 Thank you for that. I apologize to everyone. The University of Texas in San Antonio, where I teach in the College of Architecture, decided against all odds that today was the day that I was giving my final exams. Since I teach in the Graduate School, final exams consist of oral defenses and projects, and that went on, well, too long, let me say. I was surprised to find that two of the students presented projects about Guess What, the Hay Street Bridge. Both of them were about the potential connectivity of the bridge, which I don't think anybody has recognized. The most extraordinary one found a way of knitting four different communities together by way of the bridge using the highways. That is the underside of the highways. And I won't go any further into that right now. And I apologize again for not having heard all of the speakers, but I have heard many of you before, and I think I gather what the general tenor of this is. So, with that in mind, finishers, what are your comments? First off, I'd like to thank each and every member of the public that came forward to speak. All of you brought up very valid points. Some were presented in a very articulate manner. Some were just more compassionate with a real enthusiasm, and I can understand that, and I feel for you and have an empathy for you and everyone as well. And you have opened my eyes, and you make me proud to be a San Antonio for having such compassion. So, with that in mind, basically what I see as this project, there's a few things, there's several things, actually, but this is a very complicated issue all the way around. And there are some issues that are not the purview of this body, and the purview of this body is basically the downtown design guidelines. So, I think it's kind of premature that we're even here because there are some legal aspects that have not been ironed out that are still working their way through the course. I understand that the City Council at this time is entertaining and painting guidelines for protecting the views shared of not only the H Street branch, but of other historic structures within San Antonio aside from the missions as well. So, I think it's a bit premature that we're even here, but yet here we are, okay? And since we are here, let's take a look at it of what our purview is, and that is based because it is... Mr. Chair, we've kind of interrupted you, I'm sorry. The applicant actually hasn't had an opportunity to present the citizens to her, to be heard having first, so we need to allow them an opportunity. I apologize about that because I'm coming in late on this. I will stop and I will pick up after the applicant has had their time to speak. Thank you. James, we've not won one-two-eighths for Khan. I'm representing the property on a developer-owned project, and I understand I'm probably not a very popular person right now. Maybe not because the project is how late it is, but I'm still going to be speaking about this, but I do have a short presentation that I'd like to go through to... as Mr. Raseem was talking about, sort of the purview and what we're really talking about with this project. I think we're all familiar with the site, so I'll skip through some of these items. The size of the units, you know, people have talked about being four or five years square feet up to a thousand square feet for a two-bedroom. Here's a perspective that I think is important to see the separation between the building and the bridge. And, you know, while we're here, for the certificate of appropriateness on meeting the downtown design guidelines, okay, this is an important issue that I'm going to talk about, and that's the zoning. I think it's... A few people have mentioned that it is an important issue because the zoning entitles the property, with the legally-developable property that we are following the rules on. The zoning was established in 1989 for this area, for the entire downtown area. It was the downtown district at the time when it was converted to the D district in 2001, and it's the ultimate mixed-use district. It allows retail, hotel, office, a broad range of varied housing types. I mean, it's something really important about the downtown district is the kind of varied businesses and housing types that you can get. And you can see it's all of this area surrounded by other D except for the neighborhood on this side. So we're a very unique situation. But this project is actually meeting the exact purpose of what the D zone is put in place for and entitled to do. Everything that we're doing on these properties is a legally-developable right that we are just taking advantage of. One mentioned property rights, that's part of this. Some of the things that I want to point out from the Downtown Design Guide consist of design standards and guidelines to create a livable and sustainable downtown emphasis on walkability. The Downtown Design Guide is intended to be a means of balancing the traditional qualities of the downtown and the demands of contemporary use. And one part in particular says the spirit of affording maximum creativity project need not adhere to the letter of every guideline. A project that demonstrates a clear alternative approach that achieves the intent of the guidelines will be recognized as a valid alternative. And that's really important to point out that these guidelines are just that. We are trying to leave them to create a good project but they are not the letter of the law. One part, another part inside the guidelines is that there is a degree of scrutiny applied where your project lies. That on those blue streets there is a higher level of scrutiny and as you get down to the other streets there is a lesser degree. You can see the little red dot on the corner that's where this project is. It's not in the highest level of scrutiny. It's not even the top three tiers of level of design scrutiny in the guidelines. That affords us a little bit of creativity and a little bit of a creative approach in meeting those guidelines which as you've heard that staff has said that we do need those guidelines. We've mentioned a lot of issues tonight and Mr. Garcia again mentioned that that we're talking about