►
From YouTube: Oklahoma City Planning Commission - September 24, 2020
Description
The regular meeting of the Oklahoma City Planning Commission, via video conference,
for September 24, 2020.
A
C
F
D
E
D
Okay,
okay,
well,
it's
1
30!
So
let's
get
started
good
afternoon.
Welcome
to
the
regularly
scheduled
meeting
of
the
oklahoma
city
planning
commission
for
thursday
september
24th
of
2020,
and
this
is
a
video
conference
planning
commission
meeting
and
as
it
relates
to
that,
I
have
a
few
announcements
to
make
just
as
we
get
started.
If
the
video
conference
is
disconnected
at
any
time
during
the
meeting,
the
meeting
shall
be
stopped
and
reconvened
once
the
audio
connection
is
restored.
D
If
communications
are
unable
to
be
restored
within
30
minutes,
items
remaining
for
consideration
will
be
continued
until
the
next
regularly
scheduled
planning
commission
meeting,
which
is
scheduled
for
october,
8th
2020
at
1
pm.
That
meeting
will
also
be
held
by
video
conference.
The
agenda
and
supporting
documents
for
today's
meeting
can
be
found
at
okc.gov.
D
405-297-2289
again
297-2289
for
anyone
wishing
to
speak
about
an
agenda
item
or
to
speak
under
citizens
to
be
heard.
Hopefully
you
have
previously
notified
staff
by
email
or
phone
or
by
signing
up
online.
If
you
have
not
done
so,
you
can
call
the
same
number
I
just
provided
which
again
297
2289
and
let
staff
know
that
you
would
like
to
be
heard
and
they'll
get
a
message
to
us.
Accordingly.
D
I
also
allow
briefly
for
public
comment
on
each
item:
you'll
notice
that
I'll
pause
and
provide
some
technical
instructions
to
each
to
each
person
in
terms
of
how
they
can
participate
in
the
meeting.
Speakers
will
be
allowed
five
minutes
to
comment.
In
accordance
with
our
bylaws,
I
will
reserve
the
right
to
hold
comments
shorter
if
a
point's
already
been
made
or
it's
it's
been
just
simply
repeated
and
a
couple
of
technical
points.
D
If
you
were
joining
us
by
phone
today-
and
you
would
like
to
be
heard-
you
can
raise
your
hand
by
pushing
star
nine
on
your
phone
that
will
alert
staff
that
you'd
like
to
be
heard
and
they'll
engage
to
unmute
your
line
to
make
that
possible
on
your
phone
to
unmute,
you
will
use
star
6
and
star
6
will
allow
you
to
unmute.
Your
phone
you'll
still
have
to
be
recognized
by
staff,
but
that
will
unmute
on
your
side.
D
Please
remember,
only
one
person
can
be
heard
at
a
time
if
more
than
one
person
speaks,
we
really
won't
hear
anybody,
and
so,
if
any
for
anyone
speaking
today,
including
commission
members,
please
identify
yourself
when
you
begin
to
speak
as
a
reminder
for
commission
members
too.
If
you
agreed
to
be
available
by
video
which
everybody
has,
I
believe
you
need
to
make
sure
your
camera
stays
on
at
all
times.
D
If
you're
going
to
step
away
from
the
meeting
for
a
moment,
just
alert
us
interrupt
the
meeting
that
you're
going
to
be
doing
that
just
so
everyone,
that's
paying
attention
is
aware
that
you've
stepped
away
and
then
alert
us
when
you
return
with
that
we'll
get
started.
I
thank
everyone
for
being
here,
appreciate
it
and
our
first
order
of
business
is
to
receive
the
minutes
from
the
september
10th
2020
meeting.
Unless
there's
discussion
on
that,
I
will
take
a
motion.
D
G
D
H
D
I
J
D
D
Okay,
those
are
three
items
that
are
proposed
for
continuance
request
today,
again
your
convenience,
if
you're
joining
us
in
the
public,
spud,
1252,
ce1031
and
pc10681,
if
you
wish
to
be
heard
on
any
of
those
items
today,
this
is
your
chance
I'll
pause
just
a
moment
to
see.
If
that's
true,
remember,
star
nine
raises
your
hand
alt
y
on
your
computer.
Raising.
Do
you
not
even.
D
G
I
L
D
D
K
L
D
Thank
you,
mr
butler,
as
red,
and
for
those
of
you
that
are
joining
us
online
or
by
phone.
If
you
have
today's
agenda
in
front
of
you
just
for
confirmation
that
is
item,
14,
15,
16,
17,
18
and
19
on
today's
agenda,
if
you
wish
to
be
heard
on
any
of
those
items,
this
is
your
opportunity.
I'll
pause
just
a
moment
and
remind
you
that
star9
on
your
phone,
raise
your
hand
to
alert
staff.
You'd
like
to
be
heard
or
alt
y
on
your
computer
will
accomplish
the
same
thing.
I'll
pause
just
a
moment.
M
Mr
chairman,
david
box
on
items
16
and
17,
we
actually
need
to
continue
those
to
the
october
22nd
date
rather
than
the
october
8th.
The
conference
plan.
Amendment
request
did
not
get
published
in
time.
Therefore,
in
order
for
those
two
items
to
accompany
the
comp
plan
change
request,
we
need
to
move
those
two
to
october
22nd,
rather
than
the
eighth.
D
Understood
so
we'll
we'll
amend
those
continuances
again.
That's
item
16
and
item
17
from
the
october
8
2020
planning
commission
meeting
to
the
october
22nd
planning
commission
meeting
hearing
that
there's
no
members
of
the
public
that
wish
to
be
heard
on
these.
I
will
take
a
motion
on
those
continuances
as
read
and
amended.
D
D
E
D
D
Thank
you
very
much
folks
from
the
public.
If
you're
joining
us
today,
you'll
notice
for
those
items
are
final
plats.
The
other
is
a
rezoning
application.
These
are
all
items
that
staff
deem
essentially
administrative
in
nature,
which
is
why
we
consider
them
as
a
group,
and
with
that
I
will
pause
just
a
moment
to
see
those
are
items
one
through
five
on
today's
agenda.
D
If
you
did
want
to
be
heard
on
one
of
those
items,
this
is
your
opportunity,
so
I'll
pause
just
a
moment
by
reminding
you
that
star
9
on
your
phone
will
alert
staff
you'd
like
to
be
heard
or
alt
y
on
your
computer
and
I'll
pause
just
a
moment
to
see.
If
anybody
wants
to
be
heard
on
these
items
today,.
D
B
D
D
If
you
are
having
any
problem
reaching
us,
I
cannot
stress
to
you
how
important
it
is
to
each
of
the
members
of
the
commission
that
we
hear
from
folks
in
the
public,
if
you're
having
trouble
405-297-2289
again
297-2289
and
they
will
alert
us
to
any
challenges
that
anyone's
having
communicating
with
the
commission
effectively
at
today's
meeting
with
that
go
ahead.
Item
number:
six
is
our
first
item
for
separate
consideration.
N
N
Only
one
of
the
lots
will
have
direct
access
onto
north
council
road,
the
rest
of
the
lots
will
be
taking
access
off
of
private
shared
parking
and
access
easements.
There
are
three
tes.
The
applicant
is
in
agreement
with
tes
one
and
three.
Their
staff
believes
they
need
a
variance
of
te
number
two
because
they
are
showing
their
private
access
drives
as
private
shared
parking
and
access
easements,
rather
than
common
area.
Private
access
drives,
as
the
subdivision
regulations
indicate.
N
M
Yeah
I'll
just
david
box,
5.2
clawboard
drive
so
on
the
variance
you
know
when
you
have
a
a
industrial
park.
Slash
office
park
like
this,
requiring
that
common
area
to
be
treated
as
common
area
in
a
separate
parcel
becomes
problematic.
Moving
forward,
it
becomes
burdensome
to
the
developer
and
moving
forward
becomes
a
separate
parcel
of
separate
tax
id
and
imposes
burdens
that
are
unique
when
it
comes
to
a
commercial
industrial
park.
We.
M
And
why
it
should
be
labeled
separately.
You
know
oftentimes,
we
think
of
it
in
terms
of
a
residential
subdivision.
Well,
there
you've
got
an
hoa
you've
got
it
set
up
differently
to
where
it's
easier
to
track.
Here.
What
we
intend
to
do,
which
is
fairly
common
in
office
and
industrial
parts,
is
to
take
those
property
lines
to
the
center
and
then
it'll
all
be.
You
know,
encumbered
with
access
easements
and
drive,
so
the
same
result
happens.
