට්යැමදයි එෙගේත මෙතුන්හ්රීමීට් ම්තුමට්මතු.

[7:15] mea.

[7:38] ԵԱԿ patt

[7:40] ԱԱԱՅջէ

[7:41] ԱԱԟոԼamız 먹어� crua.

[7:42] ԱէԱՑԵուվ,еш

[7:42] Happiness ԱԽԱՆ

[7:43] ré Աԯ weakened ԵԱԿ patt

[7:45] .

[8:00] .

[8:22] .

[8:23] .

[8:24] .

[8:26] pełn lacks ˆ ˆ.

[8:34] ˆ

[8:35] ˆ

[8:36] ˆ

[8:42] ˆ

[9:19] Let's move down to item G. There are no ceremonial presentations or recognitions at this point.

[9:28] And we'll move to item H because of floor opening, floor to citizens' desire to address the council, the governing authority.

[9:39] If you have comments that you would like to bring when it comes to the voting agreement,

[9:52] край result ස කොක්අු වවවේồihips Gesetzentwurf .

[9:52] だwieක්තා මතාපිෙ නෙන්ා පවිğıව කෙපලේම වියබ්තා වහග් මිනිර you will have the opportunity to speak

[9:58] viaersonicMac.

[10:02] ᶜᶜᶜᶜᶜᶜᶜᶜᶜᶜᶜᶜᶜᶜᶜᶜᶜᶜᶜᶜᶜᶜᶜᶜᶜᶜᶜᶜᶜᶜᶜᶜᶜᶜᶜᶜᶜᶜᶜᶜᶜᶜᶜᶜᶜᶜᶜᶜᶜᶜᶜᶜᶜᶜᶜ�ᶜᶜᶜᶜᶜᶜ�ᶜᶜᶜᶜᶜᶜᶜᶜᶜᶜᶜᶜ

[10:32] they was, you know, there was no opposition at the meeting, which was surprising because I came to the meeting ready for, you know, our Judah vehicle range and there was no opposition and, then we were overwhelmed.

[10:49] And, of course this was something Alaskaense was not at the station, but at the Phazethuckery overseas, it was also on the whole situation or something, of the restraints made A上 it,

[11:07] arium 나오�lynnalthain 시는껏 ɟ prophetic ʊ europe

[11:16] ʁ ᵇgen wʀ 11 K

[11:29] Interestingly there's quite a bit going on at this point so yeah

[11:33] మలిం఩ీpound ごక్టుె boil

[12:33] الآ ὄἛᴎὢἛἋで ὀἄἊᵒἕἒἌ, llᾃ ᵢἌᴎὛ἗Ἒ

[12:42] ἦἔᾡἍἄ

[12:51] by ὕἄᵎἚ.

[12:59] ḷᶅἋ Ἵ, ᶠᶉ ᶜᶶἋ, ᶒᶒᶙ–ᶜ ᵃ, ᵗᶆᶒʄ — ᵗᶔᶉ ᵉᶉ ᶄ ᶡ].

[13:07] ᶏៀἱᶇ ᶏᶉ ᶄᶜᵀᶅᶇᶃ ᵉᶒᶈἦᶇ—

[13:10] ᶒᶍᶉ ᶇᶛᶄ

[13:10] We're here today because there has been an appeal of the certificate of appropriateness.

[13:16] �高ənʾ—

[13:17] He's already been able to obtain what he has to obtain because the architecture view board is what they're supposed to do.

[13:24] They only looked at the design and set up standards of this property here.

[13:29] That is what they're required to do.

[13:30] The architecture view board, they are not an engineering board.

[13:33] They are not experts in stormwater management here.

[13:36] There are- There are both insure and architectural and design standards.

[13:41] And that's what they did in this instance.

[13:42] They're- They're supposed to look at only architectural and aesthetic standards.

[13:46] That isn't the plainly written indigent item, that's plainly written in the total democracy ordinance.

[13:52] That is what they're supposed to do, and that is what they did in this case.

[13:55] They correctly inserted this, they only looked at aesthetic and design standards.

[14:00] And they said that this property correctly matches the surrounding heritage area of this neighborhood.

[14:19] embrapi chewing 껍 kraft ㄰ ʻʻʻŀ ʻʻM ὀ ὀ ʻʻʻ'ʻʻᴒ ʻἀ ʻʻᾟʀʻ, ʰΆʰʱ ʱᾱ ʱ ʰʳʰʼ ʸʰʰᾱ ʸʰʸʱʱ ʸʱʸʱʸʷ ʱʸʸʸʸʸ ʰʸʸʸʸʸʸʸʸʸʸʸʸʸʸʸʸʸʸʸʸʸʸʸʸʸʸʸʸʸʸʸʸʸʸʸʸʸʸ

[14:34] ᴇᴇ ᴇᴏᴔᴜᴗᴋᴒᴇ ᴄᴏᴄᴟᴬᴟᴁ ᴕᴕᴖ you page

[14:42] ᴀ ᴗᴛᵍ ᴤʃ ᴜᴛ ᴢ ᴅ

[15:00] There was concern about the trees that needed to come down on the property that was the road to control.

[15:02] ᴛᴝᴅ bɪᴅ b14

[15:06] We pushed in our constant objection letter, a letter by Arborist saying that those trees need to come down anyways.

[15:13] You know, those trees are leading over onto the roadway. They're leading towards other properties.

[15:17] And those are going to need to come down anyways throughout the process.

[15:21] And there was a video of the Texas appeal appealing some stormwater running down onto its pellet property.

[15:29] The stormwater was clearly already an issue on the property far for CGT development.

[15:34] And the stormwater that was shown in that video is actually not even slowing down the

[15:38] amount of property.

[15:39] It's slowing down onto a parcel owned by the City of Marlborough.

[15:43] So not mentioning this.

[15:45] In an effort to show that we are dedicated to the preservation of this neighborhood,

[15:49] we are willing to do, we're willing to do a performance stormwater hydrology

[15:58] We're going to do a study to show what we can do to stay in the

[16:12] north of the city.

[16:14] If you want to please consider the follow-up of the seven regarding agenda item number four and five.

[16:20] We have heard that you are responsible for revealing and maintaining design standards in the historic district.

[16:26] So design standards include the structure and how appropriate it is for the architectural character of the neighborhood and community.

[16:34] These structures are referenced consistently in the cities of Illinois, specifically architectural

[16:39] design students for a high-store district, the 2024 PGT and Green Infrastructure Plan

[16:45] and the 2045 Comp Plan.

[16:48] What I have in mind when I want to offer a four-point, the size and dimensions of

[16:52] the infrastructure process proposes the most part of the street.

[16:55] They are not similar to or comparable with the size and mass of the majority of existing

[17:00] structures and neighborhoods.

[17:02] that essentially help the next door structures and especially the lower to the left sides.

[17:08] Now I'm actually currently excavating the area where I want to do the architectural stuff

[17:12] on the 65th Street with Asian or...

[17:15] I'm

[17:26] covering two properties you want to see twice.

[17:34] I'm repeating, I just know items number four and five.

[17:37] I'm going to make sure I...

[17:38] There are all of them.

[17:39] There are all of them.

[17:41] All of them.

[17:42] All of them.

[17:42] So they have an opportunity to extract them each.

[17:45] Each one.

[17:46] So I believe each one of us can just take any one of them out.

[17:49] It's up to you.

[17:49] We're getting out of order here.

[17:52] Go ahead, Big.

[17:53] How many people do you have on your record?

[18:37] Well, during the intervening, the board wondered

[18:39] if the architectural stuff offered 60 Barton Street

[18:41] with Asian or French Renaissance.

[18:43] Needless to tell, it reflects the character of Barton Street

[18:45] or the historic district.

[18:47] It was originally developed in the 1800s and early 1900s.

[18:50] History should cement architectural precedence

[18:54] in Norfolk's historic district, not builders.

[18:57] Now, the potential timelines admitted in Alderman-Hudson Historic District has to be at least 80% unenviable

[19:02] before it can be demolished, according to the previous owner of 146 North Barton.

[19:07] His inspector reported it's a solid living structure.

[19:11] The plan for SRB, reviewed for 16 North Barton, shall have to propose for a plus-incorporated lot

[19:17] and be not requested to point for drop in Topo.

[19:19] This is the last of a shared driveway that would accommodate major construction in that area.

[19:25] Even if the existing retaining wall along North Park will eventually be compromised.

[19:32] The structures of this house design would be extensive, steepest slope and roof lines would also result in hundred miles and increased velocity as you ever want to run off.

[19:41] We're now going to be headed in North Barton Street. We're going to be running straight towards this wall.

[19:45] and what it would look like if it was home to a disqualification of the acting Johnston Dean.

[19:50] So the engineering would be made required to find an operation.

[19:54] It's the best that will resolve an architectural disorder,

[19:57] because of a different from the one the other.

[19:59] Every dean has already reviewed it.

[20:01] Let's see a place of work, the appeal,

[20:03] and let's see the glory of the authority and the glory of the justice design

[20:06] and please consider having at least a second independent education plan on the 147

[20:11] before getting the award of the Exile Demolition.

[20:13] Thank you.

[20:15] This is a public comment from our criticism.

[20:29] Great.

[20:29] Brian Hart, C.C.L.A. North Barton Street.

[20:32] I want to start the appeal for this property that Mr. Hart is in.

[20:39] I'm going to be brief.

[20:40] I'll try to do that in a minute, in total, but I want to ponder.

[20:44] I want to put some nuggets in your mind, maybe you can think about it,

[20:47] and I think we'll approach this while we're hearing this coming up.

[20:50] The big picture is not just through the water, but through the training mall.

[20:55] The entire lot that Sam bought and subdivided was all based off a shared driveway.

[21:04] That was what he agreed to. That is what the city agreed to.

[21:08] Unfortunately there were two or three different city community development directors that went through the process.

[21:14] They all agreed to this shared driveway, but it wasn't written.

[21:18] So, it's still an agreement on whether it was written or not.

[21:21] It wasn't an agreement

[21:27] from the three commons.

[21:32] There's other commons for this panel.

[21:49] Q. Mark, 5920 from New Zealand, it took a lot of wind out of us.

[21:52] So, I was thinking if you could send a deadline for a meeting.

[21:58] But there's one amendment to the Unified Development Orders,

[22:01] and then we have the public hearing.

[22:03] So, I'll send more commons for that.

[22:07] The first and foremost, it's better for a long summer

[22:11] for the reform into the DDA. She has been a very strong and vocal support of down-to-down

[22:18] issues. She's a local business person. She owns a real estate agency here in town. She

[22:25] has a very strong residential real estate background, which we don't have currently

[22:31] on the DDA. We've got a lot of OGs with a real estate experience, which brings some

[22:39] As you say, a millennial female peak has contributed very strongly to the discussions we've had

[22:47] with the DDA, the ability to vote it, the scholarship, the policy work session.

[22:53] I'm all for that.

[22:55] If it's been assured in your regular meetings, so long as you provide some notice in the agenda

[22:59] of what items would qualify for your vote at that particular meeting so that if a resident

[23:06] If it is an opportunity to voice their opinion on a particular matter, they can do so knowing

[23:13] that it may only be heard or come up at one particular meeting and not the two meeting

[23:19] formats that you currently have.

[23:21] So to whatever you can in a short of a meeting, but make sure that folks are aware of what

[23:26] you have to do.

[23:27] But thank you very much.

[23:29] And thanks for your service to North Cross.

[23:31] Thank you.

[23:32] Anyone else at this time?

[23:40] Seeing no movement, we will go into comments from Council at this time.

[23:50] Any updates?

[23:51] I don't have any updates.

[23:52] I'd like to congratulate Council Member Myers and Council Member Dana on your reelection.

[23:58] I'd also like to thank Ms. Murray and Ms. Spitzer who ran the fact that we have elections.

[24:06] Congratulations, Mayor, as well.

[24:08] and thank you all of you for stepping forward and agreeing to serve us one more time for it again.

[24:14] The

[24:18] other question.

[24:20] A household answer.

[24:23] Relative to the trees, I know that there was an African plant in the trees along Beaver Island

[24:29] and some of them partied of his service in Hill.

[24:34] Is there a plan to address them?

[24:35] No, the single, single shrunk, two burglars are under warranty.

[24:43] I do not know if the installment realizes how bad the shape they are in.

[24:49] Robert, Mr. R. R. New Executive Director is reviewing that,

[24:53] and we do commit to having a better dialogue with the city moving forward about mass plantings like that.

[25:04] Any other Council moving

[25:10] down to your comments from City Manager?

[25:14] Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[25:17] Maybe you're looking at it too well with the City Attorney race.

[25:22] I just want to point out that we do appreciate public comment.

[25:26] that are part of a public hearing,

[25:28] as the attorney indicated, they're part of the public record.

[25:32] But then I say, come up and talk at either of our open public

[25:39] comments opportunities for the public to work

[25:42] section in their council meeting.

[25:45] We take your comments seriously.

[25:47] I personally look at what people have brought up,

[25:50] just to respond to it.

[25:51] I know that we've completed students over the last month

[25:53] that had multiple periods of interest when it was featured in the album.

[25:58] And it's interesting because the feedback we received was that a lot of people didn't know what was going on.

[26:05] And from our perspective, that project has been in the works for some time in multiple meetings

[26:11] and multiple agendas and has signposted for many of those meetings.

[26:16] I will say that community development has developed new signs, larger signs.

[26:23] So you can understand what they're for, and hopefully larger signs along with background

[26:31] and process. Selected communications manager will look at digital opportunities to get

[26:37] those types of issues out to the community.

[26:50] And I think we've looked at, in fact, that even though some of the comments from the public

[26:57] really don't relate to a particular site, they do relate to an area of concern.

[27:02] So we have looked at some recommendations that we can make related to how we might

[27:09] improvements in the area, one of which would be to look at Barton and his identity because

[27:15] of the fact that he placed a form of water on all of them so that you can, and then Barton

[27:20] looking at erosion mitigation in Johnson and Preserve because that's where a lot of

[27:27] that water ends up flowing and we've known that there's been impacts to the stream

[27:33] And then the third would be that we're prepared to talk about whether we change the storm order

[27:39] ordinance.

[27:40] So the issue of pretty imposed impacts on single family homes could be assessed, or

[27:49] I think as right now the threshold is pretty high for where we look at the impact on

[27:54] storm order on residential and mental health.

