welcome everybody we're going to start right off with a review and approval of the minutes from meeting from december first did all of you have a chance to read those actually something we're not used to with meeting in this room and part of that meeting and part of meeting in this room we get to use these wonderful wireless microphones there's one there in front of you chris from one here and then two you have one in front of you of course one of the corner of the other one  sitting there at the table for the app and we discuss the application if you please come to the table and press the button next to the numbers of black button on the top of the microphone will change from a red flashing to green flashing which means that it's working agenda thank you joel if there's anyone here in the audience who would like to make a public comment about any items not on the agenda this evening please forward to your address and to keep your comment to three minutes we appreciate it so would you please read a summary of our lives the hope church has been in front of that town historic district commission a few times over the past couple months as they're planning some major capital improvements to their structure most recently they're now in front of one historic district commission requesting approval to construct what's known as a mechanical penthouse on the west side of their roof just for clarification this is a penthouse because it's an addition on the outside of a they need to find a way to have easy access to the canaccord equipment and have it inside self this does require a review by the harlem historic district commission i believe you have three representatives from pope church they've received a copy of the staff report they've had a chance to go over it i'm going to hand the ball off to them right now let them give that summary is much detail they'd like to give and then i would recommend that you receive public comment from the public and then after you see public comment you can talk this item over and  that's what's required found that are not mechanical design was over budget so we needed to find a way to more effectively use adek space to house mechanical equipment that's currently accessible through  that will allow both access fire bringing equipment in and out but also people coming in and out for maintenance of the details than ashes materials see on the south side you see it's about four feet below the lower step cable it's mirrored on the other side we're coming flat off of that point i don't know if it's eight  so towards the north and then dropping down and doing a ninety degree out to the to the chapel and that's where the duct work for the chapel will be that lower lag actually sets back a few feet from the face of the chapel and the higher leg sets back about a foot and a half or so from the face of the sanctuary so we wanted to kind of disappear into the shadows which is why we sort of suggested in this rendering that it's going to take some of the darker tones that are the existing building on the steeple you see at the crossing and just make it kind of go away so we don't want  to stand down the only other way to get new equipment in or to get replacement in would be to cut holes in the roof whenever that has to happen because there's no other access up there and this is just going to make it so much more convenient for now and in the future and to be much less disruptive whenever something does have to be  changed thank you so now's a good opportunity for anyone who's here today to make a public comment regarding this particular application if you could limit your comments to three minutes  beltway in fact the taller portion is actually rising arms rather the shorter portions actually rising up a little bit from an area that currently has metal on it  so if you drive by and you look up there you'll see that there's a wedge of cream colored metal panel we are looking to tone it down for that because the cream would really pop out as it currently does and symmetrical feeling of the west facade which is the historic beautiful facade if you tack on something next to that it's going to throw it off symmetry and so as we're pushing it back and toning it down and yet not really not a lot of details and that door patch if you will would just blend right into those seam lines and that it looks like a panel plug that would be able to swing open and then they'd be able to repair equipment or two of boxes or whatever it also would allow access to the flat would be almost impossible because of the that the webs of the trusses magically appear we're piggybacking the penthouse above an existing group that that was from one thousand no to that has had room and then it up but the nine hundred eighty edition and that one little area that's got no way to get into that attic space and every room every air handler equipment for the whole building is in that attic it's just they didn't plan in one thousand nine hundred eighty what they were going to do when they had to replace it and now we're dealing with that so we're coming back there and we're just going to have about that wide of overlap between our thing where that where the open end of that free spaces were coming in into so it wasn't chosen arbitrarily chosen because it's the only place to go to lower a little flag is just to get ducks from that equipment across that gap to the chapel space down only on the side you can see it only affects a small portion of under the eaves it's the equivalent of this wall here there's a currently i think it's also kind of court that as you know from our previous discussions here that we're going in the best interest of the building and the district heard so we want to minimize this thing as much as possible even as much or more than you do so as we proceed with detail or get out i guess we're asking that based on their previous track record that we're going to do everything we can to make it  home so when we're looking at doing bridges out because i think that it violates the intention of the guidelines that you don't confuse the history of  picking up that bronze color from the building and doing it down here will make it just blend in with the roof and the shadows can all the stuff you really want to pay attention to is going to highlight so that our thought process is that's a point of view i guess my thought was that the chapel form is quite pure and symmetrical the new chapel and the west for sounds quite pure and symmetrical the next option makes sense to me and for that to match the existing training