 I will call the meeting to order. The development review board meeting for September 5th. The agenda is accurate as it is posted on the line and all communications have been posted as well. Then it's from the last meeting. All right. Going through the agenda and the order in which the items appear. So that's starting with two items on our consent agenda. Do we have the applicant for. Three one four zero north. Yes. You will come up here. Just say your name. Turning Michael. Thank you. So have you had a chance to review the staff report? I didn't get that. Okay. Since this was recommended or consent, if you're okay with staff report and the. Recommendations and requirements within that. We couldn't move forward without a hearing, but if you hadn't had a chance to review it. No major changes. Okay. Two items of note. Finalizing the driveway. I know that you proposed. The driveway set up the other 200 square feet without coverage. Finalizing that with me. Before. Final posting. And final window specs because I know you move some windows around. Okay. So you just remove one of the windows. So none of that. Yeah. So windows. Okay. Does anyone from the board object to this being treated? I do not have any questions. But I would like to discuss with. Okay. We're moving it from the consent. Is there anything that you. I do not have any questions for. Okay. Is there anything that you wanted to present. On this. Or talk through with the rise. I'm hearing about it. I don't have. Okay. Is there anyone here from the public to speak on this. We have. Landon. I don't think you're here for this item. But if you want to speak on it, raise your hand. If no one has any questions. Then for right now, and we will probably deliberate on that. Okay. Moving on to the next agenda item, which is. Three 24 South Union Street. We have the. Yeah. So. Three hundred. Three hundred. Three hundred. Three hundred. Three hundred. Three hundred. Three hundred. Three hundred. Three hundred. Three hundred. Three hundred. Three hundred. Three hundred. Three hundred. Three hundred. Great. Great. Do you want to give us. A little bit of an overview. We saw a document. Anything that you want to present other rights. Really the, the substance of it is just the issue about. The frontage on post tree. Just in regards to the termination of the type of fence. That we can use behind the building. So, I think it's actually too much. Height of the fence. I think I'm right about that. It's quite similar to the wrong. It's the height of the fence and it's the material of the fence. I wanted to ask, so is the height and the material. I do okay if they have to change the material, but change things to something that is accepted. I mean, the, the issue is that. The chain lane does the job actually better than probably any other materials. It gives us some transparent, you know, having an opaque fence there is going to be a problem because you won't be able to see what's going on behind the fence. And then with, you know, we did a Woodstock cave fence because not going to last, you know, and then other things are, you know, orders of magnitude more expensive. So, you know, we only have limited resources. You know, we find the black chain lane is sitting sort of like the nice happy me. It's got a little pointy at the top. If you've been going over the top, but it's very durable. We got, you know, we get years out of it. So, wasn't quite very much. It's how far off info stream is the fence to the fence is on your property line, right? That's, well, no, the fence is not really on the most recent on our property line at all the property line. I don't know, we haven't been a good site plan on that. One of the engineering drawings, I think it's got the No, having to be to keep getting prettier than that. And there's an overall site plan. There's the site section also that probably shows the, I think that's what I put in there to show the distance. Yeah, the section as legible as that is from an engineering drawing standpoint. I'll show that. You can see that, you know, this is, I'm not going to touch it, Barry. This is depot street here. You know, this is, you know, this one here is our, actually, no, this is our property line way in here, right dash dash dash. Because this is this for some reason, this has got a huge, you know, right away. Like it turned into a super highway or something. And so, you know, our property line is way down here and we're still way off of here on the on the fence line here. So and then you can see like how much great change we've got here. The site section shows that best. No, the issue is because the grade is changing so so quickly on the on the depot street side. Like, if I put up a six foot fence, you probably jump over it because there's no, there's so much, you know, it was, it's a very it's extremely odd site. And so that's, you know, sort of how we end up where we end up. Thank you. Did you consider putting the fence farther up? Well, it's not that it's not really buildable or that that slope is not necessarily 100% stable. So if I touch that slope, I mean, you know, you could really be undermining stuff. So the, you know, basically we're just fencing in the flat spot that was created to build the bill. So, and then, you know, everything, everything about that slope is bad. So we try to not touch it as much as we can. Then, you know, we, we did, I mean, just so you know, we didn't build this with the city. You know, they were, they were, they were, they gave us the land. They were very involved in the project. So, the project predated the base code. This is. Why would you consider you in the city of sort of clearing it in these scenarios, make them a well ordered open space rather than have a fence that's eight feet tall. I mean, it's sort of a, it's a jungle right now. Again, it