Concern is ground floor windows but I think “if approved” is the control mechanism. HD – question on page 30. The under balcony’s wording says they may be occupied by porch or exterior patio space. John what did you mean by that? “A frontage type …. Balconies may be occupied by porch or exterior patio space.” John Hoal – refers to an occupiable space. (inaudible) HD – page 31, with bay and oriel windows – like that they are limited to 6 feet in depth and length of 8 feet. Have you considered windows could be stacked and could do an 8 foot wide bay then 2 feet, another 8 foot wide bay, building would be bay windows extending 6 feet into the right of way? JH – noting a percentage of maximum areas of façade would you be comfortable if we looked at that? HD – Agreed a percentage coverage maximum would handle the issue.

8

SL – page 38, toward bottom, section 410.020. Is that part of Article IV? SI – Everything struck out in that section is part of Article 1 – it is at the beginning. It removes references to CBD and Downtown Overlay and adds the Northeast Downtown Overlay. SL- moving into Design Guidelines. HD – page 18, paragraph C. Balconies encourage on street facades but now required. Notes “false” balconies are prohibited. Prohibited across the board or just on a street façade? If across the board, then why? John Hoal – “yes” because they are false. Different then where you can have a hand rail or Juliette balcony. Can you show us examples of false balconies that represents what you are thinking about? HD – no, but ability to open doors, 6-8 inches from face, added decorative element from exterior, and from interior provided a felling of a balcony. John Hoal – I don’t see the difference. I wouldn’t call what you are talking about, a false balcony. I define it as 12-18 inches non-occupiable space. HD – I think a definition would help for false balconies. John Hoal – we will provide clarification. SL – Have the members of the original steering committee received the information where they can look at it? Susan Istenes – drafts are posted under “Pending Applications” on web site. SL – would like to pull in steering committee at next meeting to see if they have comments. Otherwise, I feel pretty good as to where we got tonight.

9

Susan Istenes – noted that the reports that are on the web are the same that the Commission received. Formatting is different because it is an ordinance, updated today. Seeing no other speakers, the Chairman closed the public hearing on this issue. Discussion regarding staff presentations. Susan Istenes gave a summary of the staff report presentations. Discussion centered around shortening the verbiage, items that have conflict or code requirements should be brought up, but items like lighting or trash enclosures may be noted that they meet all requirements, leaving the detail for items of importance as you described which are code items. Bob Denlow – happy with status quo. You don’t have to read it verbatim, but to highlight some of the points works for me. SL – it will be a judgement process to determine what the highlights are – the staff can make that decision as to what is critical to highlight vs what could be alluded to. Probably some parts that could have less discussion. HD – hit the highlights and summarize GH – hit highlight quick and move it through quick. GH – Should an affirmation from staff that its posted to the web site given first, then I am for a very short report reading. SL – could make that statement, but they (the public) have homework to do before the come to the meeting. Susan Istenes – everything is loaded on the web site at the same time we send this Commission an email notifying you of the availability of staff reports. SL – lets give process a try and making it available to public is very important, also. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m.