hmm
you are alive okay
stacy i'm putting you in
all right i am set suzanne
okay um we will call to order the
january 14th
2021 meeting of the bexley architectural
review board
february february 11. oh
february 11th sorry
it's okay architecture review board is
correct so i got that much right
you did um let's see what do we need to
do we need to uh
call the roll right yep
mr hire
oh is he not here
uh mr hellman
here mr bardwell here
mr scott here
mr heyer
madame tony here
do we want to give bill a couple more
minutes we do have a quorum
more than a quorum so we could proceed
if you'd like
i will text him but i think it's not a
problem to go ahead and proceed with the
minutes and the
uh consent agenda item probably okay
uh let's go then for approval of the
minutes
which would be from the january 14th
meeting i
i have responded to stacey and i'll i
will move to approve
and i will second
all in favor
aye aye hi
hi thank you
okay our next item is the public comment
so this is the opportunity for any
person to provide comments to the board
on any item
that is not on the board's meeting
agenda
any comments relating to the items on
the agenda may be made by those with
standing when the matter is before the
board
do we have any residents with their
hands raised
we do have one hand raised a curt
a late
all right i now have per permit
that is correct it's currently thank you
okay i was hoping i'd say that right go
ahead i appreciate it kathy will need to
swear you in and this
is for commentary not related to the
cases tonight
is it do we have to swear men if it's
not testimony
i don't believe that's the case okay
all right but thank you okay mr late go
ahead with your
i was just checking in i uh had made an
application in hopes of getting on
this month's agenda uh back a month ago
um i've been in communication with david
in the code enforcement area and
actually sent an email back to kathy
rose back on
january 14th and uh it's in regards to
2699
east main street um i this is my first
time coming through bexley so i wasn't
real familiar with your processes and
what required major and minor submittals
and things so
i was kind of nervous coming into it and
want to make sure i was doing the right
thing and
i hadn't heard any feedback and then i
just sold today's agenda and saw we
weren't on it so i was just curious if
anyone knew if i made a mistake or
the reason it was that a b zap agenda or
do you know what kind of
application was filed uh it was it was
an arb
minor okay
hmm um i will need to check into that
i'm not sure why
did you repeat what the address is
please uh 2699
east main two six nine nine yes
what's there currently uh it's currently
a vacant building it was that uh dean's
real estate
and um trying to think yeah that one
there yeah
oh it was an m.a an m.a i just looked
up okay um yeah ma's are typically staff
review and approval
if it was something that was a board
review it typically should be an arb
if there's actually an arb application
or a bzap
bordezonian planning so karen and i will
follow up on that
and if that's something that can be
staff approved it looks like
it looks like it was staff approved on
february 3rd so if we could talk about
it tomorrow that would be great i can
call you
i apologize if i was in in the wrong
arena there may just
simply be fees due so and that that'll
issue it once those fees are paid
but thanks for checking all right thanks
i'm sorry to follow you
no problem no problem thank you
okay is there anyone else with their
hand raised no that is it
okay okay the next thing then is to move
on to the
applications and we have um
two different consent lists
and so the um the first one would be
applications that would be going to be
zap
and so um uh the first item would be b
zap
20-47 and the applicant is todd parker
and the
owner is shyly grossman and the address
is 50 north drexel
and the second second application on
that um
consent agenda is bzap 20-46
the applicant is brenda parker and the
owner is tyler and alison
chamblin at 2404 fair avenue
do we have anyone in the audience that
would like to speak
on behalf of either of these properties
so uh madam chair i'd like to clarify
the 50 north directional
drexel actually has been before the
board of zoning and planning
and is simply remanded back to the
architecture review board for final
design
review and approval um but 2404
bear that one will proceed to the board
of zoning and planning
okay i'll get some commentary um
because as you all have seen i've worked
pretty hard with the applicants this
month to do some
design changes ahead of time so
although i don't usually do this i'm
just going to quickly um
restate for the audience for anybody
that's attending
why these are now on the consent agenda
item and if there
are any neighboring properties or
non-applicants that want to speak to it
you can raise your hand
if not we'll vote on these as consent
agenda items
the um the 50 north drexel
todd parker is the applicant that was
approved
for the variants at bzap with the remand
back
to architecture review board they
completely changed the treatment of the
