Preservation Commission - Regular Meeting

Call to order the October 20th, 2025 public hearing of the City of Prescuit Preservation Commission. Members present, James Macccarver, Rob Johnson, Mike King, Diane Travis, the vice chair, and I'm Rick Sprain the chair. Other member of staff, Alex Brimlett, Jacob Lond, Chelsea Walton, Mayor Good, and Councilman Ted Jambo Gambogi. This is an open public hearing that is being recorded by the city. The proceedings are being televised by representatives of the public media, local cable and or radio stations that may be broadcasted. The total number of commissions present is five and require a majority vote of those present to pass a motion. All parties wishing to be heard will be expected to state their name for the record, speak loudly, and close to the microphone. Make sure all your telephones are turned off and we'll turn this over. Dallas,

I think we have the meeting minutes for the first item. Yes, please.

Do I have a motion for the approve the minutes for the July 11th meeting and the July 22nd and the September 12th? Mr. Chair, Diane Travis, I move to approve the meeting minutes from July, both July meetings and September, I believe it was. Have a second. I'll second that.

I'll approve. Say I. I. against. Motion carries. Now we'll turn it over.

Wonderful. Wait for that presentation to get queued up. Perfect. Well, thank you. Good morning, chair, vice chair, and commission members. My name is Alex Braramlet. I'm the planning manager for community development. Um, by now I've met most of you, but I've never presented in front of you. So, thanks for having me. We're here this morning to review the Prescat Plaza Hotel submitt record number HP25-00006. Taking it high level for a minute, this property is located within downtown Prescuit across the street from the courthouse plaza within Whiskey Row. The current addresses are 1361 138 and 140 South Monzuma Street. The property is located in the Purple area which is the downtown business zoning district. A zoning district enforces many things um but some of the key elements are use and setbacks. So with um in the downtown business zoning district hotel is a use that's allowed by right and there are no setback requirements from planning. Beyond the baseline zoning there are historic district overlays. So on the lefth hand side you can see the national district overlay. The property is located in the orange area which is designated as the courthouse plaza national historic district. National districts are used as a tool to identify a community's historic resources. On the right hand side is another overlay indicated in blue which is also known as the courthouse plaza but this is a local historic district. The designation of lo local historic district further protects and enhances specific resources through the process of design review. Local districts are how we implement the process of design review and we do that through the historic preservation master plan which was adopted in January of 1998. The plan is a guide for this city, the PPC and the public to understand and apply preservation principles. Shortly

following the adoption of the plan, an ordinance was adopted for the courthouse plaza local district. Adoption of the ordinance established authority for the courthouse plaza district to fall under PPC's jurisdiction and the ordinance is utilized for review and approval of all projects. So just a project overview here. Um I think we're all familiar but on the right hand side is an image of the existing building. It is not listed in the National Register of Historic Places. It's not considered a contributing resource within the district and the current business names are Mountain Spirit Gallery, Harley-Davidson, and Wild at Heart. On the bottom, you can see renderings for the proposal. So, it's going to be a 47 room hotel, and they're going to have an open air terrace with a retractable roof enclosure on the fourth floor to host a wine patio overlooking the courthouse plaza. There will be regular and Juliet balconies on the front and the alley side of the proposed structure with rot iron railings. The rear of the hotel, which is the second proposed rendering you see, is facing the alley and they will feature a hotel mercantile shop as well as a secondary entrance and an elevator for guests. So, the city outsourced the application review to a senior architectural historian with Broadbent and Associates. The city also asked the state historic preservation office or shipo to do a voluntary review which was received and forwarded to you all last Friday. Their review was focused solely on the secretary of interior standards section 9 standard 9 um as standard 3 and standard f 10 complied completely in their entirety. This presentation is based on the findings from broadband and the voluntary review from Shipo. High level overview from just the process. We're starting here with the Prescuit Preservation Commission for review and approval which is going to be based on the courthouse plaza local

