Planning Board - Regular Meeting

I said, well, that doesn't really help my cause now.

Thank you. Any questions for the applicant's representative?

No, but you know what, Hayden? I agree with you and Mike that we've got to be careful not to appear to rubber stamp these things as they come across the board. But this honestly seems like a special circumstance. I've lived here over 30 years, and I'm sure it's happened. I've never heard of a surveyor screwing up a line like that. It surprises me to hear that. My point being is that I think in this circumstance, the homeowner, shouldn't be penalized for that. I'm ready to make a motion to approve it.

Thank you. Thank you. Jeff, did you want to put a motion on the table, and then we can do public comment after? I would. I'd make a motion to approve this resolution. Second. All right. We have a motion by Member Ferringer, second by Member Jensen. Is there any public comment on this agenda item? All right. Any further comments from the board? Seeing none, Daisy, would you call the roll?

Yes. Item's approved. On to the next agenda item. Sherry, would you please read the resolution into the record?

Site visit, no communication. Site visit, and I did speak with the applicant's representative.

And I spoke with the applicant's representative.

The side yard has two different setback proposals.

OK. It's for all the people watching in. Oh, great. Thanks. The tens of people. Thanks.

Any other questions? I have one or two. Mary, as I understand it, staff, there was a prior side yard setback variance granted here, correct? Correct. What was staff's – I know that was a ways back. Do we know what staff's position was at the time?

Okay. That's all right. Does the fact that the STPAs have been closed out change staff's posture as it relates to a recommendation of denial on this at all?

Right. Any additional questions? All right. Thank you, Mary. Zach.

Maybe we could take a moment for Martin to see if he could get those operational.

And the back screen isn't working either.

It is not. Yeah. Well, we can continue. All right. I might want to wait, though, just so Member Finkel has the benefit of being able to see it. Yeah. Sorry.

While we're waiting, I might want to take advantage of it just to make one observation. With respect to the – the STPAs have been closed out, which is great, but with respect to the fact that Closing one of them out was a condition of the variance that I think we – or the inner pedestrian connector that we granted earlier this year. One observation I might have that might be helpful to consider is we may want to think about if we do future conditions about that, imposing a time limit on when the SDPA is to be closed out so that there's a little bit more of a ticking clock element for future on

Any questions for the applicant's representative?

Let me go to Joan first because she has her light sign on.

Okay. So, Zach, the purpose for extending the roof structure is, what is the purpose for this?

Okay. Instead of, and why not, the retractive?

Okay. And so your hardship would be, from my point of view, and correct me if you think I'm wrong, that Not to do this would mean that you keep having to remove the umbrellas in weather, and so it's a labor-intensive situation, whereas with the roof structure or something permanent, you do not have to do those things, correct?

Great. Jeff. Thank you, Zach. At the end of the day, what we're talking about here is just making a permanent roof structure over an existing area. That is what we're talking about. And from what I can see, and I've been by it 100 times, it does not do any additional construction to the west towards the sidewalk or anything. It's actually going to the south where the roof, the variance is going to the south. That property to the south, which would be to the right of that picture right there, this obviously does not impact the use of that property to the south in any way. We're just doing a roo

Okay. I don't think I have any, so does anyone want to put a motion on the table?

And as part of your motion, do you want to do the corrections that Zach pointed out?

Okay. We have a motion and a second. Is there any public comment on this agenda item? All right. Seeing none, any additional board comment? Okay. Daisy, would you call the roll?

Yes. That is approved. Okay. Any board communications?

I'll make a note that this has been a very smooth meeting with Hayden running it.

hope you're not watching somewhere Jason to hear that how soon we forget I have one comment thank you for to the city for recognizing our service and the goodies that we had waiting for us along with a very lovely message on the card yes I wholeheartedly agree with that and I would also like to say that I think sex comment on having procedures

delineated is a really good idea. I think it's always a good idea. And I would also like to say that when people come to speak to us, there should be a level of decorum. And I've seen the last several meetings where we've had contentious items on the agenda where there has been a level of rudeness that is not necessary from the speakers and it disturbs me because we try to do our job as best we can given the information we're given and we work hard at it I know all of us do and so I hope that no one's here right now to hear me say this but I hope that when people come and speak before us that

Just to actually piggyback on Joan's two points, and then I have one of my own. First, on the decorum conduct, I seem to remember A few years ago, city council or maybe the city attorney just prepared some sort of outlines of how members of the public and board members and community members ought to conduct themselves in hearings like this. Was that codified anywhere or enshrined in any sort of rule of procedure or –

And I would imagine that code of conduct would extend to advisory boards like the planning board as well. Correct. Yes. It's something, Joan makes a great point, it's something to be mindful of and maybe we ought to be more reminding of when there's a contentious item. The second item Joan mentioned, I would agree with that as well on the question of specific rules of procedure. I noticed in doing some research and I got sent some information that there appears to be for city council I think it's a rules of procedure governing quasi-judicial hearings. And I would wonder if that extends to the

Okay. Great. I had one more communication or question, which was a few meetings back we made a recommendation and passed as a board the concept of talking about possible remote appearances by board members on a limited basis and asked staff if they would bring that issue before council. I was just wondering to see if there had been any update on that issue.

So if I could just make a quick comment on that.

I totally understand and appreciate that. However, I would just say since the Board did vote on that item, I would hope it would get brought up to Council at some point on a future agenda. I would also note, someone sent this in to me, I know and I think it was Councillor Schwan was unable to vote at that meeting for that reason, but in doing some homework and hearing from a certain individual in the public, they pointed to my attention that The immediate four past times in which a council member was zooming in or remote participating in for a quasi-judicial matter, there were two different st

I understand. Thank you, David. You're welcome. That's all I had. Anything else from anyone else?

I just wanted to comment that I apologize for not being able to be here and participate in person. But I'm perfectly fine. My surgery was successful. And again, I know it was very important work that you did in my absence. And I'm sorry that I wasn't able to participate.

Well, that's perfectly OK. And we're glad you're well. And we're glad to have you back, Nanette. OK. Seeing no other board communication items, I'd entertain a motion to adjourn. All those in favor? All right. We are adjourned. Thank you, everyone.