►
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).
A
E
D
D
The
connection
is
unable
to
be
restored
within
30
minutes.
The
items
on
left
on
consideration
will
be
rescheduled
to
the
next
scheduled
meeting.
The
agenda
and
documents
are
located
on
okc.gov
for
anyone
wishing
to
speak
on
an
agenda
item
or
to
speak
under
citizens
to
be
heard.
Hopefully,
you've
already
reached
out
to
city
staff
by
phone
or
email
and
I'll
call
on
you
on
the
at
the
appropriate
time.
D
The
board
can
ask
any
questions
and
then
we'll
deliberate
and
then
the
board
will
vote
if
you
call
in
after
your
item
has
been
heard,
you'll
be
allowed
to
speak
on
your
citizens
to
be
heard.
We
ask
that
you
limit
your
comments
to
five
minutes.
When
you
call
in
staff,
will
mute
your
phone
or
your
device.
D
I
ask
that
all
participants,
except
for
board
members,
keep
their
sound
on
mute
until
they're
recognized
to
speak,
to
unmute
your
phone
press
star
six
and
on
the
zoom
meeting
press
the
space
bar
or
the
click
on
the
microphone
icon.
Please
do
not
interrupt
board
members
as
they're
speaking.
Please
remember
to
only
have
one
person
speaking
at
a
time
I'll
remind
staff
to
make
sure
this
meeting
is
being
recorded,
which
it
looks
like
it
is,
and
I
call
the
meeting
to
order.
Can
the
clerk
call
the
role
please.
G
D
I
J
D
B
K
B
B
A
D
D
D
And
it's
approved
the
next
item
on
the
agenda
is
consent,
requests
which
I
don't
think
that
we
have
any
which
means.
The
next
item
is
items
requiring
a
separate
vote.
C
A
Yes,
my
name
is
greg
pearson.
I
live
at
7201
ridge,
manor
lane.
We
moved
here
about
two
months
ago
and
tried
to
move
a
pool
in
that
into
the
property
that
we
bought
and
we
thought
we
had
plenty
of
room
after
investigation
and
finding
all
my
pins.
I
found
out
that
the
property
layout
that
you
guys
have
on
file
is
not
correct
to
what
actually
I
have
laid
out
on
the
property
this
back.
This
drawing
that
you
have
in
front
of
you
here
is
where
I
want
to
put
the
pool.
A
I
want
to
go
20
feet
away
from
my
property
line,
which
would
I'm
asking
for
the
variance
for
the
five
feet.
That'll
put
me
about
two
and
a
half
feet
away
from
my
porch
in
the
backyard
here
with
the
house
not
being
in
the
exact
same
spot
as
it
was
per
the
plot
plan.
A
A
It's
actually
117
feet
from
the
from
the
property
line,
not
40
feet,
so
the
house
has
been
pushed
back
a
lot
further
on
my
property
than
what
I
thought
it
was
for
the
building
plan,
so
the
20
feet
off
the
off
the
easement
is
where
I'd
like
to
put
the
pool
starting
it
and
then
it'll
finish
it
approximately
two
feet
from
the
concrete
that
I
have
back
here
in
the
back,
it'll
be
about
four
and
a
half
feet
from
my
back
porch,
and
then
I'm
also
looking
to
at
a
later
date
to
put
a
shop
into
the
to
the
left
of
the
house.
A
There
I'm
asking
for
a
variance
to
push
it
as
close
as
I
can
to
the
property
line,
so
I
can
put
a
30
by
40
shop
there.
I
can't
push
it
back
any
further
because
of
the
back
line
because
of
the
utility
easements
is
back
there
and
I
also
have
a
well
that's
30
feet
off
the
off
the
property
line
back
there.
Also
but
it'll
put
it
approximately
two
feet
away
from
the
property
line
and
it'll
be
on
the
side
of
my
house
and
in
the
backyard
of
my
house
right.
There.
A
So
the
variance
request
in
the
back
the
back
easement
is
is
the
five
foot.
Basically,
it's
going
to
be
25
foot
variants
that
I'm
requesting,
but
I'm
requesting
basically
to
be
able
to
basically
be
a
five
foot,
variance
that
I'm
requesting
requesting
there
off
that
utility
easement.
A
F
D
D
No,
it's
fine!
Okay,
I
think,
given
the
part
of
the
city
that
this
is
in
and
that
a
budding,
a
a
land
that
we
can
see
on
this
map,
I
think
I'm
okay
with
this,
given
that,
but
I'm
only
one
kind
of
board
member,
we
can
open
it
up
to
the
other
board
members
for
questions
or
comments
to
the
applicant.
A
L
D
D
A
L
L
Yes,
david
box,
522
call
cord
drive
here
on
behalf
of
the
applicant.
This
is
a
request
for
variance
to
the
five
foot
side
yard
setback.
This
is
a
an
existing
house
that
has
been
in
place
for
for
several
years
and
there
is
an
individual
that
is
seeking
to
buy
the
house
when
they
went
to
get
title
for
it.
It
was
discovered
that
there
is
approximately
a
five
or
six
inch
encroachment
to
the
five
yard.
L
Five
foot
side
yard
setback.
It's
unclear
how
this
this
happened,
presumably
some
sort
of
error
in
the
field
at
the
time
of
pouring
the
foundation,
so
we're
seeking
relief.
From
from
that
again,
it's
very
minimal.
I
think
we're
0.3
feet
away
so
about
five
or
six
inches
from
meeting
that
side
yard
setback.
When
you
drive
down
the
street,
I
would
challenge
you
to
be
able
to
to
look
at
it
and
say
which
house
violates
that
six
inch
prohibition,
but
I
think
it's
consistent.
L
L
D
Okay,
she's
feeling
she's
feeling
generous
today
I
can
get
on
board
with
it.
I
don't
have
anyone
else
signed
up
to
speak
board
members,
any
questions,
comments
or
emotions.
H
I'd
like
to
make
a
motion
that
we
approve
case
number
one,
four,
seven,
seven:
five,
based
on
the
fact
that
it
meets
the
statutory
requirements
of
the
variance.
D
M
Yes,
zack
woods
with
gardner
at
323,
northwest
ninth
in
oklahoma
city.
I
don't
need
to
take
more
time
than
I
need
to
just
a
very
simple
asking
for
a
variance
only
to
as
a
reaction
to
an
existing
utility
easement,
that
is
on
our
property,
that
utility
easement
is
a
15
foot
easement
existing
from
on
on
the
back
side
or
our
side
of
the
property
line.
Therefore,
we
can't
build
closer
to
the
property
line
than
15
feet.
M
D
M
Thank
you
for
your
time.
Everybody
have
a
great
day.
C
Item
four
is
case:
14
1776.
It's
an
application
for
a
renewal
of
a
special
exception
for
blake
gatewood
to
allow
home
sharing
in
the
historic
preservation
district
at
1429,
northwest
38th
street.
D
Okay,
you
wanted
to
introduce
yourself
again
and
give
your
address.
E
E
We
have
done
so
over
the
last
year
we
believe
successfully
and
respectfully,
and
we
wish
nothing
more
than
to
continue
to
do
what
we've
we've
been
doing.
We
followed
all
the
rules
over
the
last
year
that
were
laid
out
for
us.