facade per the request of this board
and did take the final step of making
the entire wall
um that faces drexel all stone which is
what
the majority of board members wanted
which is enabled them to be on the
consent agenda item list
secondly the 2404 there was consensus
from board members that
um with the connector piece the board
really liked the new design and
recommend and is willing to vote as a
consent agenda item
to forward this on to be zap with a
recommendation
quick question when you say the stone
facing drexel
do you mean the south the west and the
north
west the the south face will still be
pretty visible to drexel if we ever lose
the landscaping
um
that's correct but it'll be the the both
materials will be
blocked i mean if you remember the first
application
they had a lower wall like a knee wall
in the stone and the rest of it stucco
to match the house
the the original structure has
full walls of both stucco in some places
and
and stone in other places so i encourage
them
so the the front part will have glass
the sides will have stucco to match the
house
and the entire west wall will be stone
so it's in the same proportions that way
rather than looking like you know kind
of like a garage that has just a knee
wall all the way around in the stone
it's more consistent with the design of
the original home
thank you the application the sides do
have stone as well
so the three sides are stoned with
stucco above
thank you
so those are the bees app
recommendations on consent
yeah yes is there any so we have no one
that wants to speak
in the audience karen uh todd parker
would like to speak
so i'm gonna allow him to talk
and he represents 15 north drexel is
that correct
yes yes thank you
all right todd are you on i am please
state your name
todd parker and raise your right hand do
you solemnly swear our firm the
testimony you're about to give this
evening is the truth
i do thank you i just wanted to
uh kind of i guess rebut what mr scott
had just mentioned um our latest
drawings that we uploaded today were
that the entire west face was all stoned
and the north and south faces of the
pool house would be
stucco and no stone yes
and i think mr scott may have been
looking at the submission from last week
where it was
the stone water table in stucco above
that's all
so what what we were reviewed prior to
the consent uh
agenda being formalized is not accurate
if you click the link i didn't send
um i can put them on right now
hold on just a second the um
i only had verbally described it the
drawings weren't in until 9 30 this
morning so let me
let me um share those drawings
hold on
okay can you see these yes
i'm doing the best i can to
so there's the west elevation
and the east elevation which will have
the stone to match
the original house
and there will be the side elevations
which has the stucco to match
the house
so if if we need to review this do we
need to take it off the consent
agenda um probably
it unless we just want to hear the
comments right now
this this is the way i had verbally
described it because um
in talking to several and talking
through with todd and the owner
uh we thought that the the block of the
whole wall is much more in keeping
with the architecture of the original
house
pete do you want to comment on that
you no i don't disagree with that i i i
think i don't want to
the the process um that we were
looking at the consent agenda
i'm okay with the drawings i just hadn't
seen them so uh i did i do remember the
comments in the
in your um review of that so i i'm just
i'm glad to see them here i just was i
just pulled them up and was responding
to mr hellman so
yeah no you're you're absolutely right i
didn't get those drawings in time to get
them sent out
um i also wanted to sorry i'm going to
flip a little bit here
um to share
um
some phot some pictures of the house so
you can see what we were
what we were doing is blocking the walls
like these are blocked
thinking and using the window
proportions to match so that it flowed
much more like a part of the house and
didn't look like a garage because
we kind of we kind of when we talked it
through felt like
this look that i'm circling now really
looked like kind of the back of a garage
you know
with a with a knee wall instead of the
consistent blocking of the whole walls
with the stone and the stucco if anyone
objects to this and wants to have it
moved over to the regular agenda i would
suggest that we do that or if that's
enough of a clarification that we can
keep it there
then great
can you move to the uh picture number
four
yeah so that corner of the house
is kind of where this um right which
will look great because it has that
notched out and then the full wall of
the back of the house will
again be full stone so it's consistent
across
right so if you zoom in if you zoom in
on that corner does the stone return
in or does it turn to stucco at that
corner it's the stucco
full stuff though so it doesn't exactly
match
exactly match the house yeah okay it
will match the house that that's why we
went that way and i apologize
that it was unclear until i just
explained it but