make sense i mean of course you could say something like could it be a focused surface but that of course would you say with going back to the brick part in order to going from the chapel around to the original would it even be very feasible to say because aren't those two different bricks yes they are so it would sort of be this to make a motion like to make a motion to approve the penthouse roof addition with be higher portion being sixteen by sixteen feet and the lower portion being eight by twelve feet clad in the bronze personal interest to see what looks like that's a big difference if they bring in a sample and say and you say oh this person would still stand and they say that's ok we got the motion size want you to be very clear on what you're request he agrees with the so idea and then the emotion too and then the motion to approve the addition the sizing scale but not approved the material which will be approved a later date upon a sample are calling a multi stall garage buildings on the map you are able to see the location of those five buildings one will be just to the east of the existing walked in school and  the applicant would submit further detail on architectural information and another public hearing or be held by the guards to the approval process for a c e o way one other thing we'd like to know regarding tonight action is the property itself we have a site plan showing locations of single family lots we have a cycling shown surface parking areas we're really talking about the garage locations and the concept and approval just to stay on the patient we really don't want to get into you know discussion about what would a house look like on that lot you would see those you know those developments as those come forward at a later time  to keep the conversation in the discussion focused on what the purpose of tonight's meeting is it really is this scale in the case of those five buildings there are shaded in blue on the screen except for that one blue area which is part of direction on this yes all right very well we've been working on alternate locations is the slate plans changed considerably we've gone back to our focus being on the existing school building  and in order to get a higher level tenet or future condo buyer to the site we strongly believe we need to have individual grudges for every unit as a result we have a lot of projects to fit on the site we've done our best to minimize visibility from the roads center that's to minimize visibility from across the street from some of the neighbors so what we're trying to achieve is we basically have five buildings four of them are five stock rogers and one of them is a sudden stall one thing to know on the seven stall one of those garages is actually a garbage room so there will not be a separate free standing garbage dumpster so that's a purpose for the extra stall i believe we need all  setbacks and we did provide some elevations and some footprints to get the united size of each building itself elevation just to give you a height we were approved we would be coming back to give get approval on modifications to the school building but also all the exact materials used in pichon that take things for the grudges so this is a good opportunity now for public comment do we have another microphone we can provide for members of the public if you do wish to speak tonight we are going to ask that you approached this table where nancy and i are sitting state your name and address for the record and we have these nifty little wireless mikes sometimes they pick up your voice well sometimes they don't we ask that you just hold it within about eight inches and you should be good or you can leave it on the table one of the reasons why we're recording the comments tonight is our minute taker just recently had surgery done on a rest and we're trying to make life a little bit easier on us just because you have to go back it's a little atypical for the start district to do recorded so we just wanted to put that out front where people are asking why am i having to speak into a mike tonight when other nights i don't sell just a heads up for  ya ok great ok my name is jimmy knight i live it ninety four west twelfth street and i'm going to skip around quite a bit after what joel just said i'm going to dial things back i've served served on and shared the historic district commission i was on the historic district commission for six years chairing it for two of those years then served on and on the planning commission for an additional six years as i sought my mandate while serving on both those commissions was to take a long view in preserving the character of the city of the historic district and maintain and improve the viability of the city and i'm very proud of the work that i've done on it i'll skip skip around here i think my my big issue with this is you know it's tough we've got you know how in public schools are hemorrhaging money maintaining washington school property the sale of the properties an urgent manner we need to find a way to meet the needs of the schools but i think we also need to be very careful about the neighborhood and just read what i wrote here we need to meet the needs of the neighbors to be respectful of the vibrant delicate neighborhood that surrounds the school  the people who enjoy the green space are saddened by the looming prospect of development and change looking at this as a former historic district commission member w immediately jumps out at me is the applicable standard here is number one a property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment it was that with this standard in mind when i was on the historic district commission there was a house that burned on the corner of thirteenth and pine thirty formed a individual from thirty formed approached third owned the house they approached the historic district commission about hey this is prate we own this property we could really use some parking you never even got it never even made it to a meeting the idea of turning that into a parking lot  and jeopardizing the character of the neighborhood just it was shut down before it ever got there i think that you know i understand developers want to make some money with this  project maximize density and so on but i think eleventh street is the g m of the historic district right now i walk down that street just about every night if i go down there and i see you know trees are going to be missing the lights are going to be there cars are going to be driving in and out you know i think we can do a lot better