I
know
some
of
the
neighbors
I'm
reading
the
pdfs
here
that
are
attached
to
it.
I'm
I'm
seeing
some
accusations
that
we
weren't
home
all
the
time
and
maybe
we
were
using
it
for
prostitution
or
something,
I
think
is
what
it
was
implying.
E
I
I
can
assure
you
that
neither
of
those
things
are
the
case
and
as
far
as
I
knew
there
were
actually
no
complaints
about
it
up
until
this
meeting
wrapped
back
up
over
the
course
of
the
whole.
Last
year
no
neighbor
has
ever
approached
me.
I
was
approached
by
one
neighbor,
who
actually
told
me
that
you
know
they
opposed
me
at
the
last
meeting
and
they
told
me
that
they
had
a
change
of
heart
and
actually
thought
it
was
a
great
idea.
E
I
I
think
that
it
just
went
really
smoothly.
I
mean
there.
There
were,
you
know
two
cars
at
times,
but
that
was
what
was
allowed
under
my
the
rules.
E
You
you
all
set
out
for
me
to
follow
most
of
the
time
I
think
they're,
actually
one
car
or
no
cars,
I
had
the
opportunity
to
host
some
of
the
neighbors
and
some
of
the
neighbors
in
our
neighborhood
had
family
members
coming
in
town
and
they
wanted
them
to
stay
close,
so
I
would
put
them
up
in
the
airbnb
and
overall,
it
was
just
really
a
really
great
thing
for
our
family.
It
was
a
you
know,
a
good
supplemental
income.
E
We
had
had
fun
with
it
and
you
know
never
felt
that
there
was
anything
bad
going
on
in
there
or
that
it
was
any
way
a
danger
to
my
family.
We
actually
just
had
a
third
child
and
obviously
we
would
never
do
anything.
That
would
put
our
family
in
danger
so
based
on
the
fact
that
we
believe
it
went
so
smoothly
over
the
last
year.
E
E
First,
I
think
you
know
just
the
fact
that
this
year
went
well
is
evidence
that
I'm
able
to
do
what
I'm
proposing
in
a
respectful
manner
that
does
not
in
any
way
jeopardize
the
historic
nature
of
this
neighborhood,
which
is
what
this
you
know.
This
code,
this
oklahoma
city
city
zoning
code
was
designed
to
do.
E
I
believe
that
that
we
should
be
granted
an
extension
to
the
full
extent,
which
I
I
believe
is
ten
years
I'd-
be
willing
to
accept
a
little
bit
less
than
that,
but
that's
kind
of
what
I'm
going
for
and
really
the
main
reason
I
want
this
and
even
asking
for
it
is
because
I
believe
that
there
I
believe
what
we're
doing
is
is
respectful
of
our
neighbors.
E
You
know,
obviously
it
concerns
some
people
and
it's
it's
an
odd
thing
for
some
for
some
neighbors,
and
I
I
understand
that-
and
I
still
want
to
be
respectful
of
that.
But
I
think
that
there
are
some
neighbors
and
some
people
in
oklahoma
city
just
at
large
that
might
never
agree
or
get
on
board
with
the
idea
of
airbnb
at
all,
and
so
I
don't
want
to
have
to
come
before
this
board
every
single
year
and
cause
a
big
fight
in
my
neighborhood,
because
it
really
is
polarizing.
D
Okay,
I
will
note
for
you
that
no
one
who's
come
here
on
a
special
exception.
Application
has
gotten
10
years
and
no
one
in
hp
has
gotten
even
close
to
10
years.
So
I'll
tell
you
that
kind
of
right.
Now,
I'm
not
in
favor
of
anything
close
to
10
years
for
this,
assuming
it
gets
approved,
I'm
only
one
member
of
the
board
but
and
I
can
be
outvoted,
but
that's
that's
kind
of
where
I
am.
D
I
appreciate
your
concerns
about
kind
of
reagitating
these
these
issues
every
year
or
something
you
know
and
trying
to
avoid
that.
I
understand
that,
but
I
can't
go
on
board
with
10
years
or
anything
close
to
that
I'll.
Just
kind
of
get
that
out
there.
D
E
So
so
my
my
thought
on
that
is
just
that
under
the
zoning
code,
someone
whose
primary
residence
they're
using,
if
I
wasn't
hp,
I
would
I
would
be
able
to
use
an
airbnb
as
long
as
I
followed
the
ordinances
I
wouldn't
have
to
come,
get
a
special
exemption
from
you
guys,
but
because
I'm
in
hp
you
know
the
whole
purpose
is
to
preserve
the
historic
preservation
district
and
if,
if
I'm
showing
that
I
can
do
that,
then
in
my,
in
my
view,
I'm
in
exactly
the
same
shoes
as
any
other
person
in
the
city
who's,
not
in
historic
preservation,
because
even
if
you
gave
me
a
10-year
license
at
any
point
in
time,
if
I'm
not
following
rules
or
if
I'm
not
doing
things
in
a
way
that
that
preserve,
if
I'm
trying
to
do
something
that
affects
the
historic
nature
of
of
the
district,
I'm
going
to
get
called
out
and
my
license
is
going
to
get
pulled.
E
I
mean
I
mean.
There's
it's
not
like.
If
I
fall,
don't
follow
the
rules,
it
can't
be
revoked,
you
know.
So
that's
just
my
thought
is
I
I
see
myself
as
an
exactly
the
same
shoes
as
any
primary
resident
in
the
city,
because
I
have
shown
that
I
can
do
it
in
a
respectful
way
of
the
historic
preservation.
D
The
only
thing
if,
if
you're
eight
the
difference
with
hp
is,
if
you're
not
going
to
be
there
at
the
time,
then
you
also
need
a
variance,
but
unless
you're
grandfathered
in
you
need
a
special
exception
and-
and
I
get
that
point,
if
you're,
if
it's
not
your
primary
residence,
then
you
know
that
might
change
things
but
you're
an
hp
and
that
was
hotly
just
disputed
issue
at
city
council
hp
was-
and
so
I
understand
your
point
of
saying
if
I
live
somewhere
else,
things
would
be
different,
but
the
fact
is
that
you
don't
so.
D
Unfortunately,
you
have
to
deal
with
these.
These
issues
that
come
up.
That's
not
to
say
I
don't
support
your
application.
I
mean,
I
think,
that
you
have
demonstrated
that
the
sky
is
not
falling
just
because
you're
doing
home
sharing.
D
I
agree
with
you
that
there
are
a
lot
of
these
fears
early
on
that
people
had
that
weren't
really
substantiated
and
you
know
sometimes
haven't
been
substantiated
after
a
year
or
so,
and
so
you
know
I
I
can
support
your
application
because
it
seems
like
you've,
you
know,
complied
with
everything
that
we've
said
my
only
issues
with
the
timeline,
I'm
not
on
board
with
a
long
term
thing,
and
so
and
that's
also
before
I
hear
from
some
of
the
protests.
H
This
is
kitty.
I
I
would
like
to
support
what
chairman
merchant
just
said,
because
10
years
is
a
long
time
and
I'm
not
aware
of
any
length
of
time
in
that
endurance,
so
I'm
I'm
willing
to
support
it,
but
at
a
lesser
time,
limit.