we're we were just trying hard to to not
be here till two in the morning and work
ahead of time as much as possible
and i think it's a really great solution
you know we talked it through a lot in
the last couple days but
i think it will really look like part of
the house and not
a separate structure that was added a
lot later
i'm okay okay any questions anybody not
okay we can move it over
okay then we can take a vote suzanne
okay kathy can we take a vote on that
then or do i need
somebody somebody wants a motion yes
please
well someone okay
larry
second
do we have a second give a second
do i need to be sworn in i just arrived
do i need to be sworn in sorry about
that
nope you're here okay
thanks okay we're still looking for a
second on that
those two um consent agenda items to go
to be
zap i said
thank you um okay so
i'll call the roll mr heyer yes
mr hellman yes mr bardwell
yes mr scott yes
madame tony yes thank you
i apologize for any confusion um
okay uh the next items then for consent
are just
arb um applications so the first one
is arb 21-1 the applicant is brenda
parker the owner is demetrius
mc yeah
yeah i'm sorry i don't want to botch the
name but i'm going to say it's
michael michaelitis the address is 160
south merkel
the next application is arb 21-2
applicant is brenda parker the owner is
godfrey mendez
the address is 112 south parkview
the applicant next application is arb
21-4
the applicant is john hamlet the owner
is doug and amy
grace allman the address is 2371
commonwealth park south
and the last application is arb 21-6
the applicant is michael steele the
owner is michael steele and the address
is 93
south cassingham
are there any hands raised in the
audience
of residents that would like to speak on
behalf
of any of these applications uh no there
are not
board members are are you comfortable
with making these consent
items or is there anything you have
questions on that you would like to
confirm before we vote
and i do think i got all of you a sketch
or a drawing for all the changes that
were made
um for every single one of these
okay okay
um so then i just need someone to move
to approve
go moved second
and kathy can you call the role please
mr scott
yes mr bardwell yes mr hallman
yes mr heyer yes madam tony
yes
okay uh the next application then
is um application number arb
21-5 um
madam tony can we go excuse me back to
uh arb dash 20-48 just to simply remove
it from the agenda formally
oh sure thank you what do we need to do
to remove it
just say it's removed yes i'd like to
just formally declare that this will be
removed
from the agenda and they have refiled
under their board of zoning and planning
application
okay so you just stated that so we're
good right
yes thank you
okay back to application arb 21-5
the applicant is tom beardsley the owner
is russell abrams
the address is 929 vernon
uh karen can we have a staff report on
that
sure um this application
is for um a trellis
that is and kathy may be able to fill in
a little bit of the
history on this but basically it's a
trellis that's near or up against the
house i
need to have the applicant kind of
clarify that
we did get some drawings after
the agenda was posted and i will put
those up there
as well you should have seen them in the
staff report with a an elevation drawing
um so it's a little bit more clear i'm a
little confused about the idea of a
trellis kind of on top of a trellis
and for what the exact placement is so
um i i would probably hand it over to
kathy to fill in any background
information if you want to if you have
any
but other than that let the applicant
describe
um the the idea and the kind of goal of
this
the location of the existing hot tub and
pool were
uh previously had a very poorly
constructed room
edition which the owner had removed and
replaced it with the deck
so he is now simply returning to cover
part of that deck with the proposed
trellis
so this is simply design review as an
addition being it's
abutting the principle structure
okay um is the applicant
yes um i'm going to keith mohler is here
to represent this case if anybody else
would like to speak to it please raise
your hand
um he now has talking privileges if you
want to uh
kathy swear him in please state your
name
mr muller are you there you might be
muted sir
mr muller
can you hear me yes yes sorry about that
would you raise your right hand please
yes ma'am and state your name
keith muller do you solemnly swear or
affirm the testimony you're about to
give this evening is the truth
i do thank you
yeah so i'm with architect the company
that's
proposed to build this structure this
pergola structure
um and we're we're kind of working with
some existing post and that's kind of
why we have this
double stack
you know with two sets of beams
essentially
the existing posts aren't in line with
each other um so
we the first set of beams
was created to
get to those posts and the second set of
beams is so we can get our rafters going
the appropriate
direction
we are attaching it to the house
in two spots that are noted kind of on
the
the sales copy reference if you would
um