than to put garages and the main in grass arrest point  for many of those units right there onto eleventh street i think it's really going to detract from the neighborhood you know i struggle a lot with this whole project partly it's just change it's a difficult thing the secretary of interior standards for rehabilitation that's i think very important for for our historic district thank you for your name and your tim stall ninety nine west eleventh just a question a clarification maybe for a gentleman look at when i look at that it looks like the access to the parking is mostly coming off tent for for those units is that correct yes and then the one axis coming off eleventh for the single unit with which six in it right and then another question the existing parking lot looks like it has six green of those trees is that going to be a green space there yes and then between there and the parking units and the eleventh street there's a great square what is that  ok so that is a parking lot with out the parking structure ok but will there be access to that parking lot from eleventh street or is that now so that's all coming off tenth street coming out correct ok so that the parking coming off eleven street is six units is it correct plus the one up in the school so well of units up in my car right correctly and then well while the winds of change are blowing it's a cult and i think that this current plan is much more in line with what the neighbors are concerned about than the original one was and i'm personally much more comfortable with it and i just want to thank you for that plans a little more amenable to the neighborhood into the historic district however having said that one of the big points of contention and discussions about the level of density in the school building and i do believe that there are alternative ways for developing this school building and this property which would have a fewer number you know it's which would alleviate a big point of contention here which is the size of the of the parking lots and a number of grudges and the garage buildings in favor of this and as for historic district i would consider you guys urge you guys to consider the impact is going to have on the neighborhood and on preserving the feeling of the never but putting this number of park units and garages and parking proceed to questions i mean i'm not sure that we can offer any solution other than the density we feel is determined by the size existing school building not by the number of units we need to make our numbers work we're working within existing masonry walls in many cases we're not trying to add square footage to the building to increase the number of units to make our numbers better we're only utilising a structure that's there to wheat fields of optimal size well with respect to the application do a new commissioners here have any questions for advocates about the  zero we haven't determined to be one way or two way quite honestly the alleyway in the back i would be tight they have to be two way traffic so there's a very good possibility it could become one way but we haven't got to that point yet well i mean we have i will say we we tried to minimize to the parking on eleven you'll notice we have majority of our surface and their garage is coming the developers correct me if i misspeak but and previous conversations with staff including karen kind of see you as unable to be here that she's our historic district planner that up the hope is that we reached some agreement on location and size as in footprint size and the developers have you know said many times over and i think karen relate this to you at your last meeting the architectural detail which could include a picture of roof whether it's eight over twelve or four top or whatever crazy they're willing to be flexible and their work with their starkest commission on that design matter that design pretty so i would agree scaling na that roof is important to know but they're willing to make it work as the d c would like to see it they're really looking for approval on location and footprint so when i brought out for ya that's requested by the vice chair as the first on this is there are five star garage set up you know twenty four feet in depth sixty feet and laid if i've read the plans correctly small  correct yeah don't worry i mean is all you're not voting on the garage themselves if you do have definite feelings about it be very helpful so the next time it comes back i can address those concerns but i mean the intention was not to say this is a sign we love it don't change it was this is the idea of what we're thinking i mean we know it's going to be majority brick and you know it's going to be a real wood site in a real w even if you say we want nine twelve or we want twelve i mean i didn't go for twelve because it looks cheap i mean so if you want more pitch we can add more that no i don't necessarily have a strong opinion on that at this time i just i wanted to know because it is kind of difficult to determine the proper height without knowing the design so we have  wall it may come past boy it's within a foot or two it looks like your view of this place when you've got eighty three feet nine inches for the i think so it's called up for the rest of the  it proposes six crushes there which are pretty application but maybe eighty feet for your garage so three foot nine inches differen can we talk about the four sharpshooters and eleven and is there a way where you can try to make this setback match what's already on the street every other home a setback with in some small measure to each other as you look down on the neighborhood and then the garages protrude quite a bit below that to kind of people consistency down the block i realize that means they're taking  could do that but we should mention them all and work that way and we still are within well within the requirements for lots north of that so that we don't you could also eliminate the ten foot gap between them and just make them two buildings i like having the gap i think that helps break it up a little bit and make it look like a more of my normal structure that you yeah i mean if we moved everything north you would end up with that currently the mention you know would be roughly seventeen feet or less so i mean i did notice that  yellow overlay of the last doesn't line up with their current line so there's a little bit of you mention make up there but if you said seventeen feet and three or in it i think the paperwork says seventeen that setback continuing on that plot as well