[00:00:01]
CLOSED CAPTIONING PROVIDED BY BUFORT COUNTY.
[I. CALL TO ORDER]
NOTICE REGARDING[III. NOTICE REGARDING ADJOURNMENT]
ADJOURNMENT, THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL NOT HEAR NEW ITEMS AFTER NINE 30, WHICH ACTUALLY TODAY WOULD BE AFTER 5 45 UNLESS AUTHORIZED BY A MAJORITY VOTE OF THE COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT ITEMS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN HEARD BEFORE 5 45 MAY BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OR A SPECIAL MEETING DATE AS DETERMINED BY THE COMMISSION MEMBERS NOTICE REGARDING PUBLIC COMMENTS.[IV. NOTICE REGARDING PUBLIC COMMENTS]
MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHO IS RECOGNIZED TO SPEAK SHALL ADDRESS THE CHAIR.AND IN SPEAKING, AVOID DISRESPECT TO THE COMMISSION STAFF OR OTHER MEMBERS OF THE MEETING.
STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS WHEN SPEAKING.
FOR THE RECORD, COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES.
[V. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA]
OF THE AGENDA? SO MOVED.ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.
[VI. ADOPTION OF MINUTES]
AN ADOPTION OF THE AMENDMENTS OF OCTOBER THE 25TH? SO SECOND.ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.
ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS? OKAY, SO WE'RE ANY PUBLIC FINISH OLD
[VIII.1. Big Blue Marble Academy (Certificate of Appropriateness- Highway Corridor Overlay)]
BUSINESS KATIE? WE'RE GONNA BE TALKING ABOUT BIG BLUE MARBLE ACADEMY.SO, UM, JUST FOR THE RECORD, THE BIG BLUE MARBLE ACADEMY APPLICATION.
IT WAS HEARD, UM, AT THE OCTOBER MEETING.
UM, AND PRIOR TO THAT IT WAS HEARD AT THE, I BELIEVE JULY MEETING.
IT WAS TABLED AT BOTH OF THOSE MEETINGS, UM, TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT WERE OF CONCERN FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO MEET THE CRITERIA FOUND IN OUR ORDINANCE.
SO IT IS AN 11,293 SQUARE FOOT ONE STORY CHILDCARE FACILITY.
IT'S LOCATED ON, ON ONE 70, MAKING SURE IT WASN'T THE PUBLIC 'CAUSE THEN I CAN BRIEF OVER THIS THAT IS ON YOUR SCREEN IF YOU'RE WATCHING FROM HOME A LITTLE BIT FASTER.
YOU CAN IGNORE THE LITTLE YELLOW.IN THE MIDDLE.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT CAME FROM.
UM, BUT FROM THE LAST ITERATION, THE FENCE HAS BEEN PULLED AWAY FROM THE COLUMNS.
UM, THE FENCE STILL RUNS IN FRONT OF THE COLUMNS ON THE REAR ELEVATION, WHICH IS THE FRONT ELEVATION FOR THEIR PURPOSES.
UM, AND THEN THERE HAVE BEEN A FEW CHANGES TO THE ELEVATIONS.
THE FIRST IS THAT THEY ARE PULLING THE HOOD SYSTEM TO THE, UM, EAST ELEVATION HERE.
SO IT'LL FACE AWAY FROM IT, BUT STILL HAVE THE, UM, RETURN.
THAT IS GOING TO BE IN THE, THE AREA OF THE ROOF TUCKED BACK BEHIND THE, THE FRONT FACADE THERE.
UM, AND YOU CAN SEE IT ON THIS VERSION HERE.
HOWEVER, THE, UM, THE DRAWING SIZE IS SCALED AS THE, UM, MECHANICAL DETAIL THAT THEY PROVIDED US.
SO THIS SHOULD HAVE ZERO PROBLEM FITTING WITHIN THIS CAVITY IN THE ROOF SO THAT IT IS NOT VISIBLE PAST THE PLANE OF THE ROOF.
UM, SHOULD THIS BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION? I KNOW YOU'VE HAD A LOT OF CONCERN ABOUT THAT.
YOU COULD VERY WELL PLACE SOME CONDITION ON IT THAT SAYS SHOULD IT BREAK THE PLANE OF THE ROOF? IT WILL NOT BE APPROVED WHEN WE GO OUT TO INSPECT.
AND THAT WAY IT GIVES ME A LITTLE BIT MORE, UM, A LITTLE BIT MORE POWER BEHIND THE INSPECTION AS IT COMES FROM A SPECIFIC CONDITION OF THE APPROVAL.
SO I AM SORRY 'CAUSE I'VE ZOOMED IN REALLY FAR.
OH, AND REALLY NOW I'VE ZOOMED OUT REALLY FAR.
SO, UM, THIS VERSION THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT HERE, I'M SORRY.
IT IS REALLY FUZZY AND I DON'T KNOW WHY THAT IS.
BUT THIS IS THE VERSION THAT HAS THE 12 AND THREE ROOF PITCH STILL ON THE GABLE.
UM, SO THIS RIGHT HERE IS STILL AT THE THREE AND 12, WHICH IS BELOW THAT FOUR AND 12 ROOF, WHICH WE DISCUSSED AT A COUPLE PREVIOUS MEETINGS.
UM, HOWEVER, THE OPTION TWO, WHICH HAS THE SIX AND 12 OF THE MAIN ROOF AND THE FOUR AND 12, WHICH MEETS THE ROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PITCHES, UM, WHEN LOOKING AT IT IN BOTH PROFILE AND STRAIGHT ON HAS A LOT MORE SPACE UP HERE, WHICH WAS ANOTHER CHALLENGE THAT WE WERE FACING AT A DIFFERENT MEETING.
THEY HAVE PROVIDED US A THIRD OPTION HERE, WHICH IS THE FOUR AND 12 AND FIVE AND 12, WHICH MEETS BOTH ROOF PITCHES.
HOWEVER, THE PROPORTIONS OF THIS, WHILE IT DOESN'T CREATE AS BIG OF A SPACE IN PROFILE I USING IN PROFILE, LIKE THIS IS A PERSON, BUT IN PROFILE ON THE SIDE ELEVATIONS ON THE FRONT ELEVATIONS, UM, IT BECAUSE OF THE, HOW SIMILAR THE ROOF'S PITCHES ARE, IT TIES IN INCREDIBLY CLOSE TO THAT RIDGE LINE.
[00:05:02]
THE PLATE HEIGHT, THANK YOU, UM, ON THE DORMERS HERE IN ORDER TO HAVE IT EVEN TIE IN BELOW THE RIDGE LINE OF THE MAIN MASS.UM, SO THAT HAS BEEN ALTERED, BUT THIS IS OPTION, THE THIRD OPTION, WHICH MEETS THE ROOF PITCH REQUIREMENTS, BUT THEN POSES CHALLENGES IN ANOTHER WAY.
