panels are actually observed sound, so the idea is when you have a hard surface, it amplifier'es. that did so absorbed into the panels. -- gets absorbed into the panels. it is mining the skylights as well as novel entryway whiles. -- walls. >> i did not mean to interrupt. is there any way to " sound and dampening on the doriors?

>> one thing that has not been touched on too much is one of the conditions is on main -- the awning. when you think about it being on an angle, that would respectfully trapped in a noise that would be escaping up word -- trap any noise that would be escaping upward. i am not sure how to do sound paneling on the doors. you>> what is your view of the swinging door as a compromise. as suggested that would close and lawock when not in use? >> this would close and when not in use.

when we look at different conditions for approval, we look at how to address the doors. with the doors close, there was no sound issue. it is really just how they are open curio -- they are open. one of them is going to be open 90% of the time they are used. we have our front entryway doris. >> what about the swinging? it would oautomatically shut after used? >> it has not been looked at.

it could certainly be an option. >> consider the possible compromise. >> we feel like a compromise put in place and is certainly recognize sayinthat the one pane feel would suffice. >> thank you. anything further? commissioners, the matter is submitted.

>> i will start curio -- start. let me ramble a little bit through the various issues. one point is that due process has not occurred. it may not have happened in an orderly fashion, but i believe they did get their hearing a little bit later, but it did not matter because it applies to the particular permit. they got their hearing here.

the procedural issues are not the things that are foremost in my thinking at this point in time. if the issue is predominantly one of norway'noise versus beha, the question of noise is one that perhaps should have been addressed on a more technical basis. they have a right to have their restaurant permitted in the zoning, but they also have the

responsibility of containing the business within their own promise, and the problem with acoustics is it is different perceptions by different people , and one person's noise threshold is different from another's. all we can do is look of something but applies to a broader range of people but one that addresses it in a more detailed fashion and what has been done correctly. i think it is incumbent upon the permit holder to take the project back and provide the

appropriate technical response to the noise issue. >> i will try to keep my remarks brief. i appreciate members on both sides sharing their perspectives, and especially people who live in the neighborhood. i was troubled by the procedural concerns raised by the appellant, and that struck me, and i find that whether it was intentional or whoever takes an -- or advertant, any issue that

does in some way prejudice the other side is going to hit a chord with me as unfair, although there was an effort to remedy that at a later date, and i appreciate assethat. it strikes me as operating in five days, -- in bad faith, but i also enjoy outdoor seating. i have an appreciation of where people are coming from on all sides of this issue. i liked the suggestion to put the burden on the project sponsor, so rather than having it be tested and to a sixth

later, -- do a fix later, let's do it now, and i would support a motion. >> i have to say i found the appellant and the community's argument for a persuasive -- very persuasive. i still stare at the pictures. gooid befuddles me. the parties were subject to what my fellow commissioners proposed, but i thought the appellants were very persuasive. >> are with somebody from the 20th-century had -- i wish

somebody from the 20th century has spoken favorably of this. i hope it does not end up being an issue of us older folks against the younger folk. it seems that is unfortunately the way this seems to be breaking down, and i do not know if this is about the first floor were the second floor except that it might further amplify the sound. it is not an issue of whether all prfollowed, because there ae processes in place to take care of it. all those issues take care of themselves. it is not about the integrity of the other owners. nor is it about the degree to

which this issue helps to add to the vibrancy of the union it is none of those. i think the safety issue is trying to throw something at the wall and see if it sticks. i think the real issue is noise, and i do not know anything about acoustics, but i did used to ride a motorcycle. the sound would get squeezed through a small cone, and if i wrote down a narrow street and downshifted, i could break a window. it was loud, and i think this is going to be allowed. -- is going to be loud. it does not have to do with whether we should shut them down. it has to do with whether we