M
It
just
allows
for,
in
this
type
of
development,
a
much
cleaner
way
for
the
owners
of
the
property
and
the
developer
to
be
able
to
move
forward.
It's
my
understanding
that
this
is
really
a
new
interpretation
of
the
subreg
and
that
for
years
and
years
most
of
the
developments
have
handled
it
in
the
manner
in
which
we
seek
to
handle
it.
So
we
would
ask
for
your
consideration
in
the
variance
on
te
number
two.
D
So,
mr
box,
just
to
be
clear
for
the
commission,
the
granting
of
the
variance
satisfies
your
concern
here
today.
Yes,
sir,
okay
with
that,
commissioner
claire,
this
is
your
award,
so
if
you
have
comments
or
questions
of
the
applicant
or
staff,
I
would
just
note.
Of
course
we
do
have
the
variance
to
consider
when
we
get
to
the
point
where
we
want
to
make
motions
on
this.
O
D
Okay,
other
commissioners
have
comments
or
questions
on
this
one
hearing
none
I'll
ask
if
there
are
members
of
the
public
that
wish
to
be
heard.
If
you
want
to
raise
your
hand
and
speak
on
this
item,
star
nine
on
your
phone
alt
y
on
your
computer,
we'll
raise
your
hand
and
alert
staff.
I'll
pause
just
a
moment.
D
C
D
D
N
N
N
There
are
nine
tes
for
this
one.
The
applicant
is
in
agreement
with
keys,
1,
4,
6,
7,
8
and
9..
They
would
like
to
discuss
ps2
and
5
in
greater
detail,
and
they
are
seeking
your
variance
on
te3
related
to
the
connection
requirement
to
adjacent
parsons,
specifically
to
the
north.
Again,
there
is
a
substantial
creek
in
that
location.
The
subdivision
regulations
do
allow
the
committee
to
consider
that
physical
feature
when
considering
the
variance
brad
reed
with
crafting
total,
is
on
the
line
in
case
there
are
any
questions.
D
P
Yes,
brad
reed
crafton,
toll
300,
point
parkway
boulevard,
so
item
number
two.
We
think
we
do
actually
need
item
number
two.
It
says
flat
should
be
redesigned
to
provide
continuous
system
of
open
space
along
streams
and
corridors
which
separate
lots
from
floodplains,
repairing
areas
mature
trees.
You
look
at
the
preliminary
plat
we've
done
this,
and
this
is
actually
why
we
need
to
request
the
variance
on
number
three.
P
Is
the
blood
plant
to
the
north
makes
it
where
it's
not
really
possible
for
us
to
to
cross
to
get
to
the
other
side
on
that,
so
why
we
need
to
request
number
three.
There
was
an
issue
with
number
five
traffic
went
out
and
looked
at
our
our
locations.
One
was
mismarked.
By
about
20
feet,
we
went
and
re
recertified
it
it
will
work.
The
other
one
is
a
little
bit
of
a
weird
situation.
P
It's
the
west
one,
it
technically
it's
a
45
which
gives
us
almost
700
feet
of
sight,
distance
that
we
need,
but
there's
a
stop
sign
there
at
piedmont,
hefner,
and
so
we
need
to
move
that
slightly
over
like
100
feet,
and
then
you
can
see
all
of
that
intersection.
We've
talked
to
traffic
and
I
think
they're
fine
with
that,
but
we'll
make
sure
that
we
get
this
on
the
final
class
before
these
go
in
that
traffic
is
good
with
our
locations
on
the
sites.
D
Okay
on
on
te
5
staff
brought
to
my
attention
about
the
sight
distance
issue.
What
I
would
just
say
for
the
record
is
you
are
aware
of
the
requirements
for
the
sight
distance.
Yes,
yes,
and
so
you
know
that
if
it
comes
back
at
a
final
plan
and
that
hasn't
been
addressed,
that
will
be
a
problem.
Correct.
D
Yes,
okay,
so
that's
I'll
note
that
that's
duly
noted
in
the
record,
if
you
will,
I
would
also
commissioner
claire
just
let
you
know
that
staff
did
indicate
in
our
discussion
before
the
meeting,
that
there
is
that
they
they
do
believe
that
the
creek
channel
that
cuts
this
portion
of
of
the
development
off
from
future
development
in
the
north
would
create
an
obstruction
that
would
be
reasonable
not
to
provide
connectivity
to
because
of
the
challenges
associated
with
that
jared
martin.
Is
that
fair.
N
D
O
I
do
so
I
understand
the
vehicular
connectivity
issue
and
am
okay
with
that,
but
I
wanted
to
ask
the
applicant
if
there's
any
plans
for
pedestrian
connectivity
via
trails
to
allow.
Basically,
you
know,
residents
from
that
west
neighborhood
to
have
pedestrian
circulation
access
to
any
amenities
in
in
the
eastern
half.
P
I
believe
so
like
to
the
north.
You
know,
is
it
there's?
It's
a
large
flood
plain:
it's
a
lot
of
water
that
goes
through
that
over
there
to
the
the
east
is
surry
hills
golf
course,
and
so
this
developer
is
actually
the
owner
of
surry
hills
golf
course,
and
so
you
know
we
have
some
common
areas
in
there
to
allow
for
that.
P
P
I
think
we
do
run
into
a
few
issues
still
because
we
do
have
a
large
creek
on
that
side
as
well.
So
I
I
don't
want
to
say
yes,
because
I'm
not
sure
exactly
how
it's
going
to
work.
That's
my
concern.
There's
a
large
large
drainage
that
basically
surrounds
all
the
site,
which
is
kind
of
why
it's
laid
out
the
way
it
is.
O
P
I'm
sure
they'll
have
something,
and
I
don't
know
what
it
is
that
now
you
know
in
here
it
says
the
final
flats
will
have
the
type
amenities
and
they'll
figure
that
out
at
that
time.
Like
I
said
the
golf
course,
if
you
look
at
this
there's
a
the
golf
course
actually
is:
what's
separating
us
from
surry
hills,
boulevard
there's
a
hole
there,
but
it
has.
You
know
the
cart
paths
and
things
like
that.
P
P
Again,
I'm
not
sure
this
is
part
of
the
surrey
hills.
You
know
neighborhood
association.
This
is
these.
Are
large
lots
it's
going
to
be
a
really
a
pretty
nice
development
at
this
time.
I
don't
know
the
exact
amenities
that
he
is
planning
on,
so
I
don't
want
to
promise
anything,
but
these
are
going
to
be.
You
know
these
lots
are
80
by
140,
which
you
know
kind
of
dictates
that
it's
going
to
be
a
nicer
development.
As
I
don't
know,
I'm
not.
I
won't
promise
anything
because
I'm
not
sure
what
he.
D
D
Well,
I
I
think
we
should
commit
to
getting
a
response
from
the
developer
and
their
representatives
at
that
time
on
pedestrian
connectivity
and
certainty
to
those
common
elements,
and
I
think,
given
that
you're
being
sort
of
forced
to
make
an
advisory
decision
or
recommendation
to
the
rest
of
the
commission
on
this
item.
It
would
be
fair
for
you
to
revisit
those
items
at
that
time
and,
if
you're
not
satisfied
that
you
know
that
the
items
they
provided
are
not
adequate
or
that
connectivity
should
be
provided.
D
As
a
result
of
that,
I
think
mr
reed
and
his
his
client
and
applicant
are
subjecting
themselves
to
potentially
having
a
problem
there,
but
I
think
you
know
holding
it
up
because
he's
saying
he
doesn't
know,
probably
not
a
good
outcome
allowing
them
to
get
away
from
the
pedestrian
connectivity
is
probably
not
a
good
outcome.
Either.
O
O
Area
over
on
the
on
the
the
west
side-
that's
you
know
not
connected
via
via
roadway
because
of
the
creek
that
you
mentioned
to
the
east
side
through
common
areas
at
five
ca
b.
Maybe
so
you
know
if
you've
got
amenities
over
on
the
east
east
half
allowing
you
know,
residents
and
children
to
access
those
amenities
without
having
to
basically
go
out
to
the
to
hefner
road
and
walk
down
and
gain
access
through
that
median
entry.
P
P
E
E
P
D
Mr
reed,
what
do
you
what
I
think
where
the
confusion
is-
and
let
me
just
see
if
I
can
remedy
this
quickly-
the
common
area?
That's
in
the
center,
that
splits
the
neighborhood
into
two?
What
commissioner,
claire
is
saying
is
that
it
doesn't
show
that
you're
going
to
provide
pedestrian
access
across
that
area,
so
you've
got
two
entrances
onto
hefner
road.