kind of in the corner there before that
roof bump out
is there another picture you want me to
put up just let me know
um
these aren't working
no that's that's good it's it's just um
i guess the the addition that
sits just past the pergola towards us
um you know the roof line bumps out
so we weren't able to attach to that
area but it is attached to the house
on the back wall
the wall with the yellow siding correct
correct
so it's attached right here at the
yellow siding
and above the window as well okay
[Music]
so basically you don't
on this drawing it's not drawn where the
wall goes in
yeah well the wall itself is straight
it's the roof line that bumps out
okay but right after that
um double beam in the middle there is
where the roof line bumps out
yes right there so it's connected to the
house from here
to here correct
and right there at the end there um
where that double beam is right there
yep the there's also a new post being
put there that's going to be pocketed
into the house wall
what is the reason for doing the
uh the boards going both ways
so we we want to get the rat we wanted
to get the top rafters going a certain
direction so they're catching the sun
um but because we're working with
existing posts
um the two outside posts the ones
towards the side yard aren't in line
with each other
so we couldn't run a single beam
connecting those two to the house
um so we had to run them the opposite
direction
and then put the new beam on top of that
i mean i guess if the deck wasn't there
and we were starting from scratch we
wouldn't be
doing that double stack of the beams
but it's really just necessary due to
the location
of the current post
the the front right
post and the the middle right by the hot
tub there
are staggered they're not in line with
each other
uh do any of the board members want to
speak on behalf of this or ask any
questions
well i uh this is mr bardwell i i
i sense that we are into
extraordinary detail on this that that
many of us can't
quickly uh absorb within the context of
the
the the time allotted in this meeting uh
i would remand this back to the city
design
consultant if that is acceptable
i'm looking forward go ahead i'd also
like to
ask those posts along the fence line
that exceed six foot height
they really shouldn't be there will both
be
cut to the typical post height for a
fence
which one's the the to the right the
other picture karen if you slide that
down a little bit
those are i believe the homeowner's
intentions for those
is to uh use those for attaching a sale
sale to i'm not sure
those are those were there as well so
we're
we're not working anything with them
we're only cutting them
to a height that the homeowner requests
we're only building the pergola on the
left-hand side
i i understand that i'm just a little
surprised that those posts are
sticking up as high as they are along
the fence line
yeah i don't know what happened like you
know i think you had another contractor
that didn't work out
um and we're trying to i guess if you
would clean up the mess
of that right but i'm not sure who
approved it in that manner that's my
question
gotcha it sounds like if the board is
okay with attaching the
pergola and mr bardwell's suggesting
that
staff approve this which i i'm a little
leery about the double
i don't know it gets weird then this
book right yeah i can't approve this
in this state i think i get the
challenge that they're running into
but i think you know there's other ways
and i think
the double structure and all of the the
the layers the pancaking of all the same
size type of members
is a problem it looks like a pergola on
top of a pergola i couldn't figure it
out
so i don't i don't see how that's
appropriate in any way i know they're
trying to find a solution so i respect
that
but i think there's other ways to
potentially address that or maybe maybe
even more creative ways
and it looks like you're secondary the
second level of your beams runs from
those
outer posts all the way to back to the
house
and you're bypassing that middle post
maybe there's another way to
to connect to that structure without
having this lower level cross beams
because
you're able to attach directly to a post
so i i don't know that
even if i see the necessary uh the
reason i have the lower beams
going across other than the pick it up
in the middle so i
i i couldn't i don't know what they
would do and i would be
reluctant to um just remain this back
because i think that puts a lot of
pressure on
on karen and coming up with that
solution but i uh
in this current state i don't think this
is approvable well to mr scott's point i
i completely agree and my sense is i
just didn't want to take
up time of the board
and other applicants waiting to try to
solve something that is
relatively obscure as presented to us
this evening
so i don't know whether it is the desire
of the board to call for a table or
remand but my sense is
continued discussion of this is futile
at this point
is there any other board members that
want to speak yeah no i agree
there's too many unresolved issues uh
i'm not sure how this
uh meets the uh uh the roof
