Loading...
08/13/18 UDCDR1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 UNIVERSITY DISTRICT CITIZEN'S DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE SPECIAL MEETING August 13, 2018 MEMBERS PRESENT: Nancy Binneweg Greg Smith (Councillor) Sally Cutter Heather Watenpaugh Susan Landin Dustin Chavez STAFF PRESENT: Adam Ochoa, Planner, CLC Sara Gonzalez, Planner, CLC Becky Baum, Recording Secretary, RC Creations, LLC OTHERS PRESENT: Marty Pillar Dennis Crimmins Julie Chacksfield Jake Redfern I. CALL TO ORDER (10:00) Binneweg: Good morning. I'd like to call the meeting to order. 11. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - October 2, 2017 Binneweg: Our first business would be the minutes for the October 2, 2017 meeting. Are there any corrections/changes? I would like to clarify that I was saying, I was calling the irrigation drainage ditch an acequia, not an asagua or whatever. It should be acequia or irrigation ditch as we Anglos call it. Otherwise anyone else have any corrections? Smith: I'm glad you caught that. I'll make a motion to accept the minutes with that change. Cutter: Isecond it. Binneweg: It's been moved and seconded. All in favor. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. III. NEW BUSINESS 1. Case No. 71726: A request for approval of a variances to the maximum freestanding sign height and size requirement of the University District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Overlay for a property encompassing 18.36 +/- acres, zoned UD-UAZ (University District -University Avenue Zone) and is located on the northeast corner of E. University Avenue and Locust Street; a.k.a. 1701 E. University Avenue. Submitted by G.E. Pan American Plaza, LLC. Binneweg: Well we'll go on to our new business which shows we have two cases. Adam will lead us through them. Ochoa: Thank you ma'am. Good morning everybody. First case we have today is Case 71726, it is a proposed sign variance for the proposed new sign or I guess replacement sign for the Pan Am Plaza located at 1701 E. University Avenue. Currently just to give you a little, I'm sure you all know where this is, but the subject property is located on the northeast comer of E. University Avenue and Locust Street. It is located in the University District -University Avenue Zone (UD-UAZ). There is an existing shopping center on the property of course with multiple fast food restaurants and so forth like that throughout as well. There is an existing freestanding sign that fronts University Avenue on the property currently. Just to give you a rough idea of where this is; NMSU to the south here, 1-25 to the east, and this is the shopping center that we're talking, again zoned UD-UAZ. An aerial of that shopping center here showing here the shopping center at University Avenue. The existing sign and the area of the sign that we're looking at is basically right here. Here is a photo of that existing sign. The sign was constructed around circa 1983, that is when the sign permit was issued for it. The current sign as you can see it is dated, definitely, but it measures 24-feet in height, roughly about 139 square feet in size. Smith: I'm sorry Adam. What was the current height again? Ochoa: Twenty-four feet. Smith: Okay. Ochoa: The proposed new sign or replacement sign that's being proposed, is definitely an upgrade of what's existing out there. The proposed new sign is the same height, 24-feet in height, will be located roughly around the same area as the existing sign is and it's actually is smaller in size, it's 122 square feet in size. The reason we're here today is because the University District Overlay which is kind of encouraging more of a pedestrian oriented type development has freestanding sign requirement of maximum of three -feet in height and 24 square feet in size. With that being said, when staff took a look at this and did our analysis we did find no health, safety, or welfare issues with the proposed sign. When staff is looking at this again, we saw that the existing freestanding sign was constructed to serve more a multi- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 tenant centric shopping center and that's what is existing there now in the Pan Am Plaza. The current LIDO freestanding sign requirements as I stated are more for smaller developments if you will, restricting size, restricting the size of the actual buildings, restricting the size of the actual property is what the UDO currently does you know to make it more of a pedestrian -centric development is what's being done. But the existing shopping center is not this type of development, but it was constructed prior to any existence of any type of overlay in the area and it just followed commercial standards of its day if you will. With that we do believe that the new replacement sign is much more logical for the property and just more aesthetically pleasing for the property and for the area as well. Staff also believes that the replacement sign has a potential to spur some additional economic development or redevelopment on the property with some of those vacant suites or in the area as well. When I put this together staff did not receive any public input from surrounding