►
From YouTube: Planning & Zoning Commission
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
C
D
Thank
you
welcome
everybody.
This
is
the
planning
and
zoning
commission
meeting
for
november
4th
planning
and
zoning
commission
will
hear
public
comments.
Only
on
items
that
appear
on
the
agenda.
Presentations
by
the
public
will
be
limited
to
more
than
a
country
for
the
main
spokesperson
for
the
group
and
no
more
than
three
minutes
for
other
individuals.
C
C
Oh
I'm
sorry
I
was
sending
carl
his
link,
so
chairman
hauser.
F
Okay,
I'll
come
back
to
him,
commissioner
levi
yeah.
E
F
Mr,
mr
chairman,
we
have
a
quorum.
B
I
moved
to
approve
the
meeting
minutes.
B
D
Okay,
next
item
is
consider
consideration
of
a
proposed
zoning
text,
amendment
to
chapter
seven
of
the
unified
development
ordinance
amending
articles
two
three,
five,
eight,
nine
and
17.
In
order
to
adopt
new
standards
regulating
hotels,
the
planner
coordinating
review
is
stacey
merton
and
shan
tuck
and
continued
from
last
month's.
G
Meeting
I
I
do
have
a
quick
update.
I
have
a
few
slides
to
share
with
you
just
to
update
you
on
the
council
presentation
but,
as
shannon
said,
we
will
actually
be
continuing
the
hearing
until
then,
until
next
month,.
E
G
Okay,
so
thank
you
all
for
being
here
tonight
here
we
continue,
as
I
said,
we'll
have,
I
guess,
we'll
have
the
verdict
at
the
end
of
my
presentation
to
continue
the
hearing
just
wanted
to
give
you
a
quick
update
on
the
council
review.
G
So
one
of
the
things
that
we
talked
about
was
just
the
overall
pro.
Obviously,
we
talked
about
everything
with
them,
but
one
of
the
things
that
they
asked
us
to
look
at
was
the
process
for
actually
amending
the
overlay
and
what
you
might
remember
that
we
had
like
two
processes.
We
had
one
where
you
would
actually.
G
Have
you
know
anybody
could
go
for
conditional
zoning,
but
we
also
had
an
option
where
you
could
just
amend
the
map
and
then
it
could
possibly
go
back
through
the
administrative
process.
So
the
council
just
thought
that
that
was
too
confusing
and
they
asked
us
to
eliminate
that
process
so
that
they
wouldn't
have
to
worry
about
looking
at
a
site
plan
versus
the
overall
map.
So
we,
the
staff,
was
completely
okay
with
that.
So
I
think
that
was
a
simple.
Yes,
we're
gonna
change
that
process.
G
So
this
new
template
kind
of
shows
that
the
revised
process,
then
they
also
asked
us.
We
had
talked
about
the
council
threshold
at
100
feet,
which
is
in
the
ordinance,
but
they
had
also
asked
us
to
look
at
a
room
threshold
trigger,
and
so
we
are
considering
again
we'll
have
more
information
to
share
with
you
more
detailed
information
just
there.
But
we
are
looking
at
a
room
threshold
that
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
equate
it
back
to
something
more.
G
G
There
were
a
lot
of
suggestions
about
amendments
to
the
map
itself
so
and
I'm
happy
to
share
the
map
with
you.
If
you
want
to
look
at
these
in
more
detail,
is,
is
that
or
a
consensus
for
folks
to
do
that
tonight?
Is
that?
Would
that
be
helpful
as
I
go
through
these?
E
C
C
E
E
E
A
G
Vadella,
try
yeah,
I'm
not
sure,
what's
going
on
the
dylan,
maybe
you
could
pull
it
up.
Let
me
stop
presenting.
B
G
G
G
So
we
were
asked
to
pull
this
from
the
map
and
then
consider
adding
it
to
our
urban
centers
rezoning
efforts-
probably
you
all
may
or
may
not
be
aware,
but
this
was
actually
identified,
not
as
an
urban
center
but
as
a
town
center
on
the
future
land
use
map.
So
we
would
probably
want
to
still
tweak
the
urban
center
zoning
a
little
bit
to
be
more
robust
to
actually
bring
about
the
type
of
development
that
we
would
want
to
see
here.
G
But
we
tend
to
agree
that
removing
this
from
the
overlay
map
until
we
get
that
zoning
in
place
probably
does
make
sense.
