►
Description
City of Charleston Committee on Community Development 8/17/23
B
A
C
D
C
Thank
you
very
much
and
public
participation
I
think
we
don't
have
anyone
I
think
Patrick
said
we
don't
have
anyone
signed
up
or
no
one
online
that
is
supposed
that
is
correct.
That's
correct!
Okay,
we'll
move
around
down
to
item
number
B,
which
is
the
approval
of
the
April
20th
and
May
18th
meeting
the
one
with
a
joint
meeting
between
the
planning
commissioner
and
the
Community
Development.
If
I
can
get
a
motion
for
those
two,
some.
C
E
E
In
fact,
this
is
aimed
for
that
relatively
small
segment,
but
hopefully
at
some
point
it
will
grow,
particularly
with
some
of
the
other
incentives
that
we're
going
to
be
trying
in
the
future,
I
think
with
the
other
zoning
incentives
for
affordable
housing.
So
this
would
be
for
that
segment
of
the
population
of
housing
developers
out
there
that
are
interested
in
affordable
housing
but
they're,
not
necessarily
using
City
funds
or
city
resources
to
deliver
that
housing.
E
This
is
our
way
to
try
to
Fast
Track
those
projects
and
get
them
through
our
processes
as
quickly
as
painlessly
and
as
limited
amount
of
permitting
dollars
as
possible.
So
this
agreement
would
help
basically
keep
the
that
hole
if
a
developer
were
to
choose
after
they
made
use
of
the
program
to,
for
whatever
reason,
no
longer
deliver
on
their
affordable
housing
that
they
had
agreed
to.
E
It
provides
for
the
city
to
get
May
made
a
hole
out
of
that
for
the
basically
the
time
and
effort
that
the
city
put
into
fast
tracking
and
moving
their
their
permits
and
and
processes
through
with
that
Gianna
or
Chloe
or
magaly.
Anyone
if
I
missed
something,
please
feel
free
to
add
on,
but
that's
what
this
agreement
is.
It
is
we're
just
trying
to
make
sure
that
we
have
this
correct
and
in
the
basically
in
the
file,
for
when
we
have
our
first
priority
status
project
to
come
forward
all
right.
Good.
G
F
F
H
C
C
E
I
might
ask
so
these
got
kind
of
broken
up
into
individual
ones
for
the
purposes
of
the
agenda,
but
we've
prepared
a
kind
of
comprehensive
PowerPoint
for
the
next
four
items
to
your
preference
in
the
committee's
preference.
Can
we
open
all
four
of
these
items
at
once
in
just
between
myself
and
legal,
be
able
to
go
through
them.
C
E
F
Yes,
so
this
proposal
comes
to
us
after
a
recent
request
from
Council
during
a
bar
appeal
of
a
demolition
after
the
fact
denial,
and
so
because
our
ordinance
is
currently
lacking
in
Provisions
that
address
people
who
intentionally
demolish
structures
where,
after
the
fact
or
intentionally
demolished
structures
and
then
seek
after
the
fact,
approval
from
the
bar.
So
the
idea
would
be
if
a
property
had
obtained
a
denial
in
the
past
for
a
demolition
and
then
within
the
next
five
years
again
came
for
and
after
the
fact
approval.
F
The
presumption
would
be
that
the
demolition
was
intentional
and
that
would
allow
us
to
have
specific
penalties.
Those
are
set
forth
at
116
of
the
code,
which
are
up
to
five
hundred
dollars
and
or
30
days
in
jail
for
each
violation
and
every
day
that
the
violation
continues
to
be
in
place
would
would
be
a
separate
offense.
F
Of
course,
there
would
need
to
be
an
ability
of
an
applicant
to
come
forward
and
show
circumstances
to
to
indicate
that
this
was
not
an
intentional
demolition.
But
the
idea
again
is
that
the
burden
is
on
them
to
show
that
it
wasn't
intentional.
And
then
we
would
look
at
some
factors
to
to
see
whether
or
not
that
burden
has
been
overcome.
B
Think
I'm
getting
knocked
it.
Okay
and
I'm
gonna
try
to
pick
my
time
to
talk
today.
I
I
can
probably
talk
on
each
one
of
these
at
a
length
that
nobody
wants
to
hear.
But
one
thing
we
may
want
to
think
about
and
I've
seen
this
in
some
other
jurisdictions
is
when
you
are
caught
with
the
zoning
violation
of
a
certain
magnitude.
B
You
just
go
ahead
and
clear
cut
it
they'll,
just
like
red
tag,
your
property
and
you
can't
pull
permits
for
years,
and
that
scene
is
a
strong
incentive
for
people
not
to
violate
the
rules,
because
oftentimes
and
I'm
not
saying
this
has
ever
happened
with
me.
But
you'll
have
people
go
to
land,
use,
attorneys
and
say
what's
rather
than
go
through
this
tough
difficult
regulatory
approval
process?
B
What's
the
worst?
That
can
happen
if
I
just
go
ahead
and
do
it
take
matters
into
my
own
hands.
What's
the
worst
consequence
that
can
befall
me,
normally
lawyers
will
say
you
know
they're,
just
zoning
Mr,
they're
misdemeanors,
it's
a
fine!
Technically,
you
could
be
put
in
jail,
although
I've
never
heard
of
anybody
going
to
jail
for
a
zoning
violation,
although
I
think
Sullivan's
Island
came
close
to
doing
it
once,
but
when
you
tell
a
client
that
if
you
get
caught,
you
can't
develop
the
property
for
two
years
five
years.
B
That
is
when
it
gets
real.
There's
some
careful
legal
and
constitutional
issues
that
need
to
be
examined.
I
just
wanted
to
kind
of
float
that
out
there
for
what
it's
worth
and
because,
like
with
any
regulatory
framework,
you
know
the
you
have
to
incentivize
compliance
and
not
make
it
so
it's
easier,
cheaper
to
end,
run
the
system
and
just
take
matters
into
your
own
hands.
So
exactly
it
comes
right,
that's
right,
and
so
you
just
gotta
tweak
those
dials
right.
B
B
F
I'm
not
aware
of
a
specific
County
provision
addressing
after
the
fact,
demolitions
or
anything
you
know
similar,
but
I
would
be
happy
to
look
into
a
different
type
of
penalty,
as
councilman
Pell
suggested
in
terms
of
a
freeze
but
I
I'm,
not
familiar
with.
With
that
specific
section
of
the
county
code.
Okay,.
D
Because
I
I
too,
understand
the
the
freeze
for
the
Grand
Oaks.