the purview of the HDRC like the lawsuit. The lawsuit has been decided at the envelope court. There has been an appeal to the Supreme Court but they haven't taken it. So it's not a pending lawsuit at the moment. It has been decided and that gives us the entitlement we have to entitlement on the property to continuing building as we are. We're following the process as anybody would and trying to get this approval and then we go through a building permit approval and platting either several levels of development approval that we still have to go through. But we're not asking HDRC to do any of those things. We're not asking for a permit. Zoning designation or interpretation of that law. We're only asking whether or not we have tried to meet the guidelines with alternative approaches and with the idea of trying to make a good project which we are. We're trying to do something good with the community. It's not about just I know I'm going to get caught up on the comments but it's not about just making a dollar. We want a good project. We are all from San Antonio. We want something good here and we believe that we are creating something good and there are differences of opinion that is clear. But we're not here to discuss differences of opinion between the neighborhood and the public. We're here to talk about the project that we were trying to bring and hope that we can meet those guidelines to take advantage of the legal rights that we have. I drew two arrows up there just to show that later in the slides there will be sections through Cherry Street to show some context. This is the photo that I took from the area that I thought was as close as I could get to the retail space. I just stood where I felt looking at the drawing I was and seeing the towel in the picture and then it looks almost identical to the one the architect took. I wasn't trying to do that. We stood in the same general spot to get this picture. This is an important part of the project because of what it is that we're trying to do to meet the guidelines in particular the active spaces. We have retail on the northeast corner and on the southwest corner. One of those is on Cherry Street. The other is on the public line of the bridge itself. We're trying to locate our active spaces. It's not a requirement that the entirety of Cherry Street be active. It's a requirement that we locate our active spaces in those places. We have the lobby and the other two retail spaces. This is just a view to show the kind of activity that we're looking for. One of the guidelines is talking about eliminating the view of the parking. I know that it's been commented on several times that having a parking on the ground floor isn't ideal. There were a lot of considerations whether to put the parking underground or to try to... We don't have room on the side as we're looking for acres to put it on the other side of the building. But we're trying to follow the intent of the guidelines by creating a blockage for the parking with the green wall and the green wall. We're varying that so that there is a little bit of diversity along that side. We're putting awnings in along that wall, on the retail space to bring down the pedestrian scale as the guidelines are asking us to do. This is a view from the Marma Cherry to show some of the pedestrian space that we are trying to create and could be active. The wall that has the parking garage there, as Miss Siviano pointed out is about 170 feet, but it has a lot beyond the other side and there's a bridge beyond that. There is a connection there. People will be walking on that street and experiencing it. But one part of creating a pedestrian environment I think is important to point out is people. It could be valuable members of the community and want to be. This is a section that you've seen before showing the relationship of the bridge to the building and as some people pointed out it's misleading. It could be, but it's actually misleading against our favor. I want to point out that the distance is first of all from the bridge to the edge of the building. It's approximately 53 feet. That's from the first part of the building is it's 83 feet away. That's from the deck. But here's where it's possibly misleading for us. If you cover up the bridge that's in the back, cover up the wickle part of the bridge. We're looking at about 51 feet. Compared to where this section of our building lines up with it, we are actually lower than where we're right about the height of it. The part that's higher is further behind. If you look at this you can see that area that tower that's 71 feet wide is 83 feet away and doesn't line up with the bridge. There is no section that you can take that goes through that 58 foot parapet and the bridge because it's before you get to the bridge. So by the time you're actually on it you're at this height. Here's the section through Cherry Street showing the size of the building you can see the two-story structure on one side is not out of context. They have a downtown that has a two-story on one side of the street and a four-story 60 feet away. One of the things we tried to take care of in well let's see there's another section we're showing a one-story structure and then how the four-story looks across the street. Again, downtown is not strange to see these kinds of structures and heights next to each other. Some of the massing issues that we we did here lowering the side that's closer to the bridge stepping back on the third floor there and then stepping back again to the fourth story these were all massing issues that we did in response to the bridge. Massing is part of the downtown design guidelines that we're looking for. We did that. We listened to the design review commission we listened to comments from city staff. We have listened to comments from the city staff and I know that we haven't responded the way they wanted to. That doesn't mean we're not listening. We're trying to make things work in the best way possible and bring forth the best project that we can. So, we're on the wall that is facing the street, on Cherry Street who stepped the four-story back further away from the street level so it's not