So
that's
what
we're
considering
at
this
time
any
questions
about.
G
I
we
are
moving
that
forward
right
now
we
we've
kind
of
run
into
a
little
bit
of
a
roadblock
with
some
of
the
communities
and
we're
going
to
be
actually
there's
a
ped
meeting
where
we're
going
to
be
discussing
that
next
week.
Video
you
want
to
add
anything
to
that.
A
G
D
Didn't
ingles
just
bought
the
old
nashville
mall
or
is.
B
That
the
old
inspector,
thank
you
very
much
my
mistake.
G
No,
it's
not
in
conflict
with
the
town
center.
It
is
the
urban
the
urban
center
future
land
use
category
does
not
contemplate
lodging
uses
as
part
of
it,
but
it
but
the
town
center
a
future
land
use
category
does
so
it
would
not
be
in
conflict
with
that.
G
Any
other
questions
about
that.
There
is
an
area
on
south
of
the
river
there,
which
I
guess
council,
woman
whistler
was
okay
with,
including
in
but
staff
feels
like.
If
we're
going
to
take
this
out,
we
would
take
out
the
entire
area
that
was
contemplated
for
for
town
center
and
then
added
back
at
such
time.
We
that
we
introduced
that
new
zoning
to
that
area.
H
Yeah,
I
would
agree,
I
mean
I
almost
wonder
if-
and
this
is
probably
a
bigger
one.
I
and
I
just
listened
to
the
the
last
council
work
sessions
on
hotels
this
afternoon.
You.
H
Like
this
may
be
bigger
than
trying
to
get
the
urban
place
through
now,
but
I
wonder
if
that
isn't
right
for
that
urban
place.
Zoning
designation
as
well,
because
you
know
it
kind
of
started
off
what
15
or
20
years
ago,
whenever
they
did
that
it
was
kind
of
something
and
now
it's
it's.
It's
going
downhill
quickly
and
I
wonder
if
it
needs
maybe
a
little
boost
by
and
also
just
with
the
neighborhoods
and
everything
around
it
like
to
have
that
transition
allowing
tunnel.
H
H
G
G
G
And
there
wasn't
a
whole
lot
of
discussion
about
that,
but
you
know
we
we
had
full.
You
know
we.
I
know
there
were.
There
was
lots
of
community
concern
about
the
new
hotel
going
in
right
before
the
tunnel
and
staff
had
pulled
back
that
corner
a
little
bit
and
said
this
would
just
be
pulling
it
back
a
little
bit
more
and
then
you
know,
I
think,
we're
comfortable
with
that.
Unless
we
heard
some
major
concerns
from
you
all
and
then
the
other
area
was
the
harris
cherokee
center.
That
came
up.
G
I
guess
you
know
its
staff's
thinking
was
that
that
area
around
it
could
be
developed
and
again
we
were
trying
not
to
just
have
you
know
big
holes
in
the
map,
but
we
understand
that
the
council,
you
know,
doesn't
think
that
the
civic
center
would
be
redeveloped
for
a
hotel.
So
we
are
considering
taking
that
area
out
as
well,
and
that
would
be
kind
of
where
the
historic
district
kind
of
dips
down
adjacent
to
the
interstate
right
north
of
town.
H
G
Right
I
there
wasn't.
I
I
do
not
recall
any
discussion
with
council
about
that.
I
don't
think
there
are
any
like
one
of
our
ideas
when
we
use
the
historic
district
boundaries
to
design
or
to
sort
of
align
with
small
hotels
is
that
we
might
see
some
adaptive
reuse
of
some
of
those
buildings.
G
I
mean
we've
heard
from
hoteliers
that
it's
very
very
unlikely
that
they
would
build
a
new
small
hotel.
So
I
think-
and
I
don't
think
there's
any
buildings
on
any
of
that.
It's
parking
lots
and
the
civic
center
the
harris
cherokee
center,
I
mean
yeah,
but
we
could
look
a
little
bit
closer
to
see
if
there's
potential
to
expand
that.
But
I
don't
think
that
there
is.
H
I
mean,
I
would
just
wonder,
like
you
know,
maybe
pipe
dream
idea
that
somebody
may
want
to
redevelop
that
site
and
have
a
redevelopment
have
a
part
of
a
hotel
and
it
wouldn't
be.
You
know
it
wouldn't
be
the
hotel,
be
the
dominant
thing.