You
know
that
we
we
certainly
have
that
see
that
here
on
James
Island,
so
I
would
be
curious.
What
other
historic
districts
or
areas
you
know
what
other
municipalities
do
in
this
case,
I
tend
to
agree
with
councilmember
Appel,
that
you
know
a
freeze
of
some
sort
or
not
being
able
to
pull
permits,
and
things
like
that
certainly
seem
to
make
a
better
case
than
500.
D
C
I
would
like
to
ask
on
that
particular
item
and
even
a
contractor
that
you
have.
He
should
know
that
also
he
or
she
or
whoever
it
is
should
know
that
much
to
see
that
that
they
have
to
go,
get
approval
before
doing
anything
to
that
particular
outside
of
that
building.
When
you
didn't
get
an
approval
before
so
that's
a
question
I'm
going
to
ask:
how
would
we
deal
with
something
like
that.
J
J
F
This
is
sort
of
off
the
cuff,
but
I
mean,
as
we
know,
ignorance
of
the
law
is,
is
not
a
defense
to
anything.
So
the
idea
here
is
when
we
have
a
reason
to
believe
that
there
has
been
an
intentional
circumvention
of
the
ordinance
is
to
craft
specific
penalties
that
make
it
a
deterrent
for
people
to
do
that,
and
I
certainly
think
it's
worth
looking
at
what
other
jurisdictions
have
done
to
make
that
a
greater
deterrent.
F
C
Yeah
because
I
said
once
you
see
a
seal
on
it,
preservation
on
the
building
itself.
Once
you
see
that
seal
on
it,
you
should
know
that
you
have
to
go,
get
permission.
I'll
go
to
BR,
get
approval
before
touching
anything
outside
of
that
particular
historical
building,
and
that's
one
thing
I
was
asking
so
I
can
make
sure
I'm
on
the
right
pace
with
that,
okay
and
so
that's
well.
I
know:
I
saw
the
mayor
hands
up.
I
said
councilman
Gregory
hands
up
yeah,
so
we
can
go
with
that.
Maybe
go
that
way.
Thank.
J
You
Mr,
chairman
and,
and
just
so
I,
be
clear
and
I
understand.
We
want
to
make
this
a
little
punitive,
which
is
there's,
there's
almost
no
penalty.
Now,
if,
if
I'm
not
mistaken,
the
500
is
per
day
as
well.
Isn't
it
so
if,
like
it
persisted
for
20
days,
you
it
would
you'd,
potentially
be
a
ten
thousand
dollar
fine.
Yes,.
J
A
E
Councilman
I
don't
know
that
we
have
the
data
at
the
moment.
Anecdotally
I
can't
tell
you
that
I'm
dealing
with
a
handful
of
these
situations.
Right
now
between
me
and
my
team
that
we're
working
on
and
that
come
we,
we
customarily
have
an
after
the
fact
item
at
either
bar
more
often
bar
small
than
bar
large,
but
we
probably
have
maybe
one
or
two
a
month,
probably
on
average,
but
we
can
try
to
pull
some
more
specific
numbers.
E
E
It
can
be
a
mix.
Many
of
them
do
result.
It
depends
on
the
the
extent
of
what
the
after
the
fact
is.
Many
of
them
will
correct
within
they'll
address
they'll
address
the
issue.
They'll
either
be
required
by
the
bar
to
put
back
in
kind
what
they
took
out
to
very
much
like
the
settlement.
They
kind
of
initiated
this
conversation
that
Miss
Crete
was
working
on
that
prompted
this
amendment.
E
Or
or
once
they
once
it's
been
found
out
that
they
didn't
follow
the
rules
they
work
to
address
it
so
that
they
can
come
into
compliance
I
think
most
people
do
want
to
be
compliant
with
our
code,
sometimes
legitimately
folks,
don't
know
other
times
they
do
know.
Maybe
the
contractors
done
something
or
their
nephew
who
was
helping
them
out
did
something
that
they
shouldn't
have,
and
then
they
work
to
correct.
A
A
A
J
Think
the
number
that
Robert
cited
is
about
correct.
It's
it's
a
handful
of
cases,
maybe
a
dozen
cases
a
year,
so
I
mean
it's
not
like
a
you
know,
out
of
control
thing,
let's,
let's
put
something
like
this
in
place
and
if,
if
we
feel
we
need
to
make
it
more
punitive
later
on,
you
know
we
can
always
do
that.
A
J
Well,
personally,
I
think
you
always
need
to
leave
some
discretion.
I
mean
you
might
have
a
case
where
somebody's
literally
demolishing
certain
steps,
some
simple
something-
and
you
know-
maybe
maybe
you
know
it-
was
understandable
or
something
you
know,
but
anyway,
I.
Thank
you.
We
always
in
our
ordinances,
give
the
adjudicator
some
some
discretion.
Isn't
that
right.
A
C
E
Dealing
with
that
so
I
think
that
is
a
question
we
need
to
have
and
need
to
talk
about
for
dealing
comprehensively
with
folks.
That
may
not
be
following
all
the
rules
is
addressing
whether
or
not
we
want
to
take
folks
who
are
like
a
contractor
to
our
business
licensing
committee
to
address
any
kind
of
penalties
there,
but
that's
currently
not
contemplated
in
in
in
this.
D
F
F
B
F
E
E
We
do
have
one
outstanding
question
from
the
workshop
that
I
would
just
mention
to
the
committee
and
that
we
were
are
open
to
some
additional
feedback
on
it's
one
of
the
questions
we'll
take
the
Planning
Commission
as
well,
and
that
is
in
some
ordinances
we
reviewed
they
provide
a
economic
Factor
as
one
of
the
things
that
can
be
looked
at
by
the
review
board.
I
mean
other
communities,
they
are
very
strict
and
can
take
no
position
on
any
economic
Factor
being
able
to
be
considered.
E
D
E
E
Do
we
want
to
do
an
older,
a
bigger
number
for
that,
but
50
is
essentially
the
the
the
standard
that
you
do
see
most
predominantly
in
preservation
ordinances
period,
but
particularly
in
demolition
ordinances,
where
you
sometimes
have
this
higher
threshold
for
review
prior
to
approving
a
demolition.
No.
D
G
E
Yeah,
so
we
do
get
demos
for
some
of
those
buildings,
they
don't,
but
they
don't
meet
our
requirements
for
Board
review
and
so
they
they're
able
to
move
through
generally.
Pretty
specifically,
this
would
be
in
order
to
trigger
Board
review
or
drb
review.
You
have
to
first
be
50
plus
years
old,
and
then
we
look
at
these
other
criteria
to
determine
what
the
board
should
do,
whether
they
should
approve
demolition
or
not
approve
demolition
right.