just the 54 foot, 58 foot wall. These are some of the pedestrian shot of the entryway again part of the design guidelines to create the entryway along an active street. This is a view of the structures in place and then after. Yes, it blocks the view of homes from the bridge. That's part of living in a downtown. We're not trying to hide the fact that you can no longer see a house from this perspective. However, if you walk further down you will be able to see it. This is part of the active space that we're talking about. It's a view from near the Alamo Brewery through under the bridge to the retail space on the other side. Again, trying to create these active retail spaces in response direct response to the design guidelines. These are not things that we would be doing to any apartment complex. They're all direct responses that staff has reviewed, that other members have reviewed and a chance to say we can meet them. That's it for my presentation. Thank you Mr. Goodnight. So, we'll walk back up. How much do they expect to generate revenue rise off the lease of those retail spaces? Sir, please speak into the microphone and introduce yourself. I am the developer. That retail space was done as a response to the neighborhood and all suggestions. That space is really not desirable retail space. It's retail suicide. It's going to be hard for anyone living. So, the answer to your question is we're going to give that compact retail space to get a bit of an operator in it. We're not going to make it. But we are sensitive because we have 148 new people wanting to live there. So, we're going to want to be sensitive to what they want. An ice cream shop, of course. That's my number one priority. I don't think people go there. We'll probably go on the retail space by the bridge. But we're very sensitive. We see it more of a thing like this on the right word. So, if you can have a direct name on retail, I mean an ice cream shop, just to have all kinds of amenities of power shop, just thinking out loud. I don't think it's going to be an all-stage event. I don't think it's going to be a bank branch. But it's going to be. It'll be active in a while. But we're not going to make it. I've already offered to a person that's what it's going to take. But we're willing to do that to energize that, to get some retail avenue and get this thing jumpstarted. But that's what it's going to take. Okay, thank you. I'm sorry. Well, I'm sure the reason I'm going with this is because from a business perspective really to me it appears that that's both meaning that this project with retail on both sides is to satisfy that it's mixed use. The response to the neighborhood means the neighborhood and the HDRC is saying they want retail and they want some mixed use and we'll be glad to do that. They've been giving it away. I think that it's a misnomer to call it mixed use because for a business issue it doesn't really make sense. The only reason to have it in there is so that we don't call it what it is, which is actually a residential structure. A residential structure. So as a residential structure there are some guidelines in the San Antonio where we have everything design guidelines. I think you can bring up Chapter 4 of the San Antonio design guidelines. But it's still mixed use. There is a mixed use in retail. And if you look at that as far as what it says now, of course it is not the limit of all these are guidelines. They are over to interpretation and that's what this body is here for is to interpret this design. And I think it's a disingenuous argument to say that it's an excuse with actuality as a residential building. As a residential building, the first floor of the residential should be an upgrade or no more than four feet of upgrade. And also complying with design guidelines the parking should be either below or behind, which I've already stated. So in that respect the parking should be subterranean or at least half subterranean in order to specify or to complicate the downtown design guidelines. This does not. For what I'd say that there is there's no distinguishing between a mixed use and a residential project. We're calling it a mixed use because we're trying to activate the space and create a better project. And we're not including the retail to meet some guideline. There's no guideline that says that if you have a mixed use project you can do something different. This standard is saying below, grade, or we can't do below and it kills the project it adds at least 25% if not lower onto the project to try to make it. However, you can do behind. And in this case, talking to the staff behind by using some retail space by putting behind retail spaces there but also using the walls to say we're blocking the parking garage that's there to meet the intent which that's the intent. That's why the guideline is there is to block the parking. Let's take a look at that. And that's a very important aspect as well because it really drives home points towards how does this interact with the community and the streetscape. So I'm in large how does this interact with pedestrian and the other traffic along Cherry Street is that, okay, you've got a leasing office there on one side near the bridge and you've got three parking spaces for potential residents to be able to go in and talk to the leasing agents about maybe those three spaces can be also used for visitors picking up residents for parking and your plan for visitors. The people who are living here seems like they're going to be all single people living in these small apartments and they don't have any friends that come up this time. Well, there's a few things to keep in mind. One is that the parking requirements are way for the district so there are no actual requirements for parking. We're living in the spaces to try to maximize the small site for the residents there but as in all downtown parking the reason they waive those requirements is because of street parking and parking garages and other things that might be in the area to park on. That's the same for everyone in the downtown area. There are parking garages that have been built for other buildings but by and large you can build or