which basically to give you the appeal rights you need to see a sign in and be as i interpret the ordinance you need to speak or her submit some written materials  and if you're going to speak of the swear he would so first met oh and then timing wise we have three hearings plus a few other would that would give us about a half hour each of the other issues to applications if we go longer than an hour they are forces us to stay beyond we're still discussing things we always have the option of continuing it we'd like to try to get it done now so the first matter in the agenda is application fifteen dash zero zero one applicants robert enjoy  reproductive reuse review including conditional use site plan review for the reuse of the farm to include restaurant and office use located on w m eight thirty in the gateway commercial and zoning district on the case so that these original and the just like what it looks like now department of interior standards if we actually ye i mean that's certainly our bold in our goal since the day we bought the property we're not receiving any tax in the form we are not receiving any tax incentives or grants on these projects  e that we read the secretary of interior standards and guidelines that they're subjected and that they're only advisory and i would in our permit application that the guidelines are you to some kind of standards that are are interpreted in her math for the purpose of those standards were meant for people seeking tax credits for federal grants if you are not seeking either one of those then i believe section of five point six point eight is irrelevant not political because you're not requesting grants and you're not requesting federal tax credits so to hold you to some standard in the case of if you wanted to see those options we would have to approve you under section b but since you're not asking us to do so then we are then i do not believe that the standards the standards apply as my interpretation of the regulations and that's my interpretation of even the documentation that was presented by and cousins and the people that were making comments as well  doing an option that's allowed to you if you want to change the slate roof to metal roof and you have that option as well as far as i'm concerned if you want to add a porch on the front using post and beam style features the bricks up the building for the visual route two i believe that's an option you have as well but we do not have to do so we may do it if they are seeking a tax credit or a grant under thirty six e l o r sixty seven they're not sick seeking either one of those under the federal code thirty six c f r back in our updated plan and which one were they looking at some because they're not here for us to know what plant that they were looking at i have an issue with that because for all i know i'm result a lot of the vertical structural members are cracking from the pressure also as bob pointed out it's an interesting design inside it's asymmetrical in that the frame is is what the board would like to do or choices are could we have about ten or fifteen minutes left or we could discuss this we could if you feel you prove it or we can motion to prove it i would think though that we need some discussion i think this is some points that i think the board needs to clarify  board feel that they could take it apart put it back together again but it would have to be in the same place so that certainly one can wait and i think that the board also has to decide whether the applicants open public to have a second second on favor i'm ok so i guess the first question to consider i think one of the main points to consider here is does it fit within our interpretation of the dept of use ordinance and that's and also i think one of the big questions is go believe the t v y c b c came on in several stages and i don't believe i was on the board when the first couple stages came on and then it came i don't recall a discussion of the why c c of the monitor barmes in the adaptive use ordinance but that was a number of years ago so i just was wondering if you were part of that decision and maybe i probably weigh more than  we need to do that and i think we need to do that is so you know i look at this project and i try to yeah there are some things that don't quite fit into our overall perhaps and you know there's a good of bringing those up concerns but if you look at the gateway district and you look at the opportunity here for someone to invest private money and come up with a structure looks really nice and  going back to the to the to the to the use five six years they were talking about everything else looks terrific to me and let them you know to go painstakingly removed or by bord not looking for her any money so to make them do a requirement that they're not asking for us to use the thirty six c f r regulation and then i don't feel like we have to pull them to that but i was on the fence about whether it should or shouldn't be moved knowing that there's a foundation issues knowing that they want to put the park in the back because that's what the public really wanted to see and i was somebody who went to the planning commission meetings asking that the handicapped parking at least be allowed to be in the front nobody agreed with that so they want to all park in the back because the regulation doesn't specifically tell me that they can not move the building and that they have to reuse a certain percentage of it now after reading the document has provided have the firm belief that they are allowed to decide what they do and don't want to do with this structure so i now support the adaptive use of that  purpose of the turmoil buildings people of those around for different uses is great i do think also the goal of that is to have them be as close to the way they want to store glee i'd be in really good job listing just just what makes it listening to what the public's opinion was on the zoning changes about putting her in the