SO IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO SEE THEM MOST CLEARLY, AND THIS IS LIKE FLIP BOOK STYLE, SO BEAR WITH ME FOR ONE SECOND HERE.
THIS IS 1, 2, 3, LIKE AN EYE DOCTOR OR A FLIP BOOK.
UM, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE SIDE ELEVATIONS, YOU CAN, AND THE FRONT ELEVATION YOU CAN SEE THE CHANGES.
THEY'RE NOT PERFECTLY LINED UP, BUT THEY'RE PRETTY CLOSE.
SO YOU'VE GOT THE ONE WHICH DOESN'T MEET THE ROOF PITCH ON THE DORMERS TWO, WHICH MEETS ALL OF THE ROOF PITCHES, BUT CREATES MORE SPACE AND THREE, WHICH MEETS THE PITCHES AND HAS LESS SPACE, BUT ALSO HAS, UM, MORE SPACE ON THE DORMER, UH, THE DORMER ROOFS.
SO AS YOU FLIP THROUGH IT, YOU CAN REALLY SEE THAT CHANGE AS IT
AND I DON'T KNOW, UM, I CAN, I KNOW.
UM, AND SO THAT IS THE ITEM THERE.
UM, THE DORMERS ARE SIX 12 IN ALL THREE OPTIONS, RIGHT? NO, NO, NO, NO.
THE DORMERS ARE EITHER THREE OR FOUR AND 12.
OR SIX? IT'S YEAH, FIVE OR SIX.
SO OPTION ONE IS FIVE AND 12, TWO IS SIX AND 12 AND THREE IS BACK TO FIVE AND 12.
SEE THEY SAY SIX AND 12 ON THE DRAWINGS WE HAVE NO, NO ON BRIDGE.
OPTION TWO IT SAYS SIX AND 12.
NOT ON THAT G, THE SIDE G THE BIG ONE.
THIS ONE'S THE ONE I'M TALKING ABOUT.
WHERE THE MECHANICALS ARE, THAT'S WHAT I CARE ABOUT.
YEAH, I JUST, YOU KNOW, MY MAIN CONCERN, MY MAIN CONCERN IS BEING IN THAT BUSINESS, IN THAT INDUSTRY, THERE IS A VERY REAL POSSIBILITY THAT THAT WILL STICK OUT.
CAN I ADD TO THAT CONCERN? SURE.
YOU'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE MINE.
UM, DO YOU WANNA, WELL YOU FINISH, LET'S LET HER FINISH AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK.
SO THESE ARE THE OTHER DETAILS.
THEY'VE PROVIDED THAT MECHANICAL DETAIL FOR THE PORTION THAT'S GONNA BE SITTING INSIDE THAT, UM, ROOF CAVE.
UM, AND THEN THE VINYL FENCE FOR THE, UM, MECHANICALS AND THE STEEL FENCE FOR OUTSIDE OF IT.
THESE HAVE NOT CHANGED EXCEPT THE HEIGHT OF THE VINYL FENCE FOR THE UM, SERVICE YARD HAS BEEN RAISED FROM THREE FOOT, FOUR TO FOUR FOOT EVEN.
THEY LOOKED AT A SIX FOOT AND SAID THAT IT GOES UP FAR PAST THE CENTER LINE OF THE WINDOWS ON THE SIDE ELEVATIONS HERE.
UM, SO THE SIX FOOT WOULD COME TO ABOUT HERE.
CAN IS MY MOUSE ON THE SCREEN? YES.
UM, AND SO THEY STUCK WITH THIS FOUR AND 12 AND SAID THAT THEY WOULD BE HAPPY TO INCREASE THAT HEIGHT SHOULD THEY NEED TO PER DHEC STANDARDS.
UM, BUT FOR THE COVERING OF THE HVAC UNITS, THIS WILL COVER THE HEIGHT OF THOSE.
AND THAT CUT SHEET FOR THE HVAC UNITS ON THE SIDE, UM, IS I BELIEVE THE LAST PAGE OF ONE OF YOUR ATTACHMENTS.
AND THEN THE LANDSCAPE PLAN, UM, I HIGHLIGHTED THE TWO AREAS WHERE THAT FENCE WAS THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY.
AND THEN THE TREE THAT CHANGED HERE, UM, I DID NOT PUT THE PLANTING SCHEDULE ON HERE, BUT IT IS IN YOUR PACKET.
BUT IT, THE, THIS SYMBOL PREVIOUSLY WAS IDENTIFIED AS LAUREL OAK AND HAS BEEN CHANGED TO PIN OAK.
I KNOW THAT WAS A CONCERN OF YOURS, MICHAEL.
UM, AND IT HAS MOVED FROM UP HERE TO BACK HERE.
SO IT HAS BEEN MODIFIED SLIGHTLY.
UM, I, I'M NOT THE LANDSCAPE EXPERT SO, UM, ANY COMMENT YOU HAVE THERE, BUT THAT, THAT IS THE CHANGE THAT HAS TAKEN PLACE HERE.
THE LIGHTING PLAN IS STILL THE SAME AS IT PREVIOUS WAS, WHICH, UM, MET THE NUMERIC REQUIREMENTS.
AND THEN THEY'VE PROVIDED THE DETAIL, WHICH NOW HAS THOSE ELECTION SHOWN SO THAT WE HAVE THE INFORMATION WE NEED ABOUT THE CUTOFFS FOR THE LIGHTS.
UM, AS THIS IS A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATE HIGHWAY CORRIDOR, THE REVIEW CRITERIA ARE FOUND IN SECTION 3 17 3 OF OUR ORDINANCE.
UM, THE DESIGN STANDARDS, THE PUD DOCUMENTS AND THE APPLICATIONS MANUAL WITH THIS ONE, BECAUSE IT IS OUTSIDE OF THE UDO REGULATED AREA, UM, OR THE ARTICLE FIVE UDO REGULATED AREA, IT FALLS UNDER THE ZDSO.
AND THESE ARE THE FOUR ITEMS THAT,
[00:10:01]
UM, IDENTIFIED IN YOUR STAFF REPORT AS ITEMS THAT STILL HAD OUTSTANDING, UM, CODE COMPLIANCE OR, UM, ADMINISTRATIVE DETAILS.UM, LED LIGHTING IS A SUBSTITUTE FOR THOSE LISTED IN THE ORDINANCE.
THE SECOND IS THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
UM, AGAIN IS, IT'S A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS.
AND THEN THE FOURTH IS RELATED TO THE DORMERS, WHICH ARE PROPOSED AT THREE AND 12 ON ONE FOUR AND 12 ON TWO ITEMS. OPTIONS TWO AND THREE HAVE THE FOUR AND 12 ROOF PITCH.