because that makes that plot buildable from a practical standpoint kind of agree with bethany that those guys are dealing with the step back off of maple so that be a typical side your side yard setback them and i also although it is an interest in teresting point i don't think that we can really comment on what will be required on lots for future buildings that are being proposed at this time so we really have no way of telling what's going to b question in chris if i'm reading you guys correctly are you saying that you're willing to meet that condition up pushing his crotch back seventeen feet i think it be good for the district to hear that as an affirmative state th that is an important point to kind of look at but maybe that's a plain question as far as the setback on that lot of mabel but it very much could be certainly has a pretty significant effect on the two everything to the north and i think for the people that are living on the left and then like the new construction next door that homeowners on their porch they would rather not look at the back of the grouches but have to clear space that and everybody else on the street is afforded basically sort of my thinking about pushing them up in the first place pretty big intrusion i would think on someone's front yard  i think it's it's certainly reasonable to do so and we have just recently you know done the exact same requirement for the property owner who built there but then also at the same time if we are just shifting the garages to north then that kind of changes the kind of the uniformity of the lots along eleventh which and some senses it's already been on uniform because of how the school has it laid out you know because they all have the same jobs all the way down that street now extending beyond this development would move forward and it comes to the planning commission there is going to be a lot of thought paid by the planning commission on the design of that street the landscaping of that street and plenty commissioners love the use the word gateway even though right now on the site plan we might be viewing that it's just an alleyway going out the tent they might come at this to say no we want to pretty that up and make it more of a gateway feeding into that development so those grudges that that would serve that school building or that program already extends all the way out to tent show so even if there's got to just go back another seven hundred feet that properties are already there as far as from a planning perspective so that levon street from joe and you saw that in the staff report that seventeen feet is important you know from a planning perspective as well as probably historic neighborhood preservation perspective that view shed when you're standing on eleventh street and you're looking down three quarters of the way you'll want to see a wall of graduates or wall of evergreens for truth out to the street so that is you know my two cents that pushing those back i think that doesn't fit from it is very important but you say that you know separation  i do want to acknowledge jim's comment that you made about the standard line i mean it's hard to say that this doesn't make it doesn't change the character of the site that whole part feels like it relates to the large building as opposed to the four smaller buildings that don't share that proximity it's harder to relate that back and i think that kind of plays into the number one as far as they use that area and what feels right for the neighborhood so along those lines i ask karen about the possibility of getting state input into this design and you know asking because certainly there are similar projects in the state asking if they would give us feedback on how those have been handled  the answer was no that they will not do that from a state standpoint they will get second opinions as an appeal but they would not give us any input in advance she did mention the option of you know hiring outside mature were to go with that you know who the expert would be i was hoping there would be a state expert would be willing to shed some insight into standard one but that is not an option my impression of standard one from bat is or from actually from the training we had with the syrup tucked away i should say one of the state architects means that standard one of the one of the most nonspecific of all so it's hard to take a pragmatic approach to one because it's hard to quantify with really means so not to put we're going to question the standard itself but i think that it's going to there are instances in which it would be very obvious or it would be very obscure and would be really hard to make an argument about but i think that in the case of where you're taking like for instance if it was  something and it was going to be converted to a development that would definitely like one would be very clear there i would say it's definitely changing the use of the property now looking at the historic use of this particular space  where the four garages are being placed i think there is something about how there there was some housing there originally in the past maybe sixty eighty years it's been all school space i don't know if you can get some more information on that as part of the staff report and for most historic district applications we go to our fire sanborn maps insurance room schoolhouse and build the existing building and then at that time eleventh street went all the way through so it was not a cul de sac but it was a street that went all the way through and then the rest of  the land around there was subdivided young platted as what appears to be single family homes or single family structures is what we see on the fire scene my map and that was in the package for the historic district commission so storch lee nine so they use other space and home for parking is not completely different than being a residential you know if you have the pack in front of you and you look at the love and street the second parcel and and i'm just eyeballing this now it looks like there was one house that was located where those garages were located standard number one in the historical use of that site you know use a parking single family right so it seems that out of all the property available that would be more a flick of the lot for the species yeah thank you for mind that at the time eleventh street did go through as a public street it wasn't called exact and i think when the city in the school and c its yeah i do how much consideration have you put into placing all of the parking inside the