uh on the side i don't know if there's a
window above this thing on the
yellow siding portion of the house
there probably should be some additional
posts up against the house to balance
this out
i don't know what the height of it is it
looks like it's a
got some reasonable there's the height
nine feet
um so i don't find an acceptable design
and it may pay to start over and to not
try to reuse some of the existing
material and
and not not to uh not spend good money
after bad
uh that may prove the wiser course and
then likewise obviously that post on the
corner
where the fence is that's a we would
call that an abatable nuisance and if
it's not been approved it would have to
be removed
thank you is there any other board
member that would like to speak
well since this is an arb issue if i've
understood correctly i would call for a
table
so um as the applicant you can ask for
this to be tabled where you can bring
back
a new design to us next month or
um you can ask for us to go ahead and
vote on this
and and then you know if it gets voted
down then you have to
submit a whole new application
do you have a preference mr muller
um i guess the best solution for us is
going to be to try to find a new
solution
um sounds like you guys aren't a big fan
of it so
i don't see any reason to vote on it i
think that's wise i think karen can help
you
um with a little bit with this just to
try to simplify it
so um but you know she can't do the
design for you completely but i think
she can give you some tips to help
um get it to something by next month
that we can get approved
are you okay with that i am
so mr bargle motion to table do we have
a second
second uh mr heyer
yes mr hellman
yes mr bardwell yes mr scott
yes madame tony yes
thank you thank you mr mueller thank you
we'll hopefully see you next month would
i just contact
karen then tomorrow yes
you have all my information all right
thank you very much
thank you okay our last application
is uh bees app dash 21-01
the application the applicant is robert
miller
the owner is georgia rush the address is
46
north parkview
um karen do you have a staff report that
you can share with us on this
yes hold on just a second i am
switching screens here um
give me just a second here
okay this application is for a connector
piece
this would be a recommendation to
be zapp it's a connector
to the designer who i believe is with us
um i'm was i right away
what caught my eye is the grid pattern
on the window being different from one
side to the next and
um the applicant completely saw that and
agreed that they had just drawn it
incorrectly and that the grid patterns
um if approved would match the grid
patterns on the other side
so there would be consistency when
you're in that space from what you see
out of both sides
the what i don't what i didn't really
completely understand and i'm going to
let the applicant go through the design
process and the decision making process
with you is the variation in the roof
line because
i think it's an all new structure so it
didn't really make a lot of sense to me
why it was so chaotic in the different
roof planes and more of a simple
connector piece
um and and cleaner but um
i am going to um ask anybody that's here
to speak to this case to please raise
your hand
is the applicant here
i'm thinking that maybe they might be a
phone-in so i'm going to give talking
permission
to these um phone numbers
yes that that was a question i had
earlier that was their thought
is the applicant can the applicant hear
me
hmm
[Music]
there's one that oh hello
do we need to unmute them i did
is the applicant yeah karen
can you hear me now yes sorry about that
um i think we were turning ourselves on
and off there
um sorry this is brent rachel with new
avenue um we're
we were assisting and karen you and i
spoke earlier today
where are you in please yes absolutely
please state your full name brent racer
r-a-c-e-r and raise your right hand
please
do you solemnly square or affirm the
testimony you're about to give this
evening is the truth
yes thank you
okay go ahead mr racer um
so the the designer when originally was
looking at this
was trying to kind of i for lack of a
better term cascade
from the upper level which is the house
down to the pool level
so that's kind of where the kind of i
guess i'm going to say the stepping down
of the
eve heist and the fascia on the edge
now i will mention we talked about it
after we spoke with karen today
and has simplified an elevation
and i don't know if there's a way to
send it to you guys to look at
but it's a much simpler um
uh kind of i guess design
what we've done is if you look at the
edition um which is
on s 2.2 it's got a little bit of a
larger
um view of the there you go so
the addition that's on the top right
we've used that roof profile to be
consistent all the way across so it's a
singular root profile
and it's consistent from garage to the
main hall
the addition i usually say the original
edition of the home
and it ties into the existing porch
at the garage that is at the pool so it
would be
at that height and continue across is it
i can email it to anybody if that's