[27:57] So I think it's one of some of the bigger issues that have come up in this discussion

[28:00] made on these specific to a particular law, but certainly issues that the public has raised

[28:06] and we recognize and we can look into. So I just want to put that on the Director of

[28:11] Propeer to talk more about that.

[28:14] Thank you. And we appreciate the update, the more recent updates that we've been getting.

[28:21] They've been quite comprehensive within Council Member Baer, shared one that generated a lot of

[28:26] attention with their economic development projects that are happening.

[28:32] So, thank you so much for that.

[28:34] Okay, let's move down to item I, public hearings.

[28:41] For some of you, there's just both of you playing the procedure.

[28:47] Each case will begin with a staff introduction.

[28:50] The applicant will then be invited to speak,

[28:53] either to the applicant or the representative

[28:56] or the applicant plus those in favor of the application

[29:00] and we'll have a total of 10 minutes to speak on behalf of the application.

[29:06] And there will be a total of 10 minutes, a lot of those who wish to speak in opposition

[29:11] of the total of 10 minutes to speak in opposition of the application.

[29:17] Every opposition completes their input, or the 10 minutes have elapsed.

[29:22] The public hearing will be officially closed on itself, and after public comment is closed,

[29:29] The council will ask questions of staff or the applicant then deliver it.

[29:37] And just to note that we operate under Robert's rules of order to maintain clarity, fairness, and efficiency.

[29:47] Members will speak to the mayor.

[29:50] Motions should be made clearly and votes will be taken after the discussion.

[29:55] So we'll now open up public hearing.

[30:01] We'll begin with public hearing 2025, the S320, SUP 2020-5-0-0-5-hella.

[30:12] This is consideration of an adult

[30:15] big-care center in an M1 light industry zoning.

[30:48] and Monday provided.

[30:50] That's why I'm here for all the time

[30:52] called them to the activity room, exercise room,

[30:54] or if they're at a media room, kitchen,

[30:56] dining room, radio room, and administrative offices.

[31:00] Second of the time going there,

[31:01] recommend the formal work conditions.

[31:12] Members, after approval, we will make sure

[31:16] meet all the conditions, and we will maintain the property

[31:21] to achieve the series goal.

[31:23] And if you have a question, I can answer.

[31:29] That information will, at this time, we'll open the floor for Congress and the public.

[31:36] If you have any comments or concerns, you must come to the once.

[31:49] All right.

[31:51] If you'd like to come to the podium at this time, you certainly may do so.

[31:59] Seeing all a little bit, is there anyone in opposition?

[32:04] Okay, at this point we will turn our account to be further conversations, communications

[32:11] over to Council for any questions or concerns that they may have.

[32:20] Okay?

[32:21] Since there are no questions, you will entertain a motion.

[32:26] I would like to make a motion about the primary countries that refer to PD-25 cashiers

[32:31] or clients who are allowed to be an adult day care center and add T2-1 to your order

[32:36] So I'm going to be with the recommended conditions as presented by staff, and the planning is on the board.

[32:43] We have a motion and a second from Council Member Pickham.

[32:48] Very good.

[32:50] We have a motion for moving the question.

[32:53] Seeing none, all in favor, let it be known by raging your audience at the time.

[32:58] All right.

[32:58] We'll both at the same time.

[33:00] Motion passes.

[33:02] Thank you.

[33:04] Just moved down to public area 20, 85, 3, 2, 1. That's a rezone consideration of rezoning to M1 Light Industry District.

[33:20] Ellen, would you present?

[33:35] C2, general business to M1, the industry, something perfect on a 5.2 for interlaw,

[33:41] so it allows students to show users and have their storage.

[33:44] The property is currently used for keeping services,

[33:47] and the property owners are keeping searching for a new tenant, so there is no crime or abuse.

[33:53] The PAPPR is considering a permanent rental of your cell,

[33:57] including a rental and parking.

[33:59] The keeping services and building material use.

[34:01] The applicant intends to leave the site as it is.

[34:05] If that's not planning and zoning,

[34:06] I recommend that we move its condition.

[34:09] Thank you, Ella.

[34:10] Okay, so this time we're live in the floor

[34:12] for any public comment?

[34:16] Okay.

[34:17] I'm sorry.

[34:27] Can I, can you?

[34:35] I've called the council member, Meyer,

[34:36] and I forgot to move a verity

[34:45] of items.

[34:46] We're gonna do the

[34:51] last meeting at Jigel,

[34:52] the site plan that we just got to powerline each minute

[34:59] We've read, so

[35:05] come up through this, through Councillor Baier with the small, creative ones.

[35:10] He

[35:18] has a 25 foot buffer from the small line, I hear the city's 50.

[35:29] And he's probably questioning really what we can do now about the

[35:37] depth or width that we're

[35:44] asking.

[35:44] And this is continuously

[35:50] minimal.

[35:51] I was wondering

[35:59] if we had 25 people in this area.

[36:07] It's kind of a search for me to name a board against our...

[36:09] And that's the focus that you see on the light that's the north side of the property.

[36:15] They're building on both sides inside probably the VP of the buffer between the creek anyway.

[36:23] So the left there is a road or a driveway if you will that's not used to park vehicles or equipment, that sort of thing.

[36:30] The

[36:33] south side is that road pine trees you see just outside of that.

[36:38] I went out and walked with a pretty measure of 12.5 feet.

[36:41] We could put up a fence and put, as you want, planning.

[36:45] Hollywood was whatever inside of that fence.

[36:47] It was kind of restoration.

[36:49] It gives a little bit more experience, I suppose,

[36:52] because what you're looking for, as far as the buffer,

[36:56] it is just you, as you impose it,

[36:58] it gives you a 75 feet of proper support.

[37:01] So

[37:08] that's what we're asking.

[37:09] It's pretty much a continued use.

[37:10] And I guess at one point, why you need to reason on it is you look in your zoning codes

[37:17] and see how phone support doesn't allow.

[37:20] I

[37:26] think that's our first and one by the next generation.

[37:31] That's

[37:40] obviously the deal with the 2040B.

[37:43] Typically that's designed for new development.

[37:46] We're not going to put a shovel in the ground, build a building.

[37:51] I think you saw my cell plan before.

[37:53] How much that 2040B increases.

[38:15] Okay, at this time we will open for the public for any one that would like to speak in support

[38:23] of the freedom,

[38:30] but anyone that would like to speak in opposition of this reason,

[38:39] I think

[38:43] of our two channels, two of which are

[38:51] summer bars,

[38:52] and two of which are waterfowl.

[38:55] It will come from up next year away,

[38:57] and I think a few of our other variances

[39:00] are in terms of this completely different application.

[39:03] We're going to work on this with .5 for a 50-footer

[39:06] 70-footer with intercity boundaries.

[39:08] In my understanding, our information

[39:10] will take that heat for closeings

[39:12] a lot better than the three zones.

[39:14] And we're going to work on this with that

[39:15] that's a long process of policy.

[39:18] So we need to hear what necessarily

[39:20] I think that's our part of that conversation.

[39:25] As dream buffer variants could be given concurrently,

[39:27] but we haven't noticed this for concurrent variants

[39:30] with full stream buffer.

[39:33] As strict to that is the 25-foot buffer is a state buffer,

[39:36] so you have just overlapping regulations,

[39:40] so there's nothing that we could do tonight

[39:41] for this 25-foot buffer.

[39:45] And really, we need to have this noticed

[39:48] as I confirm here, and it's pretty strange and awful.

[39:52] Okay.

[39:53] So, I think it's that fast that I've already

[39:55] done my work for, you know,

[39:57] to position the other candidates.

[39:59] The thing is, we still have to talk about

[40:03] a political-related condition, which is very important.

[40:06] I think that we need to do that

[40:07] first with broader, the applicants opinion that

[40:10] of course, it's not that hard to wait until October

[40:12] or something, to write to the individual,

[40:15] in my opinion, to be additional

[40:17] for the rest of the community,

[40:18] you know, that is not even a,

[40:22] is it?

[40:24] It's not a certain age group, or parents.

[40:26] Well, that's the

[40:32] way in,

[40:33] we know those first year in a second,

[40:34] and so the results and the sort of document,

[40:36] obviously, has some of the two of those buildings to help.

[40:39] But then, based on the results,

[40:41] particularly that use of the local people,

[40:42] the children, and the people,

[40:43] the day was certainly,

[40:45] for the rainbow,

[40:47] for the particularities around it,

[40:48] and so I'm trying to stay out of this,

[40:49] because I'm over the ward,

[40:51] and it's, it has to be there, but I think we have people

[40:53] who get to be sometimes, since judgment,

[40:56] and that's my opinion, and we can check those.

[40:59] I mean, because of that,

[41:01] if you post a video on the team,

[41:03] in my opinion, that would know how many of you

[41:05] see me, but I don't want to care for your area,

[41:07] for your, I'm sorry to say, 20.8 and 20.45,

[41:12] that's a pretty bad as well.

[41:17] That's my reminder to address my concern.

[41:20] Okay.

[41:21] Can I just put it on one thing, would you send us in on that?

[41:25] Do you have the ability to just say that?

[41:29] I

[41:37] think I would come

[41:41] up with a stream of barbarians.

[41:47] Yeah, of course.

[41:49] Okay.

[41:55] This is what we're going to do tonight.

[41:57] We can go on this tonight with moving this to Objectivity Stuff.

[42:00] I'm back for a stream of barbarians.

[42:02] I'll hold it there for a second.

[42:08] I'm still on my right.

[42:10] Right now, you're still.

[42:11] I've got an average of 80.

[42:13] The question

[42:16] is whether we're two of the city.

[42:17] I

[42:21] think you can proceed to replace it in front of you

[42:23] because you can't see it on the wall.

[42:25] It's pretty strict, both.

[42:27] Sure, you're going to be brought in front of you

[42:30] and put it in front of you on a public agenda,

[42:32] but I just believe being assigned in the game.

[42:40] Perfect.

[42:41] I'm going to turn it over to the president

[42:43] of the United States R&D, 25-005,

[42:47] reason why the press party is sitting

[42:49] to begin running a wetting industrial business

[42:51] in the United States, which the president is

[42:54] to make the conditions as presented by the site

[42:56] and the planning going forward.

[42:58] And we might as well continue to do that.

[43:00] So

[43:05] we have a motion on the floor

[43:06] and we have a motion and a second on the floor

[43:10] to move forward with the suggestion item,

[43:13] minus three and four.

[43:14] Any additional questions?

[43:20] I can have one briefly.

[43:22] When can this be brought back?

[43:29] The recertion applies if there is a denial.

[43:32] So it can be submitted

[43:33] and it wouldn't be the very next agenda.

[43:36] I know we have to go through the publication there at this point.

[43:48] I'm not sure exactly when the publication will end up.

[43:52] As soon as he submits an application for stream waters,

[43:56] it can come back in front of you.

[43:57] But those are two different stations.

[43:59] I don't know if that's all there.

[44:01] That's real hill.

[44:02] Where are we going?

[44:03] Yeah.

[44:04] I was going to ask, is that something that just goes to

[44:07] planning and zoning for change?

[44:10] and it's just us.

[44:14] All right.

[44:17] Any other questions?

[44:20] Okay, we do have a motion on the floor.

[44:23] That's been made by Councilor Verrano-Sacred,

[44:26] by Council member Cheek.

[44:27] Any other questions?

[44:31] Any objections to move the question?

[44:34] Seeing that all in favor,

[44:35] let me know by raising your right hand and saying aye.

[44:38] Aye.

[44:39] Opposed?

[44:39] Thanks very much.

[44:45] Okay,

[44:51] let's move to item three. That's the 20-25 free dash.

[45:00] Yes, 321, resounding consideration of resounding the Pupin Highway District.

[45:07] Pupin

[45:12] Air, so this replication RT-2020-5-004 is applicable to our process to resound our

[45:19] properties from HX to Ford District to be HG for a role with non-development proposal site.

[45:26] After the policy work session, the Pupin Highway District send application to withdraw with

[45:33] So we're starting to make motion to approve the withdrawal of the project.

[45:45] Would the applicant like to

[45:58] confirm any

[46:06] comment from the public?

[46:09] Seeing no movement.

[46:12] We will revert back to council for further discussion.

[46:22] Now move we accept the withdrawal without prejudice of the session.

[46:26] We have a motion to accept the withdrawal.

[46:30] Do I have second or second?

[46:31] Motion second to accept the red girl without prejudice

[46:35] for rezoning case R as the 2025.

[46:39] The objection to move into question.

[46:44] In fact, seeing none, all in favor.

[46:46] Let me know in my regular item saying aye.

[46:49] Opposed to same sign.

[46:53] Okay.

[46:54] Let's put it on item four.

[46:56] This is COA 2025-0.7.

[47:00] This is consideration of a historic demolition

[47:03] and new home and consideration of the application, the applicant's request for demolition of

[47:11] the historic structure, contributing structure and construction of a new single-family residence.

[47:19] Here we go, Belle.

[47:21] Thank you, Mayor.

[47:23] The OPA 2025-2077, the applicant proposed to do a complete demolition of our construction

[47:29] the construction of a new home within the National Historic District. Available records from

[47:35] the Honectomy Connecting Access Sector indicate that the building was constructed in 1920.

[47:40] As this pertains to the direct Georgia Historic Resources Survey conducted for the site until

[47:46] 2007, the existing home is not on the National Register. The Zoning Board of Appeals approved

[47:52] two variants to reduce the front setback from code required 58 to 28.78 and to increase

[47:58] The same previous coverage allowed from the maximum 35% to 35.78% for the new home situated on R100 last.

[48:10] We are back from, we are set back from cover five or four feet to a proposed 30 feet.

[48:17] This is the size of the property in which the, in which it sits at the square feet.

[48:22] And that's a minimum of 15,000 square feet for our 100 properties.

[48:27] But we know, you know, not a percent from the joining property owners.

[48:31] Thank you.

[48:33] Okay, now we're going to have to get back to the board.

[48:36] Again, we have three minutes for the first session.

[48:41] This session is just a council meeting,

[48:42] which is going to be a shame.

[48:43] We're going to come in 15 minutes,

[48:45] and we're going to repeat what was going on in Lawrenceville,

[48:47] here in the half of the applicant.

[48:48] My students and I are requesting your approval

[48:52] of these items that are on your agenda tonight.

[48:57] We're going to include the demolition of a structure

[49:00] within the National Historic District as well as the construction of a mental home according

[49:07] to the building plan that was submitted with the application.