gymnasium lower level even if it means going consideration moving cars inside with aisles and that type of thing let's just say best case scenario we've got twelve spaces in the garage in the g and a six more the gym just isn't as big is you you might think secondly when you try to enclose all of the parking you end up making it that much larger because you have aisle to get to the park so i mean that if you go beyond the gymnasium the interior structural walls as well so you have no floor system up off you i mean to go for system above you just i'm not saying it can't be done but i'm sane you're to it's not reasonably i mean financially financially structurally i mean all of the above i mean if you act if talk about historically changing this building if we say we're going to tear out the lower half and we're going to put garage stalls in front and back that's going to historically change the building itself well i mean we're adding doors on the side that is quite honestly not true historical building we start bringing it down they are going to go into existing building we're going to ruin the building from a store standpoint in my opinion i'm not an architect but i've done enough historical renovation project i mean it's not structurally feasible you're not going to save the building doing that and you're not going to pick up the parking lot after question the question from the audience was how what why did choir you know so many parking spaces the answer to that question as per our zoning codes you choir one per unit historically when we have residential development come into the city of holland developers shake their head when we tell them they only have to provide one because in holland michigan the average is two when we look at residential development in the  neighborhood as well as the larger downtown neighborhoods that stretch down to twenty four st it's very typical that people can park three to four cars and most  i live on a lot that's forty seven feet wide that's single lane driveway that the driveway extends just to the back of my house and since we downsized on the civic we can now get four cars without getting to the sidewalk placement of those five garage buildings you know when it gets to the planning commission that will if this development is ford that discussion is going to continue because it's already been floated up to you know the planning commission you know the third for pain and staff asking about placement of surface parking lots so for the historic district commission i just want to make sure we're clear on what you're being asked to approve in concept and that's  placement of those five garages for internally one just to the east of the existing school building the application is already i believe again agree that they're willing to shop were pulled back those four parking garages you know seventeen feet off the eleventh street right away extended buildings completely essential to your bigger vision whether you're selling condos or selling apartments you need to have garages i will address why we have two per unit the reason we have two per unit is we don't want to have our residents on the street parking we don't want them messing up the neighborhood with all kinds of cars on the street that's why we have to i mean it's not downtown grand rapids i mean it's not unlikely that one better apartment could have two people living there that both have vehicles so i mean could we eliminate the garden yes you could eliminate the grasses but then it would be a totally different structure and be a totally different project and we assume just a parking lot because you would still want to offer people the spaces i no structure and you could say ok parking lot basically i'm not sure we would do it but that's what would happen if no routers were allowed so i mean we have the crisis because we think it brings up the clientele have anything to say about the about how the structures that are being proposed in location and scale would relate to the district location of the garages without any comment on size the crotches scale michel lot of variables left in this that which we could talk about tonight certainly we don't have a lot of those details in front of us of really just is the foot  pattern individually but as an assembly of four i think it's a little bit more difficult to say that because although i think it is really important to keep that setback that matches the adjacent house that eleventh street the pushing of all of those structures back kind of  breaks that pattern and i think i already said that but yes i'm so yeah like i said the footprint i think each one individually matches with the pattern quite consistently but having them in that array is what kind of brings us away again from the feel of the neighborhood to longer one i think it is a little bit oblong and doesn't really fit super well with surrounding buildings but i do like that at least it has  you guessed i'd just like to ask a question that's been asked of me a lot by neighbors over the last couple of weeks i think if you could just have it on the record you know response i'm a lot of these issues obviously are driven by the size of the school and there's been repetitive questions about why not preserve the historic portion of the school and get rid of the not historic portion of the school obviously that shrinks the the project considerably still have been standalone garages but you have more space for him and you'd have fewer garages that has been brought to me by many many neighbors i think it's been addressed by you guys somewhat in other means but it be good to sort of formally hear that at least that was consider that economically that doesn't work out or would it whether that was ever on the table i guess my response would be is we have the entire structure under contract we're not able to buy just the good historical portion or pain for this work footage that we all t what i need more interest in this building if it just had the original probably i mean because i think the mission but i had nothing to do with  or a tough spot to review this one because a lot of the comments from the public and from neighbors relate more to the density of the project which they start just a commission really doesn't review density proposals  we have to review here is the structure of the school itself which is not the proposal for tonight so that's a matter and then any new structures that would be added to the district in this case and how they relate to that structure and those around it right so it's an interesting spot to