properties, of note, we'll send out following all City requirements for public notification. FYI though, staff did get a phone call this morning that somebody was extremely happy to see this new sign because they hated that old ugly sign, as they put it. They did not leave their information though. That's all they stated. With that staff does recommend approval for the proposed variance based on the findings that the proposed sign is more aesthetically pleasing for the subject property and the surrounding area and can potentially spur economic development or redevelopment for the property and the surrounding area as well. The University District Citizens Design Review Committee is a recommending body to the Planning and Zoning Commission, so whatever you all vote today that recommendation will be taken before the Planning and Zoning Commission later this month as well. With that your options today ladies and gentlemen is: 1) To vote "yes" to recommend approval for the proposed sign variance as recommended by staff; 2) To vote "no" and deny the proposed variance, just an FYI the denial requires new information of facts not identified by staff or by the staff report; 3) To vote "yes" with any conditions deemed appropriate by the committee; or 4) To vote to table and postpone the proposed case and direct staff and the applicant accordingly. The applicant is here if you have any questions for her and I stand for questions as well. Binneweg: Thank you for your presentation Mr. Ochoa. Committee, any questions, comments, input? Smith: Thank you Madam Chair. And I think this will be a vast improvement over what's existing. Certainly the Dairy Queen Brazier hasn't been there in a while and that of course is not a question of that whole sign. But the one concern that I do have because I frequently am in that center is that the old sign as you can see is up on a post and you can sort of see around it as you're coming up to that intersection in the parking lot. Has anything 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 been done as far as assessing how much this might block people's view of cars entering as you're trying, at that little intersection. Chacksfield: Are you talking about in the shopping center? Binneweg: Could you identify yourselves please? Chacksfield: I'm Julie Chacksfield and I'm with Colliers International, we're the property manager for the property. We haven't done anything formal in a way of seeing if that is a problem. I mean we've met with the sign company which is EJs Electrical Services and we sited the property, looked at all options. Based on where the property is we can't go further up because it's City property, but we didn't see any problems there on this particular area. And there is a stop sign on that side where the sign would be. Smith: And that as I said is my only concern. So I would just throw that in as something that I would expect to be perhaps evaluated a little further when you take it before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Chacksfield: Okay. Binneweg: Mr. Ochoa. Ochoa: Just an FYI sir. I just want to clarify as well. This proposed variance was sent to a number of reviewing departments in the City. The Utility Department reviewed it as well as our Traffic Engineering Department and they stated they're okay with the proposed sign as long as it meets the clear sight triangle requirements to make sure that it's outside of the sight vision for any type of traffic out there. The University District does allow the sign to go as close as five -feet from the front property line, but that can be adjusted or will be adjusted as needed to meet clear sight triangle requirements. That is a requirement that they will need to follow. Smith: Okay. Well thank you Mr. Ochoa. I would simply say that that particular situation where you've got people sometimes with a burst of speed trying to get into or out of the parking lot from University which can be problematic because there's not a light at that particular intersection, at least if I remember correctly, there's not. And so that can be a place where people are sometimes not putting their full attention into how they're driving and I would just want to make sure we're not making it more difficult for people to be safe in there. Thank you. Ochoa: Yes sir. Make sure we get that requirement in there Smith: Thank you. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Binneweg: There any other input? My comment is, is we're all familiar with this new style of sign. They have it on Valley with the new commercial near Avenida de Mesilla where the Village Inn is, it looks much more updated. The older one is definitely dated. So thank you very much. That'll be a nice improvement. Landin: Yes, great. Binneweg: Any other input, questions? Nichols: Yes Madam Chairman. This is always a dilemma putting new signage on sites, especially when these business centers. There is a need for them to be identified, at the same time we're interested in not blighting the streetscape if you will. So when the staff was going through the review we recognized that it is a much larger sign than what was originally permitted by code but I think it is an improvement