It
would
be
still
a
civic
center
like
use,
but
you
know
hotel
for
the
artists
or
whatever
some
kind
of
lodging
use.
G
G
We
did
talk
about
that.
The
staff
talked
about
that
and
that's
definitely
a
an
option.
A
So
yeah
there
was
a
concern
that
showing
this
as
an
area
for
smaller
large
hotels
by
some
can
be
interpreted
as
we're
going
to
be.
The
city
is
going
to
be
building
a
hotel
there
soon.
So
we
wanted
to
talk
this
through
some
more
to
highlight
that
that
specific
point
joe
because
you're
right,
maybe
in
maybe
in
20
years,
that
would
be
a
great
mixed-use
project.
Yeah.
G
So
if
we
did
that,
I
I
I
still
I'm
not
sure
if
we
would
include
the
hairs,
cherokee
gun
earth,
part
of
that
or
just
some
of
the
parcels
around
it,
but
but
it
you
know,
but
you're
right.
I
mean.
I
think
that
was
one
of
the
reasons
why
we
included
it
to
begin
with,
because
we
were
thinking
that
you
know
it
could
be
it's
not
that
we
thought
that
the
center
would
be
redeveloped,
but
the
area
around
it
might
be.
So
that's
but
that's
good
feedback.
Joe.
Thank
you.
E
B
Right,
I'm.
B
G
G
I
kind
of
I
think
I
just
kind
of
slip
skipped
over
the
river
ridge
shopping
center.
I
know
we
talked
a
lot
about
that
previously
and
I
think
staff
was
leaning
towards
keeping
it
in
for
large
hotels,
but
council
asked
that
we
specifically
take
that
area
out
as
well.
So
I
just
wanted
to
reiterate
that
to
you
all.
H
Yeah
I
was,
I
was
encouraged
when
I
heard
the
parts
there
the
discussion
about
that
and
again
I
I
would
love
the
dilla
to
include
that
in
urban
place,
or
you
know
that
that
seems
to
me
to
be
a
a
right
spot
for
redevelopment
to
become.
You
know
similar
to.
Hopefully
what
will
happen
at
the
stein
mart
upon
merriman.
H
A
G
But
you
know:
that's
okay.
I
feel,
like
we've,
gotten
a
lot
of
input
about
that
about
that
specific
spot
that
folks
do
look
at
it
as
a
kind
of
a
an
urban
center
as
we
would
define
it
otherwise,
so
I
you
know
we
did.
We
never
really
had
a
really
good,
in-depth
conversation
about
some
of
the
future
land
use
categories.
I
mean
we
did
discuss
it
at
pnz,
but
not
at
this
level
that
we're
getting
into
now,
especially
with
the
hotel
overlay.
So
that's
a
that's
another
area.
G
It
would
have
to
it
would
be
separate.
Okay
right,
that's
okay!
I
mean,
I
think,
I
think
kind
of
like
we
talked
about
with
the
asheville
mall
I
mean
we
might
as
we
make
future
zoning
changes.
We
may
consider
amending
the
hotel
overlay
district
map
right,
so
we
could
always
do
that
at
a
future
date
as
we
make
zoning
changes,
but
I
don't
yeah,
I
don't
think
we
would
do
it
all.
At
the
same
time,.
B
Okay,
can
I
can?
I
ask
a
question
sure
this
is
mr
in
these
areas
that
currently
have
a
hotel,
but
would
not
be
in
the
overlay
district.
If
that
hotel
were
to
be
renovated,
is
it
still
a
grandfathered
use
or
does
the
amount
of
renovation
cause
it
to
then
have
to
upgrade,
and
it
would
be
non-compliance
in
those
areas.
G
F
Well,
any
non-conforming,
it
won't
become
more
non-conforming.
If
it's
not
located
in
the
overlay
it
it
could.
If
it's
not
inputted
in
the
overlay,
it
would
be
considered
non-conforming
and
if
you're
non-conforming,
you
can't
expand,
but
you
can
renovate
you
can
maintain.
You
can
do
all
of
that.
You
just
can't
expand.
B
Right,
well,
when
you
say
expand,
is
that
number
of
rooms
is
that
square
footage?
Is
that
dollar
amount
of
renovation?
How.