historic district guidelines in the ordinance. Moving forward, they'll need to have a special use permit, a water service agreement application, and then finally, they'll need to apply for construction permits, which will encompass structural engineering, building and zoning codes, rightway encroachments, equipment, all of those elements. So, we'll just dive into the criteria. And the first one that we look at is the sighting of the building. All setbacks shall be zero for 50% of the first floor facade and 100% of the second and third floor facade including the roof line. So they um as the fourth story is not specifically addressed in the guidelines, Broadbent and Associates leaned on an elevation of the overrun using the design from the Secretary of Interior standards for rehabilitation. Standard 9 and 10 provide guidance on new work including addition, exterior alterations and new construction. As the proposed project is considered new construction, the standards for rehabilitation apply. Broadbent found that the proposed project meets standard 9 and that it will be differentiated from and compatible with the adjacent historic buildings, specifically existing historic materials, features, size, scale, and proportion. The fourth floor is stepped back and adequate distance so as to be minimally visual and give appearance of a three-story building from the public rightway. Broadband found that the proposed project will not negatively impact the integrity of the district and its ability to convey its historic significance. The proposed project does not meet certain aspects of standard 9 and all of standard 10. Prodent also found that the proposed project meets the specific guidelines for rooftop additions in the standards for rehabilitation which states that a rooftop addition on a multi-story building should be set back at least one full bay from the primary elevations. Being conspicuous when viewed from surrounding streets and be limited to

one story. Although the setback is technically not one full bay, it is found to be sufficiently set back as to not be visually intrusive. Further, as this building is new construction within an established historic district, Broadbent also consulted the National Park Service guidelines for new construction within the boundaries of a historic preservation district. Most notably, Broadbent found that the proposed project respects the historic setback and streetscape, does not obscure, damage or destroy character defining features of the district, and the massing scale size is proposed to be compatible with the district. Moving on to Shipo's analysis, which again is voluntary, is not required for this project since it's in a local district and they're only looking at the Secretary of Interior Standards, but they felt that the hotel facade is cited appropriately in the same plane as other building entrances along South Monizuma. The new building does not obscure character-defining features of its neighbors. In relation to extent buildings being protected, Shipo found the rhythm of listed buildings along Risky Row is interrupted by the height. However, Shipo acknowledged the previous proposal was five stories and they now propose four, which the applicant has reduced. And Shipo recommends when infill buildings are taller than their neighbors, the upper stories are set back to minimize their visibility. Given the history of the project and the understanding that the city previously recommended the applicant bring the patio roof in front of the buildings, Shipo suggested materials be revisited so they're less conspicuous or alternatively use a retractable awning which the applicant has proposed. Moving on the sighting of the building here is a site plan for the whole property and on the right hand side is the portion that's facing South Monzuma Street. You can see they're right up to the property line on the front side and

the rear pretty close which is in compliance with the zoning on the north and south side of the property. You can see it step back a little bit and that is to comply with fire codes. Here's a design guideline or a diagram of the property as well for the massing criteria which does comply. The height maximum is 48 ft on the left hand side. that's now facing South Monizuma, there's the balconies and the patio on the north or on the upper story. So on the the the very closest portion to South Monizuma Street is 36' 6 in. It's then stepped back that 153 15t 6 in and then it hits a 43t 6 in height and the maximum height of the overall structure is at the point of the elevator overrun. And then on the right hand side of the screen is towards the alley and the maximum height at that point is 46 feet and 5 in. So the fenistration or doors and windows section is certainly the most detailed portion of the criteria with specific measurements relating to storefront windows, non-stofront windows, and the relationship of walls to openings. Broadband did various measurements to determine the project did meet all the criteria. In summary, a wide variety of combinations is possible under the fenistrations and relations of walls to windows and the applicant has met all the criteria. Generally speaking too, the goal of the guidelines is to make the windows vertical in orientation which they have done and to have the maximum separation be of 10 ft. the design of the building criteria for roofs specifically. So they um want to have sorry a flat roof and that's what they do a slight pitch to just obviously for drainage