certainly on what's there and it would address the concerns of the business owners. I share Mr. Smith's concern about the visibility, particularly with traffic, but I think that can be provided that we observe that sight triangle of 25-feet of no obstruction, I think that would be a responsible solution to that. Binneweg: Thank you very much. Are there any other comments? Watenpaugh:l do have a comment. The sign that's up now, it's been there for over 30 years and I don't know when we're going to redevelop University Avenue Corridor. I would hope it would be within 35 years. Is there a way that we could approve it contingent upon review of that sign when we redevelop in the hopes that we ever do, to have the corridor be more pedestrian friendly? Could it be 20 years from now we look and we have all the money in the world, we can redevelop the corridor how we'd like. I mean I'm just thinking from the University's perspective its not the type of signage we're putting up. I mean we're now looking at our monumental signage, and 24-feet is huge. If there was a person drawn in that you would see the scale. Twenty-four feet is just a tall sign and it is not pedestrian friendly. I understand the need for it now and the concerns now, but I think we also need to consider the future and the development. So is there a way that we could approve it now and put some kind of review on it, a timeline for the future, if we're redeveloping the Corridor we would review that signage and require it be replaced. Ochoa: So a condition basically stating, if I could wordsmith something "At the time of potential future University Avenue Corridor redevelopment the University District Citizens Design Review Committee shall revisit the sign for it fitting into the potential of the redevelopment of the University Avenue Corridor." Basically, correct. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Watenpaugh:Yes, because this is an exception to what the overall objective is for the corridor. Binneweg: Excuse me. I think the exception is the fact that it's a big commercial property. I mean that in front of Starbucks would be "Oh hell no, that's not going to happen" But in front of an 18 acre commercial property I think, and with the sign that they need to identify the people in it. The University has a built in draw. They have a built in customer that's going to the University, people know what they're doing going on campus there. But to have a commercial marquee like that, for the size of the property and Ws not even all built out yet, so I think that the new signage is proportionate to the size of the commercial endeavor there. Smith: Madam Chair, one other point is that at the time that this was built in 1983 everything was back from the streets, so basically the identifying signs that are on the buildings themselves are not immediately apparent to people driving by, so that's kind of another condition. If we and the university were working together to redevelop this differently we would probably be encouraging people to push forward even more forward than Dublin's is. Binneweg: Yes Smith: But we're dealing with an existing situation with the sign and I don't know legally if we can put that kind of condition on there to sort of bind a future situation, but probably the conditional piece could be a timeframe. We could say it's approved for 10 years or something like that but I don't know how that would work either. Binneweg: No. You look at what they're doing now, the property owners are coming forth to change their sign because the other one is very outdated. If University gets something going so strong that that looks bad, the property owners will be back here to give something that has the taste that they want. You can't force, you know 10 years tell the property owner "You guys are going to have to change your sign to what we want now." We're seeing this new design in commercial areas around town and it's proportionate. Smith: But they are asking for an exception and they're making a change, so that's why they're coming before us. So that's the point at which we have the input as far as okay we set up a standard of the three feet with a different kind of contingency or different kind of context in mind. So the question's before us and I'm simply saying I agree this is an improvement. Ms. Watenpaugh brought forth a question of but if situation changes with a more pedestrian friendly University Avenue in front of there, how do we 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 build in something for that contingency. I don't know. I don't know that there is a way to do that. Binneweg: Yes Mr. Ochoa. Ochoa: If I may Madam Chair. So currently like I said before the entire property itself does not fit the University District Overlay. There are actually triggers in the University District Overlay, percentage of building, additions, monetary additions, cost of what they're building and so forth like that, that will require the property to come into compliance; one being signage. So if they did a rather large addition to the property and then costs of evaluation is at a certain level, that signage would have to come into compliance now and that variance would