The
only
way
for
the
people
in
the
western
small
little
piece
to
access
common
area
elements
on
the
eastern
side
of
your
development
would
be
to
go
out
to
hefner
road.
D
P
O
Well,
but
there's
the
difference
of
just
providing
open
space
and
you're,
not
you're,
not
held
accountable
to
go
back
and
construct
the
paths
or
the
the
pedestrian
bridge
crossings
to
traverse
the
creek.
So
there's
one
I
mean
it's,
it's
almost
defaults
promise
to
allow
the
area
and
then
there's
nothing
to
hold
hold.
You
know
commit
you
to
building
those
paths
and
that
and
that
access
in
the
future.
K
If
I
might,
this
is
jeff,
I
mean
this.
This
also
goes
back
to
tv2,
which
is
asking
for
that
continuous
system
of
open
space.
You
know,
there's
no,
there's
no
real
plan
of
circulation
here
for
people
to
be
able
to
utilize
that
open
space,
and
I
keep
I
think
that
goes
along
with
the
commissioner's
comments.
So
far
I
mean,
if
you're,
trying
to
get
from
the
small
little
pod
here
on
the
west,
those,
I
don't
know,
20
lots
or
so
how
are
you
going
to
get
over?
K
There's
really
that
it's
going
to
be
really
difficult
for
you
to
visit
a
friend
over
on
the
other
side
or
visit
the
common
space?
If
there
is
any
that's
not
completely,
there's
some
pinch
points,
for
example,
where
it's
really
steep
or
it's
really
impossible
to
get
through.
So
like
the
commissioner
is
saying
really.
Your
only
option
is
to
go
in
hefner
row,
there's
no
way
for
you
to
get
via
the
open
space
unless
you're
walking
through
the
creek
and
up
some
really
steep
embankments
to
get
around
through
that
development.
D
I
I
agree
with
you,
mr
reed,
that
you
don't
necessarily
have
to
commit
to
how
you're
going
to
do
it,
but
it
is
absolutely
commonplace
for
us
to
require
an
agreement
to
pedestrian
connectivity
on
issues
like
this.
That's
how
you
solve
it
is
entirely
up
to
you
we're
asking
that
you
commit
to
that
before
the
final
plot,
which
I
think
is
a
reasonable
request,
and
I
think,
just
to
you
know,
sort
of
move
this
conversation
along
if
you'd
like
to
take.
You
know
a
continuance
to
sort
of
sort
that
out
that's
fine.
D
D
Hearing
none
I'll
ask
if
there
are
members
of
the
public
here
that
want
to
be
heard
today
on
item
c7210.
This
is
your
opportunity,
I'll
pause
just
a
moment
and
remind
you
that
star
9
on
your
phone
will
raise
your
hand
for
staff
and
alt.
Why,
on
your
computer,
will
do
the
exact
same
thing
and
I'll
pause
just
a
moment
to
see
if
anybody
wants
to
share
some
thoughts
with
us.
D
D
O
D
Q
It's
a
little
unique
in
that
it
encompasses
two
different
development
scenarios,
one
keeping
the
existing
home
allowing
for
two
units
in
the
existing
home
and
two
buildings
in
back
with
three
units
total.
The
second
scenario
would
be:
should
something
happen
to
that
the
existing
home
and
it
has
to
be
removed.
D
R
R
You
know
to
add
some
dwelling
units
behind
the
house
and
then
also
the
snare
is
mr
chambliss
pointed
out
that
if,
for
some
reason
a
tornado
fire
wiped
out
everything,
you
know,
what
would
it
look
like
then,
and
so
that
was
the
intent
is
to
try
to
create
the
spud.
So
it
allows
for
primarily
for
the
old
house
to
stay,
but
if
it
doesn't,
then
what
would
it
be.
D
D
E
Well,
as
was
stated,
this
is
really
a
very
simple
kind
of
straightforward
and
we
were
trying
to
keep
it
that
way.
You
know
application.
There's
an
existing
house.
There
are
these
additional
buildings
out
back.
They
would
like
to
be
able
to
add
a
second
story
to
their
two-car
garage.
If
that's
possible,
if,
if
the
house
stays
everything
stays
the
way
it
is
now
parking,
and
so
on
the
the
only
thing
that
that
made
it
a
little
more
complicated
was
just
trying
to
anticipate
what
would
happen.
E
E
Since
we
had
an
architect
who
was
willing
and
able,
we
thought
we
would
just
go
ahead
and
and
provide
for
what
would
happen,
not
an
uncommon
thing
to
do
where
you're
talking
about
redeveloping
an
existing
building.
So
we
wanted
to
provide
an
alternative.
What
would
happen
if
the
house
had
to
be
scraped
for
some
reason,
so
we
did
do
that
it
ended
up
looking
more
complicated
than
it
is
I'm
all
in
favor
of
this
I
don't
think
I've.
I
certainly
have
not
heard
from
anybody.
E
I
haven't
had
any
protests
that
I'm
aware
of
I
mean
if
there,
if
there
are
bits
and
pieces
of
it
that
people
want
to
talk
about.
The
other
thing
was
the
driveway,
I
guess.
Initially
there
was
a
a
plan
that
provided
for
two
driveways
off
of
36,
but
we
we
got
past
that
we're
just
going
to
do
one
if
it's
relocated
in
the
future
because
of
the
redevelopment
of
property.
There
still
will
just
be
one.
E
D
I
understood
thank
you
very
much
just
for
the
point
of
clarification
in
the
record
the
staff
report
that
was
included
in
our
packet.
There
have
been
modifications
made
to
the
master
design
statement
that
was
presented
through
discussions
with
the
applicant,
but
you
are
confident
that
staff
has
the
most
recent
version
of
the
master
design
statement
that
we're
voting
on
today.
E
They
you
know
we,
when
I
chose
to
make
the
the
changes
that
I
did
to
the
staff
report
that
just
seemed
like
an
easier
way
to
present
those.
I
don't
know
whether
those
documents
have
been
changed
and
we
kind
of
went
with
this.
Initially,
it's
like
scenario,
one
scenario,
two
that
seemed
way
too
complicated
between
now
and
city
council.
We
meaning
mr
petsimmons
myself
and
staff-
will
make
absolutely
sure
that
what
is
presented
to
council,
both
in
terms
of
the
master
design
statement
and
the
staff
report
is,
is
very,
very
clear.
D
D
You've
got
a
dual
left
turn
lane
for
eastbound
traffic,
and
this
property
is
basically
two
off
the
hard
corner
so
with
traffic.
Is
it
the
lesser
of
two
evils
to
have
traffic
backing
out
onto
36th
street,
especially
given
that
we're
increasing
the
density
at
the
location?
Or
is
it
the
lesser
of
the
two
evils
to
have
a
circle
drive
or
some
other
means
of
getting
the
vehicles
to
be
able
to
turn
around,
so
they
can
have
egress
going
out
frontward
in
their
vehicle?
Does
that
make
sense.
E
I'm
happy
to
hear
whatever
discussion
there
might
be
knowing
particularly
mr
heisman's
views
about
driveways.
I
figured
you
know
the
lesser
of
two
weavers.
I
think
that's
really
it.
You
know
whether
it's
better
to
have
to
try
to
be
backing
out
on
the
36th
I
wouldn't
want
to
have
to
do
it.
There
is
a
there
is
enough
maneuvering
room
at
the
moment.
E
D
Based
on
the
t.e
sure,
does
staff
or
our
resident
traffic
expert
commissioner
claire?
Does
anybody
have
thoughts
or
comments
on
that?
I
just
want
to
make
sure
we're
being
thoughtful
about
that
we're
allowing
all
this
density
right
near
a
major.
I
say
all
this
density,
just
an
increase
in
density
right
near
a
major
intersection,
so
you're
gonna
have
traffic
trying
to
back
up
and
there's
six
parking
places
there,
people
coming
and
going
visitors,
whatever
thoughts
on
that
staff
or
commissioner
claire.
O
I'll
just
add
mine,
I'm
looking
at
the
street
view
right
now
and
there's
two
providers
that
they're
in
healthy
condition,
there's
two
really
nice
canopy
trees
that
would
have
to
be
removed.
I
think,
in
order
to
get
the
circle
drive
in
at
least
one
of
them
would
be.
I
would
hate
to
see
that,
because,
given
the
nature
of
the
you
know,
they
share
a
driveway
with
the
property
to
the
west.
O
I
I
do
think
that
it
looks
like
there's
a
fence
kind
of
toward
the
back
half
of
the
property
that
would
kind
of
help.