D
Yeah,
I
think
maybe
we
wait
and
see
what
some
of
the
other
commenters
have
to
say
and
then
we
can.
D
Okay,
I
think
I
heard
from
city
staff
that
they
have
the
ability
to
identify
the
next
speakers
that
are
signed
up.
But
if
there
are
no
other
questions
for
the
applicant,
we'll
move
on
to
the
next
person
that
signed
up
to
speak.
D
N
I
D
I
D
Go
we
can
hear
you
welcome
to
the
meeting
if
you
want
to
identify.
D
By
name
and
address
and
give
us
your
comments.
I
I
Actually
we
look
into
their
prop
that
that
property
that
we
are
discussing
here-
my
name
is
yolanda
post
and
my
husband's
name
is
young
and
we
live
on
1435
northwest
38th
street.
I
I
I
320
320
320
000
320
000
dollars
they
they,
when
you
gave
this
permission,
that
they
could
get
this
limited
this
this
limited
thing
to
do
in
airbnb
they
changed
interior
of
this
beautiful
old
house.
It
was
built
in
1923
by
putting
in
a
dividing
bowl
and
a
kitchenette
to
construct
a
new
apartment
that
was
not
there
when
they
bought
the
place.
I
At
that
time.
Mr
gatewood
mentioned
to
me
that
he
wanted
to
to
make
also
the
backyard
into
paradise
for
his
guests,
hot
tubs
and
all
that
kind
of
stuff,
and
he
told
me
that
he
loved
to
play
the
host,
but
I
doubt
that
he
has
much
contact
at
all
with
his
guests:
the
entrance
of
the
apartment,
the
rental
payment
they
charge
hundred
dollars
a
night
and
the
cleaning
crew
they
are
all
organized
by
computer.
I
The
apartment
is
rented
almost
seven
days
a
week,
seven
days
a
week.
We
got
no
people
in
and
the
direct
or
there
is
not
good
direct
oversight
by
the
host
by
the
host.
Of
course,
that's
a
great
business
model
that
you
get
your
money
without
doing
too
much
work
in
the
ordinance
that
I
just
mentioned,
the
59.
I
Only
the
last
few
months
before
the
renewal
requirement,
this
requirement
was
was
followed
and
the
gateways
were
present,
but
the
nine
months
before
that
we
often
observed
that
they
were
absent
during
the
weekends,
the
the
guests.
We
noticed,
the
guests
are
not
vetted
properly.
During
the
week
more
serious
persons
are
visiting
and
they
usually
come.
They
arrive
in
one
car
and,
apart
from
all
that
loud
door,
closings
and
talking
late
at
night,
their
presence
is
bearable.
I
D
I
Oh
sorry,
well.
We
therefore
respectful
request
to
limit
the
renewal
of
the
special
exception
to
one
year,
so
mr
blake
and
mary
gatewood
can
prove
themselves
as
true
host
of
the
airbnb
because
they
also
they
can
show
that
they
are
not
there
because
one
weekend
a
lady
arrived
there
that
was
inviting
inviting.
How
do
you
call
those
those
guys,
gentlemen,
callers
and
they
were
not
there,
because
I
went
to
the
place
on
sunday
afternoon
when
I
then
she,
when
this
lady
of
the
night
showed
herself,
but
they
never
do,
but
she
opened
the
blinds.
I
You
know-
and
I
noticed
for
the
first
time
that
that
was
happening
in
that
apartment
event
in
the
evening
that
she
left,
because
I
was
afraid
for
the
customers.
I
must
tell
you
she
left
and
immediately
afterwards,
around
five
o'clock.
I
went
to
their
apartment
to
discuss
this
with
them,
but
they
were
not
there.
So
I
couldn't
discuss
it.
Then,
of
course,
the
next
morning
I
called
the
police-
and
I
said
well-
is
that
allowed?
I
Can
you
just
rent
out
your
your
apartment
in
the
airbnb
to
this
kind
of
customer,
and
he
said
no,
you
cannot,
but
you
you
have
to
tell
us
about
it.
Well,
if
I
tell
on
sunday
what
is
going
on
there
and
the
police
is
coming,
I
can
expect
a
drive-by
shooting
you
know.
Well,
you
know
this
is
what
I
just
want
to
tell
that.
I
love
the
gates.
Woods
really
I
do,
but
I
don't.
I
I
want
them
to
actually
protect
me
and
my
safety
and
also
their
own,
but
if
they
are
not
there,
they
cannot
protect
me.
That's
what
I
respectfully
ask
you
to
give
them
only
one
year,
so
that
we
can
check
that
they
are
really
trying
to
to
not
that
of
vet.
This
kind
of
people
visiting
their
property,
okay,.
G
You
hear
me:
okay,
thank
you.
Well,
there
are
other
neighbors
here
who
are
in
closer
proximity
to
this
particular
property,
and
they
will
make
their
case
about
the
specific
things
that
ms
post
has
brought
up.
I
I
wanted
to
just
very
briefly
keep
some
general
ideas
before
the
board
of
adjustment
on
airbnb
or
home
sharing,
as
it's
called
in
historic
preservation
neighborhoods.
I
was
part
of
the
group
that
worked
for
several
months
on
coming
up
with
an
ordinance
and
we
got
as
much
as
we
could.
G
I
remember
on
your
first
hearing,
which
was
on
this
particular
property
last
year
in
an
hp
district,
some
of
the
frustration
that
was
expressed
of
not
getting
too
many
guidelines
from
the
city
council,
and
I
can
tell
you
the
city
council-
did
as
much
as
they
felt
they
could
and
you've
probably
heard
this
too
from
other
sources,
because
airbnb
was
was
not
particularly
cooperative
and
always
threatened
preemption
to
go
to
the
legislature
which
they've
done
in
other
states.
G
So
I
appreciate
your
sensitivity
to
our
historic
preservation
concerns.
G
Although
you
didn't
get
many
guidelines
and
I've
noticed
that
you've
put
in
some
guidelines-
maybe
yourself
on
an
on
an
informal
basis,
and
I
do
appreciate
that
I
wanted
to
keep
before
the
board
specifically
today
the
issue
of
the
contributing
property,
the
main
house,
you
might
say,
being
being
an
airbnb,
the
garage
apartment,
the
those
those
kinds
of
things
are
not
a
huge
concern
for
most
of
us,
but
when
we
do
start
moving
airbnbs
into
the
main
houses,
that's
where
our
concern
really
gets
get
gets
noticed
the,
and
this
one
does-
and
that
was
my
objection
last
year
and
it's
my
objection
this
year
and
I
just
ask
the
board
to
keep
that
in
mind
on
this
and
other
applications
that
when
we
are
talking
about
the
contributing
property
and
this
one
is,
it
was
built
in
1911
and
it
has
it's
a
beautiful
old
house
that
that
does
affect
and
can
affect
greatly
the
the
ambiance
of
the
neighborhood
and
the
property
itself.
G
I
would
say
henry
I'm
I'm
heartened
to
hear
that
generally,
the
board
does
not
give
long-term
special
exceptions.
Ten
years
is
a
long
time
and
the
problem
with
the
ordinance
allowing
ten
years
is
this
special
exception
runs
with
the
property,
not
the
owner.