D
D
E
No,
we
have
I
apologize
as
I
was
putting
together
the
slides
it
was.
It
was
text
overload
here
on
the
slide,
but
we
we
do
have
those
I'm
happy
to
share
those
as
a
memo
with
the
the
committee
but
they're.
Essentially
they
look
at
whether
the
structure
is.
You
know
whether
it's
location,
design,
setting
materials,
workmanship,
cultural
significance
or
Association
have
make
it
a
significant
building.
E
Were
there
any
events
of
any
significance
that
occurred
at
the
building,
whether
it's
associated
with
a
person
of
significance
from
the
past,
whether
the
structure
embodies
a
distinctive
type
period
or
method
of
construction,
they're
all
very
objective
criteria
that
require
a
historical
analysis
in
order
to
make
the
determination
but
they're
very
specific
criteria
and
I'm
happy
to
share
those
with
the
members
of
the
committee
in
a
separate
memo,
but
as
I
try
to
put
that
all
in
a
PowerPoint
it.
It
was
very
messy.
Okay,.
D
E
So
so,
in
some
ordinances
we
found
when
we
were
doing
the
research
on
this.
There
are
jurisdictions
that
include
language
like
that,
the
the
cost
to
repair
the
building
or
rehab
the
building
is
2.5
times
the
the
value
of
the
property,
and
so
at
that
point,
demolition
can
be
considered
versus
preservation
of
the
building.
So
there's
some
there's
some
tests
that
say
that
that
include
economics
is
one
of
the
factors
that
can
be
looked
at.
E
They
can
vary
widely
in
jurisdictions
that
do
include
an
economic
factor
from
very
general
statement
of
it
would
cost
more
to
repair
than
the
property
is
worth
to
something
like
some
kind
of
math
equation.
That
says,
Rehabilitation
of
the
structure
sure
would
be
more
than
x.
You
know
of
the
the
property
value
and
therefore
it's
eligible
for
demolition.
No.
D
E
J
Think
the
point
of
all
this
was
to
create
some
guidance
for
those
properties
over
50
years
old
that
had
some
character
to
them
for
lack
of
a
better
word-
and
you
know
we
were
struggling,
some
folks
were
struggling
to
get
demolitions
approved
for
a
50-plus
year
old
building
that
I
mean
almost
anyone
would
agree,
had
no
real
character
to
it.
For
again,
just
using
a
single
word
I
would
ask
the
question
I,
don't
think
we
use
economic
hardship
with
any
of
our
other
boards
of
the
bar.
Anything
like
that
and
I
know.
J
The
drb
is
handles
different
areas,
but
personally
I
unless
I'm
wrong,
I,
think
that
would
be
a
slippery
slope
for
us
to
start
going
down.
If
we,
if
we
have
the
the
ability
to
make
some
some
judgments
about
his
historical
nature
and
the
character
of
a
property,
no,
you
can
always
get
somebody
to
stand
up
and
say:
oh,
it's
going
to
cost
me
so
much
more
money
to
do
this
than
that.
C
A
E
C
E
We
did
have
the
one
that
you
all
did
a
settlement
for
out
on
I
believe
was
out
on
Folly,
where
the
structure
had
had
quite
a
bit
of
issues.
There
were
questions
about
whether
or
not
it's
the
structure
embodied
a
distinct
character
or
type,
or
what
have
you.
It
was
the
last
of
its
kind
on
the
street.
It
used
to
have
like
three
or
four
other
I
think
we
call
them.
E
Sister
houses
is
the
the
term
that
our
our
preservation
issues
most
often
that
if
this
criteria
had
been
in
place
at
that
time,
time,
I
think
the
board
would
have
actually
maybe
voted
to
approve
the
demolition,
but
it
ended
up
having
to
go
I
think
in
and
we
ended
up
doing
a
settlement
to
approve
that
demolition
via
Council.
So
that
would
be
an
example
where
the
board,
because
of
the
more
nebulous,
not
nebulous
the
the
additional
need
for
criteria,
voted
to
deny
the
demolition
of
that
structure.
E
E
D
I
think
I
just
forgot,
I
forgot
to
put
it
down
so
council
member
I
can
give
I
can
give
you
the
floor
or
just
we'll
work
on
this,
though
Miss
Creech
I
I
would
like
to
know.
I
mean
just
as
far
as
property
rights,
Go
I
mean
I'm
all
for
making
this
much
more
clear
and
concise.
Obviously,
I
mean
this
is
this?
D
Is
the
big
part
of
you
know,
development
and
when
people
are
buying
or
selling
I
mean
this
is
a
big
component,
so
anything
we
can
do
to
clarify,
obviously
I'm
all
for
it,
but
I
am
just
curious
as
far
as
property
rights,
Go
I
mean
you
know
again
we
have
we're
creating.
You
know
this
litmus
test
of
this
board,
comprised
of
volunteer
citizens
or
or
whatever
it
may
be,
and
and
City
staff
to
say
you
know
this.
You
know
we
deem
this
historic
because
XYZ,
you
know
as
far
as
property
rates
go.
F
I
I
think
that
what
we
are
proposing
is
this
still
within
the
framework
of
what
is
existing.
It's
just
more
specific,
so
I
don't
think
if
you're
looking
at
it
in
the
context
of
property
rights,
we're
not
taking
more
away
we're,
making
a
more
clear
distinction
about
when
and
how
these
things
happen.
Well,.
D
F
B
But
it's
it's
a
complicated
question
and
it's
a
complicated
issue
and
here's
what
I
mean,
especially
when
you
start
talking
about
historic
preservation
off
the
peninsula,
because
when
you're
talking
about
the
drb
you're
talking
about
West
Ashley,
James,
Island
you're
talking
Highway
17,
Sam,
Rittenberg,
Folly
Road
things
of
that
nature.
Let's
say
a
developer
comes
in,
wants
to
do
an
affordable
housing
development,
but
there's
a
gas
station
on
the
property
or
a
mini
mart
or
something
that's
65
years
old.
But
you
know
it's
not
it's
not
the
Taj
Mahal,
it's
not
something
South
abroad.
B
B
You
know
very
important,
because
right
now,
councilman
Parker
to
your
point,
I
mean
it
is
basically
just
an
open-ended
unbridled
discretion,
Fest
for
the
drb
and
it's
just
such
a
blunt
tool
of
just
saying,
if
you're
50
years
or
older
you're.
Just
this,
you
know
historic
structure,
I
mean
you
could
be.