OPTION ONE DOES NOT HAVE THE FOUR AND 12 ROOF PITCH AND I'D BE HAPPY TO GO BACK TO THOSE.
BUT SHOULD YOU DECIDE TO MAKE A MOTION BASED ON, UM, THE, THE RESUBMITTED DOCUMENTS, PLEASE INDICATE HOW THAT, HOW THAT WORKS BECAUSE UM, THERE ARE THREE OF THEM.
SO WE JUST NEED, UM, SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE POTENTIALLY A MOTION IN REGARDS TO OPTION X, UM, SO THAT THAT WAY WE ARE CLEAR ON WHICH ONE WE ARE FINALIZING DRAWINGS FOR.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
UM, I DID, THIS IS FROM THE PREVIOUS VERSION, SO IT IS NOT, THIS IS NOT PERFECT, BUT I KNOW THAT, UM, THE ANGLE OF IT SO THAT YOU COULD SEE WHERE IT CUTS IN AT THE ROOF LINE HERE, UM, PAST THE BREAK HERE.
SO IT'S NOT STICKING OUT PAST THIS RIDGE LINE.
I KNOW, UM, CHAIRMAN DENMARK SAID THAT SHE WANTED TO SEE THIS AND I'VE GOT IT.
I PUT AN X ON THE, UM, THE EXHAUST BECAUSE IT'S JUST GONNA BE THE INTAKE THAT LIVES IN THAT AREA.
AND SO YOU CAN SEE THIS IS THAT CORNER OF THAT EXHAUST DOWN IN THE, UM, PIT.
SO, SO YOU WOULDN'T SEE THE TOP PART, BUT WE'D SEE THE BOTTOM PART OF THAT, LIKE WHERE YOU HAVE THE RED X, THAT PART WE WON'T SEE, BUT THAT PART WOULD NOT BE THERE.
IT'D BE ON THE SIDE ELEVATION, BUT EVERYTHING BUT EVERYTHING BELOW THAT WOULD BE YES.
SO, UM, AND THEN THIS WOULD BE THE OTHER DIRECTION, WHICH THIS IN THEORY HAS NOT CHANGED EXCEPT THAT THERE WILL BE THE EXHAUST HERE AND THEN THE GABLE WHICH OR THE BRACKET WHICH IS SHOWN IN THE GABLE END.
BUT THIS IS STILL AT LEAST A THREE D RENDERING OF, OF WHERE WE STARTED THERE.
SO, UM, THE APPLICANT IS HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE PROJECT.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE, UM, OR FLIP THROUGH THE SLIDES AT RAPID SPEED FOR CHARLIE MOSTLY, BUT AT ANY OTHER SPEED FOR ANYONE ELSE.
MS. COMMISSIONER WETMORE, DO YOU
YOU SHOULD BE USED TO THIS BY NOW.
SAMANTHA KOZLOWSKI WITH EIGHT 14 DEVELOPMENT.
UM, JUST WANNA FIRST AND FOREMOST THANK ALL OF YOU GUYS FOR WORKING WITH US TRYING TO NAIL DOWN THIS DESIGN.
I KNOW I'VE HAD A LOT OF, UM, INTERACTION WITH KATIE OVER THE LAST TWO MONTHS, UM, AND A LOT OF PHONE CALLS WITH OUR ARCHITECT TRYING TO GET THIS RIGHT AND GIVE YOU GUYS A QUALITY PRODUCT THAT WILL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF YOUR UDO AND UM, SOMETHING THAT IS AESTHETICALLY PLEASING TO THE COMMUNITY.
SO I HOPE THAT THE THREE OPTIONS WILL BE SOMETHING THAT YOU ARE THINKING WOULD BE A BETTER, UM, PROPOSITION FOR THE TOWN OF BLUFFTON.
I KNOW THEY DIFFER IN A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT WAYS.
UM, I WANTED TO SEE IF THERE WAS A SPECIFIC OPTION MAYBE AT THIS POINT THAT YOU GUYS WERE PREFERENTIAL OVER, JUST KIND OF FROM QUICKLY LOOKING AT THEM.
I KNOW IT MIGHT TAKE A COUPLE MORE LOOKS AT THEM TO KIND OF SEE THE DIFFERENCES.
UM, BUT I WANTED TO SEE IF THERE WAS AN OPTION THAT YOU WERE KIND OF LEANING TOWARD AT THIS POINT OR IF YOU HAVE ANY FEEDBACK ON THE THREE JUST IN GENERAL.
WELL I THINK 'CAUSE THERE'S OTHER DISCUSSIONS OTHER THAN JUST THE THREE DIFFERENT OPTIONS AS FAR AS WHICH ONE WE LIKE BETTER OR NOT.
BUT DO YOU WANNA GO AHEAD AND START WITH THE QUESTION ABOUT THE ROOF? 'CAUSE I THINK THAT WAS THE SURE.
THAT THE MECHANICAL UNITS YEAH, I'M, I'M SAYING DO YOU WANNA GO AHEAD AND ASK HER OR TALK TO HER ABOUT THAT? WELL, I CAN TELL YOU THIS MUCH.
I'M FULL DISCLOSURE, YOU PROBABLY ALREADY KNOW.
I'M IN THE HVAC BUSINESS AND WE HANDLE, UM, COMMERCIAL FOR LOCAL AND REGIONAL MALLS AND SHOPPING PLAZAS AND SO ON AND THAT MAKEUP AIR, UM, WE'VE GOTTEN BURNED ON ANOTHER MORE RECENT PROJECT WHERE THE HVAC UNITS WERE SUPPOSEDLY GOING TO BE BELOW THE ROOF LINE, BUT WHEN IT CAME TO CONSTRUCTION, THEY'RE NOT.
IF I HAVE NO, I, I DON'T HAVE A SEVERE CHALLENGE WITH MOVING FORWARD WITH THAT THE WAY IT IS AND WHERE IT IS.
AS LONG AS THERE IS A, WHEN IT COMES TO BEING BUILT, WE PUT SOMETHING IN THE MOTION THAT SAYS IF IT IS VISIBLE BEYOND THAT ROOF LINE, IT IS NOT GOING TO BE PERMITTED.
[00:15:01]
A HUGE PROBLEM IF, UM, EFFICIENCIES CHANGE AND ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU HAVE TO GET A BIGGER UNIT OR ANY OF THOSE THINGS BECAUSE YOU'RE, YOU'RE PUTTING THAT PRETTY TIGHT IN THERE, RIGHT? ABSOLUTELY.I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH COME INSPECTION TIME.
WE DO DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION, SO IT'S OUR COMPANY THAT HAS THE PROJECT MANAGERS DOING THE CONSTRUCTION.
SO, UM, THEY'RE KIND OF AIDING THE GC ALONG WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT.
SO I WOULDN'T HAVE ANY KIND OF ISSUE TELLING THEM IN BLACK AND WHITE THIS IS WHAT IT NEEDS TO BE.