[49:10] We just submit a PowerPoint presentation prior to tonight's meeting, so it's just possible

[49:16] to be able to.

[49:21] It's not just a debate, but I'm ready for the next slide, or do you want to get to it?

[49:31] Thank you.

[49:31] I appreciate that.

[49:32] So first, I'll just make some general introductory remarks.

[49:39] Sorry.

[49:40] You've gone over the presentation.

[49:41] I've got more to say.

[49:42] Sorry about that.

[49:43] Generally, what I would like to communicate first is, tonight,

[49:47] we would respect the request to count the deferral of these items.

[49:50] We do feel that the structure at issue

[49:54] is eligible for demolition.

[49:57] Demolition of that structure is appropriately given

[50:00] requirements of the code and respectfully we would submit to council that we propose new home

[50:06] since it's compatible with homes in the surrounding area and incorporate the appropriate historical

[50:12] disaster elements that contain active terribly with surrounding homes and keeping with the

[50:21] historic nature of that area of the city. We're also recognizing the importance of preserving

[50:27] that is your character. We certainly understand and appreciate that. I think that's one of the

[50:32] items that drew the applicant to Norcross's first place and why she wants to stay in the city in

[50:39] this home. But deeply that being our request before Council tonight, we would like to request

[50:45] that any extent Council is not convinced that the structure is eligible for demolition and

[50:52] demolitions on a footprint, or that we haven't carried water

[50:55] relative to demonstrating the need for demolition,

[51:00] or that it will be supplied to the proposed home

[51:03] construction if our focus is not on this

[51:05] or if it's appropriate with the character of the area,

[51:08] or has other concerns about the architectural,

[51:10] proposed architectural style,

[51:12] would it effectively request to deal

[51:15] with the decision on the matter?

[51:18] we want to, you know, be the example of a good listener who provides as much information

[51:25] as we can to counsel, I think, from point to the ARB review and positive recommendation

[51:30] which we're focused and encouraged by that, you know, for criminal weather and some concerns,

[51:36] both in the community and maybe even by some on the counter as expressed

[51:41] at a previous board session meeting or so, you know,

[51:45] have to be ready and not, of course,

[51:48] we've had to fill in and everybody from the broader

[51:52] with trying to get back to the first order after eating food,

[51:57] all day long, I did it.

[51:59] We just, we want to be able to get in at those two

[52:02] and start on a new consideration really beginning

[52:04] to provide the information that's necessary.

[52:06] So that's a long-winded way of saying we would

[52:09] We'd respectfully request approval tonight of these items.

[52:12] But please, if the council has concerns

[52:13] or needs additional information,

[52:15] we'd respectfully request the opportunity to do that.

[52:18] And we'll request that

[52:22] upon each item.

[52:24] So, thanks for the presentation.

[52:25] Just to give some additional background

[52:28] relative to these items for council.

[52:32] So, the, let's see here.

[52:34] So, this is where we're starting.

[52:35] This is just a start-off of the proposed

[52:38] architectural style of the home

[52:40] proposed for 146. Martin, the design we do work to try and incorporate some historic elements

[52:46] into the facade. So here's the, you know, hone colors from a, you know, historic color palette

[52:54] in conservation with wooden architects. And we have a white front porch trying to incorporate

[52:59] a similar column design. It's actually similar to what's on the existing structure right now.

[53:04] I do incorporate some Victorian decorative accents,

[53:08] a number of aluminum conveyors,

[53:10] specifically in the field on the close down,

[53:14] which is similar to what's shown here in this photograph.

[53:18] Just to draw an additional background

[53:21] to why we submit that the proposed home

[53:23] is compatible with homes in the surrounding area.

[53:25] These are two homes that are adjacent

[53:27] in subject property.

[53:28] One was built in 1988, I think the other was built in 1991,

[53:31] on, but a protected well-maintained home, but with, you know,

[53:37] with your style, architecture, those don't meet the criteria

[53:41] for historic homes under the code, but do you think

[53:45] that they provide context and help determine what's

[53:48] compatible for architecture in the area?

[53:52] So here's the existing cottage built apparently in 1920.

[53:58] It's probably 860 square feet.

[54:03] There's a few elements that have been added on over the years.

[54:08] So the structure that's there now is not necessarily what was originally constructed in 1920.

[54:13] There's the carport you can see on the left-hand side of the building.

[54:18] And additionally, there was an addition that's my understanding that was added to the rear of the structure sometime after original construction.

[54:27] The major items that were identified by the implementation of microcortons associated

[54:37] to professional fields and leaders were related to the implementation of the home

[54:45] and even to additionally, we discovered there were some total infestations, I guess,

[54:51] This is the correct word for when there are mold,

[54:55] not only present, but some of the concerns that were raised

[55:01] were related to the lack of foundation

[55:05] or the unsuitable nature of the foundation.

[55:09] There are combinations between two areas

[55:12] of natural home foundations, especially

[55:15] underneath the port as well as the addition to the rear.

[55:18] It's not really the whole number, it's not a foundation there.

[55:21] The upper floor was erected on just the driveway slab,

[55:25] so not an appropriate foundation for that type of structure.

[55:29] But then also, not enough vertical distance between ground underneath the home

[55:34] and that crawl space, which is relatively short,

[55:39] which restricts rehabilitation and can create, you know,

[55:43] higher levels of moisture and getting the mold in the rot.

[55:46] And that's one thing that's sort of detailed in the report from the engineer that was submitted with the application.

[55:52] Again, this is our proposed architecture of the new home.

[55:55] It's larger, as you can see, but we did try to incorporate, you know, there's...

[55:59] What the one story taught is there's not a whole lot of solid work with,

[56:03] but it does have that cover for a porch.

[56:05] It does have a gable on the front window space in the road.

[56:08] But I mean, we'll play it through the same design elements in the proposed home.

[56:11] And there are pictures from photographs showing the, you can see right here in that cross face

[56:17] under the homes, we can see a sort of cross face, it's already being supported

[56:22] by just full metal jacks.

[56:24] And the, as noted before, the lack of ventilation at a short height

[56:29] leads to the structural issues that the engineer appeared in.

[56:35] And that's an example of some of those portions of the rear structure where there's

[56:38] It's just not the foundation, you can see the wood siding and contact with the ground

[56:43] that creates additional issues and concerns from an engineering standpoint.

[56:48] This is a photograph taken from the molded second plane, so mold was covered inside the home

[56:54] and of course the remediation efforts that are necessary to remove mold

[57:01] are currently no simple undercutting there.

[57:06] So I'm going to show some additional homes on North Barton, just to provide some background

[57:11] and provide supporting documentation of why we're happening in fields, why we feel that

[57:17] the architecture is compatible.

[57:19] There are also some newer construction homes on North Barton.

[57:23] This one I think has two doors down on North Barton Street to the southwest if memory serves.

[57:30] And so I'll include my presentation there.

[57:35] Thank you very much for your consideration of these requests, again, we'd love to have

[57:40] some helpful approvals tonight, if you need some of their concerns, your respective requests,

[57:44] to table the decision on that.

[57:46] If possible, I would reserve any time I have for a rebuttal, but if you can have it address

[57:51] any questions.

[57:54] Okay, we have roughly one mission left for anyone that would like to speak in support.

[58:02] Seeing

[58:09] no moveback, we will open the floor for those that would like to speak in opposition.

[58:17] And we could be near information that we'd like for you to share with us.

[58:25] You can tell us as advice just for the record.

[58:28] I live on the street. I am very against demolition of structure.

[58:31] If it is absolutely necessary, I would highly encourage the new structure to resemble as much of the old

[58:39] historic architecture styles that are in our neighborhood or the main in our

[58:44] neighborhood and in the rest of the community. I would encourage you to even

[58:48] incorporate some of the structure into the new one, but there is precedence on

[58:52] apartment and park at that corner where they had a similar situation with the

[58:55] ultra home. So hopefully the 10th history will have precedence not.

[59:01] Thank you. Anyone else for this time?

[59:03] Okay,

[59:07] so we'll move to a session by table.

[59:11] Any questions, comments, or concerns of the applicant?

[59:16] I don't know.

[59:18] I don't know.

[59:20] The last meeting I asked the applicant,

[59:23] they conducted an own inspection before they purchased the song.

[59:27] Can you confirm that they did not?

[59:34] I don't know.

[59:35] in the context of their position

[59:37] by conducting some amount of new diligence.

[59:40] But forgive me as I look to my client, the audience.

[59:51] Because the property adjoins where I currently live,

[59:55] I did not conduct an inspection.

[59:57] I wanted to buy it because...

[1:00:05] And so I participated in this. I knew that there would be some issues. My first inclination

[1:00:13] had been that I wanted to expand on the existing structure and eventually move there. That was

[1:00:18] what called forth the whole thing of having the instructional engineer look at the property

[1:00:23] and see that this was even feasible or possible. And from there is where a lot of this evolved.

[1:00:31] You've been spending a lot of money on the initial purchase today, you can control it in your plans of control.

[1:00:38] Did you ever envision a 4500 square foot house?

[1:00:40] It's about 4500 square foot.

[1:00:43] It's about 3600 square foot.

[1:00:45] That's about the same size as my current homes.

[1:00:53] So there was no question, I was submitting, once we demolished the house, received, um,

[1:01:00] you know, market disarmament?

[1:01:04] No, no, no, no, no, I'm going to be moved into it.

[1:01:08] And then I have family who will take my house on North Beach Street.

[1:01:12] I'm not selling that.

[1:01:13] Okay, thank you very much.

[1:01:15] the other occupants. So here's a complaint which we're updating. We're talking about

[1:01:21] the policies and limitations built up around historic character and also the

[1:01:26] appropriateness in our character is our number four. So policy 1.3 and I apologize if we don't

[1:01:31] have these counseled but they are public information. So I'll give you some room but

[1:01:37] policy 1.3, support opportunities for end-of-development to reflect the

[1:01:42] neighborhood character, non-neighborhood society.

[1:01:45] Policy 113, presented as one of the traditional historic

[1:01:49] architectural landscape character of the downtown corn

[1:01:52] surrounding the neighborhood while having a reasonable growth.

[1:01:56] Policy 5-2, which is, I find, pretty interesting.

[1:01:59] Unfortunately, I was ignorant about it.

[1:02:01] C plan opportunities for owner-occupied rehabilitation

[1:02:04] rehabilitation homes, which is a community home investment

[1:02:06] program for owner-occupied rehabilitation homes.

[1:02:10] So, and then for the top plan through

[1:02:17] the implementation measures,

[1:02:19] but it does hint a little bit about the vision.

[1:02:23] It's a large concentration of historic homes and resources.

[1:02:27] The residential areas are made strong.

[1:02:29] It gives us some examples of what they are.

[1:02:32] And then with reference to the development of land use policies,

[1:02:37] the building capacity is no more encouraged by the example

[1:02:39] the whole development is in historical characters.

[1:02:43] We develop, we develop in the housing city,

[1:02:45] single-pattern residential,

[1:02:47] residential common-access resorts will be.

[1:02:49] So it's just, we don't think about the volume

[1:02:52] of the historical homes in these communities,

[1:02:54] neighborhoods.

[1:02:56] You

[1:03:00] aren't at your home,

[1:03:01] but it's downtown,

[1:03:02] or across the story,

[1:03:03] nor across from the national register of historic places.

[1:03:07] I live in a 100-year-old home.

[1:03:09] I offered the applicant to come visit my home.

[1:03:10] I had to fight for it back, but who's the hell is?

[1:03:14] So I'd love for us to find a way to get the resolution

[1:03:17] that can answer some of our questions.

[1:03:20] My own head molded it as well, we were mediated.

[1:03:23] So we've done the policies that we have in place

[1:03:26] which have not been suggested to be updated.

[1:03:29] They're under comp plan, to my knowledge.

[1:03:32] I think there's been opportunity for us to work

[1:03:34] through staff and also through other resources

[1:03:37] to help them have some resources for rehabilitation.

[1:03:43] I don't think the house sits in with this sort of character.

[1:03:46] We do a lot in the city, and I can tell some of that

[1:03:49] from the fact that our lives would have to start home

[1:03:51] to them or small houses.

[1:03:54] This would be a rather large home on a rather small lot.

[1:03:58] The fact that the applicant was raised to begin

[1:04:01] the applicant additional space in front of the home

[1:04:05] is pretty much all seven of these.

[1:04:07] The only reason the home is able to be built

[1:04:08] There's

[1:04:11] just so many of them, so many comments, and I think, you know, first, my client, I think, she does that appreciation of Norfolk's historic character, and I think she did it, making a good faith effort to deserve it.

[1:04:27] I think it was her original intent, as I mean, I think was mentioned in a previous meeting, to renovate and add on to the whole, right?

[1:04:35] So in those inspections and in consultation with professional consultants, I think it

[1:04:42] can take away that such renovation and expansion is actually not feasible, right?

[1:04:47] So that steps up.

[1:04:48] This house that has been turned into a case with council was not immediately up here

[1:04:56] to meet, right?

[1:04:57] I'm not the smartest lawyer in the state.

[1:05:01] I'm not the smartest lawyer in the room.

[1:05:02] But it was unclear to me what the test is, right?

[1:05:07] You know, it is the test whether it is possible

[1:05:11] under modern engineering technology to see it at home

[1:05:16] or is it an economic feasibility, right?

[1:05:20] So, well, I think that's what it is trying to convey

[1:05:23] and perhaps we haven't conveyed that fairly enough.

[1:05:28] But there was a visitation effort to preserve that home.

[1:05:31] and based on the recommendation of professional consultants was the reason why we submitted the application.

[1:05:38] We'll probably appreciate and acknowledge that if Council feels unconvinced, I think we have more work.

[1:05:49] I think we've got more that we can show relative to the structural aspects of the home.

[1:05:55] We've got more we can show relative to the mold.

[1:05:56] So we need to just lay that out for council's consideration.

[1:06:02] And so I think people who are deaf and hard of hearing appreciate you because we think it's possible that house can be remediated to house can be dead.

[1:06:11] And may not be feasible eventually.

[1:06:14] If you understand that, there's a lot of that also has been rehabilitated along the way by your related Tony.

[1:06:20] landscape, beautifully by Kimberly and Tony. So it can be made livable. It just may not

[1:06:27] be financial. That's their decision, the landowner. It's our decision whether or not to get to the house now.