purposes. Um there is a parapet on the third floor and then most of their equipment the roof material everything like that is going to be enclosed within the elevator overrun. So none of that will be visible. The elevator over one will also be set back from the Monizuma street side about 53 feet. And the color and roof materials should be earth tone and match to color. So they meet all of those criteria. Building material criteria moving on wall and fenestration materials. I'm going to run through them. So we have the front street level with a uh natural stone ways conting. And I'll pause for a second too. The applicants provided samples which I'll pass around later. We're going to do that later. Above the ways coning to the top of the building will be a red brick veneer as the primary exterior color. Cornes, lintils, balconies and cornice will be of natural stone. The alley facade will feature red brick veneer as primary material along with natural stone for details. The first floor courthouse plaza facing window will feature canvas awnings in a burgundy striped pattern. All the windows are wood framed. Dogglehan style and front entry doors will be woodframed with transformed windows. And lastly, the suspended portigo above the front entrance will feature a Prescuit Plaza hotel signage. And just to note, Shipo noted they were pleased to see the hotel facade has been changed to a brick with modest stone Wayne scanting which better fits the color material range from the district. In summary of the overall review criteria, Broadbent and Associates found that the proposed project met all the applicable ordinance requirements under sighting, design, material, and other considerations. The applicant is still in the beginning phases of the overall proposed project, and we focus solely on implementation of the ordinance. Just to note too, the hotels are allowed by the

right in the downtown business owning district and the approval of this design doesn't constitute approval of the construction project. So some recommended motion options for you is to move to approve or deny HP25-006. Um the consultant who did the analysis is present. I know the applicant and their representatives are present as well and available for any questions. Thank you. I have a question regarding the uh proposal or if I can it who wrote

well maybe ask your question then we figure out yeah the building itself if it wasn't for what we are going through would that building qualify for historic preservation and and the national register I'm not sure I No, it's currently not listed. Correct. And no one has nominated it. So, it's not been analyzed at this time. Okay. So, they would just need to be somebody would just need to be put in for it basically. Then it would be analyzed and and it go through a review process. Okay.

Anybody have any questions so far before we get the public comment? Uh, Michael King, are we going to hear from broadband uh presentation or is it just Q&As's? Q&A. Oh, thank you.

Oh, yeah. This is Rob Johnson. So in that shipo document that you referenced, there's a couple of sections in there that uh they also agreed within the uh extent building issue that it was unprecedented in this neighborhood of one to threetory buildings. Okay, that was part of their comments. And in addition to that while it's diff differentiated of new construction has been achieved it has not been effectively balanced in terms of compatibility with the district. I just wanted to bring those were also their comments in that document. Thank you. Anybody else?

My name is Michael King. I'm new to the commission. Uh having been served for about 10 years, then I was off. I'm back on. If you haven't seen me in the last couple meetings, I've been in the audience following this project. So, I'm not new to what's what's going on today. Uh I'll ask a few questions to just set the tone for where I'm going with this. Um, and does the city full support fully support the work and the conclusions and an analysis and conclusion of the broadband and Miss Mooney? We are utilizing that for our staff report. Yes.

All right. And you fully support the work that Kaylee Nunes did before we brought board Bend in broadband in, right? Yes. Right. Uh one of the things about that was relative to the minutes that we approved today where Miss Nunees uh when the question was answered or asked about uh if things are not brought up in the guidelines or in the ordinance ordinances ordinance such as balconies and for story they were not brought up in the guidelines and she said and I'll ask the attorney she said that does not prohibit nor approve. Uh it doesn't mean you can't you can't uh approve things that are not in in in the uh ordinances. You have the ability to make a decision outside of what's not in the ordinance such as balconies and fourtory. Is that true, Mr. Attorney? That's consistently been the opinion of the legal department um as well as staff. So that that is true.

Thank you.

Jacob, you want to call our first person, please? Yes. Uh first speaker will be David Seagull. and I'll be timing you for two minutes and I'll give you a 30 second warning. Okay.

The city of Prescat's current historic preservation master plan was adopted by council in 1998. It serves as the primary resource for the public, staff, and preservation commissioners when work on historic properties is proposed. It is referenced in the city code and in the city's land development code as the document governing historic properties and districts. One of the legal definitions of code. A city ordinance is a specific law enacted by local government while a city code is a comprehensive collection of all laws. to council. You just said if it wasn't mentioned, it could be considered. The only thing that is mentioned is a maximum of three stories. Therefore, a fourth story by your own admission cannot be considered. In the recent letter sent to city attorney Joseph Young, their own attorney admits and acknowledges in four different locations that they are going to have an open air patio on the fourth floor. And behind that open air patio will be hotel rooms. Four times he acknowledges a fourth floor that is in contradiction to the preservation master plan again

30 seconds which is code is law. The bottom line is everything else is a distraction. Balconies treatment windows probably wallpaper and drapes. The fact is is that this was codified into code in 1998 with a maximum of three stories. Any vote to approve is a vote contrary to law. Thank you. Your time's up. Thank you. Next speaker is Mel RP.