IT CANNOT BE ANYTHING DIFFERENT.
WE CAN'T SPEC OUT A DIFFERENT UNIT.
IT HAS TO BE EXACTLY THIS AND IT HAS TO BE COMPLETELY, UM, HIDDEN FROM THE SITE LINE CHRISTIAN WETMORE.
WHY CAN'T WE DO WHAT KATIE SAID, WHICH IS PUT SOMETHING IN THE, IN THE MOTION THAT SAYS, OH, I'M STRONGLY SUGGESTING THAT WE DO THAT.
I THINK HE'S JUST LETTING HER KNOW THAT IF IT, IT COULD BE A BIG PROBLEM IN THE FIELD IF IT IS NOT DONE THAT WAY.
I MEAN THAT CAN BE AN EXPENSIVE PROBLEM THE WHOLE PLACE.
LYDIA, YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND I HAVE MORE ISSUES WITH IT THAN THAT.
SO I THINK THE WAY THAT THE LANGUAGE IS WRITTEN FOR 5 15 12 A IN THE B, WHAT IS IT? THE, YEAH, THAT ONE.
UM, IT SAYS THAT THE, UM, EQUIPMENT NEEDS TO BE SCREENED FROM VIEW OR LOCATED SO IT'S NOT VISIBLE FROM THE HIGHWAY.
AND THE CURRENT PROPOSAL, WHILE IT'S NOT HIGHER THAN THE FRONT GABLE, IS DEFINITELY VISIBLE FROM THE HIGHWAY.
THE PERSPECTIVE SHOWS THAT AND EVEN WITHOUT THE UPPER PIECE OF IT.
UM, AND I ALSO DON'T THINK THAT EVEN IF YOU DIDN'T SEE THE EQUIPMENT, YOU SEE A HOLE CUTOUT OF A GABLE THAT'S NOT APPROPRIATE TO BE ON ONE 70 AS A VISIBLE ELEMENT AS YOU'RE DRIVING BACK AND FORTH DOWN THE HIGHWAY.
UM, I THINK THAT FROM THE VERY BEGINNING WE'VE BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT AND KIND OF SUGGESTED MAYBE THE KITCHEN GETS MOVED TO THAT BACKSIDE OF THE GABLE SO THAT ALL OF THIS EQUIPMENT IS ON THE APPROPRIATE SIDE.
UM, AND FOR ME, THIS IS KIND OF LIKE A DEAL BREAKER.
I DON'T, I THINK IT'S KIND OF IN COMPLETE VIOLATION OF THE 5 15 12 A AND AESTHETICALLY AND ARCHITECTURALLY, I DON'T REALLY THINK THAT THERE'S A, I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE PRECEDENT THAT WE WANT TO SET FOR WHAT WE WANT IN OUR HIGHWAY CORRIDOR.
QUESTION FOR YOU, UM, IF THERE WAS SOME KIND OF A SCREENING OR A FENCE UP THERE, I THINK THAT, 'CAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE'VE DONE WITH OTHER PROJECTS.
NO, NO, BUT WE'VE ALSO MADE THEM MOVE THEM TO THE BACK.
WELL I, WITH SCREENING, I THINK OF ONE WITH THE FOUR RESTAURANTS, UM, WHERE THE SCREENING HAS BEEN MOVED TO THE END BUT WOULD STILL BE VISIBLE UNDER THE, THE SCREENING WOULD STILL BE VISIBLE.
THE UM, NEW RIVERSIDE, THEY MOVED IT TO THE BACK SO IT'S NOT VISIBLE FROM MAY RIVER ROAD.
I THOUGHT IT WAS, IT'S IN THE BACK.
SO, AND THAT WAS SPECIFIC 'CAUSE THEY HAD A FENCE AND IT LOOKS TERRIBLE.
UM, BUT I UNDERSTAND AND AGREE WITH LYDIA ON A LOT OF WHAT SHE SAID.
UM, AND I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT A COMPROMISE AND I MEAN SHE'S RIGHT, LIKE WE SUGGESTED EARLY ON TO MOVE IT TO THE BACK BECAUSE WE DIDN'T WANNA SEE IT.
AND SO WE NEVER DID SEE ANOTHER OPTION WITH THAT.
AND WE DID REVISIT THAT WITH OUR ARCHITECT AND THE MECHANICAL ENGINEERS AND THEY WEREN'T, SO THEY WEREN'T ABLE TO MAKE THE REVISIONS TO THE FLOOR PLAN AND STILL HAVE ALL THE ROOMS FIT WHILE KEEPING THE KID COUNT.
SO THAT WAS KIND OF A DECISION FROM THE TENANT, IF YOU WILL, TO KEEP THE KID COUNT, MOVE FORWARD INSTEAD OF HAVE TO REIMAGINE KIND OF THEIR ENTIRE FLOOR PLAN.
SO WE DID LOOK AT IT, UM, UNFORTUNATELY WE WERE NOT ABLE TO MAKE IT WORK WITH THE RESTRUCTURING OF THE FLOOR PLAN.
AND I KNOW, I THINK THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT CAME UP IN THE JUNE PLANNING COMMISSION.
I WANNA SAY I WAS ON MATERNITY LEAVE AT THE TIME, BUT I KNOW MARK WAS WORKING THROUGH THAT.
UM, AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE BIG ITEMS THEY WERE TRYING TO SOLVE KIND OF OVER THE SUMMER, IF YOU WILL, BEFORE I GOT BACK
I'M NOT SURE WHERE TO GO WITH THAT ONE.
I'M NOT, I'M NOT A, YEAH, I DON'T THAT JUST SO Y'ALL KNOW, I'M NOT, I'M BOARD WITH THAT.
BUT, UM, I THINK OTHERWISE TOO, JUST, AND I KNOW WE'VE KIND OF GONE THROUGH THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS FOR ME IN TERMS OF THE OPTIONS, UM, I DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD APPROVE A NONCOMPLIANT ROOF PITCH, BUT I DON'T THINK THE OTHER SOLUTIONS ARE APPROPRIATE.
UM, THERE IS SOME LANGUAGE ABOUT NOT HAVING LONG UNBROKEN STRETCHES OF SIDING AND ROOF AND EVERYTHING ELSE.
AND I FEEL LIKE THE WAY THAT IT IS DESIGNED TO HAVE, YOU KIND OF NEED THE DORMERS TO BREAK UP THE ROOF, BUT THE DORMERS HAVE TO BE A FOUR 12, WHICH WE'RE HELD TO, AND THE PROPORTIONS OF WHAT'S LEFT OVER, I DON'T REALLY FIND TO BE APPROPRIATE ARCHITECTURALLY FOR,
[00:20:01]
UM, THE HIGHWAY CORRIDOR.I MEAN, I, I UNDERSTAND THE, THE PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS AND THAT YOU HAD A DESIGN THAT'S KIND OF PERHAPS SOMETHING THAT YOU'VE USED BEFORE, BUT THAT'S NOT REALLY WHAT WE'RE REVIEWING.