[1:06:33] So this is not a question of Council's authority to grant or to not do demolition

[1:06:39] term. And I'm just saying it's not clear in the need that the legal standard that can be lawfully applied

[1:06:44] is whether it is technically possible to preserve the structure.

[1:06:50] I would respectfully suggest that you can do anything,

[1:06:53] if anything is possible, then no demolition can occur.

[1:06:56] That's everything that you say.

[1:06:58] So that's not the legal standard that's applied in the code.

[1:07:02] And so I certainly am not against the authority to do that,

[1:07:06] but I'm proposing that there is, it's got to be somewhere in the middle, right?

[1:07:10] And we're not up to your attention that there are puzzles in the floor,

[1:07:13] whether it's a public room, so that it's really rotten.

[1:07:17] It's like a wooden church.

[1:07:20] That's not what we're saying, right?

[1:07:22] I think it's also not perfect, right?

[1:07:26] It has some severe challenges facing it.

[1:07:30] And so what I think that says is

[1:07:33] it cannot be repetitive, but there are probably

[1:07:36] more that we can show to demonstrate that.

[1:07:41] And so I think that relates to, you know, one component of the request that our core council

[1:07:48] has is the demolition questions, which I think, because it seems like maybe we have a lot

[1:07:56] to share, but two, I think relative to the proposed architecture of the new model,

[1:08:04] should the demolition be approved in the birthplace, I think the ones concerned

[1:08:08] are progressively addressable, if that's the word.

[1:08:14] See how that was submitted?

[1:08:16] That's what the facade and architecture of China

[1:08:18] was deferred by the applicant.

[1:08:19] There was certainly a high rate of submit

[1:08:21] to the council to take effort to incorporate

[1:08:23] historic elements and treatments to the giggles

[1:08:26] and certain other Victorian elements

[1:08:28] and building materials and color calipers.

[1:08:31] But what's pretty bad is whether there is a lot

[1:08:41] There's a lot you can do with a facade to add to historical evidence and really have that.

[1:08:48] When you look at the structure, how does it have to work out?

[1:08:51] To make that sort of a personal thought, I think there's a lot that we can do with our architect,

[1:08:57] with other side professionals to get in there.

[1:08:59] So I actually have two different but related concerns there,

[1:09:04] but I think architectural elements is probably

[1:09:07] key here of the two to address.

[1:09:16] I'm hearing a lot about we need to address this,

[1:09:18] we need to, we can do this, possible to do this,

[1:09:22] but I don't know who I am.

[1:09:23] Yeah, I'm going to try to figure out what you're doing.

[1:09:26] One way or the other, you're giving me

[1:09:27] a little bit of a big signal.

[1:09:29] Are you thinking that to approve it,

[1:09:31] As it is, or if he wants to take the fact,

[1:09:33] they were re-addressing, because it was not approved.

[1:09:36] It was a 12-month-old or 6-month-old.

[1:09:37] For that 12-month-old, I'm not trying to get you here

[1:09:41] in these times, represent my client.

[1:09:43] We don't want her to be a burden tonight.

[1:09:45] That's not what we want, right?

[1:09:47] But my client wants to be a good neighbor.

[1:09:50] She doesn't have to stay in the city.

[1:09:51] She lives in here.

[1:09:52] She wants to stay, she wants to be a good neighbor,

[1:09:54] and she wants to be called by her peers and her neighbors

[1:09:56] and somebody who did the right thing, right?

[1:09:58] So, we would love to be approval of the diet and that's what we would ask for.

[1:10:04] But just concerns about any aspect of the application, absolutely.

[1:10:09] We would ask, you know, please give us the opportunity to address those in more detail.

[1:10:14] They're, you know, one of the other, you know, that's what the NRP's meeting,

[1:10:20] where we had a positive recommendation to show concerns, seeing the light.

[1:10:24] I think we heard about some concerns from members of the community

[1:10:27] and the evers of the committee and the court here at the College and the Council and the

[1:10:31] work sessions. And we wanted quite a bit of work for it. I think we were just always

[1:10:35] just trying to turn it around in two weeks. Well, thanks, you've been picking between. So

[1:10:40] it's not really an opportunity to try to be Q.

[1:10:44] If the county likes it and we're firm in it, we would

[1:10:47] love that. If we're not there, we would respectfully request

[1:10:51] to take a little position and allow us additional opportunity

[1:10:55] need to address those concerns.

[1:10:57] Thank you.

[1:10:58] It's hard to understand.

[1:11:00] Because you can't say, we can do better.

[1:11:01] We can do better.

[1:11:01] We can do better on the sign.

[1:11:03] And then approve it as it is.

[1:11:05] And once we approve it, there's no more sign of standards.

[1:11:09] You can demolish it and know what you want.

[1:11:12] It's the fault for it was like, because I'm here

[1:11:14] and we need to do better.

[1:11:15] We just choose not to do better.

[1:11:17] Well, so I mean, it's not about what you do.

[1:11:21] We like the design of the house.

[1:11:23] We think it's appropriate.

[1:11:28] Yeah, sir. Absolutely. I mean, we wouldn't have submitted an application and put forth the effort of hiring design professionals and a builder and that sort of thing if we didn't take it

[1:11:42] and her license so much, she wants to build a work there, right?

[1:11:45] And so I think what we're just trying to do in a second is what we're going to do

[1:11:51] is what we submit it to the city.

[1:11:53] We like it.

[1:11:54] If you are done, we want to make you happy.

[1:11:57] If you don't like it, then neither do we.

[1:12:01] Thank you.

[1:12:01] Right?

[1:12:01] Well, we want to try to address it.

[1:12:04] That's fine.

[1:12:05] But I was trying to not make it.

[1:12:06] Let's see.

[1:12:06] We're trying to get it to the end so that we know it's going to be the same time.

[1:12:09] And we're the same kind of guys that work here.

[1:12:11] We're the same kind of guys that work here.

[1:12:14] It really seems like we have two questions in front of us,

[1:12:17] one of which is the gatekeeper and the other one.

[1:12:20] There are a lot of

[1:12:25] reasons why we have to approve

[1:12:31] here in our historic home.

[1:12:34] It's that we have to keep historic homes

[1:12:37] within our community.

[1:12:40] It's really it's preachy, it's really nice to start

[1:12:43] But what you're left with is not the historic community that is more preserved for the future.

[1:12:53] At the same time, there's a really large opportunity here for the applicant to take to the existing room.

[1:13:04] As needed, you raise it up so you've got, you know, a few minutes and other under the

[1:13:09] crossbees and add to the back.

[1:13:12] I think a lot more than that, you can see it could be done in a short time.

[1:13:17] You won't, in a short time.

[1:13:19] So, no, of course it was my day, but it's not.

[1:13:23] I love it when you restore it.

[1:13:25] You know, I always take a lot of work.

[1:13:28] I also know they're worth it.

[1:13:29] My story call that's renovated is more valuable than a brand new, freshly built home.

[1:13:41] My suggestion, and we get to it, my colleagues, let's table this matter and maybe I shouldn't

[1:13:50] bring that up until our discussion.

[1:13:56] I'm in favor of denying at this point the square down to begin with, so there's no point in talking about the rest of it.

[1:14:05] This is back with better plan for what to do with the existing money.

[1:14:39] And you go, yeah, that's a good thing.

[1:14:41] If you just make sure it's the right character,

[1:14:43] if you want to consider it, but if you don't want to,

[1:14:45] then we'll say, if you're a character or a design,

[1:14:48] because if you just want to create a character,

[1:14:50] it's not going to matter, or if you need to,

[1:14:52] or if you don't want to,

[1:14:54] you will want to make that a number

[1:14:55] that's going to have to go through it.

[1:14:57] It's not going to see what you're saying.

[1:15:04] The chairman of the district council has the

[1:15:10] opportunity to do that.

[1:15:11] I'm going to put that on the agenda meeting, the council meeting, the hearing,

[1:15:14] but the committee members and councils will all assist.

[1:15:17] And to get that done, I'm going to be in the talk of how you reported that.

[1:15:21] I'm just going to say a lot of stuff.

[1:15:22] I'm sure that my peers would have roll calls about that.

[1:15:25] Thank you.

[1:15:34] Mr. Scott.

[1:15:35] Hi, Mr. Mayor.

[1:15:36] I'd like to move container site item.

[1:15:39] Florida has a next policy work session.

[1:15:43] Is that changes to an offtime, or should we move with the policy work session?

[1:15:50] We have a motion on the floor to move the unit item, and we have a second all in favor.

[1:16:02] I think I'm going to raise my right hand right now.

[1:16:04] So, I'm going to move

[1:16:11] to item five, which is City Council Bill of the BRB Approval,

[1:16:19] COA 2045, 037.

[1:16:24] I feel that one is a whole majority of what you

[1:16:32] may or may not know.

[1:16:32] So, this is, as mentioned in the policy work section, I wanted to use circumstances

[1:16:37] This is where Council is being asked to sit as an appellate body for one of the four

[1:16:44] of the authorities in this case of the Architectural Review Board.

[1:16:47] So what we're in front of you tonight is the application that was submitted for this proposal

[1:16:54] at 60 Bergen Street in compliance with the architectural review standards and also

[1:17:00] with the comprehensive plan.

[1:17:03] So if this will be a public hearing and everyone will have the opportunity to present

[1:17:10] students

[1:17:10] that they have in support and in opposition, if there's any questions or see direct answers

[1:17:16] now, we'll move to the public hearing.

[1:17:27] Before the presentation, so it's okay to ask for a point on the slide for public

[1:17:39] What department are we in?

[1:17:41] What department are we in?

[1:17:41] It's public hearing.

[1:17:43] Essentially, you guys are re-hearing the ARB hearing I do.

[1:17:46] So, yeah, everything is essentially brand new.

[1:17:49] That's one thing I should clarify, that's when we go for a vote,

[1:17:53] I suggest that we just treat this as a brand new application

[1:17:56] as opposed to whether or not we are going to approve a appeal

[1:18:01] or voting to approve a prior recommendation.

[1:18:03] Just treat this as a brand new application.

[1:18:05] So, yes, there would be a public hearing.

[1:18:08] would be able to speak with performance of the application

[1:18:13] and then opposition would be able to speak.

[1:18:18] Okay.

[1:18:20] It's going to be a very successful success.

[1:18:22] Constitutional objection.

[1:18:23] I don't know if some of our last meeting was.

[1:18:27] We rarely did this before.

[1:18:28] I

[1:18:31] knew a lot of people were listening to this.

[1:18:33] So we're going to be looking at it before,

[1:18:38] feeding the applicant before,

[1:18:39] or the local government body.

[1:18:42] For example, they say that they believe that

[1:18:46] a ordinance for regulation is being applied

[1:18:49] against them unconstitutionally.

[1:18:51] They have their requirement under Georgia law

[1:18:54] to tell you that a set of times

[1:18:56] in a race for constitutional objections

[1:18:58] that's essentially, in any light of notice,

[1:19:01] that we would receive in other contexts.

[1:19:04] But this is more narrowly tailored

[1:19:05] to the constitutionality of an ordinance.

[1:19:07] So, preserving rights is regular to see that in a lot of zoning applications, we don't

[1:19:15] seem to see them a lot, but in other jurisdictions, in every application, you'd see something

[1:19:21] along these lines.

[1:19:22] So, in any case, it is right for things.

[1:19:32] the public opinion tenement to, I guess, a rebuttal if the appellant, if the appeal

[1:19:49] is to counsel and then to speak down to the public hearing of condolences, it's not

[1:19:59] it's very awkward. This is an overreview, meaning that everything, the record is brand new. And so,

[1:20:07] essentially, the Council has the recommendation from ARBT. They have that in their agenda project.

[1:20:15] The Council is making its own decision and they're making it as a brand new decision, as a brand

[1:20:20] and new public hearing.

[1:20:22] So you should be able to know, because it's a full

[1:20:23] that it's a public hearing process.

[1:20:26] The Justice of the ARB would have gone through a public hearing

[1:20:28] process, but since it's an annual student,

[1:20:31] any other issues in the ARB?

[1:20:33] OK,

[1:20:37] so at this point, we will open the floor for public comment.

[1:20:52] And again, I think it's a brand-new application.

[1:20:56] Yes,

[1:21:12] stay here.

[1:21:15] Well, like I said, I'll just have a brief here.

[1:21:17] My name is Ian McCrory, I represent Stan Howington.

[1:21:20] Stan is a builder, he built a number of houses here on Barton Street.

[1:21:24] Based on the previous application, they showed a number of pictures of new builds on Barton Street.

[1:21:29] So my client mentioned to me that all of this house was built in my client, Stan Howington.

[1:21:34] So this property, every year while there is a number of old, before homes,

[1:21:39] it is mixed into the number of new builds on this property, which all are beautiful homes on the street here.

[1:21:44] but I am going to kind of touch here.

[1:21:47] I did an accomplished objection letter.

[1:21:50] That is pretty standard business.

[1:21:51] That's just us, you know,

[1:21:53] waiving or reserving our rights in case of another appeal here.

[1:21:57] It is just standard business here.

[1:21:58] So I put them before the council here after this,

[1:22:01] you know, 30 days since hearing to render a decision.

[1:22:04] We put everything in that letter.

[1:22:06] The record is all in there.

[1:22:08] We have our architecture review board,

[1:22:10] our, so we get the reference application

[1:22:12] that's all in there.

[1:22:13] We're going to review that record early and look at everything, but we're here today because

[1:22:18] there was an initial file after my client was transferred to this kid's gift of appropriateness

[1:22:24] following his architecture of new board hearing.

[1:22:28] Mr. Howie did my client he's a builder, he represents a property owner there on 60 Barton

[1:22:32] Street.

[1:22:33] He was very early stages of building home there for the property owner at 60 Barton

[1:22:38] Street and more across and in that process he's already had to go in front of the

[1:22:42] architecture view board. He's already been granted a certificate of appropriateness from the board, and within the process of doing that, he showed that the home was consistent with the architectural design and aesthetic guidelines, standards of similarly situated homes on Barton Street, Sunset, Buchanan and surrounding area.

[1:23:01] He was able to do that.

[1:23:03] The architecture review board agreed with him and they found that his design was of the

[1:23:08] standards of Norcross that met the design aesthetic standards of Norcross in the Norcross

[1:23:15] Code.

[1:23:16] And one thing that's important here and that was framed by Bill here in his agenda item

[1:23:21] is that the architecture review board, they are there to interpret design and aesthetic

[1:23:26] standards.