And no applause. Please keep it civil. Thank you, Mel RP. How many minutes did you say we have? Oh, I thought it was three. In the past, it's been three, so I'll have to try to do some quick editing here. Um, I'm always asked, why has this project gone on for so long? It's pretty obvious to me. I've had expens extensive experience working for developers and getting their uh getting their approvals through cities. My process was one to be intimate with the city's ordinances, two work closely with city staff and the community. And I never had a project go on like this. Mine were approved quick and easy and I worked on projects many times this size. The uh July 22 preservation commission report states details must be historically consistent with the district. Um I'm only going to focus on details. I'm not going to focus on all the other shortcomings of the project. Uh people ask why wouldn't they just comply? Uh several reasons. One, it's cheaper to build a flat wall than one with detail on it. And uh two, the throughout the process, the applicant has shown a a desire to have a modern building, quote unquote. Uh and people have referred to these uh criteria as guidelines. They are criteria. And there's a big difference. Um we have to use the right word. The u best illustration of this difference uh I took from the last scene of the Pirates of the Caribbean movie which Captain Sparrow chewed out his crew for not obeying his orders. One of the um

crew members said we thought they were just guidelines. I think that's a good example of the difference between guidelines and criteria and this does not co uh pass muster. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker is Mike Fenick.

Good morning everyone. Uh my name is Mick Fenick. I uh spent 30 years in hospitality management. Uh my last job was up at the Prescuit Resort before Steve Brcetti. I was uh Arizona State 2003 hotel year of the year. So I know a little bit about hotels. I then went to work for the city of Prescat in facilities management. Um and the applicant came to me while I was working for the city to talk about various things of the building etc. I know a little bit about facilities management. I was responsible for bringing the Cardinals here and changing uh Ambry Riddle into a into a hotel for that week. Uh was over the Elks Opera House restoration. I've done a lot for the city. My point is uh in speaking with the applicant, this is a great hotel project. Uh very well thought out. He knows what he's doing. Uh I hope you approve it. And that's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you.

Next speaker is Don Bealey.

Don Bealey, 951 Norris Road. Uh, I only have two minutes. Is that correct? I'm not sure if I can make my point in two minutes. Uh, but I think you should be aware that there are some ironies here that should not be overlooked. My business partner and I have owned five buildings in Monizuma Street, downtown Prescuit. Three of them are right here in this block. Two across the street, the old American Laundry Building and the Mayberry building. And the third one is right here where we stand. Uh this was originally York Motors. Um it was sold and then it was presented as being a fivestory building and people came out of the woodwork saying you can't have fivetory building and the city declined it and limited this to being a three-story building which today the city would like five by the way. Um and uh you know I'm sorry, I lost my train of thought here. Um, the irony is, oh, the other thing is the u the flood plane. If you notice, we have to walk up the steps to get into the first floor of this building because it was in the flood plane. Yet a few years later, across the street is a fourstory hotel that was on city property that you enter at ground level and it's right next to Granite Creek. Again, it that this is this is private private property. That's city-owned property. The irony is up here we're dealing on a hotel that is privately owned. Yet on city-owned property, one block away is approved a four-story much uglier hotel by in my opinion. Um, and it I I the question is where's the

fairness? City-owned property versus privately owned property. In my opinion, city the old city lot should be a parking lot for downtown Prescuit and the merchants rather than a hotel. But your time's up. Okay, I think I made it in two minutes. There is some irony here and and there needs to be fairness. Teresa Riverwood.

Hi there. I'm Teresa Riverwood. I don't have any facts to present. Pull the microphone down, please.