G
So
mr
blake
wood
can
make
all
the
assurances
that
he
wants
to,
but
if
he
sells,
the
property
he's
no
longer
in
charge
of
what
happens
there
and
someone
else
will
be,
and
they
will
inherit
that
special
exception
and
that's
a
concern,
and
we
appreciate
your
noting
that
I
would
just
defer
to
my
neighbors
who
have
worked.
I
think
with
mr
blakewood
on
some
ideas
on
on
how
limited
it
should
be.
G
Our
neighbors
do
not
get
all
hateful
and
stirred
up
and
concerned
over
this.
We
didn't
this
time
and
I
believe
the
neighbors
have
tried
to
talk
with
mr
gatewood
and
may
have
to
come
to
some
ideas
and
for
and
suggestions
for
some
of
the
some
of
the
curtailment
of
what
could
be
some
of
the
uses
license
pulling
is
not
easy
in
one
of
these
things,
and
that
is
not
really
something
that
we
should
say.
Well,
if
he
doesn't
do
it
right,
his
license
can
be
pulled.
G
There's
that's
a
fairly
complicated
process
and
I
don't
even
know
that
it's
been
tried
yet
so
we
need
to
get
this
right
going
in,
and
that
is
really
all
I
wanted
the
board
to
keep
in
mind
was
when
you're
talking
about
a
contributing
property,
it
does
raise
the
stakes
for
historic
preservation.
Thank
you.
D
I
D
Cindy,
if
we,
I
think
that's
all,
I
saw
that
we
had
signed
up
to
speak,
but
it
sounds
like
we
might
have
some
more.
So
if
you
had
anyone
else
certainly
feel
free
to
call
on
them.
D
Applicant
okay
hearing
none,
mr
gatewood.
If
you
wanted
to
respond
to
any
of
those
comments,.
E
E
The
rules
remain
the
same
I
mean,
and
I
have
no
plans
to
sell
my
property,
but
even
if
it
did
get
passed
on
to
someone
else,
they
would
have
to
follow
those
same
rules
and
if
they,
if
they
didn't,
then
you
know
the
repercussions
would
be
suffering.
You
know.
I
think
I
I
definitely
understand
neighbors
concerns
and
I
I
get
I
get
it
and
I
want
to
be
respectful
of
of
those
concerns
and
you
know
obviously
I'd
be
willing
to
take
what
less
than
10
years.
E
I
think
I
really
think
even
two
years
would
be
too
short
when,
when
my
concern
is,
is
this
discord?
I
mean
I've
had
a
handful
of
guests
who
have
stayed
come
to
me
and
say
they've
been
approached
by
neighbors
who
are
trying
to
talk
them
out
of
staying
at
my
place
anymore,
telling
them
they're
not
welcome
to
stay
in
this
neighborhood
anymore.
We
don't
like
airbnbs
around
here
and
I
think
I
think
a
longer
period
of
time
makes
some
of
that
go
away.
E
I
think
there
has
to
be
a
length
of
time
that
makes
people
accepting
that
you
know
this.
You
know
this
while
while
it
may
be
regulated
and
all
their
rules
in
place,
it
can
still
be
done.
You
know
I.
I
think
that
the
concerns
are
mostly
just
that
people
don't
like
airbnb
and
I
think,
and
I
think,
granting
a
three
or
four
year
extension
takes
care
of
me
having
to
come
before
you
again
and
stirring
the
whole
neighborhood
up
again
and
again
and
and
neighbors
talking
to
guests
and
all
that
kind
of
stuff.
E
E
It's
just
we're
kind
of
put
in
this
awkward
position
where
we
have
to
oppose
each
other
on
on
this
thing,
and
so
that's
I,
I
think
a
three
or
four
year
extension
would
soothe
some
of
those
some
of
that
turn
around
in
the
long
term.
D
Okay,
board
members,
any
questions
or
comments
of
the
applicant
before
we
discuss.
B
J
They
don't
have
a
forum
to
do
that,
and
so
I
have
a
concern
about
that
reasoning,
but
I'm
ultimately
on
board
with
what
mr
merchant
said
earlier
and
I
think
miss
asbury
and
and
mike
also
that
I
I
don't
oppose
your
application.
I
don't.
I
think
that
airbnb
is
the
way
of
that
things
are
going
and
but
I
I
would
also
be
reluctant
to
grant
you
know
a
four
or
five
or
you
know
something
like
that
time
term.
For
this.
J
I
did
also
have
a
question:
if
none
of
the
other
board
members
did,
there
were
some
concerns
by
one
of
the
neighbors
about
you
and
your
wife
not
being
or
the
owners
of
the
home
not
being
present
when
the
the
folks
are
there.
I
just
wanted
to
give
you
an
opportunity
to
address
that.
E
Yeah
I
mean
I,
I
don't
really
know
what
else
to
say.
Besides
assure
you
that
you
know,
I
don't
know,
I
don't
know
if
my
neighbors
are
under
the
impression
that
I
have
to
be
there
every
second
there's
a
guest.
I
mean
there
are
times
where
we're
going
to
the
grocery
store
to
eat
dinner
with
family,
or
that
kind
of
thing
I
don't
know.
If
I
I
mean,
I
definitely
don't
think
that
that's
a
violation
and
I
have
been
there
have
been
times
when
I
do
that.
E
If
I'm
going
out
of
town,
I
can
assure
you
we
are
blocking
off
that
weekend
and
we
are
not
renting
it
out.
There
have
been
times
where
we
there
have
been
many
times
where
we
turned
down
money
on
a
weekend,
because
we
knew
we
were
going
to
be
out
of
town,
and
I
you
know
I
I
don't
know
if
maybe
we're
going
for
part
of
the
day
and
and
you
know
we
aren't
seeing
passing
through
your
eye-
I
don't
know,
but
I
assure
you
we're.
D
Following
those
regulations-
and
I
I
agree
with
you-
I
don't
think
that
the
code
requires
that
you
kind
of
sit
in
the
other
room
looking
at
the
tenants
and
make
you
know
watching
them
every
second
that
they're
there.
You
know,
I
don't
think
that
it
requires
that.
But
you
know
it
does
require
that
you
stay
there.
You
know
that
you're
there,
while
they're
there
generally
and
it
sounds.
L
D
By
europa
representations
today
that
you
are
so
I'm
comfortable
with
that,
I
think
you've
shown
your
neighbors
that
you
can
successfully
do
this.
I
think
a
lot
of
the
concerns
are
generally
opposition
to
home,
sharing
in
general
and
people,
just
not
wanting
it
in
oklahoma
city
or
not
wanting
it
at
hp,
which
we've
said
several
times.
City
council
could
have
made
that
happen
and
they
didn't
make
that
happen.
They
allowed
for
it
to
happen
in
narrow
circumstances.
D
I
think
hp
needs
to
be
the
most
narrow
circumstances.
I
am.
I
I
personally
have
a
keen
eye
on
making
sure
that
these
types
of
uses
don't
change
the
character
of
a
neighborhood.