possible so they
can can show it
i don't know if that would help um you
can but i mean
it it's
you can do that i'm only letting you do
that because it's such a short meeting
you're the last person on the agenda and
if it doesn't work we're going to have
to
table it because you the board members
will not have had time to review it
this is mr bardwell and again i'll offer
that
irrespective of what the applicant may
share with us
the fact that this is presented
two-dimensionally
makes it very difficult to understand
so uh we we can certainly receive and
review
additional information but from my
perspective
it is not going to be sufficient
for me to render a decision
uh but also for clarification uh the
elevation the north elevation we're
looking at uh
is part of the application the two-story
edition that's on the
uh the back of the house the left of the
house no
no no that's exactly that's existing
correct it's from the two-story addition
to the garage which is the brick element
on the left of the screen
right here
again i can only emphasize that a
two-dimensional representation of this
simply does not afford us an uh clear
understanding of what is intended
i thought we had one rendering it was a
hand sketched
i i think i had seen one initially as
well
yeah yeah i believe on
um i think it did not make i
i have it hold on
it's a 1.1 i had one as part of the
original staff report
here it is right here there we go yeah
correct
is that consistent with what is now
proposed
yes well that was originally yes
that's what has been proposed the
conversation we had after talking
um with karen earlier about the
complexity of the roof was effectively
to simplify it
and have one consistent roof line from
the existing home all the way across
rather than stepping down
and having a mono slope roof is to keep
it consistent all the way across so that
would
that would effectively be the only
modification
did you send me that email
i did not i apologize
i i would like to see a site plan in
addition i don't see a site plan here
understanding
the it looks like a beam pergola system
that this thing is tucking under there's
a pool
um to the south which we don't see in
any of the
drawings um
there should be a plan the rendering
you're
you're viewing that looking north oh i
see the interior of the backyard
right but i don't understand this beam
system even on the site plan i don't it
says existing roof cover over patio but
where are they
where are the columns that support this
thing is it just cantilevered out
no the cows are at the corner of the
uh it's nearly a square
coming off of the existing um garage
yeah i just don't i don't see the
columns in this plan
so uh
again from my perspective there are a
lot of unanswered questions on this
but given that this is
if i've understood correctly not readily
apparent to the public view
i would rem i personally would remind
this to the city design consultant
uh for further refinement
are you saying you don't want it to come
back for before us
i'm saying i'm content to have that
refined with the city design consultant
and not come back to us
any other board members that have
opinions on
and would like to speak on this well
i'm torn because this is a very special
house
um and and
it needs to be done well uh and we
always have
and when we approve something or even we
remand it back
it always has our stamp on it as well so
i remain a little uncomfortable because
i'm not sure i can quite figure it all
out
i i would not i would feel more
comfortable if if you could actually
send me that email
karen i apologize um and i'm
gonna full disclosure i'm stepping in
for another individual so
i'm a little bit um kind of catching up
here but i do
i personally don't have your email it
what is do you mind giving that to me
real quick and i'll have it over to you
in 10 seconds
um sure
um to send it to k b
b o k o at gmail.com
okay i don't guarantee anything but
it oh no i understand i could at least
give you my comfort level
and maybe it would make the board's
comfort level a little bit better
but i i don't i agree with mr hellman
unless i kind of
really understand a basic direction
i think it needs to be tabled i
am this is something i am comfortable
with that as well
i i simply didn't want us to even though
uh we we are not time constrained right
now i
i didn't want us to get into the weeds
on this if there is an
easier remedy that would include
review by the city design consultant or
a table
but i don't i earnestly don't believe
that the board would be well served
to try to design this or
review this on the spot
madam chairman i i would like to clarify
that this
is a recommendation because this is
subject to further review and
zoning approval by the board of zoning
and planning oh
that's an excellent point we could
remain we could
we could um allow the applicant
go on to be zap just as if the variance
will be even
acceptable with the remand back here
for design finals design review
and he could work on plan b in the
meantime
and i'm fine with that much like we did
for 50 north drexel last time
and 2404 fair oh well no you're right 50