It's above my head. I'm Teresa Riverwood. I don't have any facts to present. Just my opinion. My family has lived in Prescuit for 30 years. I've seen many manifestations around this town and changes. Um, sure, a hotel like this would be nice addition to Prescuit, just not this location. Um, I have concerns about the parking. I don't know if anyone's addressed that yet, but I would love to know where they plan on parking as that parking structure on Granite, I don't believe, is going to be able to withstand 47 more hotel rooms and all of the uh employees to also work there. What is going to happen to the street and foot traffic of the courthouse square during construction of this project? What kind of detours will there be? And how will this affect existing businesses that are already there? And I don't know about you, but when I go as a tourist to a town to their historic district, I would like to walk and shop and see all the beautiful things there are to see and maybe pick up some momentos to take home um and gifts for friends. I don't want to walk past hotel after hotel. They already have two hotels on that row. I would rather see shops and things that I can experience.

You got 30 seconds. I'm done. Thank you very much.

Richard Thompson. Oh, hi Richard Thompson Prescuit. I'm going to quote the um historic historic preservation master plan page 8.9. One story 6 to 24 ft. Two stories 28 to 36 ft. Three stories 40 to 48 ft. No four stories. Page 8.4. Building heights vary from 1 to three stories. 8 8 uh one nine. a limit of three stories and 48 feet. Uh 8.22 adhere to historic height ranges for one, two, and threetory buildings. Just on this fact alone, please vote to deny this project. Thank you,

Mary Frederickson. Mary Frederickson Prescuit. I only have two minutes. I've there was much I could say. Uh but I'll focus on the threetory as versus four story as you've already heard many people speak of. I counted eight separate instances of the guidelines referencing one, two, and three stories. Never any reference of the fourth. Um, I know the review of the architectural firm indicated, well, if they don't mention four, that doesn't mean we can't have four, but that requires throwing out all those references to one, two, and three stories. That's both within the guidelines, also referenced within the master plan. Um, so just ignoring all those references to three stories as the maximum is quite a leap uh and seems to be targeted more just to get the thing done, get the approval done without consideration of the fact that you're just going to have to ignore uh all those references to three stories as maximum. So I disagree with that point. I also disagree with the point that the um the design is compatible with the rest of whis with the rest of Whiskey Rose architecture. Nowhere else on that strip are there balconies that overhang the public rideway, the sidewalk. It's the only one. There is no building on that row that includes a patio with a overhang and railings that are visible from the street level. Um there's nothing about it that is compatible to Whiskey Row. That might be a subjective uh determination, but it's a correct

determination. Not not compatible. Thank you. Nancy Beats or Deetsz, sorry. Beats. Hi, I'm Nancy Beats. I live downtown in uh on Marina. Um I'm Hold the microphone down please a little bit.

Oh, thank you. I'm going to shift it a little bit to the alley, which we're we're talking about the functionality of the hotel, but we're talking about also loading and unloading of guests. And um the alleys should be recognized for a significance and contribution to our culture and our history. Although the alleys are public, they are not for general passage like a normal street. The Prescat Valley community explicitly defines alleys for not being for general use. The city traffic engineer has the authority to designate and indicate this restriction. So, I went personally with a tape measure yesterday and the narrowest part of that alley is right when you're leaving the public garage. There's a green utility bank and when I take the measure to the other side of the white line, um, we're only at 18 ft. So the alley as it sits is restrictive in itself and that would affect this project. Thank you.

That's all. Thank you everybody. Would anybody from the applicant like to come up? My name is Doug Stro 1000 Ainssworth and uh I think the uh um the presentation that's been done so far has pretty much covered all the points but I'm here to answer any other questions you might have. Um, in my opinion, in a lot of people's opinion, the height restriction is the overriding factor and um, you know, we try to make it a uh, look look like a a three-story building and that's why we set back the fourth floor. So, I think it'll be a great contributor and supporter for the fellow historic buildings downtown. So, I think it's it's um, going to be well accepted down the road. Anybody have questions?

Uh, Mr. Stro, uh, in in the minutes that we approved today, I don't remember which particular meeting it was, but there was dialogue, I think it was with the city council regarding the um, I lost my train of thought here a second regarding the the Juliet balconies. And during a break, you consulted with Mr. Gresette and uh Mr. Gresette yourself agreed that we would have Juliet, you would have Juliet balconies on the building. So that's what I was going by. Now when I see the new renderings, the balconies are not Juliet. So there's a change from your earlier commitment to make those Juliet balconies. It's a concern that I have. How do you render the

Well, the two there's three balconies on each of the second and third floor and the um the two center ones would be Juliet's but people really like the balconies. That's a really a positive thing. Keep your comments to yourself, please.