B
F
F
F
You
can
so,
for
example,
you
can,
if
you
had
a
dining
area,
and
you
wanted
to
expand
your
dining
area
into
an
area
that
was
already
within
the
footprint
of
the
building.
That
would
not
be
considered
an
expansion,
but
if
you're
physically
adding
a
dining
area
that
didn't
exist
before
or
if
you
are
adding
rooms
or
things
like
that,
that
would
be
considered
an
expansion.
A
And
shannon,
can
you
add
about?
Did
we
already
update
the
catastrophic
loss
language
or
is
that
we
did.
F
Yeah,
so
we
had
asheville
had
a
lot
of
cities
have
a
clause
that
says
if
you
suffer
a
total
loss.
So
if
there's
a
fire
or
an
earthquake
or
something-
and
you
can
rebuild
basically
what
you
had
before
some
cities
are
starting
to
take
those
out
of
our
ordinary
out
of
the
ordinances
and
asheville
was
one
so
for
the
last
10
years
or
more.
F
We
have
not
allowed
something
that
was
non-conforming
a
non-conforming
structure
to
be
rebuilt,
and
in
this
particular
case
we're
talking
about
non-conforming
use
and
a
non-conforming
use
can
always
be
a
re-established.
F
G
C
J
And
shannon
you
might
want
to
remind
everyone.
I
think
that
the
reason
that
we
were
going
to
well
that
we
did
revise
that
non-conforming
use
and
allow
rebuild,
was
because
of
concerns
over
urban,
the
urban
center
zoning.
E
F
They're
they're
primarily
about
their
non-conforming
structures.
So,
like
you
know,
your
structure
doesn't
make
the
sweat
box
it's
too
tall
or
not
two
stories
or
things
like
that.
They
didn't
want
to
have
to
rebuild.
You
know
if
they
had
a
one
story
building
and
the
new
requirements.
Two
stories
they
didn't
want
to
have
to
come
back
in
with
a
new
two-story
building,
so
those
revisions
primarily
address
them,
but
non-conforming
uses,
which
is
what
hotels
would
be
in
this
case.
They're
always
allowed
to
re-establish.
F
Once
the
new
structure
is
is
built,
they
they
have
a
certain
period
of
time
to
get
the
process
started,
but
then
once
they
get,
it
started.
They're
sort
of
invested.
F
G
Okay,
any
other
questions.
I
still
have
a
couple
more
minor
map
amendments
to
talk
about
unless
you
have
any
other
questions
about
anything,
we've
discussed
so
far,
okay,
so
the
other
was.
This
has
to
do
more.
With
going
for
small
hotels,
one
was
to
revise
all
of
the
river
arts
district
and
have
it
all
be
for
small
hotels,
and
I-
and
just
I
just
let
me
just
throw
that
out
there
and
the
other
was
to
expand
the
area
for
small
hotels
to
include
both
sides
on
the
west
side
of
cox
avenue.
G
The
other
thing
that
they
also
asked
was
for
us
to
consider
spacing
limitations,
and
I
think
that
combining
that,
with
with
this,
the
staff
is
probably
leaning
more
towards
not
making
these
changes.
G
Just
these
last
two
changes
as
far
as
turning
those
areas
all
orange,
we
feel
that
if
we
introduce
a
spacing
limitation
with
like
a
200
foot
buffer
around
hotels,
that
that
would
probably
address
some
of
the
concerns
there
and
we
don't
want
to
see
you
know
almost
virtually
everything
not
be
allowed
to
be
a
staff
review.
G
So
we
are
concerned
about
that
and
that
we've
put
together
this
whole
incentive-based
proposal
and
then
to
turn
around
and
limit
hotels
to
the
extent
that
that
everything
becomes
still
as
a
cz,
so
kind
of
kind
of
with
those
things
in
mind,
we
are
probably
not
gonna,
we're
not
leaning
at
this
time
towards
making
those
changes,
and
one
last
thing
they
and
we've
actually
had
talked
about
this
as
a
staff
as
well
is
expanding
that
on
the
south
slope,
along
cox,
avenue
the
an
original
map.
G
If
you
could
zoom
into
that
area,
godzilla
does
not
include
both
sides
of
cox
avenue,
and
so
we
are
looking
at
expanding
the
area
there.
G
Thank
you
and
I
don't
know.
If
you
had
a
chance,
vadilla
threw
up
the
20
or
the
200-foot
buffer.
You
can
kind
of
get
an
idea
of
of
what
that
would
do.