act and to me that's the reason they've moved forward and defense it made a lot of concessions i think i do i like the changes that they have made maybe the ones that they don't necessarily want to do i personally like to slee with their original design and leaving the coop was on the building because i think it just adds character i would second that to i mean i would encourage you not to make those changes based on the e mails that came in after especially best on the conversation we had about how the department of the interior got mines factor and i don't think that they do that's true imposes on you but i think you're getting the benefit of the data use of that structure you're getting the benefit of multiple uses and not sound that are not allowed and then it would be a minor concession to pave the parking lot and allow you to half i mean you could do more than one restaurant in that building you could potentially do retail in that building you have that means a lot more traffic in and out so i think the maintenance on the gravel parking lot if you have as much  as as you are potentially proposing along with dumpsters in and out of there i'm a little concerned on waiving the parking lot paving on i think it could be there's a reason have stayed away traditionally from i would say it should be consistent with what they're showing us at least yeah definitely have never had to make a distinction about which plan you're going to approve and so that we know which one when we have to look back on it which is we have to make a motion to start the process to approve the plan correct we can start to do pieces of approval without having a motion to approve or not at script so i make the motion that we have proof the application of the application story bob route for eight thirty west main that we shouldn't allow the fear of not being approved to be why we require them to have a sleep i was hoping to keep it maybe quicker but i do think looking back a five point six point there is no guidance whatsoever for what is a historic building unless you look at five point six point eight b in the secretary of interior standards so whether or not those are designed for people going green trying to get funding or whatever if we don't look at those documents the summary knocking that we have what has to be used from it either so you can we might as well get into this discussion because if we're going to discuss what they have to reuse we have to discuss all the materials that they're going to be taking down and that's the part of this question i do not believe we have to get into because that all the materials and by your definition you could argue they've chosen to use those materials and farming is used to stay on the property and i'm not there that's not what was presented to us so we're supposed to look at what was presented to us and make our decision based on that not what they could do but intercity me to be clear about the future for what other people want to do as well which wasn't done in the past and he's creating problems tonight as well as in the future ok we could go on for a while  as we do have two other applications so quick question oh yes you do we have to set a precedent with this decision now i mean as far as i understood this is a quasi judicial board have in mind  structure that's like saying they're opting to do this elevation prior to that application being approved by the federal government and do this on their own i do not believe i have a conflict and that's only because i was working for the see here questions for the board the questions for the public clarification that they're not meeting our definition of substantial improvement so that's why i was didn't want to kind of classify it as not because they're not meeting all requirements but if you're saying you're not substantially bigger great now you want to add on a porch or adaptable twenty five percent greater size down the road and somebody reading this in recent interviews it differently than this board does tonight you protected yourself do i need to rogers lane application fifteen dash zero three zero applicants patterson fuel inc offer special flood hazard area review including conditional use in sight plan review out how much water is being displaced and you know what the force is that's going to be acting on us and so this concrete that is below is far more than what's necessary to structurally support the tank it constitutes a mass that will enter the tank in place and the straps that are proposed are essentially dictated by a factor of four what is appropriate to not o be our interpretation that we're you know first of all there are currently exists hazardous substance storage and it's going to be modified by you know taking the other existing hazardous material storage and moving it to consolidate residential so from out from the site a stamp it makes a lot more sense also the river road facility the way it's laid out requires that the people i mean is underground and this site has everything above so there's just that kind of an inherent danger placing new you're asking a credit to remove it from the river road site but it is doing riders like if we allowed it and if we basically allow this credit from one site to another site  really think that what cation should be for both sites as if you're asking to move from one site to another say if we want to impose any regulations or restrictions on the site that it's coming from might not be enjoying an application we can do that existing underground pipes being is going to be emptied purged cut kept in a vandar so i think that this site is part of the upper cation even though by address it's not they are bringing the old got to have both properties and board so that everybody and i support the project you're going to take for the way so all those also i think we can you accept that amendment of your application to the location of the property to include both  something that yeah but i think we can