And you know when when people try to rent a room, I mean that's the first thing a lot of people ask for, including myself. So, I think it it really enhances the experience of the uh the visitors. And there are other examples of balconies uh in the in in town, not on Whiskey Row. And historically, there's been balconies throughout Prescuit. Also, um currently just on the firehouse right behind Whiskey Row, there's there's balconies overlook the sidewalk. I researched uh the um uh palace balcony and uh I think that that uh Jersey LS opened about 21 years ago and there's never been any issues with people throwing things over the balcony. And of course that's that's a bar and uh these are uh hotel rooms and there'll be more of the upscale suites. And of course, it's like anything. If somebody breaks the law, uh, they'll be handled. So, I think it would be a positive thing for a lot of people. And I continue, please, that um, it's a creature comfort, but the design seems to be in my my view obtrusive and out of character with that particular u neighborhood. Thank you.

Anybody else? D

Mr. Stro want to add on to that. Um when I had given my vote for the project, it was based on the Juliet balconies. Um while the ordinance or and the guidelines don't address balconies specifically the balconies would disrupt the continuous vertical plane required at zero setback which is not supported by the guidelines as I think as a compromise I was willing to do the Juliet but the balconies on the front are still a concern for me as well. Okay, Rick Spring, the roof on this, is this retractable or is it solid and in place?

It's retractable.

How are you able to get by? It is our guidelines. It is that the three stories and the zero setback for I mean, how do you justify that? Well, the patio roof u the the structure for the fascia is uh the structural beam and it u wraps around the entire patio. The u a patio roof has to be within the setback. In other words, if you built a house and you had wanted to do a covered patio, that covered patio has to be within the setback, too. I left my notes back there, but it's it's clearly denoted in the planning and zoning manual that um the uh the roof of a covered patio uh defines the building uh facade. So technically it meets the the zero setback.

Anyone else have question? Thank you.

Thank you. I'd like Oh, my name is Tim Sandifer. I'm an attorney with the Goldwater Institute and I represent the applicant. Arizona statutes number 9-843 prohibits the city from denying an applicant a permit or license for any reason that is not specified in the law, as does the due process clause of the Arizona Constitution. This right is reflected in statute 11-60023 which also prohibits the denial of an application for reasons not specified in the law. Section 9843 specifically requires that all criteria for licenses or applicants for land use per re uh purposes be specified in clear and unambiguous language and prohibits the use of subjective aesthetic criteria by those officials who might just prefer that a project look differently than it does. Nothing in the law limits the s the the the scale to three stories. The closest thing that the guidelines come to is on page 19 when it says that there should be a three-story limit, but no three-story limit has been implemented. A 48 foot limit has been implemented, but again, the application satisfies that criterion as well as all of the other criteria as specified in the broadband report. The city recently approved, as was mentioned by an earlier speaker, a fourstory structure in just September of 2024. So, I would urge the the commission to comply with state law and the state constitution and to u disregard statements even if ironically enough spoken by a person wearing a freedom t-shirt that would deny both property rights and the scope of due process of law.

Thank you. Deny it as a whole.

Any questions? All right. Comments. I have a question to um Miss Mooney with broadband please. Could you address the uh you know you didn't get a chance to present your information it was summarized by um Miss Alex and uh but nonetheless um what is your take on this idea of it's not for you you say this for story with balconies complies under the under your analysis. Could you help us understand the basis for your uh results and decision?

Courtney Mooney, Broadman and Associates um Phoenix Phoenix area. Um I uh was asked to review the the fourth story using the Secretary of the Interior Standards because the code uh with the city of Prescuit the design guidelines is silent on the fourth story. Um and so using that it the code the secretary of the interior standard states that if a fourth story is set back far enough is not visually obtrusive uh then it meets the requirements if it's you know if it's one story. So those are the guidelines that I used to review that and I found that it complied. I visited the uh the site this morning just to try to get a better sense of the overall uh building heights in the area. Um and you know standing in front of the building and trying to sort of imagine you know how how far back that would be that fourth story with the retractable awning and I I still think that it would be set back s um sufficiently to be not visually obtrusive.