It
would
hinder
maneuvering
a
little
bit,
but
I
do
think
that
there
is
probably
enough
room
for
them
to
basically
maneuver
and
be
able
to
exit
in
a
forward
fashion
on
the
36
without
backing
on
a
36.
L
Q
R
R
Yeah,
I
actually
think
one
drive
is
fine.
I've
lived
here
11
years
and
I
you
know
I
I'm
not
afraid
to
back
out
in
36th
street,
but
but
I
do
understand
the
concern,
but
the
the
drive
situation,
even
with
the
existing
house
remaining
we'll
get
better
in
the
sense
that
currently
the
way
we
park
now.
I've
recently
had
my
oldest
son
move
out
and
his
girlfriend.
So
now
we're
we've
we're
down
a
few
cars,
but
we've
had
up
to
seven
cars
parking
in
here
and
it's
one
family.
R
If
you
can
believe
it,
my
sons
and
their
friends
and
it
this
will
be
a
lot
better
than
what
we
have
now.
What
we're
proposing
is
we're
gonna
create
some
parking
in
the
what
has
been
the
backyard,
and
so
the
intent
is
that
people
can
do.
You
know
turn
around
or
pull
in
and
park
behind
the
house
and
then
do
a
turnaround
and
drive
out
forward
to
36th
street.
The
only
the
only
car
that
might
back
out
might
be.
R
D
From
commissioners
on
on
the
issue
so
I'll
ask
before
I
allow
commissioner
bowers
to
craft
a
motion
on
it,
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we
give
us
a
chance
to
be
heard
if
you're
listening
to
the
public.
This
is
your
chance
star.
Nine
will
raise
your
hand
on
your
phone,
and
alt
y
will
raise
your
hand
on
your
computer
and
I'll
pause
just
a
moment
to
see.
If
there's
anybody
who
would
like
to
comment
on
this.
D
D
D
E
D
K
Q
This
is
a
4.4
acre
site.
It's
on
the
west
side
of
eastern
south
of
southeast
29th
street.
It's
going
from
an
existing
spud
to
a
new
spud
with
an
i2
base.
The
sites
developed
with
an
existing
business
park
and
the
proposed
bud
simply
adds
uses
that
will
allow
the
owner
to
lease
to
the
medical
marijuana
industries,
dispensaries
processors,
transporters
that
sort
of
thing
staff
found
to
be
in
conformance
with
the
plan,
recommends
approval
with
no
tes
terry
or
jerry
church
represent
the
applicant
is
the
applicant
with
us
today.
D
D
L
L
D
I
would
just
note,
commissioner
pennington:
this:
is
your
award.
I'm
gonna
turn
over
to
you,
my
understanding
from
staff
just
so
the
commission
is
clear.
There
is
no
change
to
the
previous
pud,
except
for
the
addition
of
the
four
use
units
that
were
outlined
in
the
staff
report,
other
than
that
it's
identical
to
the
use
that
pre-existed.
G
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
My
primary
concern
was
about
the
outside
storage
and
the
screening.
As
far
as
the
outdoor
uses,
as
long
as
I'm
assured
of
those
outdoor
uses
are
going
to
be
screened
from
you,
it's
fine.
I
think
we
found
one
of
the
rare
places
that
we
won't
run
into
too
much
trouble
with
increasing
the
marijuana
processing.
L
D
E
This
is
this.
Is
commissioner,
paris,
can
I
ask
a
question-
and
this
is
something
that
somebody
was
just
talking
to
me
about
fairly
recently.
I
don't
know
enough
about
the
medical,
marijuana,
industry
or
business,
and
you
know
here
we're
talking
about
not
just
a
dispensary
but
possible
what
processing
or
or
maybe
even
a
growth
facility.
I
don't
know
so
someone
I
can't
remember
now
who
it
was
was
talking
about
that
these
facilities,
maybe
the
growing.
E
Maybe
the
processing,
can
generate
quite
a
significant
and
sometimes
I
guess,
unpleasant
odor,
and
I
wonder,
is
that
something.
Maybe
staff
can
tell
me
that
we
are
relying
on
the
state
medical
marijuana
system
to
regulate.
I
mean
to
put
requirements
on
growers
or
develop
or
processors
to
control.
That,
or
is
it
something
that
we
need
to
account
for
in
terms
of
location
or
by
you
know,
making
a
a
a
condition,
an
spud
that
there
be
controls
in
place?
Does
anybody
know.
Q
I
don't
want
to
get
too
far
ahead
of
myself
here,
but
we
are
preparing
and
going
to
propose
an
ordinance
for
all
these
medical
marijuana
uses
that
creates
a
use
unit
for
each
one
and
they
will
all
be
conditional
uses,
and
some
of
those
conditions
include
what
you
just
mentioned.
It
would
be
ventilation
systems,
it
would
be
security,
cameras
and
lighting
and
those
kind
of
things.
E
K
E
You
know
I'll
take
that
on
myself
I'll
see
if
I
can
do
a
little
bit
of
investigation
and
find
out
whether
that's
something
that
the
current
state
regulations
encompass
and
see.
If
I
can
find
out,
because
I,
in
terms
of
location,
you
know,
I
think
that
might
be
significant-
something
for
us
to
be
concerned
about
not
necessarily
in
this
particular
area,
where
we're
trying
to
make
something
next
door
to
an
auto
salvage.
E
But
you
know
where,
where
we've
looked
at
these,
primarily
as
either
agricultural
or
industrial
or
commercial,
based
on
whether
they
are
dispensaries
or
processors
or
growers,
if
it?
If
it's?
If
it's
going
to
be
something
that
does
emit
like
a
noxious
odor,
we
may
need
to
give
a
little
bit
more
thought
to
placement.
So
I'll
I'll
do
a
little.
Looking
about
that
and
see.
If
I
can
answer
that,
question.
G
You
know
that
that
sounds
alarms,
and
so,
if
there's
some
way
for
us
to
be
clear
about
our
the
limits
that
we
have
in
terms
of
discriminating
against
that
industry
as
far
as
the
way
that
we
approve
of
that
use
unit,
I
think
we
need
to
be
very,
very
clear
from
legal
about
our
ability
to
steer
around
that,
because
I
fear,
if,
depending
on
the
way
that
that
uc
unit
is
named,
we're
gonna
we're
gonna
run
into
trouble
with
neighbors
every
single
time.
We
have
this
discussion.
E
D
Other
commissioners
have
comments
on
this
item
before
I
ask
the
public
okay.
Well,
in
that
case
members
of
the
public.
This
is
your
opportunity
to
be
heard
again.
This
is
item
9,
spud
1251,
on
today's
agenda.
It
is
star
9
on
your
phone
to
raise
your
hand
to
be
recognized
by
staff
or
alt
y
on
your
computer.
I
will
do
the
same
thing
and
I'll
pause
just
a
moment.
D
H
D
B
C
D
Q
This
application
is
a
7.7
acre
site.
It's
located
at
the
northeast
corner
of
britain
and
piedmont
road.
It's
going
from
the
current
zoning
of
r1
to
a
new
pud
with
a
c3
base
to
permit
commercial
development
staff
found
it
to
be
conformance
with
the
urban
low
plan
designation,
and
we
recommend
approval
with
six
technical
evaluations.
P
Yeah,
so
we're
just
looking
to
get
this
rezoned
with
piedmont
road.
You
know
they're
widening
it
out
currently,
so
I
think
that
it's
an
appropriate
use
for
that
corner
for
the
c3
there's
six
technical
evaluations,
we're
fine
with
all
of
them
except
for
item
four.
It
says,
provide
an
intersecting
street
that
coincides
with
revised
redstone
ranch.
Preliminary
plat
provide
pedestrian
access
for
adjacent
residency
center.
We
can
agree
to
the
pedestrian
access.
I
think
we
have
a
problem
with
providing
a
street
stub.
P
D
O
E
E
I
had
been
under
the
impression
that,
and
it
seems
to
me
that
that
t
number
four
would
indicate
the
city
really
favors
having
that
vehicular
access,
but
I've
heard
people
who
own
those
properties
or
develop
those
properties
really
adamantly
argue
against
it,
and
I've
even
heard
some
adjoining
residential
areas
discuss
or
complain
about
some
of
the
problems
with
that
kind
of
access.
This
is
something
I
would
like
for
us
to
have
a
little
bit
more
information
about,
maybe
from
staff.
O
P
Yeah,
so
I
think
I
don't
know
our
te
last
t
on
there
at
six.
I
think
says
something
about
two
driveways.
So
we'll
do
a
shared
drive
again
this
that's
kind
of
a
preliminary
idea
of
what
could
be
there,
but
we
can
do
a
shared
drive
if
there
was
like
a
gas
station
or
something
like
that.