go away basically because they're now eliminating that variance by doing an addition. In other words that nonconformity goes away. Smith: Those other changes kick that in. Ochoa: Exactly. So there are still triggers within code that they're going to have to follow University District Overlay requirements which would include the property's way too big than what the University District Overlay allows, so that's going to have to be resolved. The size of the building's too big than what the University District allows, that would have to be taken care of. So there are a number of issues that would have to be taken care of when any of these triggers, and I would think and sign would be one of those things that would have to be brought into compliance as well with one of those triggers. Just wanted to bring that up. Watenpaugh:So they would have to remove the sign that we're looking at today. Ochoa: They would have to remove the sign or ask for another variance, including any other variances they would need in order to keep the property as it exists. Watenpaugh:l mean I agree that this is an improvement over what is there, but I also agree that we shouldn't make bad situations worse. Ochoa: Sure. Watenpaugh:If we know that we have different ideals for this area, we should design to those urban conditions. Ochoa: Definitely don't disagree with that ma'am, but like I said I think the code already has those built in triggers to make compliance with the University District existing now. So I think we'll be okay. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Watenpaugh:ls there any way you could show us what that would be or bring that up to planning? I just haven't seen that. Ochoa: Sure. It's definitely within the documents or the actual Overlay itself and I could send that you all just to show you kind of those triggers if you will. There are different tiers is what they call them. So when those tiers or those things are hit, then the property will have to come into compliance. Watenpaugh:Okay. Nichols: Madam Chairman. Those are codified and so that would have the potential to correct these items that we're talking about and they would be coming under review. So you would have that sort of an arrow in your quiver if you will to take care of situations like this if you were to do a major enhancement or correction of the University Corridor. I think, I believe, I could check it with legal or whatever, but I believe that would enable you to have enough authority to control situations like that without having to add another condition to this variance request. Binneweg: Yes, I think Mr. Ochoa explained very well that this is not a static plaza. What we see today is not what is always going to be. Ochoa: Correct. Binneweg: Because it's such a large piece of property and every time they come in to change something we're looking at it, all the aspects again. So this is not the last time we'll see this sign. Ochoa: Right. Binneweg: As opposed to 40 years ago when it first went up. Ochoa: We'll definitely see this property again. Binneweg: Thank you very much. Any more input? I'll accept a motion on Case 71726. Landin: Motion to approve. Binneweg: Is there a second? Smith: I'll second. Binneweg: It's been moved and seconded. All in favor say "aye. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Binneweg: Any opposed? Thank you. 2. Case No. 71728: A request for approval of a proposed redevelopment project for a new commercial restaurant with a drive-thru for properties encompassing 0.75 +/- acres, zoned UD-UAZ (University District -University Avenue Zone) and located on the north side of E. University Avenue, 544 +/- feet east of its intersection with El Paseo Road; a.k.a. 805 & 815 E. University Avenue. Submitted by WSCI, LLC. Binneweg: We'll go onto Case No. 71728. Adam will describe this case to us. Ochoa: Before I move forward ladies and gentlemen, just wanted to give you guys a little bit of information about our new mic we have here. It catches everything we say, just FYI, so let's try to keep the ... Smith: Whispered comments. Binneweg: Side conversations down. Ochoa: If possible please. We appreciate that. Make her job easier. So next and last case we have today ladies and gentlemen is Case 71728, it is a proposed redevelopment of two properties located at 805 and 815 E. University Avenue. Subject property is located on the north side of University Avenue, roughly about 544 feet east of its intersection with El Paseo Road. Currently there are existing residential structures on those two properties. There's a single-family home, and I believe like a small apartment complex on the other one. The property is zoned UD-UAZ, University District -University Avenue Zone. Showing the properties here along the University, NMSU to the south between El Paseo and Espina. These are the properties, the single-family home here and that multifamily structure here, University Avenue and the Casa de Bandera apartment complex is right behind it just to let you know where it is. What the applicant is proposing is to essentially demolish the residential structures on the property and redevelop it for a new Burger King with a drive-thru. The plans you have