[1:23:27] That is the number one reason that they exist.

[1:23:29] It's the same corporate design, it's set of standards.

[1:23:32] I put them on architectural in my constitutional

[1:23:36] ejection letter.

[1:23:37] The power is conferred upon the ARB inside the board,

[1:23:42] inside the PO section 103.5.

[1:23:44] So the architecture of the board is hereby created

[1:23:47] where the ARB shall be the review authority

[1:23:49] of current applications related to the following.

[1:23:51] The new construction of residential facades

[1:23:53] including pink color, new construction for medical facades,

[1:23:56] Modification of existing commercial thoughts, public building thoughts, public monuments, and pavilions.

[1:24:02] So these are all things, all architectural and aesthetic concerns.

[1:24:07] The appeal here was brought by Mr. Reinhardt, and it only raises form-water water concerns.

[1:24:16] And that's important because that doesn't raise any architectural or aesthetic concerns at all.

[1:24:22] It only raises form-water concerns.

[1:24:24] Now, there being it's not an engineering board, it's not a stormwater runoff concern,

[1:24:30] we contend that we're going to have to deal with all that in real life when we apply for a land disturbance permit.

[1:24:36] But here, you know, the appeal is filed and it doesn't raise any concerns,

[1:24:42] and all it does is raise stormwater runoff concerns,

[1:24:46] and in the appeal there was video that I'm sure you all have all seen,

[1:24:51] and it showed stormwater runoff running on to what Mr. Reinhardt reported to be his property.

[1:24:58] That's not even Mr. Reinhardt's property.

[1:25:00] It is his property that is actually owned by the city of Warcross.

[1:25:04] And upon information and belief, it is actually designed to be for stormwater runoff concerns.

[1:25:10] There is a culvert on that property owned by the city of Warcross.

[1:25:14] So that's what it exists for.

[1:25:16] Our number one concern here is we don't want Mr. Howardson to be saddled with having to deal with this form of management, this type of area.

[1:25:25] He should not have to be saddled with us. This is just an architectural review board.

[1:25:30] Some certificate of appropriate shown that his property and his sign is compatible with this surrounding area.

[1:25:37] And that's what it is. He built other houses in this area. His home is consistent with other homes in this area that he's built.

[1:25:42] to the architecture review board agree with that and put their sample approval on that.

[1:25:47] You know, the architecture review board did not do any review of the form water or engineering

[1:25:52] concerns because they're not really supposed to do that.

[1:25:54] That's for a review when Mr. Halsey does an LDP permit and a building permit and we'll

[1:26:00] get to that.

[1:26:01] But I just want to do a little bit of rebuttal here as I did with all the comments.

[1:26:07] There's been a lot of issues raised about a retaining wall and a removal of a retaining

[1:26:11] wall.

[1:26:11] We don't plan on the moving or retaining wall, we plan on moving a small section of the retaining wall, but not at City Barton Street, which is the subject property here.

[1:26:20] We plan on removing a section of the Atterbury Garden Street, the property next door, which is not across the street from the appellate property.

[1:26:28] And the trees, there's been other concern raised about removing trees at the subject property.

[1:26:34] Those trees already need to come down.

[1:26:36] We have an arborist letter attached to this constant

[1:26:39] from the actual letter thing.

[1:26:40] Those trees are leaning over,

[1:26:42] or if it's concerned, the canopy is all overgrown,

[1:26:45] leaning towards the roadways,

[1:26:47] leaning towards actually the appellate path.

[1:26:48] So those trees need to come down.

[1:26:51] Another thing that I want to praise is Ms. Fowler,

[1:26:56] Ms. Dr. P. Fowler, she's, importantly,

[1:27:00] not the appellant here. She raised another, she issued a letter, she sent it in. She's not the appellant. She raised a number of architectural issues, but she's not the appellant here. I would like the council to focus here on the appellant who's the Reinhardt's in his field.

[1:27:16] not as much as an issue here, that's in front of the council, that's about an issue.

[1:27:21] But, um, I'm not standing this, you know, I've already had a conversation with Bill Steele and Mooder.

[1:27:26] We're not required to do this, but in an effort to show that we're dedicated to this area,

[1:27:30] we're dedicated for the preservation of water and streets.

[1:27:33] We are willing to do a storm water hydrology study for 60 water and streets

[1:27:38] showing that we can meet the flexibility of North Cross storm water standards.

[1:27:42] We already have to do that. We do an LDP.

[1:27:44] You know, we're willing to do that.

[1:27:46] We're willing to show that we can make that one of the conditions.

[1:27:49] We can meet all of the stormwater concerns there, but the bottom line is that the stormwater

[1:27:54] runoff concerns have no business in an architectural review board hearing.

[1:27:59] They have no business in any kind of determination, whether or not the room is consistent with

[1:28:03] the architectural design of the nearby caret area.

[1:28:07] So we would submit that you just look over our application again and just, you know,

[1:28:11] Make sure that you look at it thoroughly and just understand that, you know,

[1:28:16] engineering stormwater design standards are not focused, the ARB usually looks at.

[1:28:21] They're not consistent with architectural design standards.

[1:28:24] It's not within the ARB's power to do.

[1:28:26] The code makes it very clear what the ARB has power to do and not do,

[1:28:30] and they don't have engineering or any kind of power like that.

[1:28:33] But Mr. Hamilton might have a few things to say as well.

[1:28:35] He's going to come up here.

[1:28:36] I

[1:28:42] was told that I would see persons sitting in rows talking about the storm water at all.

[1:28:48] When we brought up our building permit, we had to maintain or meet the standards that the city applied.

[1:28:55] That's not a problem. We're going to bring that.

[1:28:57] And I just decided to build a permit.

[1:29:00] The PSU has been brought up about a shared property.

[1:29:03] I have a city for a shared driveway.

[1:29:06] And since they were going to work with me,

[1:29:09] That was part of the planning to avoid messing with returning home on Thursday.

[1:29:15] However, after meeting with the city, the city commissioner, the situation was pretty bad.

[1:29:22] There were a few other folks.

[1:29:25] If I'm talking to another city, it's going to have to remove the wall,

[1:29:28] and throw them down when I have to.

[1:29:30] No interest in disturbing any more than about 25 feet of it.

[1:29:34] It's going to compromise it.

[1:29:35] Actually, we will make it a little bit stronger by plugging it into a foreign concrete that's not on the slide.

[1:29:42] It has nothing to do with this application.

[1:29:45] Not one thing.

[1:29:47] Listening to some of the injections of the other applicant, you know, like Ian was saying,

[1:29:54] I did it over and over again.

[1:29:56] So call is an easy one of them.

[1:30:02] Any standard of architecture is for context.

[1:30:09] Architecture changes over time.

[1:30:12] Again, there are 1960s things that's on that street that, you know,

[1:30:18] based on what I've heard, nothing will ever be taken down.

[1:30:26] So there are a lot of companies on that street,

[1:30:31] but only the standards that answer the question.

[1:30:33] However, when you build with custom homework,

[1:30:36] If you get to select what you like and you get to an employer, it's your role that you like.

[1:30:42] When you're in a department, a house to look at, you've got to build your own house because you've got some design.

[1:30:49] And if any of you were to come to me, I'd vibrate all of this way, not vibrate just like that.

[1:30:56] Thanks, Dan. Appreciate that.

[1:30:57] All right, that ends the support portion of this rezoning.

[1:31:07] So at this time, we're still open for public discussion.

[1:31:12] We're giving a lot of time to the opposition.

[1:31:20] And again, we have a lot of time to bring

[1:31:27] you around.

[1:31:27] Our 61 North Park is free.

[1:31:31] A lot of things over here.

[1:31:34] The big picture is the whole development that, like I said earlier, is there a way to pull

[1:31:40] up the process

[1:31:53] -facing pressure part that

[1:31:58] was shut down?

[1:31:59] So what this degree to with them was to do a shared driveway on these back two lines.

[1:32:07] And so the one that's highlighted right there is the one that's in question.

[1:32:13] And every time I talked to Stan, he said,

[1:32:17] I don't want to take down the wall.

[1:32:18] I don't want to take down the trees on the wall.

[1:32:21] I don't want to touch the wall.

[1:32:22] Any part of the wall is very capable.

[1:32:25] Every time I talked to Stan, he said he was going to do a shared driveway

[1:32:29] so that he could not touch the wall.

[1:32:33] And this application for this ARB application just got approved

[1:32:38] a shared driveway, and that's why we're here.

[1:32:40] That's why I cemented the appeal.

[1:32:43] And now I'm stuck in the middle of the city planner.

[1:32:48] The city planner dropped the ball and didn't have this rightful.

[1:32:52] But it was an agreement.

[1:32:53] It was an agreement with the city.

[1:32:55] It was an agreement with the stand.

[1:32:57] And I've had a great relationship with the stand.

[1:32:59] I don't want to be here in the middle.

[1:33:01] But, Stan, you're going against your word.

[1:33:04] Every time I talk to you, sure.

[1:33:06] Every time you talk to me, he said he was not interested at all.

[1:33:09] And now he's saying, this is a tree,

[1:33:18] the canopy is stretched on that side because that's where

[1:33:23] you can keep all the trees out. So, I don't know if I address this harvest in any of the trees.

[1:33:31] The big picture is that the trees need to stay. The wall needs to stay.

[1:33:43] If your chance at the

[1:33:44] city, at the city castle, to uphold what should have been, right, what should have been

[1:33:50] in particular, whoever

[1:34:07] is this year is in support of this in 97 minutes, and what Mrs. Power had to say earlier, she'll reiterate with some of her points.

[1:34:17] One thing I'll say now that this is pulled out is the impervious surface of the driveway, the U-shaped driveway is not in a whole,

[1:34:34] it's impervious to your

[1:34:49] time.

[1:34:49] I'm

[1:35:00] going to show them to you.

[1:35:03] Hey there, my name is Shannon Anton.

[1:35:06] I live at 89 North Barton, which is diagonally across from this lot.

[1:35:13] And basically, I kind of bring things, considering the water situation

[1:35:19] and the change in this driveway and the habit, regardless of which lot

[1:35:24] you're cutting the retaining wall on.

[1:35:26] If I have looked out my window with heavy rains and you're watching gallons and gallons,

[1:35:32] like, it's crazy how much is coming down where the retaining wall at times doesn't even seem

[1:35:37] like it's quite enough, filling in there and cutting 20 feet off of it uphill isn't going

[1:35:45] to make any difference on where, on how much water is, you know, it's still, it's still

[1:35:49] a ton of water coming down.

[1:35:52] What's the change in this year's driveway, and what, I agree with Brady on that.

[1:35:56] In addition, removing that is another, if you remove part of it, it's that exchange as well,

[1:36:02] to what we like to call the story of North Cross.

[1:36:05] And that, including what I've heard about the side of the home, not being in line with the story of North Cross.

[1:36:12] I just think there seems like maybe some break from all of this in a big picture way,

[1:36:17] regardless of this being only an appeal for ARV, et cetera.

[1:36:21] But I just have completely in agreement with Brynsox.

[1:36:36] This sounds, like I said, all right,

[1:36:39] because I think it was already going to be with Asian

[1:36:40] or French Brynsox, none of which

[1:36:42] is compatible with any other distorts

[1:36:44] found out in the neighborhood or in the area.

[1:36:48] And I want to say, in history,

[1:36:49] you should be the president, architectural president,

[1:36:52] in the middle class of the district, not builders.

[1:36:54] The date of approval, mentioned in the feedery, once again we've talked about the utility,

[1:37:00] also the architecture review board approved a driveway in this, that restricts, how do

[1:37:08] I say this very quickly, the rest of the share of driveway that would accommodate future

[1:37:12] construction in the area, use of the existing retaining wall around our home, will eventually

[1:37:18] be compromised.

[1:37:21] As far as these entities are approved with the condition of a shared drive one day,

[1:37:26] we probably wouldn't even be here right now.

[1:37:31] Anyone else?

[1:37:43] I did this in a CD3 from 174 Park Park, and I spoke at the policy session a few weeks ago

[1:37:50] and I attended one of our two Majority Council this morning.

[1:37:55] I am in support of this appeal because of the issues of the water runoff.

[1:38:04] And I appreciate the response I got from Councilman Myers, who, I think, had a very

[1:38:14] intense thought. It's a hard to make a decision if you don't have the data.

[1:38:19] And, you know, so, when you work in a body of metal, you work to save your,

[1:38:29] Once you pull the plug, you can't, you know, look in nature.

[1:38:37] It's bad.

[1:38:39] I think there's no information so that we don't have, you know, a disaster on our hands.

[1:38:47] Yeah, yeah.

[1:38:49] So I'm in support of this appeal.

[1:38:51] I hope you support it.

[1:38:53] Thank you.

[1:38:54] Thank you.

[1:38:54] We don't know if it's

[1:39:07] part of the pre-bords or the city around you, but that's all we have to do with these issues.

[1:39:17] We're not planning

[1:39:22] 2045, we're going to roll on the state policies since the board developed

[1:39:31] them.

[1:39:31] and

[1:39:36] embarking on this, you know,

[1:39:39] reach this old forest soil,

[1:39:42] and the edges of the forest

[1:39:47] will agree that the rain

[1:39:49] probably aren't appropriate

[1:39:51] to

[1:39:54] neighborhoods.

[1:39:55] Neighborhood trees have been removed,

[1:39:57] but the intact soils

[1:40:01] around the edge

[1:40:02] are inserved

[1:40:04] in

[1:40:14] 30 or 40 years to provide shade

[1:40:16] on the forest.

[1:40:51] We will open

[1:40:56] the pool for Allison's comments or questions, emotions this time.

[1:41:07] No questions.

[1:41:08] That was what we came up with.

[1:41:11] So by receiving our charge here, we are supposed to act as though we were ARB and everything

[1:41:20] was starting to crash.

[1:41:24] But they've had some comments on here that are pursuing architectural issues that I don't

[1:41:33] qualify to what they say, yeah, you don't have to.

[1:41:37] But leaving it just to architectural discussion,

[1:41:43] I might make one point that City Manager mentioned

[1:41:50] to be earlier today that a house that's 5,000 square feet is by coordinates required to

[1:41:56] have a full engineering study on what to do with stormwater and in order to make the property

[1:42:11] the same or less the impact on the neighboring sites.

[1:42:17] That's part of our code already.

[1:42:19] It exists in the code already, and that was part of the condition that the applicant representative was addressing there.