We'd
agree
to
a
shared
drive
for
that
one,
and
then
that
would
allow
that
cross
access
between
the
two.
O
D
Yeah,
I
think
commissioner,
claire
just
to
two
points
on
the
tes,
and
then
I
have
one
thing:
I'd
like
to
add
would
be
revising
we'd,
be
amending
te4
simply
to
require
pedestrian
access
for
the
adjacent
residents
to
reach
the
center,
and
then
I
think
te6.
In
order
to
clarify
what
mr
reed
is
saying
and
do
it
you
know,
assuage
your
concern
there.
I
think
I
would
probably
amend
that
to
say
it
says:
it'll
provide
200
feet
of
separation.
I
think
you
could
limit
it
to
two
drives.
If
you
wanted.
D
One
thing
that
I
had
asked
the
applicant
commissioner
claire
was:
we
have
sort
of
made
it
a
you
know
a
policy
or
a
way
to
address
compatibility
issues
of
some
of
the
use
units
that
were
outlined.
In
fact,
the
staff
report
makes
mention
of
the
potential
compatibility
problems,
but
I
asked
him
if
he
would
be
willing
to
limit
use
units
8300.34,
8300.36,
8300.45
or
8300.46,
all
of
those
to
150
feet
from
r1.
The
drive
through
order
windows
is
what
I'm
talking
about
the
speakers.
D
We
sort
of
made
that
a
habit,
and
I
think
it's
a
good
one.
Just
separating
you
know
these
in
areas
where,
especially
where
you
don't
have
any
existing
residential
or
commercial.
That
seems
like
a
very
easy
mitigation
measure
to
you
know
address
you
know
like
that.
The
building
you
see
on
your
screen,
which
is
just
a
representation.
D
It's
not
a
commitment
to
build
that,
but
you
know
where
you
have
a
drive-through
window
right
behind
that
retail
building
that
the
person
whose
house
backs
up
to
that
they
have
to
hear
you
know
smoothies
get
ordered
100
times
a
day.
Mr
reed
had
no
problem
with
that.
So
unless
there's
some
objection,
I'd
really
like
to
see
that
amendment
made
and
us
continue
to
have
that
policy.
So
again
it
would
be
limiting
use
units,
8300.34,
8300.36
and
the
reason
I
included
and
jj.
D
I
may
be
doing
this
wrong,
but
8300.45
and
46
is
gas
stations
more
and
more
increasingly,
including
drive-through
order
windows
in
the
backs
of
their
facilities.
So
I
think
it
makes
sense
to
include
those.
Is
there
a
better
way
to
do
that?
Could
we
just?
Could
we
limit
drive
through
order
windows
to
150
feet
from
residential?
Could
we
just
make
that
change.
D
D
Okay,
anyone
else
have
questions
or
concerns
on
this
item
or
I'll
turn
it
over
to
the
public.
Just
briefly,
I
don't
have
anyone
signed
up
to
speak
but
hearing
nothing
from
commissioners
I'll
ask
members
of
the
public
that
are
with
us
today
if
they
wish
to
be
heard
star
nine
on
your
phone,
we'll
raise
your
hand.
Alt
lie
on
your
computer,
we'll
do
the
same
thing
I'll
pause
just
a
moment
to
see.
If
anybody
wishes
to
speak
to
us.
D
D
Q
Q
Staff
found
it
to
be
in
conformance
and
recommends
approval
with
three
tes
that
the
applicant
agrees
to.
We
might
just
want
to
put
the
applicant
on
notice,
though,
that
any
on-street
any
new
on-street
parking
that
is
proposed
must
be
approved
separately
by
the
traffic
and
transportation.
Commission
and
david
box
represents
the
applicant.
M
Sure,
david
box,
522
call
core
drive
on
us
on
the
call
with
us
is
richard
mccowan
as
well
who's
the
developer
for
the
project.
So
we
understand
what
mr
chandler
said
that
we
will
have
to
go
to
traffic
commission,
but
we
wanted
to
put
it
into
our
sput
just
so
that
it's
clear
what
our
intent
is
long
term.
We
think,
having
you
know
the
ability
to
have
those
on-street
parking
spaces
in
an
urban
setting
like
this
is,
is
very
important
and,
and
is
something
that
is
positive
for
the
development.
M
If
you
look
at
the
edge
at
13th
and
walker,
you
know
they
do
have
on-street
parking
similar
to
what
we
show
here,
along
walker
as
you
move
south
past
13th
street,
so
another
big
shoes
development.
It's
a
bit
of
a
an
oddity
in
that
the
south
half
of
this
block
is
zoned
pursuant
to
the
dt1
already
the
north.
Half
of
this
block
is
zone
c4
and
so
we're
zoning
this
essentially
into
the
dtd1.
M
One
of
the
technical
evaluations
in
the
staff
report
is
that
you
know
this
piece
of
it
would
also
be
subject
to
design
review
at
the
ddrc.
We
do
acknowledge
that
you
know
it
is
one
project,
so
there's
really
no
way
to
you
know
tell
them
to
close
their
eyes
on
you
know,
half
the
project
and
only
consider
the
south
af.
D
J
I
I
I'd
like
to
probably
toss
it
to
the
public.
I
think
I
think
if
you
know
what
I'm
definitely
interested
in
so
far
is
I
mean
this.
This
seems
to
have
a
lot
of
support
and
I
want
to
know
you
know
if
we've
got
anybody
that
has
any
concerns,
because
otherwise
I
mean
I
think
this
is
another
easy,
easy
win
for
the
city
and
a
great
project.
So.
D
Outstanding,
as
mr
box
said,
we,
the
only
letter
we
had
in
our
packets,
was
a
letter
of
support
which
came
from
st
luke's.
That
was
included.
That's
all
we
have.
We
did
not
have
any
letters
of
protest
that
were
provided,
but
at
commissioner
heisman's
request
I'll
ask
at
this
time.
If
there's
anyone
here
joining
us
today,
members
of
the
public
that
wish
to
be
heard
on
this
item
star9
to
raise
your
hand
on
your
phone
alt
y,
to
raise
your
hand
on
your
computer
and
I'll
pause
just
a
moment
to
see.
D
297-2289-297-2289
is
the
phone
number
you
can
call
if
you
are
having
trouble
and
need
assistance
and
getting
in
contact
with
us
hearing
no
comments
or
anyone.
That's
interested
for
the
public
I'll.
Just
ask
real
quickly.
If
there
are
any
other
commissioners
who
had
questions
on
this
one
or
concerns.
O
M
The
highest
on
the
list
was
the
addition
of
multiple
stop
signs,
which
was
accomplished
and
done.
Mr
claire,
you
may
have
been
on
the
traffic
condition
at
the
time
of
that,
I'm
going
to
call
it
a
fight,
I'm
not
sure
what
it
was,
but
that
desire.
One
of
them
is
the
conversion
of
robinson
to
to
2a.
It
is
a
strange
scenario,
as
you
get
north
of
I
think
it's
15th,
it's
two-way,
but
once
you
get
south
of
15th
there's
that
median.
M
J
Well,
I'd
like
to
re
real
quickly
note,
you
know
just
how
different
things
are
today
than
they
were.
You
know
just
just
a
few
years
ago,
because
I
remember
back
to
when
the
the
edge
came
through
for
rezoning,
and
you
know
just
how
tough
it
was
to
convince
everybody,
the
benefits
of
density
like
this,
and
so
you
know.
J
D
D
Q
This
application
is
a
1.6
acre
site.
It's
located
on
it
located
just
west
of
council
north
of
northwest
expressway.
It's
going
from
an
older
pud
number
101
to
a
new
spud
with
an
i1
base,
basically
to
permit
an
office
warehouse
business
park,
development
staff
found
it
to
be
in
conformance
with
urban
low
luda
and
recommends
approval
with
five
tes.
D
M
M
That
is
not
something
we
we
intend
to
do,
and
so
we
provided
some
proposed
language
to
say.
Metal
panel
fences
shall
be
prohibited,
however,
decorative
metal
such
as
wrought
iron
style
fencing,
shall
be
permitted
in
addition
to
wood
fencing.
So
we
we
want
it
to
be
a
nice
looking
fence,
and
so
I
think,
your
decorative
type
wrought
iron
or
decorative
type
metal.
Fencing
is
not
what
staff
was
intending
to
seek
to
get
rid
of
metal.
Panel.
M
Fences
like
you
might
see
at
some
sort
of
industrial
park,
certainly
would
not
be
appropriate
and
we
do
agree
to
prohibit
those.