We
were
just
talking
the
other
day
about
those
structures
on
the
corner
of
17
and
wapu.
B
Road
Limehouse
property
I
mean
I,
don't
know
how
old
those
things
are,
but
if
I
don't
care,
if
those
are
200
years
old,
they're
horrible
and
they
should
come
down
and
there
shouldn't
be
a
board
situation,
I
mean
I
deal
with
litigation
all
the
time
where
opponents
of
projects
will
just
appeal.
These
zoning
board
decisions
through
five
six,
seven
years,
just
to
delay
projects
they
don't
like
and
just
try
to
smoke
people
out.
B
So
you
know
we
got
to
be
very
careful
with
how
we
balance
this
and
how
we
structure
this,
especially
the
further
you
get
away
from
sort
of
the
core
historic
gems
on
the
peninsula.
I
mean
we've
had
a
lot
of
good
discussion
on
Council
and
in
this
committee
about
you,
know
the
historic
preservation
rules,
north
of
line
Street
on
the
peninsula
and
some
of
the
adverse
impacts
that
that
may
have
on
things
like
affordable
housing.
Things
like
gentrification
things
of
that
nature.
So
again,
I'm
not
hating
on
historic
preservation.
B
B
But
you
don't
just
like
apply
these
rules
sweepingly
down
a
whole
Corridor
I
mean
I,
think
we
could
all
drive
up
and
down
Sam
Rittenberg
and
view
a
lot
of
buildings
that
are
50
years
or
older.
That
would
be
wonderful.
You
know
that
don't
have
much
Merit
to
them
right
and
it
would
be
great
to
see
those
structures
give
way
for
things
like
affordable
housing
or
just
general
Economic.
Development
I
mean
you
know.
B
Rules
like
this
are
actually
in
tension
with
some
of
our
other
goals
in
the
city:
affordable,
housing,
revitalization,
things
of
that
nature,
so
you
just
got
to
make
sure
we're
striking
the
right
balance
to
protect
prop
not
only
property
rights,
but
also
some
of
these
other
goals
that
are
very
laudable
that
we're
trying
to
achieve
in
the
city.
So
we
thought
I
would
just
mention
that,
but
this
is
this
is
definitely
an
improvement
of
the
status
quo.
No
Doubt.
B
E
One,
no
sir,
we've
got
a
couple
more.
You
know
where
it
is
all
right,
so
this
next
one
for
those
of
you
who
are
on
the
TNT
committee
or
or
heard
this
part
of
the
TNT
committee
report
from
Council
are
already
somewhat
familiar
with,
but
Melissa
has
been
working.
Miss
Crothers
has
been
working
with
the
T
committee
on
an
amendment
to
the
zoning
code
to
address
parking
and
storage
of
commercial
vehicles.
E
D
A
quick
comment
and
I
because
I
know
the
mayor
brought
it
up
at
TNT
a
few
months
back
and
and
I
agree.
I
just
want.
You
know
when
we
talk
about
residential
I,
just
I
know
we
kind
of
clarified
this
at
TNT,
but
I
just
want
to
make
that
pretty
clear
again
that
you
know
places
like
James
Island.
If
someone
has
a
commercial
vehicle
that
they're
parking
on
their
personal
property,
that's
not
going
to
be
affected,
correct.
C
E
E
Questions
all
right,
so
this
next
one
is
to
address
a
situation
where
we've
been
seeing
a
lot
of
interest
in
doing
some
Recreation
type
activities
at
a
secondary
kind
of
operations
within
other
businesses,
primarily
restaurants,
and
so,
but
under
our
limited
business
rules,
there's
you
can't
really
do
Recreation
type
uses,
and
so
this
amendment
will
help
address
Recreation
uses
as
a
secondary
or
subordinate
use
to
some
other
principle
use.
So
you
know
just
as
for
for
anyone.
E
It
has
a
limited
number
of
uses
as
restrictions
on
the
hours
of
operation
and
that's
because
you
will
find
the
lb
District
primarily
adjacent
to
residential
districts
and
other
sensitive
of
development,
like
churches
and
schools
and
things
of
that
nature.
So
many
of
our
recreational
activities
we're
seeing
a
lot
more
kind
of
Dual
Purpose
types
of
businesses
coming
in
where
it's
become
very
common
to
have
a
secondary
activity
such
as
pickleball,
we've
all
had
the
pickleball
conversations.
Council
has
talked
a
lot
about
pickleball,
that's
one
or
there's.
E
Anyway,
these
things
are
becoming
much
more
common,
and
so
what
this
amendment
seeks
to
do
is
it
introduces
some
parameters
for
recreation
type
uses
as
an
accessory
use
in
the
lb
zoning
district,
and
then
it
provides
some
operational
limits
that
ensure
that
if
a
recreational
use
is,
is
an
additive
part
of
that
business,
that
it
truly
is
secondary.
Cherry
to
that
permitted,
primary
use
and
then
it'll
have
minimal
impacts
on
any
surrounding
properties,
again
consistent
with
the
intent
of
the
limited
business
district.
E
D
E
We
we
chose
to
go
with
income
because
again,
that
is
something
that
you
do
or
Revenue,
rather
not,
income
Revenue,
because
that
is
something
you
do
see
more
predominantly
in
these
secondary
operations
in
part,
because
things
like
creating
the
tax
throwing
Lanes
or
mini
golf
activity
or
a
pickleball
court.
Those
can
take
up
a
fair
amount
of
real
estate,
and
so
we
didn't
want
to
do
percentage
of
of
lot
area
or
what
have
you?
E
Because
then,
that
gets
that
could
get
messy
and
not
really
be
reflective
of
the
use
being
secondary
operationally
to
the
whatever
the
primary
activity.
Is
you
again
so
operational
hours?
They
have
to
be
consistent.
You
can't
come
do
the
secondary
thing.
If
the
primary
thing
is
closed,
a
revenue
needs
to
be
greater
for
the
primary
activity
than
the
secondary
activity
and.
E
J
E
Makes
a
difference
like
so
we
have
like
I
said
so.
We
have
a
business
right
now
that
is
in
an
lb.
Zoning
District
under
the
current
rules.
Lb
does
not
allow
for
these
recreational
activities.
In
fact,
many
recreational
activities
are
specifically
prohibited
per
the
zoning
District
requirement
for
lb.
E
E
Like
you
know,
a
mini
golf
greens
not
mini
golf
like
windmills
and
the
other
stuff,
but
they
want
to
create
little
mini
greens
that
people
can,
while
they're
waiting
for
their
table
or
after
they've
had
dinner.