be in where the neighbors keep saying lower density and we would want to see the structures but it's not really our place to say it should be lower density so it's hard to say it's hard to think that you can take in the suggestions from the neighbors and make a determination based on that evidence but really we're reviewing your your garages reviewing these garages as they are put to see treat them as just the garages in the structures and not look at what they do or how they relate to the density of the main building however it would be nice if we could do that as it would be as though the a collection of the planning commission slash  is like i said before i feel very comfortable with the lone building down here i think that particular section of eleventh is mostly very modest size homes there's a couple large ones on that but really they're very small and i think those four grudged buildings are very much beyond the mass of what is on that block that's just my opinion this then about eight different people we've been responding and responding responding with alternate renderings trying to get what we feel accomplishes as much as we can i mean the simple fact is for us to do the project we need that many units that are in the stalls and everybody has a different opinion on where that fits best part of the reason why we are trying to get them is close to the building that's possible for foot traffic to the garage so all the more we extend them nor the more distance is being covered for foot traffic but also you know th further you move them away the further people are carrying your groceries i mean think of it from a practical standpoint you're parked a block away from your house so some clarification for the commission then for the applicants of the garages because you're just talking about footprint it's twenty four feet white house just to the east that was recently constructed i believe that was approved at twenty two feet because it was below our standard of twenty four so they had to go to the board of appeals for a variance to construct a more narrow house so we're looking at it from the street you know similar kind of what the height of the proposed garage is you're going to talk about that little bit more detail but what they show that's right away eighteen and a half feet roughly will say the house just to the east is one  half stories i believe would probably be the proper terminology for that so when we use it i just want to be clear that you know the grudges you know these are not massive practice they are longer and so they do extend further than what house was but twenty four feet compared to twenty to eighteen feet compared to probably twenty some feet we have if not thirty something so yeah my point was just that they were for large buildings that are not housing and i'm not sure how that falls into the context of our store whole neighborhood comes back to s whereas here it's a property with an entirely new structure on it so you kind of i would see it as what does that structure itself look like as it relates to the property in the surrounding properties not as it relates to a house th  relate them to something and they look nice individually but there's four and that where else in our neighborhood do we have four large structures like that was just my thought that they're not they won't physically fit but there's four big ones it's just new for us and it's new for the neighborhood and there's not there's not a precedent for that or an example of that anywhere else or you know it's new and i know that i think because of the scale of the depth of the buildings and  small separation between them and north south access that's where it becomes a little bit more massive because you end up kind of getting each row as one long the relationship of that ten feet to this six stalls on either side is very small and i think it's still prevent just two long rows of stalls and a really long find sort of odd placed in the middle of the single family home residential door in the new construction is very small and i think it just it shows i know that they're too narrow or narrow buildings but it shows as a larger picture it's taking two rows those that's kind of one entity or gracias or one that's just the way we're going to look at them they're meant to be used together they're filling up that lot and it's hard to put them in relationship to the washington school building which they serve and i don't know if that's because they're not right there like these are at the bottom i would i would say that i think maybe some of us but the southern more garages of those buildings placed at the proper setback would follow the rhythm very well and i know that that doesn't match your number of necessary garages and that's not what's being proposed but that would be a much more except from from  i feel like when they have a bit of an impasse but again getting back to what we are voting today i don't feel like there's really a reason for an impasse right now we're saying that we will not deny a c e o a base on the footprint that's you know official these developers were great in terms of this footprint going through many many different iterations of you know how to put a lot of garages certainly recognize and those are problems that are probably more appropriate at planning commission and there were certainly iterations there are a lot worse than this in terms of just the footprint of where those garages are if you factor in traffic flow the only way to make it better is have less garages if you just want to you know in my feedback is on the actual footprint not the size not the scale not with that many garages there is no way to do it better in my opinion well and that's for us to decide if we are firm on wanting that seventeen foot step back and we want to require those for graduate not be there all together are we ok with shifting a footprint seventeen feet to the north like that is what i think i don't think that we can actually comment on that because what we've shifted back both garages that are out of the district in those other lots of say that and those garages and parking area and school property feel free to correct me if i'm wrong that's all going to be one property parcel one parcel quote correct because this whether it be apartments or condos that's all going to be one parent parcel so regardless i mean so this parcel is going to spain the hung historic district boundary and you know what i know is the how historic this to commission reviews what's and with and that boundary i don't know if you