D
So
if
you
start
getting
a
bunch
of
airbnbs
on
your
street,
we're
gonna
have
some
serious
problems,
but
you
have
a
kind
of
the
benefit
of
being
the
first
in
there
with
it,
and
so
you
know
you
can
kind
of
rest
comfort
have
a
little
bit
of
comfort
on
that
fact
alone,
but
we
are
keeping
an
eye
on
whether
a
lot
of
you
start
popping
up
in
a
certain
area,
and
it
starts
to
not
look
like
a
neighborhood
anymore.
It
starts
to
look
like
a
quasi
apartment,
complex
or
hotel,
complex
or
something.
D
So
those
are
my
thoughts
I
can
get
on
board
subject
to
the
restrictions
that
are
already
in
place
and
it
doesn't
sound
like
there
are
any
new
restrictions
that
need
to
be
put
in
place
that
that
I
can
think
of
obviously
there's
criminal
activity.
You
know
and
the
police
will
deal
with
that.
That's
not
really
our
role,
and
I
think
your
your
permit
and
special
exceptions
are
at
significant
risk.
D
D
By
having
a
10-year
special
exception
and
to
me
it's
unfortunately
for
our
purposes,
I
understand
for
your
purposes,
that's
what
you
want,
but
for
our
purposes
I
think
we
want
to
see
you
in
here
kind
of
regularly
and
keep
an
eye
on
these
home
sharing
in
hp
districts,
and
so
I'm
in
favor
of
a
shorter
period
of
time,
but
I
could
get
on
board
with
longer
than
we
initially
gave,
which
is
a
year,
because
you've
demonstrated
that
you
can
do
it
successfully.
H
I
would
have
to
echo
monica
two
for
me
only
because
the
two
women
stated
one
year
terms
themselves
and
you're
asking
for
additional
time
which,
if
you
get
two
that
is
an
additional
time
frame.
So
therefore,
my
my
my
support
would
be
for
two
years.
D
B
J
E
Thank
you.
I
I
really
appreciate.
I
appreciate
your
time.
I
I
am
kind
of
curious
how
many
other
hp
individuals
have
come
through
this
process
like.
D
It's
there
aren't
very
many,
I
think
maybe
three
three
or
four
tops,
but
there
aren't
very
many
and
they've
slowed
down
a
lot
with
the.
L
E
Okay-
and
I
will
say
mr
merchant,
just
to
kind
of
speak
to
what
you're
saying
about
taking
over
a
neighborhood
with
airbnbs,
I
mean
if
you
look
at
a
map.
So
if
you
get
on
airbnb's
app
and
you
look
at
the
map
of
all
the
airbnbs
in
oklahoma
city
and
you
look
at
a
neighborhood
like
master
park,
there
are
airbnb
throughout
that
neighborhood
and
you
know
I.
I
think
that
the
historic
neighborhood
of
that
historic
character
that
neighborhood
is
still
intact.
D
D
Sure
I
understand
I'm
just
just
letting
you
know
we're
keeping
an
eye
on
that.
A
lot
of
those
were
grandfathered
in
because
we
haven't
seen
a
lot
of
those
from
nestor
park,
but
I
know
there
are
a
lot
over
there,
but
it's
just
and
it's
more
so
kind
of
street
by
street
or
block
by
block
if
we
start
seeing
someone
that
buys
a
whole
block
of
properties
and
turns
and
tries
to
turn
them
all
into
bmvs.
We
have
some
problems,
but
you
know
just
voicing
that
it
doesn't
prevent
your
application.
B
C
The
item
five
is
case:
14
771,
it's
an
appeal
of
vicki
van
stavern,
of
an
administrative
determination
of
a
city
official
regarding
the
applicable
height
restrictions
for
a
property
located
at
11.
000.
Excuse
me,
1100,
south
robinson,
david
box
represents
the
applicant
and
we
have
staff
planning
department
staff
from
the
rd's
riverfront
design.
Commission.
If
you
have
any
questions
from
them.
L
Sure,
david
box,
522
call
core
drive.
The
applicant
is
also
on
the
line
with
us.
As
mr
chamberla
said,
this
is
a
bit
of
a
unique
application.
You
know
before
you.
This
is
in
a
in
your
capacity
as
a
an
appellate
board.
Essentially,
we
are
asking
you
to
essentially
reverse
a
decision
of
an
administrative
official.
The
decision
that
we're
asking
you
to
take
a
look
at
today
is
what
is
the
minimum
height
requirement
on
this
particular
piece
of
property.
L
Oklahoma
city,
as
you
know,
has
a
host
of
different
design
districts,
especially
in
the
core
and
within
those
you've
got
multiple
overlay
districts
that
exist.
So
this
particular
piece
of
property
is
zone
dtd,
but
then
has
the
srodd
overlay
and
specifically
within
the
srodd,
it
falls
within
the
western
gateway,
and
so
when
you,
if
you
look
at
the
materials
we
submitted-
and
I
trust
that
you
have
both
our
notice
of
appeal
as
well
as
our
supplemental,
brief
and
support
where
we
go
through
this
one
thing,
I
want
to
point
out.
L
If
you
look
at
the
staff
report
dated
july
2nd
2020-
and
this
is
the
staff
report
for
the
riverfront
design
committee,
the
staff
makes
no
mention
whatsoever
of
the
height
requirements,
specifically
notated
for
the
western
gateway
district.
The
staff
jumps
straight
to
the
height
requirements
in
the
dtd2,
in
which
it
is
two
stories
or
30
feet.
I'm
not
sure
why.
L
But
they
don't
the
the
analysis
is
void
of
that,
and
so,
if
we
go
then
to
the
the
provisions
that
regulate
the
western
gateway
under
the
srodd,
what
you
find
is
there
is
a
provision
that
deals
with
what
to
do
in
in
the
event
of
a
conflict
between
the
provisions.
L
Clearly,
the
the
staff
had
to
consider
what
would
happen
with
a
conflict
when,
at
the
time
of
inception
of
all
these
overlay
districts
and
zoning
districts
for
downtown,
we
were
gonna
have
so
many
different
things
going
on
that
there
was
bound
to
be
a
conflict,
and
so
in
our
supplemental
brief
at
page
two,
you
know
it's
under
the
sub
b
of
the
sro
srodd
conditions
and
it
says,
should
a
conflict
exist
with
the
underlying
zoning
district
regulations
in
this
case,
that
would
be
the
dtd2
and
the
srodd,
the
overlaying
district
regulations
sal
supersede
so
the
overlay
district
regulations
should
be
those
of
the
srodd
specifically
for
this
piece
of
property,
the
western
gateway
regulations.
L
If
you
go
to
that
table
and
it's
table
13
500.5
of
the
srodd
western
gateway
district
standards,
what
you
see
is
under
minimum
height
for
commercial
uses,
which
is
what
is
proposed
here
and
made
clear
by
the
staff
report.
There
is
no
minimum
height
requirement,
so
in
other
words,
we
could
build
the
single-story
structure
that
we
intend
to
build.
They
could
have
certainly,
within
this
very
specific
area,
the
western
gateway
district
provided
for
a
different
height
standard.
They
could
have
provided
for
two-story
three-story
four-story,
whatever
they
wanted.
L
There
are
certain
areas
in
downtown
that
have
those
minimum
here
they
chose
when
they
were
legislating.