try to put it as much as we can to really... Then these residents, you don't even have enough parking spaces for one parking space per unit. That's right. There's 124 parking spaces for 148 units. That's right. That's part of it again. One of the things we're trying to encourage about the walkability is that you don't have to have a vehicle. I have several friends that lived downtown that don't have a car or or they can use street parking. I would assume you're not going to exclude a couple from renting a unit and they may each have a car. That's true but again it's not a guideline. That is not something that we are required to provide either through the zoning or through the guideline. So we're talking about a standard that doesn't exist. Well, you're absolutely correct on that except for it still does bring this back to you. How does this interact with the community and the streetscape? So by and large it's a part of the reality it's really a residential building on top of a parking garage and then it's like, okay, let's go put a couple of retail spaces inside. One of them is actually one that's in the back corner that's closest to an early lease and make money on and by your own admission you're going to be losing that value. It seems to make sense to include it but maybe you have a few more parking spaces out of that. But in all reality I see this in my opinion as far as my vote goes in my opinion that counts is that this is a residential project and being in such I think the parking should be celebrating Okay. I have a couple of questions there are two slides you were lying on in your presentation number seven and number 28 you can pull up seven and in this. Actually this is a very similar slide I think this just has the two blue arrows on top of it. It's different. Alright. Can you point out the distance between this building and the bridge? We can go back to seven please. If we go to 14 years we were just at 28. And we look at that space. That space is listed as being individually planted or future developed. So in fact that space is not guaranteed to be there. That space probably will not be usually planting it and planting something else. As and neither would this sort of a sales space there. And that makes me very nervous. The HDRC is when someone does something to sell the property but we didn't know buying something that had an issue. So what is the plan? And tell me why you should be able to rely upon that space or the distance between this project. I can't tell you what the plan is for that site because I don't represent the owner of that site. Is it common origin? Well actually you're right. The whole line by the same person right now will be primarily planted. That site is not part of this project. We're not proposing anything on that site that is not part of what's for you to be approved. So you can rely on that case to establish that distance, that space between people that would have to be a separate approval for anything that would be built there. The thing that appeals to me about the project is that it does bring people to a property. The fact that there has not been a building on the property for many, many years is really, in my mind, just really happenstance. You have warehouses on either side of the bridge on either side of the road road tracks that are much closer and for I really feel like the benefit of having more neighbors in the community embracing the community, embracing an area more on the streets really is the highest goal of this project. I'm myself really wanting to just about every development project that there is and I think a lot of commissioners can test that. So I really want to support this. I think that it could be a prime example for good development in their immediate spot. But I just don't think that the execution is there to stand behind this project 100%. I'm trying to go through this whole whole deal again putting everybody else through this thing. I've just had a loss for why after all these meetings these sessions that we've had this building just really hasn't improved dramatically. Additionally there was a stakeholder meeting I guess you would have called it November 29th Could you identify anything that you're presenting today that that changed since that meeting? One of the things that was brought up leading up to that meeting and that meeting itself was the start of the wall. So we were trying to add elements along that wall to bring down the pedestrian scale. So that was one of the main I know that wall is a point of contention for a lot of people so that was one of the main things that we did. They spoke about some members of the community spoke about public art instead of a vine wall which we were completely open to. It's one of the things that it's within your appropriate approval is to include stipulations about things that you would like to see as part of the approval. That was something that we spoke about there as well. So we've been through the guidelines a couple of times and I think everybody knows we have required guidelines and we have preferred guidelines in the project. How many of the preferred guidelines did your team look at and say okay we really want to do this and how did that come about with what we're seeing today? I think that there as many as there are I shouldn't put a number on it but I do believe that I'm not, I wasn't the architect but I do believe that was part of the design process. I was looking at a lot of those guidelines. It wasn't. I'm trying to look at the plans but it worked standards. It's part of the message overall look at the building. I believe that we were trying to emulate what would be appropriate in the downtown area. If you go to the apartment structure where you have no idea of these guidelines you just put up the walls and it goes straight up. Everybody wearing the massings and the glazing and the walls and the spacing and stepping back from the street that's not required. Those are things that we were trying to do to improve the quality of it along the elevation along the elevation of Cherry Street you can see the metallic walls were elements that were added to try to add more variety to the elevation