You
know
they
want
to
go
basically
shoot
a
couple
rounds
of
golf,
so
that
would
be
the
example
that
the
real
world
example
of
a
situation
we
have,
but
we
have
seen
other
examples
where
people
have
asked
about
doing
a
pickleball
court
as
a
part
of
again
a
restaurant.
J
D
A
J
You
know
if
you
wanted
to
have
a
a
facility
where
somebody
could
play
Pickleball,
but
you
didn't
want
to
have
a
facility
that
could
be
open
24
hours.
You
know
I
I
get
it.
That
makes
sense,
I,
I,
guess
the
ax,
throwing
example
is
a
kind
of
extreme
example,
because
no
people
might
have
certain
feelings
about
throwing
axes
certainly
seems
like
the
other
recreational
uses
to
me
would
be
fine
and
limited
business
owning,
but
anyway,.
C
E
All
right,
so
next
we
have-
and
this
is
another
one
that
comes
from
the
request
of
the
members
of
council
and
specifically
the
CD
committee-
that
ask
staff
to
look
at
our
boards
and
find
ways
to
broaden
the
pool
of
potential
members.
So
we
have
an
amendment
that
went
to
Planning
Commission
last
night
and
we're
hoping
to
bring
to
City
Council
in
September
that
would
allow
an
employee
of
a
business
located
in
the
city
to
serve
even
if
they
don't
live
in
the
city.
E
E
The
greatest
example
that
that
we've
had
is,
you
know,
architectural
firms.
We
have
a
any
number
of
architectural
firms
that
are
located
in
the
City
of
Charleston,
but
those
architectural
firms
may
only
have
one
or
two
owners
or
principals
of
the
business,
but
they
may
employ
a
half
dozen,
a
dozen
Architects
that
don't
live
in
the
city,
but
are
fully
credentialed
Architects
that
could
serve
in
our
architect
role
and
provide
a
greater
one.
E
Just
a
greater
number
of
folks
that
could
be
eligible
to
serve,
but
also
a
wider
diversity
of
folks
that
could
serve,
and
so
we're
proposing
to
make
that
change
for
both
the
bar
and
the
both
bar
boards
and
the
drb.
And
then
we
were
asked
to
take
a
look
at
providing
additional
opportunities
for
Lay
persons
to
participate
in
the
boards.
E
Those
are
conversations
we're
still
having
the
the
thing
about
geographical
districts
is,
while
we've
been
having
a
lot
of
discussions
about
how
we
would
Implement
geography.
Part
of
the
problem
is
because
these
are
more
technical
boards.
They
require
people
with
certain
in
general,
they
require
people
with
certain
specific
categories
of
experienced,
professional
and
otherwise,
and
so
then
to
try
to
segment
that
out
by
geography.
E
In
fact,
Planning
Commission
is
an
example.
The
the
memo
that
I
put
on
everybody's
desk.
You
know
we
really
are
trying
to
get
a
a
person
to
serve
on
Planning
Commission,
that's
from
a
geographic
area.
That's
not
already
covered
the
person
who's.
Leaving
was
the
only
person
on
the
board
from
the
Daniel
Island
kenhoy
area,
so
that
is
definitely
councilwoman.
That
is
definitely
a
part
of
our
ongoing
conversation
about
how
we
address
that.
C
B
All
right,
thank
you.
Mr
chairman
I've
mentioned
this
before
I
think
at
full,
Council
and
I
just
feel
compelled
to
say
it
again
because
again,
I
just
deal
with
this
on
a
day-to-day
basis
around
the
state.
Fortunately,
Charleston
has
not
had
a
lot
of
these
problems
over
the
years,
but
there
are
situations
in
other
jurisdictions
where
these
quasi-judicial
boards
become
very
political
and
they
become
very
policy
driven
outcome,
oriented
boards
and
it
creates
enormous
legal
problems
for
the
cities
in
counties.
It
creates
liability.
B
It
frustrates
goals
like
affordable
housing,
things
of
that
nature.
It
is
critical
to
put
the
very
best
people
on
these
boards,
and
it's
about
to
me
it's
not
so
much
about
where
you
where
you
live,
and
what
your
professional
background
it's
about,
how
serious
you
are
and
how
committed
you
are
to
staying
in
your
lane
and
what
I
mean
by
that
is.
These
boards
are
not
policy
boards
like
we
don't
you're
on
the
drb,
and
somebody
proposes
a
gas
station
on
a
piece
of
property
and
that
gas
station
is
allowed
under
zoning.
B
It's
not
there
to
talk
about
whether
we
like
gas
stations
or
not,
or
we
like,
affordable
housing
projects
or
not,
but
that's
oftentimes
what
they
become
again,
not
in
Charleston,
but
I,
see
this
all
the
time
in
other
places
around
the
state.
So
it's
you
know
it's
it's
much
more
about
people,
understanding
what
the
role
of
these
boards
are.
B
Understanding
that
they're
there
not
to
give
their
personal
opinion
on
these
projects
and
things
of
that
nature
they're
there
to
apply
the
facts
that
are
presented
at
the
hearing
to
the
legal
criteria
that
they're
there
to
administer
right.
These
are
quasi-judicial
bodies.
The
judicial
piece
means
these
boards
and
these
people
on
these
boards
function,
like
judges
do,
and
so
when,
when
we
talk
about
lay
people
being
on
the
board,
I
don't
have
anything
against
lay
people.
B
I
love,
lay
people,
I
love
everybody,
but
when,
if
you're
suggesting
late,
people
ought
to
be
on
this
board
because
we
just
need,
like
the
common
person's
opinion,
voiced,
that's
actually
like
completely
inappropriate
for
these
boards.
If
you
want
to
get
right
down
to
it,
it's
it's
about
like
if
you're
on
the
bza.
It's
about
applying
the
variance
test,
it's
a
four-part,
very
specific
variance
test.
The
test
is
not
do
I
like
this
or
not,
or
do
I
wish.
This
was
allowed
under
zoning
or
not
right.
B
So
again,
I'm
not
I.
Think
these
proposals
are
fine.
I
just
think
it's
incumbent
upon
us
all
when
it
comes
time
to
nominating
people
scouting
people
for
these
boards,
the
very
important
boards
it's
about
getting
the
right
people
in-
and
you
know,
there's
just
there's
just
real
negative
consequences
for
not
having
the
right
people
in
and
so
I
hope.
Some
of
that
was
helpful.
C
D
But
if
I,
if
I
may
add
there
are
things
like
we're
talking
about
clarifying
issues
here,
you
know
clarifying
making
things
more
clear
for
the
drb
and
if
and
when
they
aren't
followed,
they
don't
make
it
and
again
we're
talking
about
situations
in
West
Ashley.