What
the
proper
height
should
be
for
the
western
gateway
district
to
have
none
as
the
minimum
height
because
of
the
provision
within
the
srd
odd
that
when
there
is
a
conflict
between
the
underlying
and
the
overlaying,
the
overlaying
district
guidelines
shall
supersede.
L
In
our
opinion,
staff
was
an
error
when
they
analyzed
this
application
based
upon
the
dtd
bulk
standards
and
not
specifically
the
western
gateway
district
standards.
I
believe
this
to
be
a
very
straightforward
case,
a
very
straightforward
case
that
when
you
look
at
the
ordinance
you
look,
you
need
to
look
no
further
than
the
language
itself
under
the
srodd
to
tell
us
that
the
overlay
must
supersede.
Therefore,
there
is
no
minimum
height
requirement.
L
That's
what
we're
asking
you
to
do
today.
There
has
been
no
adjudication
on
the
merits
of
the
application.
This
is
really
a
threshold
issue.
Before
we
go
back
to
the
the
scenic
river
committee,
to
figure
out
what
is
the
proper
bulk
standards
to
apply
for
staff
to
analyze
the
application.
I'd
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
D
So
the
first
question
I
might
have
started
before
you
got
into
your
argument
is
a
standing
or
a
question.
I
think
I
I
think
I
know
the
answer
to
this,
but
you
know
you're,
appealing
a
staff
report,
a
non-binding
staff
report
that
gave
a
recommendation
to
the
committee,
but
the
committee
hasn't.
L
Sure
well,
so
staff
has
made
a
determination
right
that
the
dtd
regulations
are
what
govern
this
site
and
because
of
that,
yes,
it
hasn't
gone
for
adjudication
under
the
scenic
river.
Staff's
analysis
is
dtd,
governs
the
site
and
therefore
when
they,
when
they
produce
their
staff
report-
and
it
says
this
proposal
does
not
comply
with
the
development
regulations.
The
downtown
design,
zoning
ordinance
as
follows:
they're
not
making
an
analysis
on
the
actual
bulk
standards
that
actually
apply,
and
so
it
becomes
extremely
problematic
and
almost
impossible
to
go
prove
a
negative
at
the
scenic
river.
L
That,
in
fact,
will
staff
was
wrong
in
the
first
place
and
they
didn't
even
analyze
the
section
of
the
code
that
applies
to
this
site,
and
so
what
we're
appealing
is
staff
has
made
a
determination
that
it
is
the
dtd
standards
and
not
the
western
gateway
district
regulations
that
govern
here,
and
so
we
need
some
some
guidance
from
the
board
under
this
provision
in
the
code
that
allows
the
appeal
of
the
administrative
official.
D
Kind
of
a
related
question
I
mean
well
before
I
even
get
there
have
you
talked
to
staff
about
this.
L
I
did,
and
I
think
laura
griggs
is
on
and
I
don't
want
to
speak
out
of
turn,
but
I
think
laura
would
tell
you
that
she
likely
wants
this
to
be
decided
too.
I
think
staff
has
long
kind
of
struggled
with
what
to
do
here.
L
The
ordinance
is
clunky
at
best,
but
to
me
at
least
in
this
portion
of
the
srodd,
it
gives
us
direct
guidance
on
what
to
do
when
there
is
a
conflict,
and
here
it's
the
overlay
district
must
apply,
but
I
do
see
that
ms
griggs
is
on
the
line,
but
I
believe
they
would
think
that
this
would
be
helpful
too,
for
the
board
to
to
cast
judgment
on.
D
I'm
sure
you
followed
the
the
michael
flynn
saga
and
how
that's,
basically,
the
the
government
wanted
dismissed
charges
against
michael
flynn
and
the
judge
said
I
want
to
have
a
hearing
first
and
the
government
and
michael
flynn
immediately
went
up
to
the
circuit
court
for
on
mandamus
and
tried
to
say,
circuit
court.
Tell
this
trial
court
judge
that
this
is
the
way
the
law
is,
and
then
they
can
make
a
decision
and
they
won
in
the
three
judge
panel
and
then
the
on
bomb
they
lost
and
the
circuit
court
said
no.
D
L
No,
so
the
nuances,
we're
not
telling
you
to
tell
the
committee
we're
telling
you
to
tell
staff
what
the
proper
standards
are
for
them
to
analyze
in
this
application,
because
our
problem
is,
is
it
to
go
through
the
process?
We're
going
to
end
up
right
back
at
you
on
an
appeal
and
again,
the
threshold
issue
is:
is
staff
even
analyzing
the
right
bulk
standards?
L
My
my
position
is
they're
not,
and
the
ordinance
to
me
is
very
clear.
It
doesn't
even
seem
to
be
you
up
for
debate
when
you
read
the
you
know
the
provisions
in
the
ordinance.
It
clearly
says
that
the
overlay
shall
govern
not
the
the
the
underlying
dtd,
and
so
here
when
staff
is
making
a
report
based
upon
an
analysis
that
is
contrary
to
the
code.
D
Yeah,
I
understand
that
I'm
just
kind
of
expressing
a
a
concern
and
a
hesitation
than
I
had
it.
You
know,
and
all
these
kind
of
committees
that
you
can
bring
appeals
to
the
board
of
adjustment.
Every
time
you
get
a
staff
report
that
you
don't
like.
You
just
come
up
to
the
board
of
adjustment
before
having
the
committee
here.
It
just
seemed
like
we're
putting
the
cart
in
front
of
the
horse
a
little
bit,
and
I
worry
about
that.
What
that
means
for
the
future.
L
No,
I
and
I
understand
your
concern.
This
feels
a
little
different.
This
may
not
come
as
a
surprise,
but
I
am
often
in
disagreement
with
where
staff
goes
on
in
their
staff
reports.
But
here
it's
different.
It's
not.
L
The
conclusion
they
reached
is
they're,
reading
off
the
wrong
sheet
of
music
right,
and
so
I'm
not
really
taking
issue
with
with
their
analysis,
what
I'm
saying
they
didn't
even
analyze,
what
they're
supposed
to
analyze,
and
so
we
in
my
mind
we
don't
even
really
have
a
staff
report
on
our
application
if
they're
it'd
be
like
them.
Reading
from
you
know
the
city
of
moore's
ordinances
don't
allow
this.
Well,
that's
great
we're
not
within
the
city
more.
So
it's
really
a
threshold
issue
before
we
can
even
get
to
committee.
D
D
Okay,
getting
to
the
merits,
then
the
issue
I
had
on
the
merits
is
under
13
500.4
district
use
regulations,
which
is
the
section
that
you
cite
in
the
brief.
D
You
cite
subsection
b,
which
is,
and
it
talks
about
a
conflict
if
a
conflict
exists
and
you
go
with
the
more
specific
regulation,
but
that's
for
conditional
uses
it's
specifically
subsection
b
and
the
only
reason
I
say
this
is
you're
making
a
technical
argument,
and
so
I
have
to
analyze
it
technically
you're,
citing
subsection
b,
which
is
for
conditional
uses,
and
this
use
is
not
conditional.
This
use
is
under
subsection
a
standards
for
all
permitted
uses.
This
is
a
permitted
use
and
so
that
that
language
about
the
conflict
doesn't
apply
to
this.