goes back to the, you know, the slopes on both sides are not very stable. And the best thing you can do is keep vegetated and, you know, naturalized. And, you know, that discourages people somewhat to from coming through. But, you know, it's not impenetrable. And there's, you know, like one path that comes down basically from, you know, this, this path here. You know, this, this space here being slightly less steep. You can see this little bit of little kinks in the, in the topos there and that, that there's a little path that comes down there. That comes the path of passion. Well, I guess to go back to your question, you know, why don't we get so we clean the hillside doesn't really seem like a wise choice just because we're going to be undermining undermining hillside stability outside. There's not a, you know, the number of units that back up onto that space is not a lot. You know, there's one and that there's two that have patios and there's three that have porches. The tenants have expressed to us that their primary concern is about security. People coming down, people coming down the hill, people ending up in the parking garage. That's, that's, you know, that's the feedback we're getting from our tenants is that they don't feel safe in the backyard. And they want things are going to storm off their fortunes. Well, you, you didn't ask staff about the appeal, which typically we start with same thing as this is the same issue as the Ronald McDonald house. We have two street frontages. So the code's very prescriptive on a street frontage you don't have a fence between the front property line and the building that's greater than four feet in height. So we have two street from just the one thing I would note Donald is when you're talking about here about the desire path. This is not a street from right. Yeah, but it's this part that is between the building and the road is that it's not really that light of the fence and whether the, you know, whether it makes, I mean, the ordinance is fairly clear. All the just all the all the diagrams and all the examples are, you know, an orthogonal street grid and street relationship between a building that is pretty close to the street in the street. And I think it totally makes sense in that situation and just with this great change and the distance between the road and the street. The distance between the road the streets got to be 125 feet. Maybe more so, and then if you count the slope change that it's before. So, so I have a question for Mary layers. How do you have a lot of layers. I read that for me so your comments. This is still the first layer. This is the first lot layer it's between the right of way and the building front. So this is a first lot layer here no matter how great that distance. I see the problem with where it's located proposed height and not really the material which prohibits change like. And, you know, part of the issue that we've confirmed is according to our base codes is doesn't give us a lot of leeway. Right. And it doesn't give us an opportunity to the point of it is to provide clarity and so which has its benefits. That's maybe one because I can see the value and saying, well, it's 100 feet down slow, slow. The purpose of the intent of reasonable regulations so that the former base code something's not putting up a need for change fence. Right. You know, a deactivated streetscape. Yeah. I think, I think really it's just like this parcel. You know, I just want to get it was appropriate to apply for base code to this parcel, but I know that's, I think that's a bigger kettle of fish. And so I'm trying to, you know, come up with the most weight room that I can see was saying that for just for the purposes of the fencing, we should that people street would not be considered. That was the most narrow thing I could come up with. Mary. So this, even at this project. When this project was built. Before this code, they couldn't put this fence up, but on the issues. I can't say that I'm familiar with the regulations that were in fact, but many of our while, I've offenses actually do not have height limits. We have new applications under the regulations of effective time. Right. I did go back and look at earlier approved landscape plans. I wasn't certain if Donald's annotation there reflects an existing chain length fence, but there have been no fences approved. No, there's no, there's no chain link there. Yeah, I was just trying to. I found two previously approved landscape plans and neither one included fences. I know it's, we're just supposed to pay homage to the regulations as they exist. I know that, but it's really hard. Both of these things that Mark McDonald else in this one. The fact that the form based code is even infencing in for two very different reasons and two very different locations and things that are not regular sites. Just seems contrary to reason. I guess I would say, especially this one. You know what with the security and looking at behind there. The other issue I'll just ask this about variances, the key about variances are circumstances not of their baking and topography here. One could say it's not. No, but. I think Mary's being in the corner and that's that's why I'm here in front of you. Well, there is an opportunity for alternative compliance from this body to allow an additional 20% for an American standard. And that's not going to provide a lot. Frontage. Well, there is an opportunity for alternative compliance from this body to allow an additional 20% for an American standard. And that's not going to provide a lot. Frontage is is just, if it's close to us, how would it be the first determined. The property line about some public right of way. Technology orders that are true. Could I make it a work of art. I think it was at switchback where they took the little