can go outside that boundary just because the parcel line goes outside that boundary but we can say like you said that setback is important and that's important to the district commission we can say we want that footprint and here seventeen feet all to let and then it right away extend right so that's quite a change from this and would be important you know and if you would if you can what i also heard is it's important to have that ten foot separation between the two garage buildings is that correct and i've already texted karen once but she's still in the air flying to her father's house and if the commission moves forward tonight that is something we will verify with our city attorney but if you're looking at just the footprint conversation tonight that twenty four by sixty and you know an appropriate size for that garage i think that separation because you don't want them to combine them and you want to preserve that know i guess but that's kind of a big unknown and if you're saying that pushing the garages over the property line means that they personally won't be in our jurisdiction i mean i think that's something that i is there concern that in your jurisdiction as far as design or being able to say you may not go further north than the north historic district district what's your concern i guess i don't know it's just a new one known that i'm not exactly sure how it affects us going forward  if your goal is to lop off or parking stalls then say that i would definitely be open to that idea i'm not taking off or still kind of present the overall question of our four large garages in the right spot in the district as far as i don't think we should feel pressure to say yes because there's no other option or anything else that plays around the project right it's for us to preserve the neighborhood how we think it's best and we think sometimes that that's hard to for us to say this is the best of what we've seen maybe but i do think number one comes into play as far as mass parking i'm not sure that has a place downtown here or has it yet as far as  like i've said before interrupts that rhythm and that's why i would be more in favor of keeping it and garages where they are and how about we just comment on that lot that's within the district and comment on footprints within that law given that we don't know whether we can or can't comment on anything that happens north of the state that footprint mu respect that setback of the neighboring house and give a max l to the garage to not realize this kind of messes it up because i don't you know if you just got rid of work rogers maybe they'd only be you know three or four garages with the brake but try to think of a way we could phrase it to only comment on what's clearly within the district make it very clear that you have to respect that setback we could say within the lot that they have parcelled out there for the garages that it must respect the setback of whatever it was i think seven teenage so it was seventeen feet and the garages must we are we have a width of the garages i suppose we could also put a minimal i mean i don't know that we i don't think you're planning on putting a bunch of once all garages there but we could at least see it i think that leaves some flexibility and it leaves the opportunity for us to find out whether we have jurisdiction over what happens beyond that  and again this is not a cia you know we're not we're just saying we won't say no based on this some guidance so conceptually i think everybody says they're ok with that garage just east of the school building on the eastern property on the eastern side of that property correct ok i'm seeing some nodding of heads for the four garages internally i think everybody is saying and you're ok with requiring seventeen foot setback there's two southernmost garages because we're asking the developer to more that's change the plan as presented correct your then everybody is saying that they are ok with requiring a ten foot separation between between the two garages you know maintaining that separation because that helps with scale the design you know the asphalt that you know what that's going to be already penetrate but the structure of those true northern garages if you don't have a say you know if there's a turning back and says no structures can go you know the boundary they can have a say over it are you saying that you're good with those five star you know those two five star garages that you know art twenty four just to the north and just you know you know they are going to be pushed further north and there's there's ten stalls on the site right twenty stalls there's four or five stall buildings twenty stalls so what if we tentatively approved eight stalls on a side with a ten foot brake you know four four four four and we sort of committed that we would not reject the c e o way based on that design that certainly doesn't prevent them from then coming back and saying hey we want to do something more on the land adjacent i think they're really just looking for our agreement that we won't reject based on the footprint i mean i'd certainly like that better their smaller garages  we approve it it's taking away i think the key justification for not approving it which is we just don't like rogers period and that is a commitment to say right now that's what i'm saying if we commit to this more committ just because they will conform to the way we want them to look so we will say yes build four buildings assuming that they look like we want to do that we want them there the first place is basically that we're standing that belongs on that lot i mean i think there are issues such as scale and massing which cannot be assessed by a footprint you know without drawings that are a definitive proposal i think you would still have the opportunity to say we have the footprint was ok but once i saw that the scale and massing of it  that would be a problem from our standpoint i think we'd rather have you say something about you respect the seventeen foot setback and we keep a ten foot yap between whatever is built but you don't the limit like staying forestalls because we're trying to eliminate as much and they give you to going forward right because quite honestly we're at a point of ok this is how much us i don't think you have the authority to by historical standards but you can think that and if you say that fun then we can make a decision accordingly and we're not i mean we're trying to work with the everybody that's involved in this thing and if it's not thirty two yes and it's everybody