To
this
case,.
L
Sure,
but
you
know,
even
if
we
go
to
a
and
it
says,
standards
for
all
permitted
uses
all
uses
permitted
in
the
underlying
zoning
district
are
permitted
subject
to
the
regulations
and
guidelines
of
the
scenic
river
overlay,
design,
district
and
individual
design
districts.
So
that
still
points
us
straight
back
to
the
same
bulk
standard
table
of
the
western
gateway.
D
Yeah,
I
understand
the
argument.
It's
subsection
b
is
just
more
clear
about
a
conflict
and
subsection,
a
isn't
as
clear
about
a
conflict.
L
D
Yeah,
the
board
members
any
questions
or
comments
of
the
mr
box.
Before
we
talk
to
staff.
D
Okay,
I
saw
that
we
had
some
staff
from
the
committee
on
if
someone
from
committee
could
could
kind
of
give
us
their
thoughts
on
this.
I
would
I
greatly
appreciate
it.
F
F
D
A
N
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
one
thing
and
david
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong.
My
understanding
is
that
the
appeal
is
specifically
of
the
determination
that
a
variance
is
required,
because
that's
a
a
decision
that
staff
makes
to
say
that,
yes,
you
need
to
seek
a
variance
for
this,
not
just
that
we
don't
like
the
staff
report.
We
don't
like
the
way
you
you
know
picked
and
chose
which
regulations
or
guidelines
to
emphasize
that
they
appealed
specifically
because
staff
said
a
variance
was
required
for
a
one-story
building.
N
I
shared
the
concern
that
we
don't
want
people
appealing
staff
reports
left
and
right
just
because
they
don't
like
the
angle
that
staff
took,
but
the
specific
issue
of
whether
or
not
a
variance
is
required
was
what
was
at
issue
here.
L
Yeah
and
that's
correct
because
again
it's
a
threshold
issue,
I
mean,
if,
if
you
agree
with
me
and
agree
with
what
the
ordinance
says,
there
is
no
minimum
height
now
the
scenic
river
can
still
deny
our
project
right.
They
can
still
believe
that
we
don't
meet
certain
guidelines,
but
a
variant
either
is
or
isn't
required
under
dtd.
L
It
would
be
under
the
the
western
gateway,
the
the
overlaying
ordinance.
It
is
not.
Our
single
story
would
at
least
meet
the
minimum
height.
Now
it's
up
to
debate
we'll
have
to
go
figure
that
out
whether
or
not
the
balance
of
the
project
would
meet
those
guidelines
and
get
the
approval
of
the
scenic
river.
But
the
height
is
the
threshold
issue.
F
L
And
I-
and
I
you
know,
I
understand
why
laura
went
down
the
path
she
did.
I
don't
find
any
language
in
the
ordinance
that
tells
us
that
if
there
are
two
provisions
that
exist,
the
most
restrictive
should
apply
to
the
contrary.
Here
I
think
it's
very
clear
either
sub
section
a
or
b
a
tells
us
that
it's
subject
to
the
regulations,
the
guidelines
of
scenic
river,
which
gets
us
to
the
table,
or
you
know,
b,
conditional
uses
when
it
specifically
talks
about
conflict.
L
D
It's
it's
in.
I
don't
know
if
it's
in
this
subsection,
but
it
is
throughout
this
portion
of
the
code
that
talks
about
the
most
restrictive.
You
know,
regulations
shall
apply,
but
to
your
point,
it's
not
in
this
subsection.
In
this
subsection
we've
got
subsection
a
that
says,
subject
to
the
regulations
and
guidelines
and
then
subsection
b.
If
a
conflict
exists,
then
you
go
with
the
srodd.
D
L
N
This
is
katie,
I
will
say
our
our
interpretation
of
that
point
was
that,
because
the
scenic
river
language
said
said
none
we
took
that
as
that
ordinance
essentially
being
silent
on
a
minimum
height
and
if
it's,
if
it's
a
conflict,
if
they
had
said
one
story
or
two
stories
and
downtown,
said
three
stories:
four
stories
that
we
would
have
perceived,
that
to
be
a
conflict
but
because
the
scenic
river
language
said
none.
N
We
interpreted
that
as
being
silent
on
the
matter
of
a
minimum
height
and
therefore
that
the
one
that
remained
in
effect
was
the
one
for
downtown.
I
realized
that
none
that
that
language
is
could
be
much
more
clear
and
much
more
decisive,
but
that
is
that
was
staff's
evaluation
of
of
the
two.
D
Yeah,
I
thought
about
that
as
I
was
reading
it
and
reading
the
interplay
between
the
two
is
that
being
a
potential
issue,
but
there's
also
the
obvious
argument
that
there
was
intended
to
be
no
height.
You
know
regulation
there,
which
is
mr
fox
argument,
so
board
members
any
questions
or
comments.
H
H
I
heard
that
they're
waiting
awaiting
approval
for
the
project
to
be
approved
that
may
affect
whether
or
not
that
second
story
will
be
built
and
also
it
seems
as
though
they're
dealing
with
a
lot
of
variants
in
the
language
that
has
been
spoken
about
from
two
or
three
different
sources,
which
it's
very
hard
for
me
to
follow,
whether
or
not
we're
granting
or
not
granting
a
variance
or
if
we're
deciding
on
whether
or
not
that
appeal
is
correct.
So
I'm
a
little
bit
confused.
I'm
just
going
to
tell
you.
L
You're
awesome,
so
this
is
confusing.
The
the
board
of
adjustment,
unfortunately,
is
this
statutory
creature
that
the
legislature
decided
is
this
kind
of
you
know
everything
that
falls
over
the
cup
gets
sent
to
you
guys
right.
So
you
you
get
all
of
these
appeals
and
these
weird
issues,
and
so
what
we're
asking
you
to
decide
is
the
variance
isn't
required.
We
can't
move
forward
at
our
case
at
the
scenic
river
until
we
know
whether
or
not
a
variant
is
required,
a
variance
is
required.
L
L
That
decision
is
going
to
allow
the
scenic
river
to
move
forward
with
their
application
and
whether
or
not
it's
just
a
ca
application
or
if
it's
a
ca,
plus
a
variance.
We
believe
it
should
just
be
a
ca
application
still
we'll
have
to
you,
know,
meet
all
the
regulations
and
guidelines
of
the
scenic
river.
This
height
issue
is
just
a
threshold
issue
of
what
the
application
actually
is.
H
L
Well
and
all
these
appeals,
I
mean
I'm
really
putting
this
to
you
as
if
you
were
a
judge,
I'm
asking
you
to
almost
make
a
legal
determination
as
to
what
does
the
ordinance
require,
and
so
you
know,
staff.
I
think
his
staff
has
just
really
kind
of
given
you
their
thought
process
on
on
their
staff
report.
But
what
I'm
asking
you
to
do
is
to
cast
judgment
on.
L
It
meets
it,
it
does
well
now
the
merits
of
the
application
are
not
before
you.
We
have
to
go,
get
approval
from
the
scenic
river.
So
what
we're
building
what
we
intend?
It
has
nothing
to
do
with
your
application,
with
your
consideration,
none
at
all!