of the building those are things that are not part of the guidelines they're just, I mean the standard they're part of the guidelines to create variety. Those are just things. So initially Mark you commented that there were some areas that you felt that you had some leeway of creativity of how to respond to the guidelines based on proximity from I guess the hottest zones in the downtown district. So what element do you think you've taken to start taking the most leeway with executing the most creative license anyway? As far as the standards are guidelines go? Yes sir. I think it's the one that Mr. Mercy is pointing to. I mean it's the standard says below or behind and we're looking at the intent of below or behind and so that is one of the ones that we are taking an alternative approach to saying we are creating a space that the kind of space that you want on the streets by covering it. Your response is not valid by one of the folks today that you're trying to grow 16 feet of greenery on a shaded wall. Well it's not the full 16 feet and that is one of the things we might have to look at and it's one of the reasons the public art came up that etched steel or something like that could create the same kind of cover. But again the reason we brought it in the first place was to try to create that variety and a better experience on the streets than just having it break. Some folks are responding to the inaccuracies of the renderings and the plans and such and that's something that we have commented on throughout the process. So still to get to this point where the dimensions of certain elements, vital elements are still in question, I think a little bit disappointing. Which elements we're still, that's why I was trying to provide some of those details that you kind of explained in these thoughts. But just the renderings in general and the drafting in general the project that is under this much scrutiny I think should be to a much higher degree of accuracy. I don't know too, but how much do you have anything you want to say? We have a number of notes from the supporters and opposed to this and from you presentation sir. Things actually has been said that related to the preview of this commission and the things that beyond but I'm just going to go over a few of them a few words how that would help us make a decision about the work that we've done today. Some of the supporters said it does actually fulfill how the housing need like topology does not exist. I do agree. This topology is actually could mitigate crime. I virtually agree, but this is not an excuse that actually to get crime. Although all of this is actually outside what we actually look at. I'm just going to make it clear. Then the people who respect I actually don't have a lot of valid points I'm going to go over them as well but we were talking some of the points raised about the view shed and including the looking at visibility in general because we don't have guidelines that looks actually or mandate a view shed at the moment. So we still we're not looking at it for new viewshed but we're looking at visibility particularly for over 100 years that's something that we can look at. We are looking at it. Then the income people who could afford this I need to say we're not also looking at this. We are providing buy some guidelines we look at this is beyond what we look at but I do agree with my question I'm sorry about the parking and you mentioned something which is true that the parking is not fulfilling all the needs for the units because there's no actual requirement so are you promoting profitability as component in downtown and this is actually pretty much common in downtown on the San Antonio. So what would it hurt? This is one point actually what would it hurt if you shrink the parking particularly the ones in that space in the street and switch that to something else that could actually promote and be in line with more the downtown design guidelines. Something retail something totally different and that will minimize that greenery on that terrible facing straight. If you take that retail space and drew it along Cherry Street. Is that what you're asking? You're in there. You have to be that way. Those were actually just market concerns. They weren't design concerns. It wasn't like we were afraid to go down the road having retail except if you walk down Cherry Street you'll see there isn't retail on that area. That's part of the problem from the realistic perspective of trying to get and build a project is whether or not you can get retail in those spaces. And we felt we couldn't maximize the area with full retail. But it wasn't a design concern, really just a market concern. Absolutely. That's what I expected to hear, by the way. But from that point that point actually contradict that we're promoting mobility. You promote mobility, you don't promote you actually did market analysis and connectivity through via and how who's likely going to live here how they're going to be connected whether they're going to be walkable people or not, because what's going to happen if that market analysis would not complete, although we're not looking at the market analysis but to reach that point and it's part of how to direct the design here. If a market analysis is actually done sufficiently you would know who's likely to live here and who likely would not have an overflow of parking on the street. So you would actually have more of your parking even though then the number of units would actually be sufficient. So I think that point needs to be looked at in order for us to actually see this as something useful. Then visibility is something actually is a concern, it's a very concern even with all the design and the community meeting and then hearing to hear and don't think that we have good visibility we're not seeing the building but just maintaining visibility is something still I don't really support I don't see it happening. Is there any visibility of the bridge? Yes. Last but not least actually which should be number one community access and I have to recall a statement of Samantha here about his concern about that lot that says it's going to be for