You
know
this
isn't
just
about
James
Island
I
mean
for
me.
It's
it.
They
don't
even
make
it
to
council.
It's
not
a
council
decision.
These
are
ultimately
decided
by
these
boards.
So.
D
B
B
B
The
issue
comes
in
where
these
boards
and
again
I
want
to
be
very,
very
clear,
I'm,
not
talking
about
any
of
our
boards.
Any
of
our
particular
board
members,
the
City
of
Charleston.
Does
not
you
don't
hear
about
the
city
of
Charleston's
boards
getting
into
these
kind
of
problems,
but
you
y'all,
please
trust
me
I!
Have
we
can
talk
about
this
off
air,
sometimes,
if
you're
interested
in
some
of
the
details
in
some
of
these
cases,
I've
seen
over
the
years,
I
mean
everything
from
you
just
blow
your
mind:
I
mean
I.
B
Okay,
that's
when
boards
get
out
of
control
and
it
happens
and
it's
real
and
it
frustrates
people's
property
rights
and
it
kills
affordable
housing
projects
and
it
kills
Economic
Development
and
it
helps
you
know,
fostered
some
very
negative
and
toxic
Dynamics
and
these
boards
have
a
lot
of
power
and
the
problem
is
even
if
you
structure
these
ordinances
wonderfully
with
all
these
additional
criteria
and
clarifications.
If
you
don't
have
the
right
people
on
these
boards,
they
just
disregard
it.
B
They
just
say
we
don't
care,
here's,
how
we're
going
to
vote
and
that's
what
creates
the
problem
and
that's
why
these
boards
are.
So
you
know
the
line
between
you
know.
Good
functioning
board
and
a
completely
out
of
control
board
is
so
important
right
because
to
you
know,
Caroline's
Point,
once
they
rule
you
know
and
you're
on
the
other
side
of
that
adverse
ruling.
Your
next
step
is
to
take
it
to
court
and
we're
the
defendant,
and
sometimes
when
sometimes
lose
I
mean
it's
it's
complicated.
B
So
it's
just
about
you
know:
I
had
the
opportunity
to
serve
on
the
BCA
for
years
with
Lenny
krawjack
Lenny
was
the
BCA
chair.
He
was
appointed
by
mayor
gillyard
to
give
you
an
idea
of
how
long
he
had
served
on
the
board
he
predated
mayor
Riley,
so
he
had
been
there
a
long
long
time
and
we
would
see
these
Hotel
applications
come
through
time
and
time
again
during
my
time,
100
unit
200
unit.
B
He
didn't
like
any
of
these
hotels.
He
didn't
like
what
was
happening
to
Charleston
right,
but
he
would
always
tell
me-
and
he
would
always
say
during
the
board
meetings-
it's
not
about
my
opinion,
I'm
here
to
apply
the
facts
that
are
presented
at
this
hearing
to
the
ordinances
that
City
Council
approved
and
if
that
departed
from
his
personal
opinion,
that's
what
he
would
have
to
do
to
serve
in
His
official
role
as
a
bza
member
and
that's
the
attitude,
that's
rare,
but
that's
how
you're
supposed
to
approach
this.
B
It's
not
I,
don't
like
Hotel,
even
though
this
this
is
allowed
and
they
followed
the
rules
that
city
council
said
I,
just
don't
like
it
and
I'm
going
to
kill
this
deal
right.
It's
not
how
it's
supposed
to
work
and
that
same
attitude
directed
at
a
hotel
could
be
directed
at
an
affordable
housing
project,
and
this
is
the
kind
of
stuff
that
makes
this.
That's
where
the
real
rubber
meets
the
room
on
some
of
these
issues.
So
again,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
we
can
structure
our
ordinances.
E
That
was
not
a
district
where
that
was
put,
so
this
amendment
would
add
CT
to
the
list
of
zoning
districts
where
affordable
housing
can
be
conditionally
approved,
and
it
makes
an
allowance
for
affordable
housing
as
a
conditional
use
consistent
with
the
same
Provisions
that
we
have
for
the
limited
business,
which
is
also
a
low
intensity,
commercial
district,
and
with
that
Mr
chairman.
That
is
the
end
of
my
Amendment
Updates.
This
is
one
that.
E
C
J
I
1000
King
Street,
I'm,
I'm
old
enough
to
remember
it
as
County
Hall.
But
most
of
my
time
was
at
King
Street
Palace.
It's
it's
become
one
thousand
King
Apartments.
There
were
some.
There
were
for
a
number
of
years,
some
affordable
and
Workforce
housing
units
there
that
rolled
off
and
in
the
process
of
renovation.
That's
changed,
but
we're
here
today
to
really
just
bring
at
council
members
Mitchell's
request
an
update
of
what
we've
been
working
on
here
and
if
it's
possible
for
me
to
share
my
screen,
which.
A
I
I
Maybe
you
can
see
my
cursor
and
it
butts
what
will
become
New
Market
park
on
the
low
line,
which
is
right
across
from
the
Spaghetti
Junction
of
I-26
and
17
in
the
Ravenel
Bridge,
and
then
you
can
see
as
King
Street
sort
of
widens
their
Cleveland
Street
runs
into
1000
King,
which
then
takes
you
right
into
Hampton
Park,
and
so
as
as
we
now
see
it.
This
is
the
view
that
you
see
from
King
Street
what
what's?
What
sort
of
precipitated
this
Redevelopment
is?
I
Our
clients
started
looking
at
the
size
of
the
property
and
we
we
met
with
councilmember
Mitchell,
and
we
were
talking
about
rezoning
it
from
the
dr2
zoning
that
it
presently
has
into
mu2
and
councilmember
Mitchell.
You'll,
probably
recall
you
said
that
you
would
not
support
mu2,
because
you
wanted
a
stronger
mu2.
You
wanted
mu2
that
would
provide
at
least
one
parking
space
for
every
unit
without
the
credits
that
you
get
for
affordable
or
Workforce
housing,
and
you
wanted
affordable
housing,
not
just
Workforce.
I
I
H
I
To
see
what
you
can
see
in
the
bottom,
I
hope
of
this
screen,
which
is
this
green
line,
which
takes
you
from
low
line,
New
Market
Park
all
the
way
to
King
Street,
and
that
would
be
a
connection
but
but
also
think
about
think
about
this.
This
area,
in
the
back,
where
they're
going
to
be
some
units
constructed
you're
against
these.
These
really
really
tall,
90,
foot,
tall,
interstate
and
Highway
consider
what
could
really
fit
back
there
appropriately.