You
know
we've
heard
a
lot
from
the
downtown
commission
just
and
the
river
our
folks
about
the
proliferation
of
hotels
in
those
areas.
So
if
we
did
introduce
the
200
foot
buffer,
I
we
do
think
that
that
would
help
to
alleviate
some
of
those
concerns
and
it
still
leaves
you
know.
G
It
still
leaves
areas
for
you
know
for
hotels
to
come
in,
but
not
you
know
at
the
at
the
level
that
a
lot
of
folks
in
asheville
are
concerned
about.
E
F
E
I
I
G
What
what
the
council
had
asked
us
to
look
at
was
making
all
of
the
river
arts
districts
only
for
small
hotels
and
not
allowing
any
large
hotels,
and
I
guess
what
I
was
saying
is
that
we
feel
like.
If
we
you
know
the
buffer
is
showing
200
feet
around
existing
hotels.
But
if
you
contemplated
that
there
might
be
a
new
hotel
in
the
blue
area
in
the
river
arts
district
and
then
think
about
a
200
buffer
around
that
hotel,
it
still
is
going
to
limit
the
concentration
and
the
number
of
hotels.
G
Does
it
so
we're
we're
not
leaning
towards
changing
more
of
the
river
arts
district
to
small
hotels
and,
again,
I'm
going
to
go
back
to
what
I
said
before.
The
areas
that
we've
identified
for
small
hotels
are
primarily
historic
districts
or
areas
where
there's
existing
buildings
that
we
think
could
be
adaptively
reused.
G
G
A
To
clarify
the
spacing
requirement
would
be
off
of
the
property
lines
right,
not
the
hotel.
So
in
some
cases
you
have
large
parcels,
so
it
would,
you
know
all
right.
B
Oh
this,
commissioner,
how
are
you
defining
a
hotel
and
the
reason
I
ask
is
there
seems
to
be
a
movement
now
where
you
may
have
two
hotel
brands
connected
to
a
common
parking
structure
but
they're,
two
independent
hotels
and
I'm?
I
was
just
wondering
if,
if
someone
wanted
to
do
a
35
or
less
rooms-
and
they
did
one
brand
on
one
side
and
one
on
the
other-
they've
got
70
hotel
rooms.
F
Yeah,
I
think
it
would
depend
on
the
construction
if,
if
you
had
two
buildings
connected
by
a
structure,
another
structure
like
a
parking
structure
in
such
a
way
that
the
building
code
would
classify
it
all
as
one
single
building.
Then
I
think
we
would
look
at
that
as
one
hotel
development.
B
Well,
and-
and
I'm
I'm
looking
at
it-
I
guess
from
a
developer's
perspective
that
there
seems
to
be
a
most
hotels
are
built
with
about
115
rooms
or
so
and
there
there
has
to
be
some
reason
for
that,
and
I
would
think
that
it's
probably
economics
that
the
cost
of
the
land
and
if
you're,
going
up
adding
another
floor
and
adding
another
10
15
rooms,
the
cost
of
each
additional
room
is
considerably
less
than
starting
from
the
ground.
Up
and
building
a
35
room.
Hotel.
G
H
I
got
a
couple
of
questions
one
about
the
river
arts,
but
the
first
one.
This
map
that
you're,
showing
vadilla
that
doesn't
appear
to
be
live
off
of
the
hotel
website
will
that
be
live
like
the
one
I'm
looking
at
is
from
is
not
it's
dated
the
25th
of
august,
so.
G
Yeah,
it
will
be
when
we
actually
release
the
final
map
when
we
share
with
with
you
all
basically
for
your
next
meeting,
all
right,
yeah
we'll
make
it
live
right.
G
No,
the
these
are
really.
These
are
things
that
you
know
that
we,
the
staff,
have
been
considering
based
on
the
council's
feedback
and
we're
sharing
with
you
to
kind
of
get
your
feedback
before
we
we
make
it
official.
H
Okay,
the
other
the
question
specific
to
the
river.
I
wonder
and
and
I
would
be
curious
to
hear
what
staff
says
you
know-
there's
the
blue
area-
that's
up
against
240..
Was
there
consideration
just
to
make
that
all
small
hotels
and
then
the
large
the
only
place
in
the
river
for
the
large
is
more.
H
You
know
down
towards
or
wedge
foundation,
and
all
of
that
you
know
yeah
the
foundation
area.