Additionally,
on
the
overhead
doors,
we
certainly
understand
staff's
position
that
north
facing
overhead
doors,
if
they
were
located
on
the
north
side
of
the
property,
would
be
problematic
because
it
would
be
facing
those
residential
uses.
M
However,
because
we
could
have
two
rows
of
buildings,
a
building
on
the
south
side
of
the
site
that
had
a
north
facing
door
would
be
blocked
by
the
other
building,
and
so
I
don't
think
staff's
intending
to
do
that.
So
what
we
provided
is
this
exhibit
that
you
see
on
your
screen
showing
the
locations
in
which
we
believe
overhead
doors
to
be
appropriate
and
consistent.
M
So
we'll
stop
there
staff's,
asking
that
we
connect
to
the
south
and
to
the
west,
and
so,
as
you
look
to
the
south,
we're
at
the
back
of
house,
you
know
so
to
the
south
of
us
is
the
back
end
of
a
retail
trip
center,
and
so
there
really
isn't
anywhere
to
connect.
You
know
we
we
don't
own
that
property.
It's
not
it's
not
a
place
that
would
be
desirable
for
the
developer.
To
connect
to
it
is
filled
with
dumpsters
grease
traps.
M
You
know
we
really
can't
connect
to
the
west
either
because
it's
a
detention
area
and
again
we'd
be
connecting
to
somebody
else's
property
that
is
already
developed
as
a
parking
lot
for
the
multi-family
development
that
exists
to
the
north
and
west.
So
there's
nowhere
to
connect
to
the
south
either,
but
if
you
look
back
to
the
site
plan,
you'll
see
that
we
do
have
access
and
we
will
access
through
the
adjacent
sites
of
the
east
and
eventually
connect
to
council
road.
So
we
don't
agree
to
te
number
five.
D
D
D
And
then
the
second
part
of
that
is
that
you
presented
an
exhibit,
which
we
can
certainly
incorporate
into
the
record
and
you're,
proposing
that
overhead
door
locations
would
only
be
permitted
as
marked
on
the
exhibit
that's
displayed
before
us.
Currently.
Is
that
correct?
Yes,
sir
okay,
and
just
so
we're
all
clear
that
this
will
be
the
exhibit
that
accompanies
it
to
city
council
based
on
te3?
Is
that
correct.
M
Yes,
sir,
and
I
do
need
to
know
one
other
thing
and
talking
to
commissioner
claire,
who
did
ask
about
connectivity
with
the
sidewalk
you'll,
see
on
the
image
before
you
in
blue
four
foot.
Sidewalk
indicated
from
kind
of
that.
What
would
be
that
northeast
building
to
the
property
line,
and
so
we
can
commit
to
that
as
well
through
another
te
or
however
you'd
like,
but
that
was
requested,
commissioner
claire,
that
we
do
agree
with.
D
E
M
O
D
D
A
Oh
yes,
marilyn
with
the
planning
staff.
Can
you
hear
me?
Yes,
ma'am
we
can
okay.
I
just
wanted
to
explain
why
we
were
being
so
specific
here
about
the
both
the
overhead
doors
and
the
especially
the
fencing
that
this
is
a
transit
oriented
luda,
and
I
know
that
sounds
a
little
crazy
at
this
point
that
there's
no
transit
out
there.
But
if
we
you
know,
if
you
build
it,
they
will
come.
A
So
we
wanted
to
make
sure
that
it
met
the
transit
oriented
luda
if
it
was
going
to
stay
a
transit
oriented
luden.
So
the
idea
was
not
the
wrought.
Iron
fencing
sounds
good.
The
idea
is
see-through
fencing
so
that
we're
not
like
a
walled-off
entity.
We're
we're
kind
of
part
of
the
whole
experience
out
there,
which
would
be
transit,
oriented,
got.
A
M
So
yeah
we
we
can't
agree
that
it'll
be
see-through.
I
mean
this
is
a
parcel
that,
if
you've
driven
the
site,
it
is
off
right
of
way,
it's
frankly,
surrounded
by
dumpsters
and
grease
traps
and
the
back
of
house
retail
of
that
large
retail
center
that
fronts
northwest
highway.
And
so,
if
it's
office
warehouse,
I
think
that
perhaps
having
a
solid
fence,
if
it's
wood
is
not
problematic.
M
M
On
the
question
of
the
east
facing
overhead
doors,
my
client
is
agreeable
to
requiring,
if
we
have
overhead
doors
on
that
eastern
side
of
those
easternmost
buildings
that
they'd
be
required
to
be
decorative
and
storefront.
Looking,
so
that
if
there
isn't
anything
built
or
there
is
a
sliver
of
it,
that's
that's
visible
along
council
that
it
would
appear
to
be
aesthetically
pleasing.
D
R
E
Q
D
D
K
D
He's
talking
about
he's
talking
about
the
veneer
of
the
building
on
the
east
side,
but
here
would
be
my
suggestion,
the
essence
of
trying
to
move
along.
I
think
it's
going
to
be
very
difficult
to
specify
mr
box,
unless
you
can
say
we'll
commit
to
opaque
glass
overhead
doors
on
the
east
side
of
the
building.
I
think
it's
gonna
be
very
hard
to
get
there.
D
L
L
M
M
M
L
M
D
O
There's
no
further
discussion
I'll
make
a
motion
to
approve
spud
1249
with
the
following
amendments
to
the
technical
evaluations,
striking
technical
evaluation.
Number
two
amending
technical
evaluation,
number
three
to
say:
solid
metal
panel
fences
are
prohibited
and
overhead
doors
shall
not
face
the
north
east,
sorry,
north
or
west
boundaries
of
of
the
the
pu,
the
spud
and
doors
facing
the
east.
On
the
two
easternmost
boundaries.
M
D
Q
D
D
D
Q
It's
going
from
c4
heavy
commercial
to
a
spud
with
a
c4
base
that
permits
only
one
use
and
it's
a
outdoor
covered,
semi-enclosed
patio
accessory
to
the
hilo
club
staff
found
it
to
be,
in
conformance
with
urban
medium
plan.
Designation
recommends
approval
with
two
tes
and
adam
landmann
is
the
represents
the
applicant
mr.
D
S
E
Okay,
this
is
a
this
is
a
fairly
straightforward
application.
I
I
have
no
objection
whatsoever
to
the
idea
of
of
outdoor
music
on
a
patio
next
to
the
high
low
club.
I
I
did
reach
out
to
the
helm
farm
neighborhood
just
to
see
if
there
was
any
comment
or
input
they
wanted
to
offer.
I
don't
know
how
many
were
any
of
you
around
for
the
great
high
low
wars
over
the
bronze.
E
There
you
go
well,
it
was
a
huge
huge
huge
deal,
so
I
was
surprised
that
I
hadn't
heard
from
anybody
at
all
about
this.
The
neighbors
are
very
supportive
of
keeping
the
high
low
in
business
and
seeing
it
upgraded
and
so
on
and
so
forth.
So
I
think
they're
generally
supportive
too,
but
they
like
me
had
some
concern
about
two
things:
noise
and
light.
So
I've
spoken
to
mr
landman,
we
had
discussed
various
options
to
deal
with
those
two
issues.
E
One
of
them
includes
limiting
the
hours
of
operation
to
on
tuesday
nights,
which
is
one
of
the
nights
that
they
had
specified,
not
not
till
midnight
but
until
11
pm,
and
then
one
of
them
had
to
do
with
either
allowing
no
amplified
music
on
the
patio
or
doing
some
mitigation
things.
He
was
going
to
try
to
have
an
answer
for
me
by
the
time
of
the
meeting
as
to
which
of
those
two
options
they
wanted
to
take.
S
So
on
the
sound
mitigation,
if,
if
it
comes
down
to
it,
we'd
rather
not
build
the
eight
foot
fence,
we're
happy
to
do
the
vertical
green
wall
option
with
a
dense
with
a
dense
planter
next
to
the
stage,
but
we'd
rather
not
add
the
eight
foot
fence
to
the
project
as
part
of
that.
So,
if
amplified
sound,
is
an
issue
without
the
eight
foot
fence,
then
we
could
do
away
with
the
amplified
sound.
E
E
I
I'm
perfectly
okay
with
the
idea
of
amplified
music
within
the
time
limits
that
they
have
set
for
themselves,
with
the
exception
of
tuesday
night
and
we're
moving
that
to
11
p.m
instead
of
midnight.
But
I,
if
the,
if
the
commission
wants
to
discuss
that
issue,
I'm
certainly
open
to
doing
it
there.
There
is
some
there's
one
piece
of
property
directly
to
the
east.