Thank you. In your review, did you look at our preservation master plan? I did. in that chapter with the three stories and the setbacks. I did and your opinion on those were

again I was just I was asked to review the fourth story using the secretary of the interior standards uh because the code was silent on the three stories or the fourth story I'm sorry Diane Travis I'd like to point out one line that everyone keeps glancing over. This is page 13 of the ordinance. Yes, it does say three-story buildings shall be between 40 and 48 ft. It does does not mention a four-story building. However, the very next line says the maximum height of any building shall be 48 ft. I believe that's where you get your leeway to get the fourth floor. I agree with that. I know, excuse me. I know that Michael King again, I know that you referenced the guidelines about the attorney that just came up and said he's looking for codified laws and and the like. It is also in the ordinance. The ordinance says it shall be no more than 48 ft. Yes, it's silent on the four stories, but we know from our attorney, city attorney, that that's still okay to deal with that as long as it's within the the ordinance of 48 ft. It does not prohibit 48 ft. I mean, four stories is not prohibited, but 48 ft and higher is unless there's a waiver or something like that. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Comments.

I'd like to address uh another comment that was brought up. U I passed out this handout to the uh commission, my fellow commissioners. Uh in September, I was on that board. I was on that commission at the time. We voted for a four-story hotel on the corner of Cortez and Goodwin uh with with um Juliet balconies. There may be some current concern about precedent and that is by the way that is in the courthouse district. Yes, it's not on Whiskey Row but it's in the courthouse district so it applies. We have set somewhat of a precedence. I guess you could somewhat we've set a precedent on fourstory buildings in the courthouse district with Juliet balconies. I would like to see Juliet balconies on the a modification to the existing design. The fourstory we have the flexibility to make a decision on a four-story hotel as long as it's within 48 ft. That is my interpretation. And I just want the council and the people commissioners and u the rest of our audience to know that. Thank you.

Yeah, Rick Sprin. I was also on the commission. Then the original design of this also had a um on the second floor. They wanted the restaurant and they

they couldn't have any setback. So they came back with that. Also the full hotel is not within the historic district. I believe it's less than half of that. So if we would have approved a three story, we could have had a threetory over city hall, but the rest of it would have been had four stories. I think it would have looked a little ridiculous. Yes, we could have held it that way. And yes, I guess maybe we set precedent, but yeah, the full building is not within our our historic district. Any comments, further comments on this? Uh I'd like to address uh the Shipo report. It was purely uh voluntary and advisory. There's nothing in the Shipo report. The state historic preservation office said it holds us to any uh codification rules or like one of the things that uh was mentioned this uh regarding the uh the height of the building as it relates to the neighborhood. But when you see the the visuals that are up there, you're not seeing the whole neighborhood. You're only seeing the adjacent buildings which are lower, just the neighbor next to them, you know, but the neighborhood is Whiskey Row. And there are 30 43 and 45 ft buildings called the Palace Hotel, Palace Bar, and the St. Michael's Hotel. So, it's not really that far off of the whole neighborhood. There are other buildings similar heights on Whiskey Row of the same height, not just the neighbor next door.

More further,

just want to make a couple comments. Jim Macarver. Uh, in my opinion, the the building that building in the historic preservation district, especially those fronting the courthouse plaza should be constructed in agreement with the guidelines that we have so that we can preserve the historic character and the integrity of the downtown area. The way I read Ordinance City Ordinance 3744, which was adopted in April of 1998, the ordinance stated that properties within the Courthouse Plaza Historic Preservation District shall comply with those standards necessary, not should or could or may shall require with comply with those standards. So, I had three concerns about the building. One of the standards says there should be no setbacks past the first floor. There is a height restriction of 48 ft, which I think takes precedent over deciding how many floors you're going to squeeze in there. So, uh, I don't have an issue with four floors as long as it complies with the 48 ft height. Uh but I the fourth floor should have no setback just like if uh St. Michael had four floors. It's straight up. There's no terrace. There's no awning covering it. It's a straight set back. No setback building. I haven't mentioned uh the guidelines talk about using parapits at the top and that they're supposed to be four feet in