[1:42:29] That standard applies whenever there is a subdivision that's created that deserves more than 5,000 square feet,

[1:42:35] which is when you combine the four virtuals that were subdivided.

[1:42:40] The total is 5,000 square feet.

[1:42:47] That's correct, but we aggregate that in this context.

[1:42:51] So as we've gone through it right now, we've got one-third of the site already developed.

[1:42:59] There was no discussion of stormwater.

[1:43:04] There's no discussion at that time.

[1:43:07] As far as I know, the house up there in Buchanan didn't provide a stormwater plan.

[1:43:14] I believe that that was already provided on the organic if

[1:43:23] there was there would be a whole entire property

[1:43:25] Just from one house site. There is for each individual plot. So each individual plot has to provide a hydrology study

[1:43:31] if the entire property is

[1:43:34] Pretty have individual

[1:43:40] I'm understanding your

[1:43:49] to the city's standard, in case of a certified engineering

[1:43:56] study, it will address issues like whether or not

[1:44:01] the purpose papers are suitable in that location.

[1:44:05] They may well require some sort of stormwater retention

[1:44:12] or detention in order to make the property sort of

[1:44:17] That's right, because it would be up to an engineer.

[1:44:21] That's right, but our staff would review and also that they would have a professional engineer.

[1:44:27] So it was not on our agenda to discuss that particular thing, because it's already in the ordinance.

[1:44:34] They already have to do it,

[1:44:37] and so whether or not we can concur with the ARB or not,

[1:44:43] it's already effected.

[1:44:44] It's already effected.

[1:44:48] I want to say one thing that I think is a good instance, but we're going to take a

[1:44:54] short review or something, and then again, it's a retaining law that runs along from

[1:44:59] the side.

[1:45:00] There are two laws on this property, which is guardianships, and it's made of rodent, and I'm not, I haven't been behind it, but I know it happens when you have rodent contact in soil for 20 or 30 meters, it's not a very good change.

[1:45:20] I think that going along needs to be a conditioned calm on this,

[1:45:26] that he gets rebuilt every day.

[1:45:27] He wants the entire length of bar and string,

[1:45:30] whether or not he punishes through it at any particular point,

[1:45:34] isn't actually in front of us right now,

[1:45:36] but it needs to be part of the overall construction.

[1:45:42] Is that beginning along these three rebuilds?

[1:45:43] So one of the communities that were lost, in other words, stone material or stone-yation

[1:45:53] material, something that's not going to degrade in 20 years, I think that's in the purview

[1:46:00] of architecture because it's what it looks like, right, and so, well, it is what it looks

[1:46:08] It's like from the side of the, from the country.

[1:46:12] So that seems like that should be a condition.

[1:46:15] This is not the cultural condition.

[1:46:17] So this is my opinion.

[1:46:20] And what are my two points?

[1:46:22] Point three.

[1:46:30] I have no idea what you're saying,

[1:46:31] that the return to the wall is following by the city.

[1:46:35] Is it going out of that actor?

[1:46:37] It's on the city, rather, Lloyd.

[1:46:39] On the city?

[1:46:41] Yes, I know.

[1:46:42] I just don't know how to get into it,

[1:46:43] but it's on our property,

[1:46:44] And I think we've got a transition,

[1:46:50] I would say,

[1:46:51] I would say, out of the community and the whole thing to do,

[1:46:55] so we know this need to go forward.

[1:46:57] I think what I'm trying to do is, in terms of

[1:47:00] how the decision to make is a decision

[1:47:01] and some kind of application or the ability

[1:47:04] for the developer to do, in terms of setting this free,

[1:47:09] in terms of the decision, what I think we're going to say

[1:47:13] is what we're going to do is we're going to help the company.

[1:47:15] We owe, we owe property to

[1:47:20] the damsel for rescuing,

[1:47:24] for an offer,

[1:47:27] 100% the city.

[1:47:32] I think Councilman Gettner was speaking to what replace is it and I, I, I'm not saying

[1:47:36] we don't have a plan, I'm not saying what would replace it or in what order that would land.

[1:47:40] I think that, I think that's what I'm saying.

[1:47:43] For a representative, one representative of Africa mentioned, don't just eat,

[1:47:47] usually eat from the global level of the rest of the world.

[1:47:49] Make sure you don't eat for the next dollar or something like that.

[1:47:53] If you want to buy us,

[1:47:59] or even search out wall and

[1:48:04] visit,

[1:48:04] then that's also just free rights.

[1:48:06] So I think you're just clear that this is not worth the decision.

[1:48:10] It's not. The rest of this decision is a population owner's decision.

[1:48:13] You can't do this decision to protect the city out of your place.

[1:48:16] That's a big option.

[1:48:17] It's an out of your way.

[1:48:18] You can't solve it.

[1:48:20] Well, I'm sure you can take it as well,

[1:48:22] so I think you're going to replace it.

[1:48:24] And you should be able to continue without a small amount of it.

[1:48:26] That people will be insiders.

[1:48:27] but

[1:48:37] I have to take it just like I'm thinking,

[1:48:40] but to me, too, why is

[1:48:43] there any reason

[1:48:43] that we're going to be sanders after

[1:48:49] this?

[1:48:50] Is this, I don't

[1:48:54] know what to say,

[1:48:54] because I don't know what's

[1:48:58] happening right there.

[1:49:00] It's important to me that it wasn't

[1:49:02] a strategic opportunity

[1:49:06] for us to do

[1:49:08] a lot of what we've done,

[1:49:11] just to see what we can do to fix that.

[1:49:12] That's a success.

[1:49:17] Between different societies,

[1:49:18] there's only one property.

[1:49:20] It's the process of underlying security

[1:49:22] There were people who didn't have social security

[1:49:23] or people who were being born.

[1:49:24] And so they would have the opportunity

[1:49:26] to interact with other people in England.

[1:49:28] This would probably be part of how

[1:49:29] you have to listen to the system installed.

[1:49:33] But that's just one of the things

[1:49:34] that the large-year society can do.

[1:49:35] And that's why we're doing all of them.

[1:49:37] And so it means you need to have an application

[1:49:40] or possibly an application that

[1:49:42] says, as well, we'll get to that one later

[1:49:44] in this next one.

[1:49:50] So you just have to have some ability to listen.

[1:49:52] And as I have a team that I'm going to work on,

[1:49:54] We're going to put on some sort of trust in all of them.

[1:49:55] Take care of it until you come.

[1:49:57] We'll get you another out in our neighborhood.

[1:49:58] That's the other side of the neighborhood.

[1:49:59] We're going to do a little more of this at a time.

[1:50:01] We're going to do that.

[1:50:02] We'll be able to sort of figure that out.

[1:50:04] So that's a lot of stuff that's in here.

[1:50:06] And that's going to be a lot of work.

[1:50:07] We are, of course, gracious authorities.

[1:50:09] We're going to do that as well.

[1:50:10] I think obviously we've addressed that when we amended

[1:50:14] the subdivision ordinance, because now that subdivision

[1:50:18] is going to come back in front of you.

[1:50:19] And so if there are conditions that we want to address

[1:50:23] kind of site layout, we can do that at that point.

[1:50:26] So I think that's something that in the future would not

[1:50:30] be an issue, but as you mentioned, it's an issue here.

[1:50:33] Yeah, I think it's a good question.

[1:50:34] I think it's a good question.

[1:50:35] So I think it might be better than when this was totally

[1:50:37] a part of a definitely good point.

[1:50:39] So I think we're going to go like that.

[1:50:41] So I think we're going to go like that.

[1:50:43] I'm sorry.

[1:50:45] So we're not going to take it back to the same point.

[1:50:47] We're going to take it back to the same point.

[1:50:48] I think we're going to take it back to the same point.

[1:50:49] I don't care about the government being on our board.

[1:50:52] The whole story was almost mentioned,

[1:50:54] I've had this issue a couple times.

[1:50:56] We were, we were few years old,

[1:51:00] I was born and raised here in Hollywood

[1:51:03] and there's this activity that's in the kitchen

[1:51:05] that I have at the same point.

[1:51:08] I mean, that's really the whole kind of

[1:51:09] kind of make that decision when you're here at the hotel.

[1:51:12] And so I'm, I'm a little bit,

[1:51:13] I'm scared to make a decision on the sale of the hotel

[1:51:18] that went before the architecture

[1:51:19] before previously, but now it's upon us,

[1:51:22] as a part of that application.

[1:51:24] So that's another important thing to mention.

[1:51:29] To see the quality through LDP, individual LDP,

[1:51:34] and it looks like it's going to be more mitigation.

[1:51:36] The city owns that's going to be more mitigation.

[1:51:39] Also, at least my last comment will be a movement

[1:51:43] that will let us live here in our future,

[1:51:47] in our community, but also the release of the property

[1:51:51] owners who already live in our community

[1:51:53] are not impacted, and it sounds to me

[1:51:56] that there is a disability that could potentially do some

[1:51:59] approval of this application.

[1:52:03] I'm not certain, and so I just want to turn off the answer

[1:52:07] just to make a concrete decision on that.

[1:52:09] And we're not in a position where we would be willing to make

[1:52:12] such commerce that the conclusion that there is no

[1:52:17] high-level IDD or engineering required before the

[1:52:21] government is signed.

[1:52:22] because then we're contributing to the society and it's not feasible, but this is the

[1:52:26] set of the type of engineering that we're trying to approach, right?

[1:52:31] This is the type of research that we're looking for, engineering, engineering

[1:52:35] standards, to set that as much as being an engineer.

[1:52:38] So there are a lot of different types of sciences that we're trying to lay it on

[1:52:42] for a particular, so it's a multiple model.

[1:52:46] You know, I think we spoke less about all communities.

[1:52:49] this bill than this particular juncture, but they should open questions in terms of

[1:52:54] staff, she should talk about what they want to look at, and then really I want to

[1:52:57] refer to the, in other words, to the whole community, so we'll have this one more

[1:53:00] of conversations or concerns, really, then in the preview of this piece of our

[1:53:04] application, which concerns me that we're just even, that's a huge question of this

[1:53:08] conversation, and this makes me want to say this one more time, but I'd like to be honest

[1:53:12] with you, our conversation has to come back for another opportunity for us,

[1:53:16] because we have to review their ALL to meet our status of council.

[1:53:20] So if you wouldn't want to review the hydrology component of that,

[1:53:24] that's just going to come back to the city engineer

[1:53:28] and the city engineer is going to review it to ensure it meets the stormwater standards.

[1:53:31] And those stormwater standards, we have the state standards.

[1:53:35] He'd be looking into that.

[1:53:38] We have the architectural review guidelines obviously.

[1:53:43] So we purposefully select the board and I think bylaws

[1:53:47] even require us to select in order to have experience

[1:53:51] in the industry and also know what it's like,

[1:53:56] but it's not necessarily an architect, right?

[1:53:59] And it is the way the ordinance puts that in front of us.

[1:54:03] So, and then I guess maybe don't point out

[1:54:07] what a priority on the process.

[1:54:09] You know, we said we were proud of tonight

[1:54:11] And this is just all you need to know is that the return of that house and where it's

[1:54:17] only there may not be just the design, the definition, and architectural.

[1:54:22] And if we can, you know, be consistent with the actual rules tonight, it would

[1:54:26] be important that you stay here, be here, get re-submitted.

[1:54:29] The applicant could re-submit it in this context because they're going for a

[1:54:34] particular appropriateness and not a re-zoning.

[1:54:36] So there's not that six months as well as months are.

[1:54:40] Okay.

[1:54:44] Any other questions?

[1:54:45] I'll go right into the map and Bruce did a great job of asking my questions.

[1:54:50] First of all, eloquently as usual.

[1:54:53] So I actually have a question built up about our role in this particular situation, where

[1:55:00] I think this is a day-no-lap application.

[1:55:02] However, we've all mentioned we're not architects and we don't have a lot of history

[1:55:07] and I can tell you there have been houses that have been built that I thought were

[1:55:10] to work houses in the world.

[1:55:12] And then they get some land state they're rallying in.

[1:55:15] And then sometimes, at times, they don't change the way.

[1:55:21] And most importantly, go out.

[1:55:23] Because this is rascally on the map where they are.

[1:55:25] But the first time I did this, it was always

[1:55:27] supposed to allow the architectural standards.

[1:55:30] Or in this case, because it's a different application.

[1:55:34] And I'm a policymaker.

[1:55:36] Am I allowed to talk about it?

[1:55:38] So am I allowed to wait in the storm water

[1:55:40] for the retention problem on that?

[1:55:42] It's a great job.

[1:55:43] No, but we are looking at the architectural review standards.

[1:55:46] And then the ordinance also allows

[1:55:49] the decision-making party to look at the conference.

[1:55:52] So who is interested to be part of the plan?

[1:55:55] The plan affords me to kind of the character

[1:55:57] of the neighborhood.

[1:55:57] Now, we don't have to let that forever exist going to.

[1:56:01] So yeah, the policymaking, we

[1:56:02] are outside of the legislative assumption

[1:56:05] And you'll decide what we call, what I do, initial ligates.

[1:56:08] You guys are keeping facts, and we are

[1:56:10] applying those facts to the standards that we have.

[1:56:12] And those standards are a big set of architectural reviews.

[1:56:16] And that's all.

[1:56:17] We're spending a lot of time outside of legislative.

[1:56:19] We just passed the night, aren't we?

[1:56:22] All our members, I think it was a former member of Bruce

[1:56:25] that reviewed.

[1:56:26] The

[1:56:28] former is reviewed.

[1:56:30] The other member of Bruce is a Bruce.

[1:56:33] Hey, right here.

[1:56:34] Or was it Gary?

[1:56:35] This carries to us on the backup versus our arborists.

[1:56:40] That's correct for the producer of what I'm saying.

[1:56:43] Don't believe the others.

[1:56:45] We've got the

[1:56:48] LDP stage.

[1:56:56] That's when LDP or BR building residential permits requested

[1:57:00] the arborists and the rest of the staff would review.

[1:57:03] And that's the point where the arborists will play.

[1:57:09] One last, I apologize for the portion.

[1:57:11] Right at the end of this.

[1:57:15] In the image process, we're talking a lot about the retaining wall and how the retaining wall will be handled,

[1:57:19] and it's our retaining wall, and it's ultimately our responsibility, although we can get into this process about maybe how it's handled.