It's
actually
owned,
as
I
understand
by
brahms,
I'm
not
sure
it's
it's
currently
occupied,
but
it
is
zoned
r1.
E
The
the
real
concern
I
have
in
terms
of
that's
actually
occupied
residentially,
that
the
real
concern
that
I
have
just
in
terms
of
noise
has
to
do
with
those
properties
that
front
onto
49th
street
west
of
military
and
there's
not
really
any
other
residential
nearby.
That
I
think,
would
be
affected,
but
I
I
do
have
some
concern
about
that,
and
it
seems
to
me
that
that
a
fair
trade-off
would
be.
You
know
these
sound
absorption
or
limiting
features.
The
patio
is
is
fairly
open.
E
The
roof
is
not
attached
to
the
patio
walls,
so
it's
open
and
the
the
walls
of
the
patio
itself
are
permeable
and
decorative.
You
know
brick
work
that
is
open,
so
I
I
will
certainly
take
some
guidance
from
the
other
commissioners.
I
myself
would
be
inclined
to
require
one
or
the
other
either
no
amplified
music,
as
the
first
te
suggests,
or
some
mitigation
of
that
sound
through
and
my
my
suggestion
had
been.
E
G
Yeah,
mr
mr
chairman,
let
me
just
say
this
from
the
experiences
that
we
had
in
ward
7.
Dealing
with
a
concert
venue
has
given
me
extreme
pause
now
when
we're
dealing
with
live
music.
So
I'm
I'm
inclined
to
say
that
we
need
to
require
all
of
the
above
the
hours,
no
implication
and
the
the
physical
mitigation
with
the
fencing,
because
yeah.
G
D
I
I
agree
with
you,
commissioner
pennington
and
mr
lemon
just
so
you
understand,
I
am
more
concerned
about
a
successor
user
to
your
property,
who
would
share
your
ability
under
the
zoning
to
have
amplified
music.
Then
I
am
that
you
are
going
to
be
a
good
neighbor.
Currently,
as
you
have
been,
and
that's
to
commissioner
pennington's
point
a
lot
of
times,
neighbors
don't
complain.
One
of
the
things
that
I
asked
staff
was:
did
the
300-foot
notice
requirement
reach
49th
street?
D
I
just
wanted
to
confirm
that
some
of
those
neighbors
who
were
the
closest
affected
would
have
been
notified
by
this
staff,
confirmed
that
the
north
side
of
that
street
would
have
been
notified
and
commissioner
powers
confirmed
she
reached
out
to
the
neighborhood
as
well.
So
we
know
the
neighborhood's
been
informed,
but
I
agree
with
you.
I
think
we
should
be
very
sensitive
about
that.
This
is
a
small
patio
area,
not
even
sure
amplification
is
really
necessary.
H
D
S
50.,
okay,
and
just
to
be
clear
to
avoid
the
fence
or
additional
mitigation
on
the
sound
issue,
we're
willing
to
completely
give
up
the
amplified
sound
in
this
application
and
just
keep
the
hours
set,
as
I
spoke
to
with
with
commissioner
powers,
which
would
be
tuesdays,
cutting
off
at
11
and
the
other
days
would
remain
the
same.
It's
what
they
are
in
the
app
location,
happy
to
get
rid
of
amplified
sound
all
together,
understood.
D
I
agree
with
you
on
the
acoustic
side.
I
agree.
I
I
look.
I
think
the
I
mean
at
the
end
of
the
day,
there
is
an
r1
next
door.
I
I
don't.
I
don't
know
that
that
will
be
an
r1.
You
know
long
term,
so
I
I
am
not
as
hung
up
on
the
fencing
issue,
but
the
amplification
is
certainly
a
deal
breaker
for
me
at
least
just
for
me,
so
that
I
would
I
would
agree
with
you,
commissioner
ringo.
I
think
an
acoustic
is
not.
D
E
No,
I
think
that
was
that
was
kind
of
where
we
were
always
going
either
the
amplification
with
the
mitigation
as
far
as
sound
barriers,
buffers
and
absorption
or
no
amplification.
I
you
know,
I
think
the
limitation
the
hour
on
the
hours
on
tuesday
night
is
reasonable
and
and
the
other
te
the
second
te
limiting
you
know
this
variable
language
is,
is
that's
fine.
This
is
really
pretty
straightforward
application.
D
Yeah,
I
agree.
Okay,
well
with
that
I'll
ask
if
there
are
members
of
the
public
that
want
to
be
heard
on
this
item.
This
is
spud
1250.
It's
item
number
13
on
today's
agenda.
It's
a
star
nine
on
your
phone
to
raise
your
hand,
alt
y,
to
raise
your
hand
on
your
computer,
so
star
nine
is
for
your
phone.
If
you
want
to
be
heard
on
this,
this
is
your
opportunity
and
I'll
pause.
Just
a.
D
D
E
Oh
there
was
one
other
thing,
I'm
sorry,
mr
landman,
there
was
language
in
the
mds
about
about
signage.
There
is
an
existing
sign.
They
want
to
slightly
relocate
it
from
one
part
of
the
building
to
another
part
of
the
building.
But
it's
it's
a
sign.
That's
existed
a
long
time
and
we're
going
to
limit
the
signage
to
that
existing
sign,
albeit
slightly
relocated
on
the
building.
So
I'll
I'll
include
a
fourth
te
for
that.
D
Commissioner,
hinkle
is
second
to
the
motion
staff,
so
I
have
a
motion
and
a
second
to
recommend
approval
to
city
council
for
spud,
1250
amending
te1
to
say
no
amplified.
Music
shall
be
permitted
on
the
patio,
including
te2
as
written
and
adding
te3,
which
would
prevent
live
music
beyond
11
p.m,
on
tuesdays
and
including
te
number
four
which
would
allow
the
applicant
only
to
reuse
the
existing
signage
and
but
it
can
be
relocated.
B
D
D
Thank
you.
That's
the
last
item
on
today's
agenda.
The
rest
of
the
items
have
been
continued
so
with
that
I'll
go
on
to
additional
items,
communications
and
reports.
There
are
currently
no
planning
commission
committees
that
I'm
aware
of
so
we'll
skip
that
one
planning.
Commission
members,
commissioner,
claire
anything
from
you.
E
I
would
like
for
us
to
consider
the
possibility
of
making
the
issue
of
the
150-foot
separation
from
residential
areas
for
drive
through
speakers
just
a
policy
issue
so
that
it's
understood
it's
expected
and
if
we're
not
going
to
do
it,
that's
when
we'll
discuss
it,
discuss
it.
Otherwise,
it's
understood
that
that's
just
going
to
be
a
thing.
D
I
agree
with
you
and
I
I
have
seen
you
know
that
it's
an
easy
concession
to
appease
concerns
of
neighbors
that
are
going
to
join
a
retail
based
commercial
development
that
things
like
dumpsters.
The
things
that
create
that
are
noxious
essentially
about
those
uses
are
moved
further
away.
It's
a
very
reasonable
request
and
can
almost
always
be
incorporated
into
site
design.
I'm
not
a
huge
fan
of
us
making
policies
that
are
outside
of
the
ordinance,
but
these
are
adjustments
that
are
concessions
that
I
think
really
help.
E
J
D
J
J
D
H
J
G
Just
quickly,
first
happy
birthday
to
the
chairman,
that's
great!
I
look
forward
to
celebrating
it
at
some
point
when
it's
safe.
My
other
quick
comment
is
I
apologize
for
missing
the
study
session
today
that
we
had
earlier.
I'm
sure
a
number
of
you
were
there,
but
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
I've
said
this
on
the
record
for
clarification.
D
Commissioner,
bennington
I'll
tell
you
what
happened
today
in
what
you're
referring
to
is
the
study
session,
which
was
noticed
and
publicly
held
meeting
that
people
could
sign
into
just
like
this.
There
was
a
discussion
about
it
that
specific
issue
was
held
out
of
the
recommendation
to
set
for
hearing
updates
to
the
comprehensive
plan
which
were
prevented
by
presented
by
staff,
and
the
that
item
was
suggested
to
have
a
separate
study
session
where
districts
were
invited
to
participate
in
that
discussion.
D
I
think
really,
with
the
primary
idea
of
beginning
a
dialogue
about
the
challenges
that
we
as
separate
political
subdivisions
need
to
engage
in
to
try
to
help
that
issue.
But
I
think
I
don't
want
to
speak
for
anybody
else,
but
I
think
it
was
fairly
universal
that
there
was
real
consternation
about,
including
that
language
and
as
a
part
of
our
consideration
going
forward.
So
your
I
think
your
concern
is
shared
by
a
lot
of
people,
it's
just
about
by
the
other
commissioners.