says it's got to be twenty six well then we know what it is and we can be on our way and i don't i don't want to have to come across the this or not then but i'd rather have you vote on and say no or then come up with something that we already know we won't agree with they're proposing for structures that are twenty four feet by sixty feet you know they can respect the seven hundred but just know that's going to push the buildings back they want to know are you twenty four by sixty and if you get to twenty four by sixty there are you get twenty four by sixty on the other two as well is that correct that's the question that's a final ten that we have to address on this  impasse by not making a decision is not really an option for us i have enough information and we have to have a motion for the support and a vote or we don't have enough information and we tabled it for more information that would be specific about what that would be the way that i mean that that's a good point i see where you guys are coming you don't want to pass in a more drawings and you did i mean you you brought some things which i guess this almost might have been an easier conversation if you said these are definitive and drawings you know i can't guarantee we're not issuing a seal late tonight we can't say that you know side scale massing but all we really know is factually accurate is the floor you know we're going to retire somewhat but i guess i'm advocating that the footprint as designed and you know i'm happy to make this motion if people are ready for that  i think we can word it such that you know it respects what they've they've drawn here but i think there still are there's a lot more variables in a in a c e o way that could affect the final decision and just to be clear for the commission your motion can't just be a simple motion like you've done in the past and the staff report the last paragraph of that report and that is a paragraph your motion needs to include i think chris if you feel comfortable taking emotion i if there's no discussion happening i think that it's the logical next step so both read this and at it but the application conceptual plan for garages to serve the residential redevelopment of washington school filed by the developer are not complete there is not sufficient detail to make a decision on a c e o way however this motion will comment on the footprint of the design i would motion the t more then and i don't recall the way that you're horny for no twenty four correct no more than twenty four feet wet with ten feet between about that sentence that you skipped about this would decrease the number of stalls from twenty to sixteen by removing them to account for that right away second did you want to include it in your motion second and then we can discuss it telling them when they need to have a step back we just said before do we not if we can't go beyond our boundaries if they have to cut seventeen feet off then doesn't that leave sixteen think yes unless you know they want to push them back but that would be and i'm not even sure we can comment on that number one and ye guess my motion would say basically it's lost when they pushed it back as long as they respected that sixty feet with ten foot breaks  floor i want to comment that your motion was directed to the floor on the north side of the street and really didn't mention the one on the south side of the street is i correct yeah i'm happy to amend it to also include the believe it is seven stall garage footprint as drawn on eleven street the one we kind of agree and you think it's important to include any information about the distance between the garages or off of lot lines i mean if if you're just going to say as shown then i guess that that clearly shows that changing the garages so that we're  i mean if you want to care correct yes there is the opportunity to make that motion the first motion that passed them failed was to approve the plan i submitted with a condition that the guard to be pushed seventeen further seventeen feet you know off the street right away extended if i hear you correctly the motion you're making to michele bachmann is that you approved the plan as submitted that the grudges be pushed back seventeen feet off the eleventh street right of way extended and that two of the four buildings must be sixty feet in length minus i don't know what the individual lengths of the start or call feet so it will be twenty four minus six the get you down to thirty six by twenty four and then at sixty that would be it would be that much of what those two conditions cracked right pretty much right here ok so chris's motion was to approve with the condition stated that didn't carry but you know normally i mean if you think about it he didn't say motion to deny the motion to approve but when you get a majority to agree on the motion to approve with the conditions that he gave so now we're back to discussing what conditions can put together for a motion to approve or if someone were to also make a motion to deny that the majority would agree to let the other alternative how  this one like that instead of taking the four off differed from when we said they had to go back seventeen feet we are letting them just the right so this one is chopping off what your motion was i would ask that you stay within that format of the agenda and even though there's nothing on the committee staff reports at least ask for that before you write to the adjournment talk about it again if you don't talk about it again then you are with conditions or you can make a motion to deny and if they approve that then we're done and then what would happen is i mean that receipt applicant could resubmit changes you can make a motion to deny it be very important to describe why it's there unless it's clear from the discussion i suppose but that's the findings that are take into consideration nearby properties right outside the district and approving something it would not hurt to make a motion to just postpone or go to your next meeting and it could be eight thirty and if not intimate if there's no progress on the site and there will be a thirty second agenda item at your next meeting but it progresses may and we do have some answers from the city attorney that was brought up tonight it could be revisited so a motion to postpone this item to take it with under advisement i think is warranted right now about something for the commission you can see similar to a we will cross that bridge in february from where they are but we'll come back with an answer for him ok you're clear