LIKE WE CAN'T REVIEW YOUR PROGRAM.
IT'S REALLY THE DESIGN NEEDS TO COMPLY WITH THE, THE VERBIAGE IN THIS ORDINANCE.
AND I DON'T KNOW THAT FOR ME IT DOESN'T, AT LEAST THE WAY THAT I, UM, KIND OF LOOK AT IT OVERALL.
CHARLIE, ANY OTHER COMMENTS? UM, I HAVE SOME, BUT I WANT TO HEAR THE OTHER
I'M, UH, IN FULL AGREE WITH LYDIA'S COMMENTS.
UM, A LITTLE UPSET THAT WE'RE PUTTING THE APPLICANT THROUGH THIS AGAIN.
UM, IF WE WERE THAT FIRM ON MOVING IT, THEN WE SHOULD HAVE NOT MADE THIS SECOND ITERATION THAT WE JUST WENT THROUGH.
WE, WE, WE COULD HAVE BEEN VERY CLEAR AT THE VERY FIRST MEETING, NO, THIS CAN'T WORK, MOVE IT OR FIND SOME OTHER SOLUTION.
BUT I DON'T THINK WE WERE THAT CLEAR WITH THEM.
WE SAID, FIGURE OUT A WAY TO HIDE IT.
SO THEY DID THAT IN THE SECOND MEETING AND WE'RE NOW AT THE THIRD MEETING.
SO I'M FEELING FOR STAFF AND APPLICANT THAT WE WEREN'T CLEAR ENOUGH IF NOW WE'RE SAYING, NOPE, THIS IS THE FOURTH ITERATION AND I AGREE WITH ALL OF THAT, BUT WE'RE NOT THE DESIGNERS HERE.
AND SO THERE ARE, INSTEAD OF DOING, I FEEL LIKE EXACTLY WHAT WE SAID, JUST LOOK AT THIS AND LOOK AT THAT INSTEAD OF LIKE, THINKING OF AS A WHOLE, YOU ONLY LOOKED AT PARTS TO SEE IF WE COULD BANDAID IT.
AND I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT, I MEAN, LIKE I SAID, WE'RE NOT THE DESIGNERS ON THIS PROJECT, SO I DON'T KNOW IF ANY OTHER SOLUTIONS HAD REALLY BEEN THOUGHT ABOUT WITH MASSING AND SCALE IN MIND.
'CAUSE THAT'S A LOT OF WHAT WE LOOK AT TOO.
SO I KNOW I'M ON THE FENCE ABOUT THINGS TOO.
SO A COUPLE OF THOUGHTS TO SHARE.
I MEAN, I KNOW I DON'T THINK ANYBODY OF A, ANY, ANYBODY OF US, ANY OF US ARE A HUNDRED PERCENT COMFORTABLE WITH THE DESIGN AND IT, WE DON'T HAVE TO BE A HUNDRED PERCENT COMFORTABLE WITH THE DESIGN TO PASS A DESIGN ON OR TO NOT PASS IT ON.
UM, THE QUESTION BECOMES ARE THE ELEMENTS ENOUGH THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD OR NOT? UM, WE'RE VERY CLEAR ON HOW YOU FEEL ON THIS.
UM, I'M GONNA BE VERY CLEAR ON HOW I FEEL ON THIS.
I DON'T, I DON'T PLACE AS MUCH IMPORTANCE ON THE ROOF BEING IN THE FRONT AS LONG AS THERE'S SUFFICIENT SCREENING.
AND THAT'S PROBABLY WHERE A COUPLE OF US WOULD DISAGREE ON THIS COMMISSION.
WE WERE ALL APPOINTED HERE TO BE ABLE TO TALK THINGS THROUGH AND WE'RE NOT ALWAYS GONNA AGREE.
IF WE ALWAYS AGREE, WHY ARE THERE SEVEN OF US RIGHT? AND THEY'RE JUST ONE OF US.
UM, I PERSONALLY FEEL THE SCREENING IS SUFFICIENT IF THE EQUIPMENT IS KEPT BEHIND THAT ROOF LINE.
UM, CAN YOU SEE IT FROM THE HIGHWAY POSSIBLY AS YOU'RE WHIZZING BY OR POSSIBLY WHEN YOU'RE SITTING AT THE LIGHT? BUT MY OPINION, NOT LIKELY.
UM, THE OTHER CONSIDERATION IS IF WE HAVE A CHALLENGE WITH THAT MAKEUP AIR THERE, THEN WE OUGHT TO HAVE A CHALLENGE WITH THE EXHAUST FAN ON THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING BECAUSE THAT'LL BE VISIBLE FROM THE HIGHWAY TOO.
UM, BY THE STRICT INTERPRETATION OF THE, OF THE RULE.
UM, I DON'T SHARE THAT CONCERN.
THE CONCERNS I HAVE ARE MORE ALONG THE LINE OF THAT, THAT BRACKET.
I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON THERE THAT NEEDS TO BE FIXED, BUT I THINK THAT CAN BE PART OF OUR APPROVAL TO WHERE THE BRACKET LOOKS LIKE IT BELONGS.
I DON'T KNOW THE WORDING NEEDS TO BE WIDENED A BIT MORE.
NO, IT, IT, IT NEEDS TO BE A BRACKET HOLDS THINGS UP.
SO IT'S AN ACTUAL STRUCTURE PIECE.
AND RIGHT NOW IT LOOKS LIKE IT WAS JUST PASTED ON LEAST ORNA MENTALLY.
SO IT NEEDS TO, I I GET EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE MEAN.
A BEAM WOULD HOLD UP THE RAFTERS AND YOU'D HAVE SUPPORT AND SO IT NEEDS TO, TO BE CONSTRUCTED THAT WAY.
VISUALLY AND YOU KNOW, I'M LOOKING AT, I'M TRYING TO LOOK AT THIS AS A HOLD.
YES, THERE ARE ONE OR TWO ELEMENTS THAT I'M NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT OUT THERE ON, BUT I LOOK AT,
[00:25:01]
UM, WE'VE ASKED FOR SOMETHING TO BE MOVED SOMEWHERE.WE'VE ASKED FOR A FENCE TO BE MOVED.
WE'VE ASKED FOR THE REST, THE, THE ENTRANCE TO BE MOVED FOR TRAFFIC FLOW AND THAT HAS ALL HAPPENED.
IS THAT ENOUGH TO MAKE THIS A DECISION TO MOVE FORWARD ON MY END PROBABLY.