do we can do that because they've included that in their application in the situation that you can believe that but i believe profoundly happy i just think i don't current scrutiny should be more than adequate to to provide for the sites the traffic estimates that were provided in twenty one then were the absolute maximum that were so heavy that they need to use both so most of their traffic is already going here but there will be a slight reduction and so you know what traffic is going to be going in and out of the river  and as far as timeline they're hoping to do it this summer anything else that they want to increase in case increasing the small unit quantities were in the previous decision that address that and the disconnect address that so it's all tied to yeah and that way then that the work of removing much on board with us yeah we also submitted a letter he wrote say please move the take here it's much better here to the to the fill the trucks and then go use their hoses also it's right there yeah using the station right there we will have to go out fill it make build their little pond well that i think they might still build the pond but it's all it's not remote anymore there have to send troops out to get water oh you can't just pop up maybe you can drive a group i don't know i think you must be able to because you can put it into the truck for transport so then you can just deliver it to the hoses from there because it's right across it were back on the record we're back on the record here and we're going to continue to liberations on  with the architectural features of the structure itself so does anybody have any objections to the does anybody have any objections to the windows as proposed by the rapes which proposed i am ok with are the one i preferred the original plan so on the were trying to make their way through this if we completely whether we can dictate what can be done or not and it's gray for sure it's not super clear but the best i can understand f since the other issue because she didn't want to make a motion to start the decision without discussing the details her first that i would like and this is just my own opinion a little str but i think the development plan no my point my point was the stick with the characteristics of a gravel parking lot is that the characteristics necessary to live on are i think it behaved a paved parking lot certainly is less characteristic of a barn structure than a gravel asked for a waiver so you need to vote on the waiver so we know how to fashion the motion whether the motion will lose the waiver or not to to get to danced in area for the dumpsters either with or without a roof depending on what works best for their site that the second the second yes if they if they put in their plans bottom line twenty eight on the front side on the first page last second less word increasing with the additional use hearing from one fifty to three hundred and that's basically because we you know we have we have to cover costs for running the hearing and basically when we weren't hearing it costs us hundred  ability to say during a hearing so say of jury for example if during the week's hearing you decided that you wanted more information that you thought you were getting conflicting information about like the cases it'll be when they can get their money back and that all of that which is basically clarifies all of that which otherwise has been nonexistent which is kind of calls a little bit of confusion by the planning commission and this list was developed last me here and basically the planning commission is going through a process to say which of them are going to be their priorities which is in the last call and apartments so that's one of the changes they're going to look at and then also another thing is to kind of be more explicit about  or to clarify that you know there are some things you just don't need a c f o for and making it clear so that's something that's going to be under consideration and then some of this is more housekeeping with the way the the  is is more of a clarification of what review type applies to what uses so that is what some of the kind of things that are under way developed and this is all to get input to help create that vision statement for richmond and the division of forum in september followed by some topics pacific workshops hosted in the late fall early winter time we're still trying to have a new town plan written in may of two thousand and sixteen the consult that we've hired will be coming to the planning commission next week and giving a presentation on updated census data and economic data which will be kind of the basis of the demographic section so getting a better understanding of how the community has changed we know we're losing workshop where we're looking at you know how do you promote more flexible development standards where you're looking more at what the building looks like not necessarily what uses occupied the building and so that's been one base code has been intent behind having them play we're active role and to be here with you or with your discussions is that they start getting more familiar with an application when it first comes it instead of just being familiar with it once  and if they interpret it differently then he'll ask his neil has been the position for a period of time and he interprets it a certain way so if you're interpreting it a certain way and you don't get a lot of appeals if you're interpreting it another way then you potentially have a lot of higher level appeal so you've got a new zoning misread of officer that is as you've already said the applicants are you're still searching or going to do some interviews then you might have somebody who might interpret the hill but looking at it it's like what they're proposing is out the recreation park so it'll be kind of the use of that and the parking lot so the reference having an annual meeting in which he will elect officers so when do you want to put