I
guess
you
know
the
the
paper
asheville
waste
paper
and
all
that
so
that
you
know
it's.
You
don't
have
this
kind
of
little
plop
of
blue
right
there
yeah
I
mean
I
don't.
H
G
Well
again,
I
think
what
we,
what
we
did
is
we
applied
the
historic
overlay
to
the
kind
of
the
original
areas
where
we
felt
like
hotels
would
be,
and
that
just
fell
outside
of
that,
but
that
that's
a
really
good
point.
It's
like
it's
sort
of
like
a
stand-alone
piece
and
and
kind
of
getting
back
to
what
you
said
before
there
could
be
a
mixed-use
project
there.
That
could
include
a
small
hotel.
So
so
we
can
look
at
that
a
little
bit
more.
I
G
G
So
I
what
what
I
said
was
that
we
are
seriously
looking
at
considering
the
expansion,
because
it
makes
a
lot
of
sense.
But
I
don't
we're
not
probably
at
this
point
not
leaning
towards
that
central
whatever
you
want
to
call
it
that
blue
area,
which
is
kind
of
a
standalone
area
on
biltmore
avenue,
not
changing
that.
So
maybe
you
could
just
go
up
to
that
area.
Also
and.
B
E
G
H
I
don't
know
I
mean
part
of
me
feels,
like
you
know
like
and
seeing
this
can
you
zoom
out
just
a
little
bit
vadilla
like
seeing
that
200
square
foot
bubble
like
and
knowing
that
the
you
know
the
one
project
is
going
on.
I
realized
that
in
50
years
that
project
may
not
be
there,
but
in
50
years
this
overlay
district
is
probably
going
to
change
anyway.
H
But
to
me
it
seems
like
there's
an
argument
to
be
made
for
turning
that
into
a
small
hotel
area,
because
there's
not
really
any
parcels
necessarily
that
would
work
for
a
large
hotel
and
meet
a
buffer.
Like
I
mean
you
could,
but
it's
the
orange
peel
or
the
houses
that
they're
going
to
renovate
right.
B
A
Let's
see
here
if
we
zoom
in
where's
the
all
right,
color
shield
here
a
couple
of
larger
lots
here.
H
Right
I
mean
the
houses
are
the
two
just
south
of
hilliard
or
well,
not
the
two.
The
first
one
right
next
to
hilliard
is
andy's
heating
old
place
and
then
there's
yeah
those
two
right.
There
are
the
houses
right.
So
if
you
do
a
bubble
around
there,
do
you
have
any
parcel
between
that
nail
off
that
you
can
put
another
one
in.
B
G
G
G
Okay,
any
other
questions
about
the
map
or
concerns
or
thoughts
that
you
might
want
to
share.
G
All
right
that
that
was
the
large
part
of
the
discussion
with
council
centered
on
the
map.
We
did
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
public
benefits
and
some
of
the
main
considerations
were
to
not
require
leed
certification
for
the
green
building
options.
That
council
felt
pretty
strongly
about
that.
So
we
are,
I
think,
we're
looking
at
just
trying.
G
You
know
requiring
like
a
letter
from
a
licensed
architect
or
to
say
this,
but
not
making
folks
go
through
the
whole
certification
process
and
then
the
other
things
were
deepening
of
the
affordability
options,
so
we're
looking
at
adding
some
additional
requirements.
G
Council
was
asking
us
to
look
at
requiring
or
requiring
more
points
for
different
level
levels
of
affordability,
but
we
have
worked
with
our
community
development
office
and
we
feel
like
we
can
increase
the
amount
per
room
to
go
into
the
affordable
housing
trust
fund
and
then
let
community
development
actually
look
at.
You
know
that
it
would
give
them
more
flexibility
in
where
they
put
the
money
based
on
what
projects
are
coming
into
them.
So
that's
that's
where
we've
landed
on
that,
for
the
most
part.
G
H
That
I
think
I
follow
on
that
one
on
the
on
the
sustainability
one.
I
would
if,
if
you're
looking
at
eliminating
the
lead
certification,
I
still
think
it
needs
to
be
that
a
hers,
raider
or
someone
else
like
the
building
has
to
be
tested.
You
know
it
needs
to
be
a
third-party
documentation
and
and
whether
or
not
they
get
the
actual
lead
certificate
because
that's
like
a
whole
nother,
that's
a
whole
other
cost
and
a
whole
another
level,
but
I
think
it
needs
to
be
more
than
just
a
letter
from
someone
saying
yeah.