UM, MY THOUGHT ON, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT WE DON'T EVEN NEED TO TALK ABOUT THAT NOW, BUT I WOULD THINK IF WE DO MOVE THIS FORWARD FOR APPROVAL OR FOR A VOTE, UH, OF YES, I WOULD WANT THE FENCE.
UM, KATIE, CAN YOU HELP US OUT THERE WITH THE, PULL THE PICTURE UP WHERE, WHERE THE FENCE IS DRIVING JUST TO GIVE A LITTLE MORE SPACING FOR SAFETY OF CHILDREN AND SO ON.
UM, WHERE THE FENCE IS DRAWN, IT'S DRAWN OUTSIDE OF THE POSTS ALONG THE PARKING LOT.
IT WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE TO PUT IT BETWEEN THE POSTS.
UM, SAVE YOU A LITTLE MONEY TOO AND ADD A LITTLE MORE SPACE ON THAT SIDEWALK.
UM, THE MECHANICAL WE TALKED ABOUT, THE LED IS SOMETHING THAT WE DO ON EVERYTHING BECAUSE THAT'S THE WAY IT IS NOW.
HOW F HOW FAR FROM THE, UM, ONE 70 PROPER IS THIS? IS THIS 50 FEET BACK, 150 FEET BACK? DO WE KNOW THIS LINE RIGHT HERE? YEP.
IS 75 FEET FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY LINE.
THE RIGHT OF WAY IS NOT THE ROAD EDGE.
SO THERE'S A LITTLE BIT, IT'S LIKE THE, THE DITCH AND I THINK IT'S LIKE A, I DON'T KNOW HOW EXACTLY HOW MANY FOOT, UH, RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT THERE IS OR NOT EASEMENT RIGHT OF WAY.
SO PROBABLY ABOUT TWICE AS FAR AS THE BACK WALL IS FROM US IS WHAT I'M THINKING.
SO THERE IS SOME DISTANCE INVOLVED IN IT AS WELL.
UM, MY, AMONG THE OPTIONS, AND I KNOW IT'S AN EXCEPTION, BUT WE DO OCCASIONALLY MAKE EXCEPTIONS.
WE DON'T WANT IT TO SET PRECEDENT.
SO WE WANT TO HAVE CLEAR INDICATION AS TO WHY WE WOULD MAKE THE EXCEPTION IF WE DO OPTION ONE IS THE ONLY ONE THAT TO ME, NON-ARCHITECT THAT I AM IS THE ONLY ONE THAT LOOKS VISUALLY APPEALING WITH THE ROOF LINES.
UH, THIS IS WHERE I'M STRUGGLING REALLY, REALLY HARD ON THE FENCE.
I DON'T WANNA JUST APPROVE SOMETHING JUST BECAUSE TO GET IT THROUGH, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER BETTER OPTION.
WE'RE NOT GIVING, IF WE DO THAT, IT'S NOT A VARIANCE FOR A HARDSHIP.
IT WOULD BE A VARIANCE FOR POOR DESIGN.
I MEAN THAT'S ULTIMATELY FROM NOT COMING UP WITH A DESIGN THAT MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS AND ALSO LOOKS ATTRACTIVE.
WHICH THAT PART, IF IT WAS FOR A HARDSHIP, LIKE WHEN WE DID IT FOR THE DISTILLER OR BREWERY, THE BREWERY, THE BREWERY NEIGHBORHOOD SCALE IN THAT CONTEXT MADE SENSE TO ME AS A REASON.
IT WASN'T BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T FIND A DESIGN SOLUTION THAT WORKED.
I ALSO THINK WE'VE BEEN, I WENT BACK THROUGH AND READ OUR NOTES FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETINGS FROM DAY ONE WE SAID MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT CANNOT BE ON THE ONE 70 SIDE FROM DAY ONE.
WE SAID THAT THE FENESTRATION ON THE ONE 70 SIDE NEEDED TO LOOK MORE LIKE THE UM, WHAT THE NORTH ELEVATION.
I COULD PROBABLY GET ON BOARD ARCHITECTURALLY WITH SOMETHING AKIN TO THE NORTH ELEVATION IF IT HAD COMPLIANT ROOF SLOPES AND THAT'S WHAT WAS FACING ONE 70.
UM, I HAVEN'T REALLY WAVERED IN MY THOUGHTS ON THOSE.
AND I DID MENTION LAST TIME, AND PERHAPS NOT STRONGLY ENOUGH, BUT THE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WAS A FOURTH MEETING OR IF THIS WAS THE FOURTH MEETING, I MAY HAVE MISSED ONE IF THIS IS THE FOURTH ITERATION.
UM, BUT WE SAID IT THE FIRST TIME, THE LAST TIME WE SAW IT, IT WAS THE FIRST TIME THAT WE GOT TO SEE THE CUBBY.
I DID MENTION I'M NOT PERSONALLY NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THAT.
UM, AND IT'S NOT EVEN NECESSARILY THE SEEING, I MEAN IT IS SEEING THE EQUIPMENT.
I CAN UNDERSTAND THE EXHAUST VENT ON THE SIDE ELEVATION BEING OKAY, WELL AT LEAST THEY MOVED IT TO THE SIDE ELEVATION.
THAT'S NOT AS PROMINENT AS FACING ONE 70.
BUT TO ME YOU'RE CUTTING OUT A WEIRD CUBBY OUT OF A FRONT.
WELL, IT'S A FRONT AND SIDE ELEVATION.
TECHNICALLY IT IS FROM THE FRONT STREET SCAPE THAT EVERYBODY IS SEEING THAT.
I THINK EVEN IF YOU DON'T SEE A HINT OF ANY EQUIPMENT, SEEING A HOLE IN THE ROOF IS A CHALLENGE.
COMMISSIONER, WELL PLEASE UNDERSTAND MY COMMENTS.
I'M NOT, I'M NOT COMFORTABLE EITHER, BUT I THINK WHAT WE'RE DOING TO STAFF AND THE APPLICANT ISN'T RIGHT IF WE'RE NOT GONNA APPROVE THIS, WE NEED TO BE CRYSTAL CLEAR IN WHAT WE WANT NEXT TIME BECAUSE IT'S JUST TAKEN A LOT OF TIME ON, AGAIN, STAFF AS WELL AS THE APPLICANT AND US.
AND I DIDN'T HEAR IT AS CLEARLY THAT MOVE IT TO THE BACK.
I HEARD THAT AS A SUGGESTION, BUT I NEVER HEARD IT AS YOU GOTTA DO THIS OR ELSE IT'S NOT GONNA GET APPROVED.
[00:30:01]
WAS TO PROVE ANYTHING, I WOULD BE GOING TO OPTION ONE BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THE WAY THE OTHER OPTIONS LOOK.BUT IF WE'RE NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THIS, THEN WE NEED TO BE CRYSTAL CLEAR ON WHAT'S IT GONNA TAKE NEXT TIME.