I
So
we
started
designing
all
that
and
and
came
up
with
if
I
can
walk
you
through
the
product,
the
project-
and
let
me
know
if
your
screen
looks
different
than
mine,
but
this
is
the
new
view
of
what
you
would
see
from
King
Street.
So,
as
you
probably
saw
before,
when
you're
on
King
there's
so
much
vegetation,
you
can't
see
the
really
cool
art
deco,
Art
Deco
structure,
which
is
1
000
King.
So
this
would
create
a
central
opening,
flanked
by
flank
by
townhouses,
on
either
edge
of
the
property.
I
I
I
The
the
height
of
the
parking
I'm,
sorry
of
the
interstate
and
the
and
the
Bridge
behind
us
are
are
about
90
feet,
so
we
were
designing
to
a
little
less
than
that
which
took
it
to
about
four
stories
of
units
and
three
levels
of
parking
so
that
that's
actually,
where
we
hit
a
stopping
point,
we
had
some
interest
from
the
planning
department
to
try
to
see
what
we
could
fit
back
there.
We
took
that
to
North
Central
Jonathan
Yates
met
with
the
neighborhood
it's
so
far
back.
We
didn't
really
have
any
objection.
I
In
fact,
everybody
really
liked
how
it
opened
up
the
view
of
the
facade
of
County,
Hall,
King,
Street
Palace,
and
then
we
started
a
stopping
point
and
that
that
really
brought
us
to
where
we
are
now
just
from
a
numbers
standpoint.
This
would
create
roughly
51
or
52,
with
the
with
the
height
of
the
back
Workforce
and
affordable
units
about
10
or
11
units
that
would
be
affordable
and
about
31
or
32
units
in
the
latest
plan
that
would
be
Workforce,
so
I'm,
I
I
know
you've
had
a
very
long
agenda.
C
I
A
I
C
Yeah
I
wanted
to
when
councilman
Gregory
asked
me.
I
didn't
want
I
wanted
him
to
see
it,
because
I
wanted
to
make
sure
that
he
saw
that
we
are
not
changing
the
facade
of
the
old
County
Hall
that
you'll
be
able
to
see
it
even
from
the
street
when
you're
walking
by
and
when
you're
pulling
up,
and
there
is
still
going
to
be
visible.
This
is
the
historical
factor
of
the
old
County
Hall.
If
you
made,
which
is
1000
King
Street.
That's.
C
B
B
You
know,
Michelle
Johnson
has
reminded
us
over
the
last
couple
weeks
that
we've
got
a
comprehensive
plan
that
calls
for
16
000,
affordable
units
over
the
next
10
years,
and
that
was
a
couple
years
ago,
so
we
only
got
like
eight
more
years
to
get
there
Councilman
Mitchell
and
it's
got
to
come
from
a
variety
of
different
places.
It
can't
just
be
all
the
city:
it's
got
to
be
public
sector,
the
private
sector,
private,
Public,
Partnerships,
we'll
take
it.
However,
we
can
get
it.
B
B
That
number
is
a
small
fraction
of
what
it
was
back.
Then
the
peninsula
can
support
a
lot
more
people
and
it'd
be
better.
In
my
opinion,
to
have
folks
on
the
peninsula
contributing
to
a
diverse,
dynamic,
thriving
Community,
rather
than
seeing,
which
you
know,
new
tractum
development
can
reach
the
ace
Basin
or
the
Francis
Marion
National
Forest.
That's
not
the
right
way
to
grow.
B
The
infrastructure
won't
support
it.
There's
no
plan
for
infrastructure
to
support
it.
This
is
exactly
the
type
of
development
we
need
to
see
more
of
in
the
City
of
Charleston,
and
we
as
a
council,
need
to
do
everything
we
can
to
encourage
and
incentivize
it
so
Brian.
Thank
you
thank
you
and
your
team
and
everyone
that's
brought
this
forward.
I
Yeah
councilman,
thank
you
so
much
for
saying
that
there
is
a
little
bit
of
help
we
need
and
the
help
really
relates
to
the
part
to
the
part
in
the
back,
where,
from
from
the
way
the
height
District
changes,
work
and
this
parcel
being
so
deep,
we
can
only
make
a
request
to
go
from
Two
and
a
half
to
three
and
a
half,
and
we've
got
four
stories
of
residential
in
the
back.
That's
over
over
three
levels
of
parking
compared
to
the
interstate
and
the
bridge.
There's
a
you
know
those.
I
J
Thank
you
a
couple
of
questions
if
I
may-
and
this
is
more
this
first
one
is
more
curiosity,
but
you
mentioned
townhouses
here
and
when
I
think
of
Townhouses
I,
think
of
the
unit
being
one
unit.
All
the
way
up
vertically
so
to
speak
is.
Is
that
the
intent
that
it
doesn't?
It
appears
more
like
you
know,
multi-level
apartments
or
con
or
Suites
that
way,
or
is
it
really
town
houses?
Your.
I
J
I
J
J
J
I
Yeah,
that's
a
that's
a
great
question
and
as
part
of
the
Pud,
we
put
language
in
there
about
activating
that
and
allowing
commercial
use
right
now
in
zone,
diverse
residential,
so
primarily
a
residential
zoning.
But
in
the
Pud
that
we're
proposing.
There
is
language
about
that,
and
there
is
space
in
in
one
of
the
designs
for
approximately
it's
about
2
300
square
feet
of
retail
type
space
that
can
be
in
the
back
there
against.
That
would
be
in
the
back
against
the
low
line,
correct
yeah.
J
Right
so
I
would
encourage
you
to.
You
know
maximize
that,
so
to
speak
and
and
think
about
this
being
like
a
little
stopover
place
along
the
way,
and
then
it
seems
to
me
it
would
be
wonderful
to
connect
if
you
haven't
already
with
the
Charleston
housing
authority
and
maybe
connect
make
a
connection
to
the
South
there
kind
of
that
Middle
Street,
you
know
it
it
it
now.
J
J
A
I
I'm
sorry
councilman
Gregory
I
was
just
going
to
quickly
say
that
that
that
all
sounds
great
and
I
know
one
of
the
things
that
we've
also
been
talking
about
with
and
and
maybe
some
of
the
team
has
been
talking
with
the
Housing
Authority-
about
using
some
of
their
streets
that
actually
dead
in
into
this
property,
to
use
that
to
create
access
for
perhaps
emergency
vehicles
and
like
as
well.
So
it
could
be
pedestrian
and
emergency.
So
there's
we
see
some
opportunities
there,
gotcha.