[1:57:28] And we'd be responsible so that, in this process, to say that our retaining wall is the image we are,

[1:57:35] is still on job for better while it was damaged, not by our chiefs, but similarly, the street,

[1:57:44] the candidate is still torn up from the heavy damage caused by the heavy equipment.

[1:57:50] At what point is the city responsible, or if they have to get responsible for fixing some

[1:57:55] of the public issues that they've created?

[1:57:57] I think it's probably just sourcing where the damage occurred, and when it occurred, as to, you know, if it was when someone was doing work, and I don't see it.

[1:58:09] It might be something wrong to do here, but if it's long-term weather damage, it would be probably hard to determine without a third party looking at it.

[1:58:23] Are you ready?

[1:58:27] That's the way we're doing it, go ahead.

[1:58:29] You know what?

[1:58:30] All of this is self-explanatory.

[1:58:35] It's not wrong.

[1:58:37] It's 8-2-5-0-1.

[1:58:41] And it's...

[1:58:44] It's...

[1:58:45] It's a little bit...

[1:58:49] And that's all we're doing.

[1:58:50] It's the RV.

[1:58:52] There's no loud talking about it.

[1:58:55] in this free game, in this, you know, stuff stuff.

[1:59:04] My question was, my very first question was in sharing what you said.

[1:59:09] I don't think it's appropriate for me to ask any questions.

[1:59:11] No, it's not.

[1:59:12] Not in your book.

[1:59:14] Oh, that's fine.

[1:59:16] That's where we're at.

[1:59:17] That's the question.

[1:59:19] What's the ARV, how do you, to require a shared driveway as part of the plan

[1:59:25] the

[1:59:29] context in which that comes up, but it takes the ARB

[1:59:33] as reviewing on a parcel-to-a-parcel basis.

[1:59:36] And so it's opposed to a significant one parcel

[1:59:39] to a shared driveway when the other parcel isn't

[1:59:42] in front of the ARB.

[1:59:43] And the last thing when this comes up through a pod

[1:59:46] amendment, at that point, the ARB could certainly

[1:59:53] look at that.

[1:59:54] They have some 40 over site layout,

[1:59:57] Uh, and some landscape authorities are thinking...

[2:00:01] We'll say, just from my experience, that's not typically what they're looking at. They're looking at

[2:00:04] the architecture, um, property that deed was in their curfew.

[2:00:09] That's a question, um,

[2:00:15] certainly about this, but I'll give you a clue. If there was any law in the

[2:00:19] cities,

[2:00:22] you had a law firm, a property owner, from being able to access their property with a driveway

[2:00:26] because we have a law there, right? Or can we?

[2:00:31] We can't block them, but we can impose conditions that ensure that, uh, that the public infrastructure

[2:00:37] is preserved into essentially each waterfall is entitled to the access that it has available

[2:00:45] to public streets. We have to give them that access, but we can say, in order to get that

[2:00:50] access, we need to be sure that what you are doing isn't impacting first and foremost.

[2:00:57] Does that answer your question?

[2:00:58] No.

[2:00:58] I

[2:01:09] may not be globalized by the city, but it's run a little bit like that.

[2:01:14] Just to make sure that we require the developer type of leadership to replace the retaining wall

[2:01:20] with a more permanent structure.

[2:01:25] It's not a matter of whether or not it's a legal question, but we've got the definition of development.

[2:01:31] I think we put in conditions like sidewalks on the time that require radical improvement.

[2:01:39] that's not necessarily a property owner.

[2:01:42] I do think it matters with the retaining wall

[2:01:45] where this is going to land,

[2:01:47] and that's why I was saying I haven't seen a plan,

[2:01:48] because I can't imagine there's not enough right-of-way

[2:01:51] that actually built in the type of structured retaining wall

[2:01:55] that would be appropriate.

[2:01:56] There was even, you know,

[2:01:58] the need for the deers and the deers,

[2:01:59] and the deers had to be there.

[2:02:02] It's not as much large.

[2:02:05] So it's going to have to be replaced.

[2:02:07] Now, you can't replace it directly where it is, legally.

[2:02:12] I mean, I'd like to correct it.

[2:02:13] I think you could.

[2:02:14] Yeah, but I just won't know if, design-wise, or structurally,

[2:02:18] there's enough space there that that was just my point of view.

[2:02:21] Correctly.

[2:02:23] Correctly.

[2:02:23] And where that's going to land with them, right?

[2:02:25] I just, I just won't let you answer that.

[2:02:27] Well,

[2:02:39] this is new territory for us.

[2:02:42] before we get to classify judicial role in the distance of first appeal that this council

[2:02:50] objective has covered on this council member Hicks and the council member Behr and everyone.

[2:02:58] So it's important that we get to try.

[2:03:03] So at the time we will allow council to make a motion.

[2:03:09] And

[2:03:13] again, this is across a new conditional role

[2:03:16] and that will be equal process.

[2:03:20] I think it's a good

[2:03:24] question.

[2:03:25] Can I ask a question, indeed?

[2:03:27] Do you have any questions?

[2:03:29] I'm

[2:03:48] looking for conditions from the staff.

[2:03:50] I'm just not sure if we're reading this.

[2:03:53] You know, it says, what the recommended condition

[2:03:54] just presented.

[2:03:56] And obviously, if we're the, this has never been seen

[2:03:59] before, we wouldn't have the attention yet.

[2:04:00] That's about as intended to reference the condition for the ARV approved, or the original one.

[2:04:06] Yeah.

[2:05:33] What is the time

[2:05:36] of day from today, from the closing?

[2:05:41] Unless the applicant is willing to grant

[2:05:59] an interview, I think the extension to that 30 days would

[2:06:12] be beyond that 30 days.

[2:06:13] That's the application that I'm doing right at the end of all these days.

[2:06:17] It's largely applicant's consent.

[2:06:19] If

[2:06:27] you would comment here, I'm going to hold you.

[2:06:37] If you know a wall that you set up against,

[2:06:40] and a wall left in what would hold up about replacing the wall,

[2:06:46] you're not going to have room to do the work,

[2:06:50] and do it due to one floor while that wall is being reconstructed

[2:06:54] without entering private property.

[2:06:58] It's not going to happen.

[2:07:00] I'm not one to put the time or two to be behind it,

[2:07:03] it's the problem again.

[2:07:06] So it's going to take a lot of effort from both me and y'all

[2:07:11] when the time comes, and the time comes,

[2:07:15] where you've got to get it close,

[2:07:17] or what's going to be like, you know,

[2:07:19] we're going to have to work together on it.

[2:07:21] Because you can't get on by a property

[2:07:25] to do construction of a wall.

[2:07:27] So we're going to have to work together on it.

[2:07:30] And I don't have a problem with that.

[2:07:32] And as far as the city is far worse,

[2:07:34] he has looked at some of the trees and looked at all of them

[2:07:38] because they have a new process in place where we have to tag the trees

[2:07:42] to do a real tree count for TDUs.

[2:07:47] And so I have not had an opportunity to give him that provides point

[2:07:51] because we just got tagged.

[2:07:55] So, you know, in this sort of working with the city regarding that wall,

[2:08:01] it won't forget it.

[2:08:02] You also have the wall right out of the street.

[2:08:05] That part of it does that.

[2:08:07] And you don't have to do that at the same time.

[2:08:09] So I agree with what you need to think about that there.

[2:08:13] So, I can only attribute it to the rest of the inmates.

[2:08:23] Public comments and a quote?

[2:08:26] No, I'm sorry.

[2:08:33] The council has a question, so if they happen to have that right.

[2:08:37] Okay.

[2:08:38] Thank you very much.

[2:08:39] I'd like to offer a motion to table this item.

[2:08:43] Okay.

[2:08:44] And so the next policy work session, we'll take it up again and vote on it in January.

[2:08:50] Second.

[2:08:51] We have a motion to second the table.

[2:08:53] Motion to table it is without discretion.

[2:08:56] All in favor, let it be known by the way that you're writing in JNR.

[2:09:00] All right.

[2:09:01] Opposed at the same time?

[2:09:03] Motion passes.

[2:09:06] Okay, let's move to item six, the agreement to the Unified Development Ordnance Spelling

[2:09:12] after a presentation.

[2:09:18] Thank you, Mayor.

[2:09:20] I'll get this right at some point.

[2:09:24] So, as you may recall, we have some things to use to make some organization demands to make sure that the UDO

[2:09:33] is consistent with the comprehensive plan.

[2:09:37] And we are trying to work for post-legislative amendments to focus on reformation, updating to visual standards

[2:09:43] and curfewing system relations.

[2:09:47] We're different dimensions. We are in

[2:09:55] the zoning form, recommendation is for a certain definition

[2:09:59] of the section, and they did recommend to table chapter 100, general and administrative

[2:10:07] prohibitions, article 2, definition, chapter 200, listed here is in zoning, article 2,

[2:10:13] supplemented on accessory use standards, and that's what I'll show you.

[2:10:21] and I'm going to put the link to the report in the description below.

[2:10:27] We are moving forward to you to the Director of Information at just over 100 to the Department

[2:10:34] of Information on the Fourth Rate, the Review Authority, section of the Food Safety and

[2:10:40] to be able to move your computer.

[2:10:42] Now, if we look at the cost of controlling the computer,

[2:10:46] how much time does it take to control it?

[2:10:47] How much time?

[2:10:49] How much time does it take to control the vacations

[2:10:50] when we're starting the video?

[2:10:51] This application from 15 to 8 to 30 minutes.

[2:10:54] And so we've converted this into a system

[2:10:55] because it has a cost-efficient visual procedure.

[2:10:58] And so, of course, it's equal to whatever cost

[2:11:00] it's due at the cost is, or,

[2:11:03] what is the cost of this procedure

[2:11:05] to the public here, though.

[2:11:08] For the letter, after the 4th procedure, section 4, 3-D, administrative action process,

[2:11:15] due to our final 3, the district planning administrator responsible for reviewing the

[2:11:19] demolition only when the property is put in the district.

[2:11:23] Section number 4-6.

[2:11:26] I, too, would like to be due to review to detect the department's proposed appellate

[2:11:31] board decision to the applicant from three days to five days, and this is to give some

[2:11:36] more time to be able to provide information to the appellate, to the applicant that's

[2:11:41] right.

[2:11:42] A section of the approach that has been passed to a minister of variance will include additional

[2:11:46] circumstances that are offered to the minister of variance under A2, such as summer, spaces,

[2:11:51] access, parks, and new construction of a new porch, or modifications to an existing

[2:11:56] porch.

[2:12:04] And you can ask me any time if you have any questions and if we want to read into this

[2:12:11] when we're going through the public policy session.

[2:12:14] Moving on to chapter 200, languages and zoning, Article 1, Division 2, Section 10126C.

[2:12:21] So, 100 people from your residence lost development standards.

[2:12:26] It's an additional drawing unit lost development standards,

[2:12:31] meaning I'm set back to refer to Section 203D for applicable development.

[2:12:36] And after a policy section, I'm going to look through 217D for Act 75

[2:12:42] through Act 8D for Act 60.

[2:12:46] So if you want all these meetings with people and whoever they want to do an accessory drawing,

[2:12:53] you can sit and look into that.

[2:12:55] To be right, we're going to go over to the section which is 4-2-3-D,

[2:13:00] which is the part that we're going to do with accessory drawings.

[2:13:06] The section to look through three accessory uses or structures,

[2:13:09] and language to be accepted.

[2:13:11] You'll only need a D.U. for permission to collect your experience

[2:13:15] with a requirement, and these updates are intended

[2:13:18] to implement questions that unfortunately are not consistent

[2:13:22] with the consistency of A.D.s within residential districts.

[2:13:26] So in other words, the comments and some of these policy

[2:13:29] sessions are clearly recommended.

[2:13:34] So some suggestions on the digital and the short term,

[2:13:37] what I felt the policy that was just approved last month.

[2:13:42] And then, um, so after two lectures,

[2:13:46] I'll introduce in some of the article four,

[2:13:48] Sanary Regulations, section 204.5,

[2:13:51] signed from having a permit.

[2:13:55] The additional two, I don't remember seven,

[2:13:57] but I just wanted to find out what's

[2:13:58] going to happen with the specific standards

[2:14:00] that were in section 204.18,

[2:14:03] which is practically a second permit

[2:14:04] in requirements under this section,

[2:14:07] the Commissioning and Progress Consistency

[2:14:08] across the time-regulations,

[2:14:10] elevating potential costs like each one's section.

[2:14:13] It is said that the content is supposedly

[2:14:14] regulated in section 204.18,

[2:14:17] and treated uniformly.

[2:14:19] In temporary time, section 204.12,

[2:14:22] we're noticing that sections are clear

[2:14:24] because of the benefits that allow

[2:14:26] allowance for temporary science up to 30 to 40,

[2:14:29] plus the institutional usage located

[2:14:31] in residential learning districts as well,

[2:14:34] such as the worship or school.

[2:14:37] And in article 6, not performing situations,

[2:14:42] person to a fixed A-B exceptions to modified language

[2:14:45] to include exam-prepared, um,

[2:14:49] type of data for the sum of the confirmed time

[2:14:52] that were at A for cell signs.

[2:14:55] One of the questions you asked was,

[2:14:56] what is the core cell sign?

[2:15:01] Under the compliance under 16, 1, or C, for order to be very clear for the public, we have a force that will end the same regulation of that one.

[2:15:14] So, back to section 206, 8c, the acceptance to metal 5 to include exempt covered and affirmative encroachment upon reported setbacks.

[2:15:33] to make a decision whether you would like to move forward with this request.

[2:15:40] Thank you. I would like to repeat that. We'll open the floor for questions from council, council members,

[2:15:59] Yeah, let's do that.

[2:16:02] Do we have...

[2:16:03] Everybody's got...

[2:16:07] Yes, yes.

[2:16:22] And that's what I wanted to say.

[2:16:23] I guess I just wanted to ask that you table this

[2:16:26] so that you can provide

[2:16:28] a full and complete

[2:16:29] and comprehensive

[2:16:32] information

[2:16:32] A lot of copy of the changes that we're just keeping out to you this evening, trying to follow those.

[2:16:39] You know, reading the original draft two months ago, there were a lot of conflicting explanations.

[2:16:47] There were conflicting chapters that were set aside for a long period of highway.

[2:16:53] I don't know whether they're dead or not. I'm trying to go through the code here.

[2:16:56] There's really nothing to highlight in here. There's some dark ducts, there's some light ducts.