before you there, the site plan, elevations and so forth like that show that the proposed redevelopment will meet all site development requirements of the University District which will include the parking requirements, the setback requirements, landscaping requirements, landscaping requirements within the property, so on and so forth like that. Setback requirements as well including one big one being that the building's going to be right up front, right along the front property which is something that the University District Overlay really wants and encourages. The property, it being a drive-thru, drive-thrus are typically discouraged in the University District Overlay, but there are exceptions outlined in the University District Overlay that would allow a drive-thru restaurant if that drive-thru be located outside of the front facade or behind the property which this definitely does as you can see with that, this is located behind the building, cannot see the drive-thru essentially from the front, so its outside of the front area as typical drive-thrus are. The proposal will also meet most of the building design requirements of the University District Overlay including front facade requirements and so and so forth like that. The property will also be required to meet all development standards of the 2001 Zoning Code that are not covered by the actual University District Overlay. And just an FYI to the Committee, any major changes to this proposal will require resubmittal to the University District Citizens Design Review Committee for your re -review if you will. Here is that site plan showing the building right at the front, green areas are where proposed landscaping will be, parking behind the building which is something that is strongly encouraged by the University District Overlay. A drive-thru along the back on the side of the property which is again something the University District Overlay strongly encourages as well for this property. This property kind of mimics if you will or looks like close to the Chick-fil-A site that we looked at a couple of years ago. This fits that same design or look of that Chick-fil-A that was previously approved by the University District Citizens Design Review Committee. These are the elevations that are given to staff by the applicant. Just FYI, there are new elevations before you to take a look at for your reviewing pleasure and in color as well just so you get a look at what that new building's going to look like. Which brings up my next point which is the glazing requirement. The University District Overlay requires a minimum of 50% of the front facade to have windows. Of that front facade 60% has to be transparent. Additionally all other facades occupied by a minimum of 20% windows as well. The elevations that were provided to staff did not meet that requirement, did not show they met those requirements, but these new site plans you have before you do show that they meet those requirements, including 50% coverage on the front, 60% transparency, and then 20% on all other sides. So forget this one and go to the one that's before you because that does meet the requirements for the glazing. When staff did their analysis we did see that the project does meet all requirements of the University District Overlay as well as all the requirements of the 2001 Zoning Code as well, including number of parking stalls, bicycle parking stalls, and so on and so forth like that. And again all major changes, any major changes, will have to be brought before you again if anything does change. Staff did send this out to the surrounding property owners for public notice. Staff did not receive any public comment or input about the proposed redevelopment. With that staff does recommend approval with conditions, that condition being essentially that the new restaurant shall meet the window/glazing requirements of the University District Overlay for all building facades. 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 This condition was placed on there by staff and it's in your staff report because we did not get these new ones, but staff feels this is a condition that should still be met and I believe the applicant is still open for this to be met as well. Staff does recommend approval with that condition. Ladies and gentlemen your options for this one is: 1) To vote "yes" and approve the proposal as recommended by staff; 2) To deny the proposal, again any denials will require new information of fads for why you're recommending denial; 3) To vote "yes" with any additional conditions deemed appropriate by the Committee; and 4) To table and postpone the proposal and direct staff and the applicant accordingly. The applicant and his engineer are here for any questions, and I stand for questions as well. Binneweg: Thank you Mr. Ochoa. Committee, input, comments? Cutter: Is that driveway wide enough for two cars comfortably to get in and out of there? Ochoa: Yes ma'am. Its 27-foot wide, actually the code I believe is a minimum of 24-feet wide is what's required. So it does meet the minimum width to allow for two-way driving aisle. Cutter: Thank you. Binneweg: Two of those big huge diesel pick-up trucks side -by -side with the mirrors that stick out that far. Ochoa: They'll have to wait their turns. Binneweg: Exactly. Hold up traffic on University getting in and out. Any other comments? Yes. Smith: Madam Chair. We don't have our Historic Preservation Ordinance in place yet and even when we do we're not looking at having it be restrictive as far as what people do with their own properties, but we are hoping that we will do a better job in the future of informing people that they have historic properties and that perhaps those historic properties can be used in ways that are beneficial to all concerned. So what I will say is that the apartment there is probably adobe and probably built about 80 or 90 years ago. The house probably in that same timeframe. Various professors have lived there over the years. And so to me I can't oppose this per se because you're doing all of the things that we're asking you to do in the area and we haven't got any kind of restrictions on historic properties, but I will express my disappointment that nothing else was found to do with those two particular properties because they are part of the historic fabric of the University area and basically the Hadley House is a block away or so and that's one of the outstanding remaining historic properties. And 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 then up across from where the new Art Building is there are a few more historic properties there that were professor's homes. So that's my disappointment, simply that we are not doing a better job of helping our historic fabric stay in place. Other than that I appreciate the efforts made to address the glazing issues, address the frontage on the street, and those kinds of things. I think those are all very much in keeping with what we're trying to do along there. Thank you. Thank you Madam Chair. Binneweg: I would give input that these poor pieces of property in a good flood they're both flooded. Because developments happened all around them and they are now the lowest swimming pool on University Avenue. So there's no way to jack up adobe buildings and move them somewhere, or that's what you would have done, and so they're in just a vulnerable position and it needs to go the way of Chick-fil-A unfortunately. Okay, anyone else? Cutter: I have a question about traffic coming east, will there be, what kind of a turn lane will there because it will be so close to the intersection. Seems like its already a traffic jam by Pioneer Bank, that lane when you're turning left. Binneweg: There's a turning lane. Smith: There's a middle lane. Cutter: Well there is but I meant it's busy. It goes both ways. Smith: It doesn't have a median. Binneweg: (inaudible) fender benders right there. Landin: There's a band right there, two banks. Smith: I face the other cars coming the other direction when turning. Cutter: That's the issue. That's what I'm asking. Binneweg: It's what it is. Any other input? Nichols: Adam would you bring up the site plan? Speaking about that condition, we have the 27-foot width here. Fortunately what the site plan has done is with a drive-in provision, they've permitted a stacking condition here whereas if the drive-in, the window were closer this way, then you would start having traffic back up and be obstructive and it would be restrictive and maybe not quite as available to negotiate the exit and enter into the site. The only item that I had with it, but this is part of engineering is that people coming in and people finish being served here will have to get 12 across this little kind of a pinch -point there. And then having these bays here for parking, probably would be a little bit of a concern. But that would be, it would not be restricted by code or it might be, it'd be an engineering site development item that might be looked at. I can't remember Adam, do they need all those spaces for parking? Ochoa: Yes sir. Nichols: So they don't have any to give. Ochoa: Unfortunately not. They're right at the minimum. Nichols: Then that kind of answers that question. But those would be my comments Madam Chair. Binneweg: Thank you very much for your input. Any other comments? I will accept a motion on Case 71728. Landin: Motion to approve. Chavez: Second. Binneweg: Been moved and seconded. Any other discussion? All in favor. Chavez: That motion's with the condition of glazing, correct? Ochoa: Yes. Binneweg: Yes. Chavez: Okay. Binneweg: Okay. All in favor. MOTION PASSES. Binneweg: Any opposed? Smith: Madam Chair. I'm abstaining. I sit on the Historic Preservation Ad Hoc Committee and we have been working very hard to save our historic buildings. I cannot, even though 1 approve of the way this is being handled as far as development, I cannot approve of the portion being tom down. So the demolition part I have to object to. 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Binneweg: All right. Motion passes, one abstention. Thank you for your presentation. I'm sure the students will just be overjoyed with anther choice of eatery in the area. IV. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Binneweg: Any public participation? V. ADJOURNMENT (10:34) Binneweg: I guess the meeting will be adjourned. Chairperson 14