height and I don't have any idea the parapits that are there now how tall how high they are but if you had a no setback fourstory building 48 ft the parapits should be 4 foot in height if according to the guidelines and I know we've somewhat set a precedent with the Juliet uh balconies with the other hotel that was approved. Uh I think that I in my opinion they should be totally removed. No Juliet balconies at all. So those are my three concerns about the building. All right. I hate to kick a dead horse, but I'm going to anyway. Back in 1987 when they did a building inventory of downtown and Whiskey Row, and I'm quoting from the paper regarding this building, is an integral part of Monizuma Street, Whiskey Row landscape. There are remaining remnants of the re of the original structure. And when this first came before us, God year or two years ago, the or an owner prior to this was on the radio and I was I listened to him. He said one of the and there's no proof on this sheet or anywhere else, but he had stated that one of the front window facades was actually original and had been uh added to this building. And if you look at the building and you take in the codes and stuff that we have now, this was actually rebuilt and refurbished pretty much by the guidelines that have been set after this.

And again, I'm going to set go back on the uh preservation master plan and I'm going to read some of this stuff again. said to m to maintain the historic pattern all setbacks should be zero for at least 50% of the first floor which this is and 100% of the second and third floor facade including the roof line which is this is not um the fourth floor if it's allowed is not allowed to have a setback period and it says likewise all setbacks should be zero for all sides side yards and entire height and length of the building again which this does not and the design guidelines they're this and remember this was set in code for the city of Prescuit so this does make it law even though this is quite old and on page six of the design guidelines it is a crude drawing but there is a drawing of a fourstory building along with two and threetory buildings and the four story says no pretty simple there's also a drawing before for that. Under that, you see what we're talking about. And I believe it's in our pamphlet. It shows a one, two, and threetory building. No fourstory building. And the heights back in the historic preservation district. Um it says 70 foot wide, 24 uh height limit on that, but this principle also applies to two and threetory buildings. Again, it's no fourtory story. And to me, that means because four stories weren't allowed. Back on page 8.4 says, "Building heights may vary from one to three stories without regardive width." Again, no four story because it means three stories.

Period. Page 8.9. All buildings regardless of width or height are required to have a parapit on the at least 4 feet above the roof. This does not have that. On 8.19, a limit of three stories and 48 ft in height should be implemented immediately to preserve the character of the district. When this became city code, that became the law. it. So, it was implemented [Applause] and again on page 8.22, adhere the historic height um ranges for one, two, and threetory buildings. Again, no four stories because four stories weren't allowed. All right. Anybody further discussion? I go back to the uh expertise in this room. with Broadbent, with Kaylee Nunees, with the city who supports the interpretation that a fourstory building is not prohibited as we go through this analysis. So, I'm a layman. I'm a forester. I'm not an architect, but I know how to read and I know how to defer my expertise to those who have it. The city supports the interpretation that we can deal with a fourstory building and we can say yes. We are not handcuffed by the words that uh are seem to be coming forth. So I just want you know I'm deferring to the architect I mean the archaeologist over here Miss Broadband Miss Mooney and also the city staff who says it's okay to have a fourstory building within the

ordinances and the guidelines of this historical district. We have the flexibility if we choose to use it. We have the flexibility to add a Juliet balcony. We have the flexibility to do that. We just choose not. We some we may be choosing not to, but that this is my position on this right now. Thank you. I would respectfully disagree that in the preservation master plan is pretty explicit that it would be no more than three stories on the Whiskey Row area.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. the Attorney, could you please restate in your words and the legal basis for this?

The the objective standard is the height standard uh which is explicit in the the ordinance. What's not explicit in the ordinance is whether or not you can limit that height standard to four stories. It has consistently been the opinion of the attorney's office that you can go to four stories as long as you don't exceed the height limit. An example of where you've made a similar interpretation is with the uh hotel project over at the old city hall that went to four stories but is below that that height limit.

So you're just echoing what I just said. We have the flexibility to deal with a fourstory building. That's not what he said in the letter to his attorney last year. Yes, he wrote three stories.

No further, please. Gallery. Any further comment from the commissioner? My only other comment would be think back to September of last year when you voted for a four-story hotel. The whole project may not be in the downtown preservation district, but a majority of it was. And this commission voted unanimously for a fourstory hotel. All right, I'm going to make a motion. We'll see how it goes. I make a motion to deny HP250006. Do I have a second? All in favor? Oppose?

I motion carries. It's denied 3 to two. [Applause] Thank you everybody for coming. Appreciate it. Meeting is adjourned. Tell your your Hey,