SO THE FOURTH MEETING WILL BE THE NEXT, THE LAST MEETING ON THIS DISCUSSION.
I JUST, I DON'T WANNA SETTLE AND I FEEL LIKE WE'RE ALL FEELING LIKE WE HAVE TO SETTLE JUST TO GET IT DONE.
UM, ARCHITECTURALLY THE MASSING HAS ALWAYS BEEN A PROBLEM.
SO FORGET ABOUT THE MECHANICAL PART.
THE OVERALL SCALE AND MASSING OF IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN AN ISSUE FOR ME.
AND I MEAN WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT LIKE THE SIDE ELEVATIONS WITH THE GABLES.
THAT'S WHY WE WERE LIKE, MAYBE IF THE PITCH CHANGED, BUT LIKE I SAID, WE'RE NOT THE DESIGNERS.
IF IT WAS ME, I WOULD'VE TRIED DIFFERENT MASSING.
LIKE I WOULD'VE MOVED SOME WALLS TO MAKE THE ROOF DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
BUT THAT'S NOT, THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M HERE FOR.
I CAN'T TELL YOU EVERY STEP OF THE WAY.
SO FOR ME, LIKE I'VE BEEN GOING BACK AND FORTH, BACK AND FORTH, LIKE, OKAY, CAN I GET OVER THE MECHANICAL THING? OKAY, I COULD PROBABLY GET OVER THE MECHANICAL THING, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY I CAN'T GET OVER THE MASKING THING.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT MY CHALLENGE IS PERSONALLY, MINUS THE MECHANICAL.
ANYBODY ELSE? MICHAEL? ANYTHING? SO I DON'T KNOW WHERE WE GO FROM HERE.
UM, AND AS FAR AS I, I UNDERSTAND DIRECTION, BUT LIKE I SAID, I DON'T KNOW HOW ELSE TO, I UNDERSTAND.
I DON'T KNOW HOW TO, THIS IS, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO, IT'S NOT GONNA BE WHAT STEP BY STEP.
IT'S A, THE COMPOSITION IS A PROBLEM, RIGHT? IT'S A CONTINUOUS ROOF LINE.
THERE'S NOT REALLY APPROPRIATE FENESTRATION ON THE ONE 70 SIDE.
THERE'S NOT CENTER LINES ALIGNMENTS LIKE, BUT HOW YOU GO SOLVE ALL OF THOSE THINGS IS WHY YOU HIRE AN ARCHITECT.
AND AND GRANTED THEY DID MOVE SOME THINGS AROUND, LIKE WE ASKED AS FAR AS THE DORMERS ARE NOW CENTERED WITH WINDOWS AND THINGS BELOW AND THE CIRCULATION IS A LOT BETTER THAN IT WAS.
UM, BUT I, I THINK LIKE WHAT LYDIA SAID IS LIKE THE FRONT PARKING LOT PART LOOKS SO MUCH BETTER THAN THE HIGHWAY PART AND IT REALLY, YOU HAVE TWO FACES, YOU CAN'T IGNORE ONE.
SO I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S A BIG CHALLENGE.
YEAH, IT'S REALLY FOUR SIDES OF ARCHITECTURE, FOUR FACES BECAUSE YOU'RE VISIBLE ON, YOU'RE ON A CORNER AND THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS TO CORNER LOTS.
SO FROM THERE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE, UM, DO.
'CAUSE I'M, I'M THINKING I'M JUST GONNA GO DOWN FOR YOU.
IT'D BE A NO CHARLIE IS A CONDITION I'M COMFORTABLE MOVING FORWARD.
MICHAEL, ARE YOU A NO OR A CONDITION? YES RICH.
WELL THEN LET IN THE INTEREST OF TIME AND THE FACT THAT SAM BRITT'S SITTING IN THE BACK WHINING THE DAIS AT SIX
UM, OKAY, WELL THEN LET ME, DOES SOMEONE WANNA MAKE A MOTION? THAT'S WHAT I WAS GONNA SAY.
LET ME ATTEMPT TO MAKE A MOTION AND WE CAN HAVE A DISCUSSION AND WE CAN SEE WHERE IT GOES.
THERE IS A VERY REAL RISK THAT IT COULD BE THREE NO'S AND IF IT'S THREE NO'S IT'S DENIED AND IT HAS TO GO BACK AND BE RESUBMITTED, CORRECT? CORRECT.
UM, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION, YOU GOTTA BEAR WITH ME 'CAUSE I'VE GOTTA LOOK AT MY NOTES WHILE I'M DOING THIS.
UM, I'D LIKE YOU TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS.
CAN YOU PULL THE CONDITIONS YOU HAD UP? THEY'RE GONNA BE A FEW AND YOU'RE PROBABLY GONNA HAVE TO ADD TO IT.
UM, CONDITION NUMBER ONE THAT UH, IT'S APPROPRIATE TO USE LED LIGHTS AS A SUBSTITUTE LIGHTING TYPE, UM, CONDITION.
TWO, THAT'S A STANDARD CONDITION.
ALL COMMENTS MUST BE ADDRESSED AS A FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN MUST BE APPROVED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF C OF O OR C OF A.
UM, NUMBER THREE, SIGNAGE PERMITS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE TOWN OF BLUFFTON FOR REVIEW.
UM, I'VE BEEN GOING BACK AND FORTH ON THE BEST WAY TO WORD THIS.
I WOULD SAY, UH, SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF IT IS DETERMINED THAT IN THIS INSTANT, THIS RARE INSTANCE AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE ROOF PITCH REQUIREMENT FOUND IN, I DON'T KNOW, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO LOOK UP THE SECTION, THE ROOF PITCH REQUIREMENT SECTION.
UM, BUT WHATEVER THAT SECTION IS, IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE LOWER MAIN ROOF MASS
[00:35:01]
AND RETAIN APPROPRIATE PROPORTIONS WITH THE DORMERS OF THIS SINGLE STORY STRUCTURE, THE FOUR SMALL DORMERS MAY RETAIN THE THREE 12 ROOF, WHICH IS LESS THAN THE NORMAL FOUR 12 REQUIREMENT.DO I NEED TO GO THROUGH THAT AGAIN OR YOU GOT THE GIST? OKAY.
UM, I, I'M NOT GONNA MAKE IT A CONDITION THAT THE FENCE BE BETWEEN THE POST, BUT I THINK YOU GET THAT.
THAT'LL PROBABLY MAKE IT, YEAH, ABSOLUTELY.
THEN UM, ALSO, UM, 0.5 THAT THE MECHANICAL MAY NOT BE BEYOND THE ROOF LINE WHEN LOOKING, UM, FROM STRAIGHT ON FROM HIGHWAY 78 AND THAT 1 70, 1 70 DEFINITELY CAN'T SEE IT FROM 2 78.