I
think
it's
a
matter
of
how
can
we
assist
the
conversation?
D
T
Am
with
you,
and
the
only
thing
I
was
going
to
say
was:
I
was
going
to
tell
janice
that
I
could
help
her
do
some
of
that
research
because
it
looks
like
we.
We
tried
to
do
some
of
that
research
on
the
odor
issue
and
at
the
state
level,
and
we
were
not
able
to
find
any
kind
of
a
rule
that
specifically
covered
that
I
mean
I
know
they
have
to
have
ventilation
systems,
but
it
wasn't
specifically
related
to
odor.
So
I
know
in
our
proposed
ordinance
that
we
are
going
to
bring
forward.
K
D
Actually,
yeah,
that's
that's
a
really
good
point.
Let
me
just
summarize
it
quickly
for
everybody's
benefit
and
jj.
If
I
say
something
wrong,
if
you
and
jeff
want
to
jump
in
on
it.
Essentially
there
are
some
changes
to
the
way
that
alterations
to
applications
and
things
are
gonna
have
to
be
made,
and
I
didn't
fully
grasp
what
that
is.
So
jj
can
can
enlighten
me,
but
the
gist
of
it
is
this.
D
It
becomes
particularly
sensitive,
at
least
for
in
my
opinion,
for
applicants
that,
if
there's
any
other
feedback
that
they
would
need
from
commissioners,
we
do
that
before
we
push
that
item
out,
because
I
think
it
would
be
a
really
bad
outcome
to
force
people
to
take
a
month-long
continuance.
Come
back
and
then
have
an
issue
that
we
didn't
tell
them
about
beforehand
that
forced
them
to
take
a
continuance
again
from
the
two.
So
now
we've
delayed
an
application,
a
minimum
of
six
weeks.
D
You
know
the
process
by
and
large
takes
an
average
of
100
days,
as
I
recall
from
our
great
staff
training
we
have
once
a
year.
I
learned
that
there,
and
so
I
don't
want
to
lengthen
that
process
unless
it's
absolutely
necessary.
So
I
just
think
we,
you
know.
We
talked
about
a
little
bit
last
time
and
I
think,
as
a
result
of
these
changes,
we
should
probably
think
more
seriously
about
that
about
making
sure
we're
doing
that
as
a
group.
D
So
and
again
I
know
you
know,
commissioner
laforge
shared
some
concern
about
that,
which
I
think
was
really.
You
know
well
said
and
pointed
and
appropriate.
I
would
just
say
like
if
I
were
engaged
in
a
conversation
with
neighbors
and
and
felt
like
the
item
needed
to
be
continued,
so
they
could
continue
to
sort
it
out
if
it
were
printed
in
the
packet
and
prep
to
be
heard
before
we
continued
it
at
that
continuance
request.
D
I
would
just
say
you
know:
are
there
any
other
comments
from
commissioners
on
this
item
they'd
like
to
share
with
the
applicant
prior
to
the
continuance,
and
then,
if
you
had
something
that
you
really
felt
strongly
you
needed
to
share,
you
could
do
that
there
and
then
we
can
continue
it.
So
that
would
just
be
my
comments
on
it
jj.
What
do
you
want
to
add
anything
to
that.
Q
E
I,
mr
chairman,
I
would
like
to
hear
a
little
bit
more
about
this
and
I
would
like
for
us
to
discuss
a
little
bit
more.
I
too
have
been
thinking
about
this
quite
a
bit
since
we
last
discussed
it.
You
know
I
I
have
some
questions,
some
of
which
are
legal
or
quasi-legal
about.
You
know
the
there's,
an
item.
It's
controversial,
there's
negotiation
going
on!
There's
back
and
forth.
It's
pretty
clear!
It
needs
to
be
continued.
E
You
always,
as
it
says,
on
on
the
agenda
itself.
You
know
no
case
is
continued
until
it's
really
continued,
but
you've
got
you
know
25
or
you
know
only
five
or
however
many
neighbors
you've
got
who
are
having
you,
take
off
work
or
having
to
arrange
to
once
upon
a
time
anyway,
drive
downtown
and
find
parking
places,
and
you
know
be
there
and
do
this,
and
you
know
you
want
to
be
able
to
give
them
some
assurance
that
no,
they
don't
have
to
do
all
of
that,
just
so
that
it
they
can
hear.
E
Yes,
it
is
continued,
but
on
the
other
hand,
I
don't
know
how
we
can
say:
okay,
we're
going
to
kind
of
talk
about
this
in
the
sense
that
we're
going
to
give
you
some
input,
but
we're
not
really
going
to
talk
about
this
and
it's
not
really
being
heard,
and
so
members
of
the
public
you're
not
allowed
to
speak,
and
I
just
think
it's
very
problematic
we're
going
to
have
to
kind
of
sort
our
way
through
this.
I
think.
D
D
Well,
look,
I
think
you
know,
at
least
we
can
agree
on
this.
I
think
we're
trying
as
a
commission
to
select
between
the
lesser
of
two
evils.
This
is
like
backing
onto
36
or
having
a
second
drive.
No,
I
don't
know
whether
it's
worse,
that
we
don't
give
applicants
feedback,
and
so
they
don't
know
what
to
talk
about
with
the
neighbors.
D
You
know
visit
about
with
the
neighbors
before
they
come
back
to
be
heard
on
october,
8th
right
at
least
then
they
know
what
they
need
to
be
looking
at
in
their
application
and
you're
really
telling
the
neighbors
that
that's
a
concern
for
you,
and
so
it's
kind
of
creates
a
point
for
them
to
visit
about.
I
just
there's
got
to
be
a
way
we
can
do
it
like.
D
I
said
it's
it's
a
lesser
of
two
evils
thing
and
susan
I'd
really
appreciate
if
you
could
kind
of
get
back
to
us
with
some
guidance,
maybe
at
our
next
meeting
on
this
just
so,
we
know
what
to
do,
because
I
think
it
would
really
help
us.
I
think
it
would
streamline
meetings.
I
think
it
would
prevent
continuances.
So
we
don't
end
up
with
super
agendas
like
we
had
two
meetings
ago,
and
I
think
it
would.
D
I
think
it
would
help
us
give
applicants
and
protestants
information
about
where
an
application
stands
as
it's
moving
through
the
process
and
being
discussed,
and
I
also
think
too,
mr
powers.
It
prevents
a
commissioner
from
sort
of
being
isolated
in
those
discussions
on
you
know
with
neighbors
to
be
able
to
say
look,
you
heard
what
commissioner
craven
said
is
concerned
on
the
signage
are
so
I
you
know
you
at
least
know
where
two
people
stand
right.
You.
E
E
We
all
know
about
ace
and
his
driveways,
but
there
are
other
issues
that
are
that
are
not
quite
so
easily
identifiable,
and
I
tell
you
I
one
of
the
things
that
I
always
am
very
clear
with
neighbors
about
when
I'm
talking
to
them,
is
you
know,
they're,
not
the
ones
who
are?
Actually
you
know
deciding
what
is
going
to
be
approved.
E
It
would
be
very
helpful
if
there
were
a
mechanism
by
which
we
could
sort
of
inject
a
little
bit
of
that
into
the
into
the
process
at
an
earlier
stage
than
actually
at
the
meeting.
That's
less
of
a
thing
with
people
that
we
see
all
the
time
that
it
is
with
the
one-off
applications,
but
yeah
that
would
be
really
helpful,
but
but
it
is
tricky
you
know.
I
think
I
think
that
there
is
already
this
kind
of
perception.
E
I
don't
know
how
many
other
commissioners
have
these
kind
of
meetings
and-
and
you
know
get
to
encounter
this,
but
you
know
that
the
applicants
and
the
commission
are
on
one
side
and
the
neighbors
are
on
the
other.
So
if
the
applicant
comes
and
they
they
say
we're
going
to
continue
it.
But
here's
what
we
think
and
here's
what
you
need
to
do
then
the
neighbors
who
may
have
been
told
you
don't
really
need
to
speak
because
we're
not
really
hearing
this
suddenly.
E
D
Yeah,
I
agree
well
susan,
if
you,
if
you
could
help
advance
our
discussion
here,
I
think,
having
you
tell
us
what
our
options
really
would
be,
I
think,
would
help
commissioners
come
come
down
on
where
how
they
view
it
we'll
just
see
how
we
feel
as
a
group,
and
that's
that's
what
we'll
do
so.
I
think
it's
a
good
way
for
us
to
to
move
forward
and
try
to
get
the
issue
to
a
resolution.
So
next
item
on
the
agenda
is
citizens
to
be
heard.