C
A
I
Yeah
councilmember
I
haven't
had
conversations.
I
know
that
some
folks
with
my
client
have
and
in
fact
at
some
point
try
to
talk
about
utilizing
all
that
space
back
there
for
parking
or
other
uses,
but
the
the
school
district
is
very
cautious
as
we
understand
about
letting
people
on
their
property
for
safety
reasons.
I
But
but
we
are
certainly,
you
know
open
to
connectivity
and
if,
if
you
have
any
contacts
that
you
would
suggest
that
we
talk
to
there
about
that,
I
mean
I.
Think
there's
some
there's
some.
There
are
some
opportunities
in
this
whole
area.
This
is
going
to
be.
This
is
going
to
be
the
connection
first
to
the
low
line
and
the
low
line
itself
back
there
for
the
school
I.
Think
it's
going
to
be
an.
C
Improvement
because
I
talk,
you
know,
I
was
talking
to
math
and
science
way
before
then,
but
we've
had
problems
with
the
buses
parking
on
King
Street
and
you
know
it
was
kind
of
blocking
view
if
you
may,
or
people
coming
across
Kingston
street.
So
they
started
using
that
rare
back
there
for
their
buses
and
everything
else,
because
I
told
them
they
had
to
move
it
off
the
streets
and
the
people
in
the
community
start
complaining.
So
much
and
that's
when
someone
got
hit.
C
So
that's
why
they
move
all
those
buses
back
there
and
then
bring
it
out
when
it's
time
for
the
school
to
be
closed.
So
that's
something:
you'll
have
to
try
to
work
out
with
them
because
they
can't
pop
those
buses
back
on
King
Street
because
of
black
people
coming
out
of
Grove
Street,
because
there's
not
a
light
there.
We
tried
to
put
a
light
there
from
the
D.O.T
and
they
said
it's
not
warranted.
So
we
couldn't
even
get
that
done.
C
J
Mr
chairman
Mr
Mayor,
thank
you,
Mr,
chairman
and,
and
pardon
me
this
is
just
across
the
street
might
just
well
since
we're
thinking
about
this
area
is.
Has
there
been
any
progress
on
on
that
property
right
across
King
Street
with
those
two
dilapidated
houses?
I
know
that
they
had
tried
to
request
to
relocate
them
and
but
the
property
they
wanted
to
take
them
to
was
outside
of
the
city
and
the
bar
wouldn't
give
permission.
Anybody
got
any
new
news.
We
we'd
like
to
see
something
happen
across
the
street
as
well.
The.
C
Last
thing
I
heard:
Mr
Mayor
was
that's
the
saint,
but
you
were
saying
now
the
owner
at
one
time
wanted
to
give
it
away
if
they
moved
the
houses,
but
then
the
BR
said
no.
If
you
move,
it
has
to
stay
in
the
city
still
stay
in
the
city,
so
he
got
stuck
with
it
and
it's
still
there.
It
looks
aside.
It's
going
down
down.
So
he'd
probably
wait
until
it's
fall
down.
I
guess,
but
it's
not
moving.
It's
not
moving.
It's
nothing
happening
to
it
at
all.
C
Just
sitting
there
and
that's
a
big
piece
of
property
can
be
used,
but
he
never
wanted
to
get
rid
of
the
property.
He
just
wanted
to
get
rid
of
the
houses
off
the
property
because
he
didn't
want
to
repair
it.
And
last
that's
the
last
conversation
we
had
years
ago,
a
couple
of
years
ago
with
him
and
I.
Don't
know
what's
going
on
with
them
now
at
this
point,
so
maybe
if
someone
get
back
with
him,
probably
maybe
my
something
else
can
I
can
be
worked
out.
I
guess
Mr.
H
C
And
and
even
if
you
move
them
just
like,
we
was
having
all
this
presentation
with
each
one
of
those
houses,
because
it's
small
because
of
the
streaming
Cottages
the
cost
Factor
even
to
repair
it
good
cause.
It's
gonna
be
some
money,
you
know
so,
but
as
long
as
you
can
find
property
to
move
it
off
the
off
of
the
property,
then
you
the
owner,
I,
don't
know.
If
you
want
to
sell
the
property,
all
people
would
let
you
do
anything.
I,
don't
know
that
point
because
he
won't.
C
G
G
I
Michelle
Johnson,
that
is,
that
is
correct,
because
the
the
height
district
is
set
so
low
there
in
this
property
at
this
parcel,
but
where
the
height
would
go
is
so
far
in
the
back.
The
only
way
that
this
could
be
developed
is
through
through
either
the
planning
department
or
Council,
as
I
understand
it
moving
or
supporting
the
height
necessary
against
the
interstate.
I
There's
that
provision
that
only
allows
a
one
height,
District
change-
and
this
would
be
about
a
this-
would
go
from
basically
two
and
a
half
to
three
and
a
half
up
to
I.
Think
what
we
need
is
six
in
the
back
four
stories
of
residential
with
three
stories
of
parking:
that's
not
affecting
the
front
of
the
property
again
where
the
townhouse
looking
structures
are
just
all
the
way
at
the
very
very
back
where
the
that
this,
this
structure
would
be
in
the
back
of
the
property.
A
H
I
C
A
C
Okay,
it
was
moving
second,
that
we
support
the
running
and
design
coming
in
from
the
of
1000
King
Street.
Any
other
questions
all
in
big
paper
book
by
saying
aye,
aye,
aye
aye
eyes.
Have
it
some
more
so
if
we
don't
have
anything
else
from
the
agenda,
but
one
thing
I
want
to
bring
up
on
the
Sumo,
Street
and
I.
Think
I
might
have
to
add
this
to
agenda.
J
A
K
Depends,
council
member,
if
it's
an
action
item
or
not
right,
you
know.
If
it's
an
action
item
you
would
have
to
have
declared
an
exigency
and
I,
don't
know
whether
soon
but
anyway,
if
it's
a
non-action
item,
if
it's
just
an
instruction
to
staff
or
something
I,
think
you
can
and
I
think
councilman
Gregory
was
going
to
discuss
possibly
adding
it
as
Council
Communications.
K
A
Yes,
just
under
Council,
Communications
I
think
for
our
September
meeting
just
be
able
to
give
staff
a
little
more
instruction
on
what
our
intent
is
with
regard
to
who's.
To
do
what,
in
terms
of
Staff
or
any
consulting
firm,
that
might
be
a
development
might
be
a
part
of
it.
Just
a
discussion,
and-
and
and
in
that
communication
it
might
require
the
body
of
a
whole
to
to
to
to
to
to
vote.