Mr
chairman,
I
do
you
agree
with
that
point.
Yeah.
D
So
and
you
I
understand
now
why
staff
wanted
you
to
to
come
here
first
and
all
that
and
how
it's
probably
not
going
to
lead
to
slippery
slope
of
everyone,
appealing
their
staff
reports
to
us.
I
assume
you
probably
also
have
to
pay
the
1200
for
the
application,
for
variance.
Is
that
correct
if
it's
determined,
yeah
and
so
right
now,
it's
you
know
their
current
application
for
the
other
committee
wouldn't
really
have.
D
Do
with
us
other
unless
we
decide
that
there's
a
height
requirement
of
two
stories,
and
then
you
guys
are
trying
to
not
do
that,
and
so
you
need
a
variance
for
that,
in
which
case
we
need
a
recommendation
from
the
other
committee
and
then
it
would
have
to
come
before
us.
So
we're
not
deciding
any
of
that
today
we're
just
deciding
whether
that
provision
that
would
even
apply
to
his
application.
D
L
That
the
height
requirements
off
the
table
assume
we
meet
all
the
regulations
of
the
scenic
river
when
we
go
to
get
our
ca,
presumably
we'll
get
approval.
You'll,
never
hear
anything
about
this
case
again,
it's
just
whether
or
not
we
have
to
get
a
variance.
We
believe
we
don't.
We
believe
the
ordinance
to
be
clear
in
that
staff.
Read
it
a
different
way,
and
so
it's
it's
this
awkward
scenario
where
we're
asking
you
to
cast
judgment,
but
you
know,
keep
blinders
on
and
the
underlying
case.
What
we
intend
to
do
has
no
relevance.
B
L
I'll
disagree,
but
when
you
say
that
we
want
this
area
with
all
due
respect,
we
presumably
means
the
legislative
branch
of
this
city
sought
to
see
fit
that
the
western
gateway
district
bulk
standards
had
no
height
requirement.
So
what
we
wanted?
The
city
was
no
height
requirement
on
this
specific
piece
of
property.
D
D
I
can
get
on
board
with
the
the
appeal.
It
makes
sense
to
me
that
subsection
a
which
is
where
I
think
we
fall,
does
say,
subject
to
the
regulations
and
guidelines
of
the
scenic
river
overlay
district.
There's
some
ambiguity
there,
admittedly
about
what
none
means
whenever
you're
talking
about
height
requirements,
but
I
think
that
means
they
don't
particularly
care
about
height
requirements,
and
that
is
the
more
specific
interpretation.
D
Right
as
long
as
everything
else
gets
approved,
they
don't
particularly
care
in
this
district
about
height
requirements
and
so
that
I
understand
the
counter
argument
to
that
about
two
stories
being
more
restrictive
and
therefore
that
applying
I
understand
all
that
stuff,
but
it
I
think
I
agree
with
the
with
the
appellant.
It's
a
phrase.
I
am
reluctant
to
utter,
but
I
agree
with
david
box
that
on
this
appeal
that
I
think
there's
not
really
intended
to
be
a
height
requirement
here.
H
And-
and
I
would
really
like
to
thank
mr
box
as
well
as
you
chairman
merchant,
for
clarifying
what
was
dizzy
in
my
mind,
because
I
truly
had
a
hard
time
with
this
when
I
read
it
the
other
day.
So,
thank
you
both
very
much.
L
Process
that
that
you,
as
a
board
of
adjustment
member,
are
put
in
on
you
know,
it's
easy,
I
think,
to
understand
the
appeals
of
a
decision
of
one
of
the
lower
bodies,
but
the
appeal
of
a
you
know:
administrative
official
is
just
a
very
different
process
that
exists
in
the
ordinance
it's
an
important
process,
but
it
is
different.
J
Mr
fox,
I
had
a
quick
question
for
you:
we're
we're
looking
I'm
looking
at
that
statute
as
well.
That
said,
subsection
a
can.
You
address
the
last
part
of
that
that
says,
unless
it's
specifically
prohibited
within
the
section
or
the
design
district,
would
I
see
what
you're
saying
that
it's
subject
to
the
overlay
and
that
then
it
says
unless
it's
prohibited
by
the
design
district?
Can
you
address
that.
L
Yeah,
so
when
you
go,
I
think
what
it's
referring
to.
If
you
go
into
the
code,
there
are
additional
use
regulations
for
the
scenic
river
and
you
see
a
code,
it's
13500.1
and
it
lists
out
all
the
different
design
districts
that
it's
referring
to
and
there
are
x's
on
certain
uses.
I
think
that
sentence
is
is
talking
about
certain
uses.
D
If
the
board
wants
a
like
a
legal
opinion
or
something
from
the
municipal
counselor,
it's
gonna
stop
the
project
up
a
little
bit.
But
if
the
board's
not
comfortable
voting,
we
could.
We
could
request
something
like
that.
It's
a
very
close
call
for
me,
but
I
can.
I
can
get
on
board
with
it,
particularly
to
kind
of
keep
the
the
wheels
moving
on
this
whole
thing.
I
don't.
D
I
definitely
don't
want
to
see
appeals
like
this
very
often,
but
I
do
think
it's
going
to
be
rare,
just
because
this
is,
as
the
applicant
has
a
threshold
issue
on
whether
they
even
need
a
variance
or
not,
and
they
would
have
to
pay
the
1200
regardless
if
we
decide
that
that
they
did
need
one
and
then
they'd
have
to
come
right
back
before
us
to
decide
on
the
merits.
D
N
This
is
katie
frittle.
If
I
can
make
one
more
comment-
and
this
just
came
to
mind,
as
you
all
were
discussing
the
the
decision
by
the
city
of
what's
desired
for
this
area,
I
just
wanted
to
make
clear
that
the
height
limitations
or
well
at
least
the
dtd2
ordinance,
predates
scenic
river.
So
all
of
the
requirements
and
regulations
of
that
ordinance
would
have
already
been
in
place
and
height
restrictions
would
have
already
been
implemented
for
the
area
prior
to
scenic
river,
going
into
place.
N
So
I
don't
know
the
history
of
the
development
of
that
overlay
and
if
there
was
a
thought
process
that
said,
we
don't
need
a
height
restriction,
because
there
already
is
one,
but
I
just
wanted
to
make
that
clear.
You
know
this
is
an
area,
that's
a
struggle
for
us
to
interpret
the
language
so
appreciate
all
of
the
input
and
guidance
we
can
get
from
from
every
direction
on
how
to
interpret
that.
D
Well
and
beyond
that
they
did
in
other
areas.
They
did
specifically
say
three
stories
here,
I'm
looking
at
table
13
500.2
and
it
says
three
stories:
minimum
height
for
a
hotel
and
two
stories
for
mixed
use,
and
things
like
that
which,
in
statutory
interpretation,
that's
a
an
inference
that
the
legislature
could.
L
D
K
D
D
We
have
a
motion
in
a
second
to
sustain
or
approve
or
affirm
the
appeal
in
case
number,
one.
Four,
seven,
seven
one
cast
your
votes.
J
A
L
D
Yeah
we've
got
a
zoom
happy
hour,
starting
at
three
o'clock,
where
he's
going
to
play
his
his
top
hits.
So
all
right.