A
Yeah
and
and
we're
looking
into
specifically
what
that
process
would
would
be,
and
and
how
how
we
would
frame
that.
That's
that's
exactly
right,
because
I
mean
you
wouldn't
want
just
their
own
architect
to
write
them
a
letter
because
they're
already
on
the
job
or
something
that
that
you
could
see
how
that
would
be
fraught
with
some
potential
problems.
G
We
could
require,
I
mean
a
not
a
architect
on
the
project,
I
guess,
but
I'm
not
sure,
but
yeah
I've
yeah.
I've
actually
always
thought
that
we
should
require
leed
certification,
but
I
do
understand
that
it
is.
You
know
expensive,
so
trying
to
find
some
in
between
you
know
way
to
certify
without
the
full
lead
certification.
G
We
had
include
the
green
globes
option,
because
our
understanding
was
it
was
not
as
expensive
to
go
through
to
to
get
that
type
of
certification.
So
I
think
we
still
need
to
dig
in
a
little
bit
more
to
that
and
try
to
find
a
way
to
require
some
authentication
that
building
actually
meets
the
lead
standards
without
maybe
requiring
the
full
lead
certification.
H
Or
just
that
it
meets,
you
know
some
of
those
other
kind
of
generally
generally
accepted
sustainability
standards,
and
you
know
I'm
sure
you
guys
know
you
know,
there's
several
raiders
in
town.
You
could
probably
call
and
kind
of
get
input
on
what
that
is.
But
but
I
and
I
don't
know
everything
about
it,
but
I
do
know
like
you
can
get
those
ratings
done
and
then
getting
that
certification
is
yet
a
whole
nother.
I
Exactly
no
yeah,
and
I
know
that
hers
is
only
for
houses
so
that
wouldn't
work.
The
thing
is
that
you
know
at
least
for
lead.
It's
it's
third
party
and
it's
the
contractor
and
the
architect
and
they're
all
certifying
that
what
they're
doing
is
sustainable,
so
there
would
probably
have
to
be
consultants
signing
off
on
it
for
the
project.
G
G
Yeah,
it's
a
little
bit
tricky
to
figure
out
exactly
what
that
sweet
spot
is
what
exactly
we
would
require,
but
we
were
continuing
to
do
some
research
on
that
as
well.
C
J
H
That
and-
and
I
guess
this
will
get
to
another
point
that
you
know
came
up
in
both
of
the
the
council
work
sessions-
I
listened
to,
particularly
from
councilman
haynes.
You
know
the
lead
standard
part.
You
know
it's
up
there
in
the
points
rating.
You
know
it
requires
them
to
do
a
lot,
and
you
know
I
it
seems
like
what
some
of
the
community
and
again
councilman
haynes
brought.
H
This
up
is
to
want
to
limit
hotels
and
the
idea
of
of
having
these
this
ordinance,
and
this
overlay
is
to
so
that
we
don't
have
them
coming
through
as
much
so
that
it's
just
it's
harder
to
have
a
hotel
period,
no
matter
what
so
you
know,
maybe
it
is
just
saying
it
needs
to
be
lead
certified
to
get
that
many
points
period.
If
there's
not
another
good
way
to
make
it
work
to.
G
G
And
I
think
we've
kind
of
gone
back
and
forth
a
few
times
so
hopefully
we'll
land
on
on
the
right
place,
land
in
the
right
place.
G
We
look
we're
looking
into
contracting,
you
know
requiring
minority
and
women-owned
business
enterprises
to
be
required
right.
I
I
put.
I
know
we
talked
about
this.
I
wasn't
sure
where
we,
what
kind
of
research
you
had
done
on
that,
I
don't
know
if
you
can
add
anything
to
that.
G
No,
not
yet.
Okay,
all
right!
So
we're
still
looking
at
that
and
then
another
thing
that
council
brought
up
was
linking
the
transportation
benefit
to
the
provision
of
living
wages
they
felt
like.
If,
if
you,
if
a
hotelier
were
to
provide
living
wages,
then
they
could
get
the
additional
points
for
the
transportation
for
bus
passes
or
whatever
for
their
employees,
but
they
didn't
want.
He
did
they
didn't
want
that
to
be
just
to
be
given
out
without
linking
it.