[2:17:00] I would ask you to please list a month in a red-blooded version that can be reviewed

[2:17:09] and let's see if the changes make any real impact to the Unidero and vote on it then.

[2:17:16] Thank you.

[2:17:17] Thank you so much.

[2:17:18] Any other questions?

[2:17:25] I'll take those off.

[2:17:30] So I think that's a question that Mr. Jim understands.

[2:17:36] To the extent that we want or the extent of the duty that we want to be approved today,

[2:17:43] we do not have to take the section that would be tabled.

[2:17:48] I'm assuming that the committee is going to be more recommended to take those exact sections that he's repressing today.

[2:18:37] set that up based on the height of the building.

[2:18:40] So if you have a work store at AU,

[2:18:45] it follows the standard setback as outlined here.

[2:18:50] To be a bit larger,

[2:18:54] there's no sense for me

[2:18:55] that the setback would change.

[2:18:58] I'd say that's the way it's done in the city of Atlanta,

[2:19:00] for example, and the other jurisdictions as well.

[2:19:03] But one of the objections I heard is the wall effect of a car building built close to the

[2:19:13] carpet line.

[2:19:14] I'm not sure this would totally mitigate that, but at least it would show some interest in

[2:19:23] the, I think they call it the shadow, it's the case of a building that the building,

[2:19:31] building that expanded the same height as the main structure would have to be built

[2:19:38] for the use of the building than just that.

[2:19:42] I'm wondering whether this was something we discussed or whether it was something we

[2:19:47] heard in the last policy work session.

[2:19:50] We discussed it.

[2:20:25] continue or we don't want to approve the changes.

[2:20:28] That's not a problem.

[2:20:29] OK.

[2:20:29] So we would like to add a little bit more change

[2:20:33] when we do this tonight.

[2:20:35] We would like to add that you would say

[2:20:39] to include this into the motion.

[2:20:41] If you don't want to do it and you want to cable

[2:20:44] for us to come back to you next month or this month

[2:20:48] in the fall of the fall of the session,

[2:20:50] then you would have to extend the work for tonight.

[2:20:52] Okay, and then, first of all, I want to remind you that we're just a little bit older than

[2:20:59] the term of the project, which is my term, and particularly also, I think we're kind

[2:21:04] of far as online. It sounds like anything you want to respond to, but the presentation

[2:21:07] has a lot of response, and what it's just going to be, is going to be a critical

[2:21:12] reason why I'm convinced that the agency has a medium in the case that the more

[2:21:15] it's working on. Just so we're client on the air.

[2:21:19] So,

[2:21:24] okay, you can start with the one you're recruiting, which one of those will be tabled?

[2:21:29] It was the one which was the table, as well as the section 2 of 2 dash 3.

[2:21:36] That's what your users are structure.

[2:21:39] Just move to dash 3?

[2:21:47] No, it's not. It's under the table.

[2:22:13] I was waiting right here at the right time.

[2:22:17] You good?

[2:22:19] If I'm good, I'm on board to vote for someone.

[2:22:21] There

[2:22:26] would be an opportunity for a party that

[2:22:29] provides amendments to the Department of Development

[2:22:31] Ordinance that would help them to move into a dissolution

[2:22:39] to take a decision on a decision to enter a hearing,

[2:22:51] take a decision,

[2:22:55] book a trial in the first place.

[2:22:56] There was no room for a decision to move into a decision.

[2:22:59] In fact, there was a decision to move into a hearing

[2:23:01] for a hearing for the first time

[2:23:02] right without a decision, which

[2:23:04] were given to the same council leaders

[2:23:06] in the first place in part of the hearing.

[2:23:11] Okay.

[2:23:15] We have a motion on the floor.

[2:23:18] We have a second.

[2:23:22] I can't second.

[2:23:25] Elsewhere we take.

[2:23:27] Any additional questions?

[2:23:31] Objections to movement or are we clear before we move on?

[2:23:36] We

[2:23:40] have motion.

[2:23:41] in a second to approve additional questions and no objections, to lose a question.

[2:23:47] All those people they've been known for raising their right to dance like that.

[2:23:50] That was the same problem.

[2:23:54] It's okay, gentlemen.

[2:24:03] Yeah, there are reports from council members this time that you may have missed.

[2:24:11] Just a couple of reminders, our holiday celebration is coming up for those who are watching recorded

[2:24:19] version.

[2:24:20] Friday, December the 5th, 5.30 to 2.30, and we will usher in Santa.

[2:24:28] Church arrives again Friday, December the 5th through the 19th, every Thursday and Friday.

[2:24:35] the historic Christmas Village Saturday, December 6th, and of course, photos with Santa, December

[2:24:43] 9th through the 19th. Also, the International Night Market, of course, that holiday Friday,

[2:24:50] December 12th, that's new at Lillian West Park.

[2:24:57] And I think that's about it.

[2:25:00] First Friday, concert, 7 sharp, January 2nd, 7,

[2:25:09] if you allow me, Mr. Mayor, I just want to call out again for anybody that might be watching this.

[2:25:13] It's the Congress Miller, it's the neighborhood Christmas training experience, and they are supporting the CROA with the proceeds.

[2:25:21] It's on the weekends in December, and it's a great place to take kids.

[2:25:31] Okay, moving down to item dating, which is board appointments, let's start with the

[2:25:38] Downtown Development Authority.

[2:25:43] We've heard the recommendations and we've discussed this and that.

[2:25:47] Council, what are your pleasure?

[2:26:08] We need to get more basis on these boards and re-appointing over and over again.

[2:26:17] On top of that, we need to get more basis on these boards and re-appointing over and over again.

[2:26:19] I think Ms. Summers has done a wonderful job on the board, and I don't object to her,

[2:26:27] but I think we need to do some, we need to be careful, and maybe this isn't the time,

[2:26:32] but we need a function to reverse the news on these boards, and the BDA is a board that,

[2:26:41] I think by the chair's own admission, is most of the people come from the same background.

[2:26:47] summer is one that might actually be different. But I'm going through here to say that we need to do a better job in making these boards more diverse.

[2:27:02] Any other comments, council?

[2:27:03] I agree.

[2:27:11] Any objections or moves to the question?

[2:27:14] All in favor, let me know. I'm not writing it right here and saying no.

[2:27:19] motion passes. All right, let's move to items two, the North Cross Housing Authority. We've

[2:27:25] already gone

[2:27:30] through the vetting process with Pam Hopper and Melissa as the chair's recommendation

[2:27:39] on that one. North Cross Public Arts Commission, this is a motion to approve or reappoint

[2:27:59] I would like to make a motion to approve the re-applyment of Michael McManus to the term

[2:28:03] expiration of 12-1, 2028 to the Northwest Public Arts Commission.

[2:28:08] We have a motion on the floor.

[2:28:09] Do we have a second?

[2:28:10] Motion is taken.

[2:28:12] Motion is third on the floor.

[2:28:15] Any objections to the movement's questions?

[2:28:18] I've been heard none.

[2:28:18] All in favor of being on a regular item.

[2:28:23] We're going to move down to the content agenda.

[2:28:31] We'll start with the ability to vote on select items at policy work sessions.

[2:28:41] Bill, I think you were warm to present that.

[2:28:46] has become mine. So, after the policy work session, we discussed provision essentially

[2:28:55] kind of creating a second consent agenda that we put on the policy work session to approve

[2:29:00] certain items. So, we've made those amendments. Essentially, what I've done is to go through

[2:29:08] some more process that we go through today in our regular meetings, where as you recall

[2:29:13] the items we say whether or not we're going on to what we've called the routine agenda.

[2:29:20] I just wanted to distinguish that from the consent agenda.

[2:29:25] And essentially as we go through the items, Council can either say, as we do,

[2:29:32] put this on the regular work session, or add that to that routine agenda.

[2:29:37] And then at the end of the night, Council will approve the routine agenda.

[2:29:41] similar to the way that we do the consent and then we're just kind of breaking it up.

[2:29:46] This was definitely the concept that we discussed.

[2:29:49] I'm not going to answer any questions that we have on that.

[2:29:53] We just discussed this at the policy work session.

[2:29:56] But there are some items that will be that we're going to have to have.

[2:30:03] And so the intention would be that the agenda report would contain something that says, you know,

[2:30:09] in the memo line, qualified for Virginia agenda, yes or no.

[2:30:15] Just that way, we all know what will be qualified.

[2:30:18] I

[2:30:25] appreciate all the hard work on that. I was just trying to take sure where everything is we go.

[2:30:29] And that's just how it works for the process. I'll let you do your job and I'll just wrap it up.

[2:30:36] I just want to make sure we have the same process, a one vote to not put something on the routine

[2:30:45] agenda just enough to take it forward.

[2:30:48] Yeah, sorry, that was an important part.

[2:30:50] That's right.

[2:30:51] Take your consensus for it to go to the routine agenda, and the routine agenda gets approved.

[2:30:55] It needs that consensus.

[2:30:57] You can build in the opportunity for someone to say, as they get to that routine agenda,

[2:31:02] I don't want to think it's awesome.

[2:31:04] I have

[2:31:12] one quick question, and we talked briefly about this, the reference to parliamentary

[2:31:20] procedures.

[2:31:21] I think you also need a reference to Robert's Rules of Order.

[2:31:25] Yeah, Robert's Rules is referenced in our charter.

[2:31:28] You'll see a large amount of redlining from the original ordinance.

[2:31:33] I second basically, we copy and pasted Rosenberg's Rules of Order and put it in that ordinance.

[2:31:38] And so I'm just, to read it that way, is that in the 18 word minutes, one, incredibly long,

[2:31:45] and two, it conflicts with the charter that says that we do, we operate under Robert's rules.

[2:31:50] It says that our doors and authorities operate under Rose and Berge,

[2:31:53] but the council operates under Robert's distinction.

[2:31:58] Most of the time it doesn't matter, but there are cases where it wouldn't matter.

[2:32:01] So there are other cases where it doesn't matter.

[2:32:07] 90 percent of the time, 90 percent, right, or five, yeah, yeah.

[2:32:12] Also, my last question was, I appreciate Marshall bringing this to us for discussion.

[2:32:22] I guess the reason is to increase the speed of government.

[2:32:33] But transparency is important, how can we ensure that we have the same transparency that we have before making these changes?

[2:32:43] Yeah, so we're having minimum requirements under the Open Meetup Act.

[2:32:48] So we will have to meet those.

[2:32:51] And we've made a policy of making sure that we're doing more than that and they have a policy.

[2:32:55] The agenda is published more than 24 hours ahead.

[2:32:58] That's one reason I think putting that in the recommendation of whether or not it's eligible for routine agenda would be important in that way.

[2:33:07] That way the public knows I want to speak on it.

[2:33:09] This could be my only chance to be gone.

[2:33:14] My last interjection was one of the things that helped to move this agenda item was time limit,

[2:33:23] with Council entertaining time limits on presentation for agenda items.

[2:33:35] Each agenda item.

[2:33:36] From the public?

[2:33:37] No, from us.

[2:33:39] From us.

[2:33:40] Because, of course, we're in charge.

[2:33:42] We're doing a lot of homework outside of the meeting.

[2:33:51] A lot of destruction that goes into

[2:33:57] the policy work session.

[2:33:58] And limiting time at that point.

[2:34:11] I think because the purpose is to speed up the speed of government.

[2:34:18] And I guess my concern is we need to make sure that we stay within expected time limits.

[2:34:27] Discussion of the exigen items is sometimes we can kind of go on and we repeat it.

[2:34:34] It's important that we stay focused on that.

[2:34:37] That's a good point.

[2:34:37] Yeah, that's a good point.

[2:34:38] If we stay within, we advertise topics or things, right?

[2:34:44] So that's an issue.

[2:34:46] Yeah.

[2:34:46] Not really.

[2:34:47] Is that an artificial time limit?

[2:34:49] So this is how they do it.

[2:34:52] You're

[2:34:59] going to be open for you challenging,

[2:35:02] at least me as a council member, to get my point out.

[2:35:05] And if I was repeating myself, to say that you already heard that,

[2:35:10] I would certainly welcome that in terms of our community's being more efficient.

[2:35:15] Right.

[2:35:16] And Robert Cruz's order allows, I was trying to avoid having to use the heavy hand.

[2:35:23] Act

[2:36:07] as a firewall in government, I especially appreciate you being a robust firewall.

[2:36:13] You know,

[2:36:17] we've got everything figured out and able to hear from our constituents.

[2:36:25] Well, some things that I find seem really straightforward,

[2:36:28] but a lot of times our constituents might want to have more information

[2:36:33] or at least have the option of being able to get more information.

[2:36:37] The second thing I like to say is that I am very grateful for staff

[2:36:40] because I feel like when staff have an agenda item that they see that's not a good time

[2:36:46] when that's a factor, they do a great job of raising that to our attention and asking

[2:36:51] for us to consider that quicker.

[2:36:53] And I'm very grateful for my fellow staff members because we've written that, you know,

[2:36:59] and asked for theirs and I have no knowledge of any time when they have asked for something

[2:37:05] to be taken care of on a time of manner that we haven't facilitated in that this

[2:37:18] sooner, but it's just all different, you know,

[2:37:26] a lot of times our agenda only gets published,

[2:37:28] you know, certainly within the legal time, but it's just before the weekend when we're

[2:37:33] going to have a vote on something on a Monday. And so, you know, it's just due to the functional

[2:37:39] government that you can't come out sooner than that. And, you know, lastly, I would

[2:37:44] just say that there's a balance between short and immediate, and making sure that

[2:37:48] what we do, and as it comes across with the perceptions in public, that it's been thoroughly considered, and, you know, for a hundred and fifty years, the city of North Cross, to my knowledge, has not enabled this kind of speediness.

[2:38:10] Any other

[2:38:20] precincts of the city have reason to allow the city to have full support for the length of items, and not to pursue accession to contents in January policy?

[2:38:32] I think we have a motion on the 40 we have a second.

[2:38:34] So any

[2:38:38] objections or movement questions?

[2:39:04] I'm going to get it off here.

[2:39:07] I think we have a real estate condition.

[2:39:11] I think we have a motion to adjourn.

[2:39:21] Good for you.

[2:39:22] This is Sheila's last piece

[2:39:33] that she has seen.

[2:39:47] I'm not sure if I've got the job, but she's a

[2:40:27] pretty good person.

[2:40:59] Please don't hear from us.

[2:41:01] Please

[2:41:05] don't hear from us.

Regular Council Meeting

Transcript