UM, AND THAT, UM, HOW DO I WORD THIS KATIE? HELP ME OUT.
THAT WOULD BE UPHELD AT PERMIT TO BE UPHELD BY STAFF.
DID YOU UPHELD AT STAFF AT INCEPTION? YES, SIGNED.
AND YOU ALSO TALKING ABOUT
WE CAN DISCUSS IT, WE CAN ALWAYS AMEN IT.
SO MADAM CHAIRMAN, IF I, IF I MAY, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTOOD THE MOTION, SORRY.
THE MOTION WOULD BE TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION WITH THE ALLOWANCE FOR THE USE OF LED LIGHTS PER STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS TWO AND THREE IS WRITTEN ON THE SCREEN AND UM, TO ALLOW FOR THE TO FOR OPTION ONE, WHICH ALLOWS FOR THE THREE AND 12 ROOF PITCH, WHICH IS LESS THAN IS PERMITTED BY SECTION 5 15 5 OF THE B-D-B-Z-D-S-O.
DUE TO THE PROPORTIONS OF THE ONE STORY STRUCTURE TO, UH, TO BE MAINTAINED, I'LL RE-LISTEN TO THAT, BUT I THINK THAT'S A CLOSE SUMMARY CLOSE AND THAT THE MECHANICALS MAY NOT BE BEYOND THE, THE LINE OF THE ROOF TO BE NOT VISIBLE FROM ONE 70 LOOKING STRAIGHT ON AND WILL BE HELD UPHELD AT INSPECTION BY STAFFS.
AND THAT WOULD BE THE END OF THE MOTION IF THAT IS HOW I UNDERSTOOD IT.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? HAVE A SECOND.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF YOU'RE GONNA MAKE THAT MOTION, I WOULD ADD THE BRACKET INTO THAT MOTION.
SO WE'RE GONNA NEED TO, UM, DO WE WANNA DISCUSS ANYTHING ELSE? AND THEN WE CAN AMEND THE MOTION.
IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE WE WANT TO DISCUSS? OKAY.
I'D LIKE TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ADD THAT THE, UM, BRACKET AT THE END OF THE ROOF, EACH END OF THE ROOF BE REDESIGNED IN SUCH A WAY AS IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S A SUPPORT TO THE STRUCTURE.
DO I NEED A SECOND WITH STAFF? I NEED A SECOND ON THAT ONE.
UM, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT? ALL IN FAVOR FOR THAT AMENDMENT? SO WHO SECONDED? MICHAEL.
SO THEN ALL IN FAVOR FOR THE AMENDMENT? THIS IS NOT THE ORIGINAL, JUST THE AGREEMENT IN FAVOR OF AMENDING THE MOTION.
IN FAVOR OF AMENDING THE MOTION.
SO NOW THAT YOU HAVE TO ASK NAMES.
HMM? YOU DIDN'T GET FIVE EYES? I NO, BUT THAT WAS FOR THE AMENDMENT OF THE, JUST THE RIGHT.
WAIT, ALL IN FAVOR? BUT IS THAT JUST FOR THE, IS THAT JUST FOR THE AMENDMENT OR IS THAT FOR THE WHOLE THING? NOT FOR THE, THE AMENDMENT.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION AT ALL? NOW WE'RE GONNA GO TO THE MAIN, UH, MOTION AS AMENDED.
ALL IN FAVOR AS A MOTION AS AMENDED STATE BY SAYING AYE.
OPPOSED? OPPOSED, OPPOSED, OPPOSED.
THIS WAS A TOUGH ONE, YOUR HONOR.
[IX.1. Adoption of 2024 Planning Commission Meeting Dates: (Staff - Katie Peterson)]
OUR NEW BUSINESS ADOPTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATES.MADAM CHAIR, I BELIEVE I'M PRESENTING THESE AS WELL JUST BY DEFAULT.
SO IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS I CAN, I CAN ANSWER THEM BY LOOKING TO MY RIGHT HERE FOR CARRIE.
UM, HOWEVER IT IS TO MAINTAIN THE SAME SCHEDULE, WHICH IS THE FOURTH TO FOURTH WEDNESDAY
[00:40:01]
OF EACH MONTH AT 6:00 PM EXCEPT UNDER WEIRD CIRCUMSTANCES AS, UM, TODAY OR A HOLIDAY THAT, UM, IMPAIRS THE ABILITY FOR THAT WHICH MAY BE MAY ALSO THANKSGIVING, CHRISTMAS WILL BE MOVED UP.LIKE THEY'RE, SO YOU DON'T WANNA MEET ON THE 25TH THIS YEAR? NO.
SO THAT MEANS THAT NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER ARE MOVED, UM, FORWARD A WEEK, BUT ALL OTHER DATES ARE MAINTAINED AS THE FOURTH TUESDAY OF THE MONTH.
ANITA NEED A MOTION FOR THAT TO ACCEPT? SO I MOVED.
OKAY, DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND.
[IX.2. Adoption of 2024 Development Review Committee Meeting Dates: (Staff - Katie Peterson)]
WE HAVE THE ADOPTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE DATE.SO THE DRC IS A DERIVATIVE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THIS WOULD BE EVERY WEDNESDAY AT 1:00 PM WHICH IS THE SAME TIME THAT IT CURRENTLY SITS.
UM, AND IT'S, IT'S BECAUSE IT'S AN OFFSHOOT OF YOUR COMMISSION.
OKAY? DO I HAVE A MOTION? I MOVE.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.
[X. DISCUSSION]
AND IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION FOR TONIGHT? I BELIEVE THAT THERE IS NOT.THE ONLY THING THAT I WILL MENTION IS THAT THIS IS, I BELIEVE THE LAST, THAT'S MY KNOCKING ON WOOD, THE LAST ITEM THAT IS NOT GOING TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE AS A CONCEPTUAL APPLICATION PRIOR TO COMING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
SO BY NO FAULT OF THEIRS, THEY ARE NOT GOING THROUGH THE SAME PROCESS THAT THE NEXT COUPLE APPLICATIONS YOU WILL SEE ARE GOING THROUGH, WHICH HOPEFULLY WILL RULE OUT SOME OF THE CHALLENGE THAT WE'RE FACING WITH THESE APPLICATIONS.
IT IS NOT THIS APPLICATION BY ITSELF.
IT IS ALL OF THEM IN THE LAST COUPLE YEARS.
I MEAN, AND NOT JUST A COUPLE YEARS, BUT, UM, IT'LL HOPEFULLY REDUCE THE NUMBER OF CONDITIONS.
IT'LL WEEDED OUT SOME OF THE CHALLENGES WE'RE SEEING ON THESE.
AND IT'S HOPEFULLY WE'LL GET SOME GREAT, GREAT BUILDINGS HERE.
MAY I HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? I SECOND? SECOND.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.