So
that's
a
pretty
easy
thing
for
us
to
do.
B
You
want
the
developer
to
utilize,
the
city,
transportation,
and
yet
it
might
be
a
better
option
for
them
to
go
out
similar
to
the
way
the
biltmore
estate
does
and
operate
a
pickup
and
drop
off
for
their
employees
that
work
there
and
whether
they
use
a
low
emissions
or
zero
emissions
vehicle,
or
something
like
that.
But
you're
kind
of
limiting
the
employees
to
live
within
the
city
limits.
And
we
know
that
most
of
the
people
that
are
occupying
those
jobs
are
having
to
live
outside
the
city.
G
Okay,
okay,
that
was
pretty
now
that's
pretty
much
what
council,
those
were
their
main
concerns.
I
I
guess
I
should
have
probably
started
off
saying
I
think
that
in
the
most
part
they
completed
the
the
process
and
the
regulations
that
we
were
putting
in
concept.
G
They
seem
to
be
supportive
of
the
design
review
board
at
this
point.
So
that's
really
all
that
we
have
to
report
back
from
from
their
concerns.
So,
like
I
said
we're
planning
to
a
few
of
these
things,
we've
got
to
look
at
it
in
a
little
bit
more
depth.
I
mean
your
input's
important,
we're
also.
G
We
are
going
to
be
updating
the
downtown
commission
and
the
riverfront
redevelopment
commission
as
well
next
week
and
the
week
after
so,
and
once
we
get
all
that
input,
then
we
will
be
coming
back
to
you
and,
like
we
talked
about
at
the
beginning
of
the
meeting
planning
to
come
back
december,
2nd
prior
to
that
meeting,
we
would
have
all
of
the
revisions
to
the
ordinance
to
the
map
and
everything
to
you
all,
as
well
as
up
on
the
website
and
then
at
tentatively,
either
december
17th
or
january
6.
G
We
would
have
the
vote,
so
we
might
want
to
see
what
happens
at
the
december
second
meeting.
We
could
also
have,
I
guess,
a
continuation
of
the
discussion
if
we,
if
we
had
to
as
well
but
then
otherwise
on
to
council
january
26th
and
then
on
for
their
review
and
then
february
9th
for
adoption,
and
that
would
that
would
mean
the
the
end
of
february
is
february.
24Th,
I
think,
is
when
the
moratorium
expires.
B
G
Well,
I
think
what
what
we
heard,
we
didn't
hear
outright,
that
they
were
saying,
no,
that
that
they
wouldn't
allow
it,
but
with
a
lot
of
the
pulling
back
of
the
map,
and
if
we
were
to
make
the
threshold
of
100
rooms
instead
of
maybe
115,
and
if
we
were
to
add
the
buffer,
we
we
could
result
in
an
almost
de
facto
situation,
or
at
least
it
would
be
much
more
limited.
G
But
I
think
that's
mainly
what
we
heard
from
them
that
we
wanted
to
see
these
limitations
put
on
it.
But
I
didn't
we
didn't
hear
outright,
that
they
didn't
support
a
staff
review
at
any
at
any
threshold.
B
G
I
understand
I
mean
our
staff
has
always
been
working
under.
Our
guidance
has
been
to
develop
this
process
to
address
the
concerns
that
were
raised
at
the
beginning,
and
so
can
not
speak
for
council.
H
Carl,
after
listening
to
the
to
the
latest
counsel
work
session
on
it,
I
I
mean,
if
you
were,
if
you
had
asked
me
that
question
right
after
I
would
have
been
like,
I
don't
know
it
was
hard
to.
It
was
hard
for
me
personally
to
tell
again
like
kind
of
like
stacy
said
I
didn't
hear
any
like.
No,
we
don't
want
it
to
just
be
staff
review,
but
there
also
wasn't
a
yes
we're.
Okay
with
it,
so
I
don't
know.
G
I
think
the
mayor,
the
mayor,
did
raise
that
question
to
the
rest
of
the
council
during
the
work
session,
just
to
kind
of
remind
them
that
some
of
the
things
that
they
were
asking
could
have.
You
know
could
result
in
that.
But
that's
still
not
the
direction
that
we've
been
given.
So
we're
proceeding
to
just
try
to
you,
know,
amend
the
overlay
and
and
keep
the
rest
of
the
process
that
we
put
together
intact.