bread tabs and I'm going to all the things. Things. What's that you can plan. You know, there's a lot of, you know, there's lots of ways landscapes. I could spend a lot of money and solve the problem for sure. The question is, the question is, you know, is that a good use of resources or affordable housing situation. Because you are allowed to do that. Yes, we can build a layer of fence on the on depot street just to create, you know, another opportunity to make another fence. Sure. I mean, again, there is lots of ways for me to do this. It can't be changed. I'm just not right with it. I was at the same thing. I was like, this just doesn't. Doesn't make any just on the face of it doesn't make sense. Right. And so it's just sort of, you know, I don't expect everything to make perfect sense to me. But this long as I seem to, especially, we don't appeal for minstrel. Let's just put that way. So this was just sort of the threshold to see the vote absurd. Any further comments from the board questions. Turn me online to wants to comment on this. We have two attendees, if you'd like to weigh in on this item and raise your hands of the lives of the phone going on. Nobody's raising. Close the public hearings that I've been on this one. That includes my part of the. All right. Thank you. I will look forward to the watching the video later. Thank you for your time. Appreciate it. So we skipped the sound. Yeah. Yeah. So the next item on our agenda is degree convene to 66 college street. And so they've been. Raise your right hand square. The matter under consideration is true and correct. Yes. So. We asked to bring back some revised renderings of the building. I want to see what you did. Sure. This we did not do so much on this elevation, but we. We made the street level. A much darker color. So that was, that was really the move on this side. And then the bigger changes are on the West. So. Okay. I can actually be able to scroll down. So. The previous north elevation. One of the colors that's in that kind of checkerboard pattern. They are a little bit more rich than. The other color. So this is the third color. I'm not sure what the color is, but that had been used at the base. So this is an actual third color. That's a little bit. Or saturated and stronger color. Then. On this side, we. Reorganize some of the. Sort of white lines to divide it. And. You've got three different. Well, four of you. This sort of white framing lines. Colors going on. There. It's, it's a little hard to see from the air, but. In this rendering, we're showing. Some divers coming down. But the idea was that that's. Place to locate. Public art. And we would. Seek proposals from. Artists probably have some sort of. Jury process to select one. Select one. I think. I would both be interested in seeing something that had relief to it. You know, a sculptural moment there. And. We've talked about something that. Is reprensial to the. So, you know, divers or. Some sort of. Pastoral. Abstract. But we don't know what it is yet. Question to report. I mean, I think it's. Positive change. It helps. Expect different to that. I like the art. I like the space to be our. We like it better too. And I mean. We were going to improve this, you know, whether you brought us back or not. So happy to do it. Anybody online? Any other questions? Here. Maybe online. He wants to talk about this. Is there anyone who wants to speak about this project? Right. Yes. Hi. I'm. I'm sorry. I'm not there. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm not there. I wanted to go to the board. weigh out. Yes. testimony. Is true and correct. All right. I'm good evening. I'm sorry I'm not there in person. The way I see it is that the colors have changed and the detail is different. So I think that anything that made that those, that building more interesting, I think is good. And broke up the massing. So I support that. I couldn't. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I have a few minutes from your last meeting. I had to call Scott. I wasn't quite sure what you were taking for additional comment. So it's only this, this, these elevations and the, these sides. The West, I guess in the North side. But you're not, you did not consider once again, the historic structure, the older part. That was not up for discussion again. Is that true? That's correct. Okay. Okay. Well, then my comments are, are limited to the fact that this, anything would have improved the kind of flatness of the original design. And so this looks better to me. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right. All right. Do we have. The net applicants. You don't know. Next item on our agenda is ZP 23273 Adam street. It's a small detail on this item. No, it's a small detail. Looking at the project plans earlier today. I knew it's at the trash and bushes in the front yard setback. So it needs to move. Okay. I would suggest. You would add as you are a positionable people to relocate traffic. You okay for probably easiest. I may be best to put the colors in the garage. I think it may have a lot of conditions. You okay or put the garage. Do they know that that is your. Yeah. Everything. So you want to raise your right hand. Okay. I think it's true. In the matter of considerations, true and correct. It's perjury. So it's yourself. So just quickly walk us through. We have the staff report and. I'm assuming you just heard Scott's comments about. Right. So why don't you just quickly walk us through what you're doing. See the borders. Any questions? Okay. Daniel Goldsmith. I'm the architect on this. I'm the owner of this proposal as well as, as the owner. This is my partner, Joe. I'm okay. That's also the owner. And I'm certainly willing to walk through the, the entire show. I did not receive a new staff report. I don't know if there is one. There's