future project. So the retail in the back in Southwest corner and all the community area here we're not sure even if this is going to be a community access we're not sure we're not telling us for sure this is going to continue to be or even as is that the access to the community bridge we're not even going to be now that this is going to continue to be because there might be buildings in front of that it's interesting. Well the access is through the right so I mean you're right I can't tell you what's going in that spot but it's not part of this project but creating here is connection to the public right way which is under the bridge and it's not subject to future development. That's not part of the parcel that's not included in this proposal? That's not part of the parcel. If it was built I'm just going to go back to people who support the project because they're concerned or their interest in this being a mitigator for crimes that might not happen because the access will be under the bridge and they're not yet spot behind and it's not going to be visible from this way. This is not how a mixed use actually mitigate problems. I've done a lot of research on that this is not going to maintain an access through under the bridge hidden behind whatever development that comes in the future is something that actually is not going to be valid for this project. Well I respectfully disagree only because I'm asking for approval of this structure and you're talking about hidden behind a building where we don't that that building isn't before us. If there really is a building to go with. I understand but it has potential what you're submitting to us is having the potential to have buildings in this project that we don't know right which will be addressed by this commission on a future date. Another thing to consider as well that is not mainly a concept of this whole thing is possibility we need to get this right as a project that is a broader and it's a darker person. I'm not opposed to that development I'd like to see thoughtful considerate and proper development for the community. I don't see that being addressed here I do see some deficiencies in the data. That's why I want to get out of it because I sense that you're really trying to work with us. I have plenty of apartment complexes that are not in the desoning that have less parking than the but they did. Downtown there's only required to have a single parking spot but with what you said and what if I really want to make this work I have a feeling that you're trying to get this done. What if we put residential units along the street the reason I put the green wall I saw these in our expo city and they were beautiful and they were just really pretty so I thought wouldn't this be nice so that's how the green wall came about I just thought it would be a pyramid no one might get it no one might change it. To hide like you said what if we put units of charity and energize it that way but actually people living there and then you hide the parking behind it we can live with less parking spaces because we already are, we know that works I know that that formula works you do not need a parking space for everything and maybe that's a way we can work together and get this overcome. Secondly I don't think it's fair to lump a project that I'm not even associating with that may or may not take place in the future and attach it to this green space right there it's not mine, I have nothing to do with it and it shouldn't be considered with this I don't know what's going to go on across the cherry street in the future or behind it, it's just my project right here and I think we should keep it contained Well here's why I take issues with that one because I'm asking, I'm not being a wise person to rely on that space and provide us a picture using that space so the reason I'm holding you responsible for that is actually two reasons, one is that there's been a representation that space is important and that space provides a view of the bridge that would be the second reason is I think historically this has all been one person correct? So you reply and you create the condition that makes this an issue and so it has probably been drawn and again it's especially if you sell it and then someone else buys it and then they come before us and say we paid X amount of money and you're telling us we can't do anything with that land which frankly is kind of without speaking to the future project is where I am right now because I think that space is important in light of this development that you sever shows to do that instead of using it and then at the same time trying to rely on it that strikes me as wrong and it's possible Well it wasn't I did it because we severed it to be such a space it wasn't intentional it's not my property I see what you're saying I don't think it should be lumped in I really want to work hard to get the neighborhood happy the biggest thing I'm hearing is they don't like to try to change it so we can go home and say yeah we'll approve this if it puts residential on Cherry Street we'll approve it if I would rather have all residential than not have everything we're going to have some because I think sooner or later as it's presented right now I could not support it that's the one together you need to design and bring to us what you want this is what you designed to prop to us and I'm saying I can't support it well but we have been we have worked with DRC we've had two DRC meetings in all DRC meetings I've been told that the people the commissioners were there so they liked the project so we're acting in good faith and we're trying and we have to start somewhere we changed our project radically by getting rid of the drive-in on Cherry Street and redirecting our traffic to Lamar it was you that said let's get these people energized around the H3 we did that for you let's move the retail let's add retail, let's move along Cherry Street let's do a better job along Church Street we did that for you it's not like we're being belligerent we're trying to to make this work and to say that I just give us something I'm asking for your help so we can get this done together and get