north drexel
and again i i just i i always
avoid us trying to design
or review designs on the spot
okay um bill or pete scott do you have
an opinion on this
or do you want to speak before we
um you know i think they had a complex
challenge here
with different different building
heights and connection and
i would be comfortable with um one than
working with
um karen and continuing the design
development
but i think continuing the process also
makes sense um
i don't think it's you know an
unachievable design to connect these two
and i think if with further development
and uh if it gets through b zap
coming back to us would be uh you know i
think the final process so
i would support that route and all it
does is add two weeks
i i'd like to see it come back
okay so from what i'm hearing from the
board um
brent is that you would this would get
recommended to be to bees app
that you can take your design to them
and see if you're going to get your
variants
and if you do then it gets sent back to
us
for the our meeting next month and
you can bring your polished design at
that point and you can keep talking to
karen in between
for um you know her comments um
of what she thinks we're looking for so
hopefully then when you come back next
month
um we can just sign off on it and you're
good to go
does that sound okay that sounds great
good okay so i need a board member
to move i move to uh approve and send it
some b's app
uh with exception with working with but
the condition had to be remanded back to
the arv for final design review
correct thank you and i'll second that
kathy then can you call the roll please
yes
mr heyer yes mr hellman
[Music]
yes mr cardwell yes
mr scott yes
madame tony yes
thank you friend we will uh
hear from someone next month i
appreciate it thank you
thank you
that's all for our agenda are there any
other
concerns or questions that the board
wants to talk about
are we good to go yeah no what are we
supposed to do with the rest of our
night
yeah yeah for next month i've
i've blocked this out until 2 a.m so
okay that's funny for you guys but it's
not funny for kathy and i
[Laughter]
great work great work both of you
incredible getting all that stuff put
together
thank you thank you very much karen
thanks
i i just well done no problem i
i'm going to try to do this kind of
stuff more often because i really think
it's helpful and then we can spend time
on the ones that really need the help
and we think the applicants like it best
too that they know
they know what to expect when they show
up for the meeting and uh what they're
going to get
so like i would like to put on our
agenda for our next retreat though the
uh the formality of like
last minute submittals like and i get it
people work up to the last minute but
i think it disrupts our process a little
bit so i i i completely agree
and and i uh i'll echo what i said
earlier is i
resist any temptation to
design or accept designs on the fly i
just think that
is that's a very bad precedent
so we um i put out a doodle and i'm
about to
complete it for a workshop next week
i can't remember off the top of my head
which one worked but there's a day that
worked for everybody
and we can talk about that at that
workshop we can also
um talk about anything else you want to
talk about but that's
that's great any any other subjects i'd
be happy to entertain
because we are um
well we have an audience member who's
raising their hand i saw that
um you want to swear them in or let them
in
uh russ abrams which case has already
been
heard that was the owner of nine
two nine percent vernon
yeah correct which it's officially
tabled it's tabled
yes it is why is that
well you can talk to your applicant that
represented you but it
was not um detailed enough and
understood enough by the board members
to understand what was being built it's
a pergola
that's going on to a uh we're already
finished with this case
yeah we understand that but we won't
design it during a meeting
and there's concerns that your
representative he's aware of
okay i apologize i was working so if you
could
just sum up what just he needs more
details
um among other things there was some
i think that um can't think of the name
of the gentleman who was representing
you but he he seemed to very much
understand what was keith keith mueller
mueller
yeah yes this this person has not been
sworn in
also we are kind of at the end of our
agenda
should this be done uh off meeting i
think it'd be more appropriate
yes i i would recommend you do you send
do you send written
responses i think we need
to talk about this offline because the
case is already done
yeah we we need to adjourn the meeting
and then sir you can um contact karen
um or kathy in their office tomorrow and
they'll review it all with you
as to what with the the decision that
was made
okay i believe there's also a video
record
that he could review tonight yes yes
okay i'm uh uh do we have do we need to
get a
motion to during the meeting uh it is
the
chair's prerogative to adjourn the
meeting okay we are adjourned
thank you thank you good night good
night
good night everyone
you