not. So Scott just commented on the fact that the trash. That was located in the. Rear yard set. Front yard set. Sorry. And we need to be relocated. Yeah. We're more than willing to do that. And again, I'm certainly willing to give the whole presentation. I don't know if it's appropriate to ask if it's worthwhile. We were here once already. And we're here again. So if it's still not worth me giving the presentation, maybe you could point out the changes. I can certainly do that. Sure. 41 Adams street. One, two, eight, a lot remains a three unit building. The footprint has grown very slightly. The building is the same way it's become a bit longer. The layout internally has. Has remained mostly the same. But based on the previous DRB hearing, we've got unfavorable comments from both the board and the community regarding the roof deck. We've already big stereo stair and sort of. Our feedback was pretty emphatically that the design was not well received. So we received some additional comments from the board. For the design to be more modern and sleek. To revise the walkway, various other changes. So, and we also looked again in detail at the section in the ordinance regarding the active and inviting street edge to see how we can accommodate that. So in light of the combined feedback and the direction we got from the board, we have made the following changes. The roof deck is gone. The exterior stair is gone. The design is more sleek and modern. We have a different mix of materials. The body of the building is now proposed to be corrugated metal and the bump outs are proposed to be a thermally modified wood product. So that's a challenge and an attempt to sort of mix up the design. There was a comment about the desire to see maybe an overhang of the roof line to help bring the building together. So we incorporated this large cornice across the front of the building to try and do that. There was a comment about the entry to have be marked by attractive landscape walkways connected to the sidewalk and grounds with some lighting to enhance and feel safe. So, for the revised site plan that we submitted, we extended the walkways all the way to the sidewalk. We added some landscaping on our site, not on the city's property, but on the property line where we could. We also incorporated some lighting there for aesthetics and safety. We went through this section of the ordinance regarding the active and inviting street edge, building materials, the physical step backs along the facade, no large expenses of under differentiated building materials, varied fenestrations, patterns, the bays, the vertical facade articulation, the rhythm of the openings, it walks about patios, decks, bays, articulated bays, cornice, recessed entries, which we did on the ground floor, the man doors are now recessed into the building, the garage doors remain along the facade. So, we attempted to go through both the feedback we got from the board and the ordinance and incorporated and from the community quite honestly and tried to get all that into this crisis. I think the plan is a lot better. I don't know if you can answer, but it's sort of nice to detect how we can get to the thing without having to go to a better scale on the back. I think it's a lot better. Thank you for the changes. I'm pleased with it. I did a nice job raising it. Thank you. I was there with the first smoke that I could be a second. Yeah, I apologize. I realized it was from what I was able to make. I will share the comments. I think it's a nice project. So. So you're online. You'd like to speak on this. A person online. If you'd like to speak on it. Right again. It's Sharon Bush or Sharon. You're up. Thank you. Okay. So I'm, I don't need to be sworn in again. Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to comment to the applicant that as a member of the community that made comments about. The back stairs and the concern about the rooftop. Access to the rooftop. And then the neighbors stating concerns about noise and activities that might occur there. I want to appreciate that you listened and that you. Made changes that you felt were in keeping with what the neighborhood had had pointed out as some problems with your original design, but also hopefully a design that makes it really a very good place for the occupants to move into. So I just wanted to acknowledge that. So often. I weigh in and point out things that I have concerns about. I don't think I. Frequently enough, thank people when they respond. So I just wanted to do that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. You're designed. I'm more of a traditionalist. So your design. Is, and that's, and that's really not for me to say so much is, is more modern. And. I feel I would have preferred a more traditional structure in that section. But that's, that's your taste. And that's up to the DRB to discuss if there are any problems with that. If there are any questions, we can. Have any questions or concerns. Thank you. Any comments. Right. That close public hearing. So. We still have one thing left on our agenda. Technically. Which is three 75 South Union. It was on our consent agenda. When the applicants are not here. What does the board want to do? They can do it. Ask them questions. Re-invene it. That's it. Jen's item is pretty straightforward. Just change the set from county. They're actually making an effort and they start interior. Which is, yeah, not a requirement. I said doing that. Jeff, folks. I don't know what to speak on it. Yeah. Is there anybody online who wants to speak on 375 south union? So raise your hand. We don't. We say they have to be here for our reasons, but. Well, I'll make a motion. I'll be a bit. And the red staffs comments and findings. On ZP 2375. It's on our consent agenda. Second. Second. So with that. Close the meeting.