out of here honestly I can appreciate that as it is right now I'm not near there yet but I'm about to make a motion to let out Demi to reply I want to reply and respectfully and if you all have ideas I was very attracted to the office idea let's work with this guy and I took your comments seriously if we can put the worst along Cherry Street and make that active and get rid of that parking also be able to look at the community access, continuous access to the bridge even though the lot that's nearby is not on where you may have other developments you know I know the owner but this is not me but that now comes to us I would like to have the opportunity to comment now because we're kind of slipping into going back into design a community meeting and I think we've done quite enough of that personally thought that we would end up in this condition where we would have room full of people and we would have our commissioners and we would still be scratching our heads because we're looking for some evidence of a defined parameter so I'm going to key on something commissioner Larry's been said this is nothing but the definition of a high-profile project because we're all here at 10, 15 and I'm still discussing it so it's certainly up to the advocates to make sure that they made the best possible case for this during the course of our design committee meetings what I was most concerned about is the continued discussion about does this block of view, does this not block of view how big is it, is it bigger than a bread box how tall is it so I asked the design team to give us some definition for this and I gave them two options one is to put balloons at the corners of the buildings to give us the idea of their height and walk or even more accurately to elevate for drones at those corners because those have altimeters that are regulated and can be controlled with great accuracy so we went and had a site visit on a day not long today when it was raining the commissioners were out there in the rain with me and the neighbors and also the development team and when we got there they were playing on the ground which was not exactly what I was hoping to find so in my own mind the case has not been made here because the most critical element is the discussion about the actual height of the building I think commissioners and others have commented on whether or not we can kind of buy the images that are presented here some of us are aware of how our students can manipulate images but the question is how are they presented and are they accurate and I'm not satisfied much so still that we understand the bulk of the building and exactly how it is fitting into the fabric of this existing community the images so far off that we can't get the general idea it's a good question I thought they were accurate very accurate and it's the idea it is massive we have proven over and over even a one-story building blocks the view understood but we would like to precisely what the height is so that we wouldn't keep going down the circles with kind of guesswork about what does this do and what does it not do one of the important things has been pointed out many times tonight is blocking the view cannot block the view of something else view shape protection doesn't exist on this understood but we still haven't seen the actual height of the building indicated on the site so the sections drawn through the site don't show the height that's why we provided those well we're still debating in fact this angle view right here you know what is the view past the building there's still this concern even if we could understand what the angle view is because of the setback on the building at least there is a setback on the building that we we find some jeopardy in this because we don't even ask when to view for sure it's a good question to have used in the sections that you've shown so in an architectural set or in an architectural environment and there are graphic views and the graphic views are what are lacking from this presentation and that's how pretty sure at this point we should have graphic documents construction documents to be re-ealing we don't have that that's a matching question I would like to make a motion to provide the application I will second all right we have a motion and a second is there further discussion commissioners moment please suggest or determine if it's possible that we as commissioners can take some time to digest everything that we heard today and come back with an answer within 24 hours let me make a parliamentary point here we have a motion and a second on the floor and so we have to proceed with it if the motion fails pardon me this is our turn and all of you and we're happy for the demonstrations that have been in display here before of your question for your neighborhood but please refrain from applying this is not a game all right so commissioners I just have to make this point that in terms of parliamentary procedure we have to move forward should the motion fail then we could consider another motion for myself we're voting on a certificate of appropriate answer correct yes and does that preclude any further refinement of the design to achieve maybe some of the design points that are likely I don't know if we would get any way to enforce if you approve something today then it's at hand today or what would be attached to that stipulation stipulations could be included in any approval and to answer your question for your question about kind of tabling I ask the city attorney's office I think the best option whether the open meeting after a client's 72 hour notice I think the best option would be tomorrow morning we could post an agenda for 72 hours for now or sometime after that so it would have to the agenda would have to be posted for at least 72 hours right so again we have a motion to second on the floor and we'll have to see how this goes right further discussion at all all those in favor of the motions to get by by saying aye those opposed to the same sign aye there being only one way we need to have I'm sorry a roll call so the motion fails the motion for approval fails I'm sorry that's late for me too the approval is