should allow them to enhance their business by allowing seating for 48 people. >> 12. >> i thought it was for 12 tables. 12 people total? and you balance that against to not mitigate. mr. lee talked about the neighbors being able to have a quiet enjoyment of their own homes, so how do we strike at violence -- strike a balance? i do not think the argument was well made, and i think they will continue to be a vibrant business without the deck. i was leaning more towards causing them to enclose it in glass,, but i think where the

board is going is to send it back to the permit holder and have him look into a mitigation measure such as having a swinging door such that as people go in and out, it self- closes, because it would seem the effect on 10 new -- on attenuation of noise should be obvious commo, and i think thata reasonable measure. i think the mood is not to impose that on the permit holder but to throw it at him to be able to affect the feasibility of doing something like that and anything else that might satisfy reasonable concerns for the neighbor, so the motion i am going to make who would be to continue this to allow the

permit holder to come back before this board with his own mitigation measures, realizing if the board does not think it will satisfy some concerns of the neighbors, then those might not satisfy this board. goo>> before you make a motion,i considered that initially, but i was leaning towards replication of the permits. >> i do not know if i would go there at all.

somebody talk about the fact they could stand there, and i do not think there is anything to prevent eight other people, 10 people from standing out there, so let's see where the motion goes, and we might not have any other people agreeing to with us, but i will go ahead with a motion to continue this for the permit holder to come up with his own mitigation measures for dampening the noise further than it is the curator -- then it is. >> would you want additional briefing? would you also want responses? how many pages would you like to propose a? >> i have no feelings on that. if they want to go with it, 12.

i am fine with it, but other commissioners might feel differently. >> i would feel better if it was shorter, so maybe six pages. >> six pages of a briefing by both sides, and would you have the permit holders submit to weeks prior and the appellants in one week prior bowman -- prior? the you want to propose a date? >> the onus is on him to do this, first to tell us what time he needs, and we will find out what is most reasonable for the board in terms of our schedule.

>> we want to get this addressed as soon as possible, so we probably need three or four weeks to put something together. >> the further it goes, you are the one who would be home, so take as much time as you want. >> we have a full board on aug. sa10. does that work for you? >> let's do august 10. >> is the appellant ok with august 10? >> for the august 10 hearing, and the permit holders submit a would be due thursday, july 28, and the appellant would be due

thursday, august 4. >> and then august 10. >> are you clear what is the board is asking you to do? >> i would like some further instructions. >> my feeling is that with the door that is always open, and noise has to a state superior region would escape. good the suggestion would be the -- some noise would escape.

i would want to have someone to say that it should dampen the noise so as to satisfy the neighbors that it might be a reasonable accommodation of mitigation, so if a better idea develops, you are not barred from offering a better idea. >> are we trying to address going up to the second and third floors, or is that street shuffle also? -- street level also? >> wherever it travels. >> the issue is not so directional.

i would and that you need to start with a bases. it leads into their recommendations as to how that is as mitigated. >> i would like to add that to the extent you're dealing with the neighborhood group, perhaps a chance to talk with some of the people here and maybe have of you point of a third floor when you do your testing and analysis, so to the extent you can work to address this, i would strongly encourage stafth. >> nothing would prevent you

from inviting the appellant, and that would further involved getting the ultimate approval from this board. >> if you can call the motion to continue. >> the motion is to allow the permit holder to review additional measures. additional briefing is allowed. on that motion -- [calling votes] the vote is 4-0. this matter is continued on august 10. >> if i can ask the people leave

the room quietly, we have another matter to a tense to. we can return to heighten -- to attend soto. we can move to item 4d. is the requester here? i want to express my appreciation of your patience. gartn >> did you want to addrese board? he's trying to save you from having to say anything.

>> i do not have anything other than their response. if you would like, i can read it. >> we would move to deny it. >> is there any departmental comments? >> this was subject to notification, and no review requests were filed. >> as stated by the planning department, it was posted on the property, and if there was any error, it was on the part of the requester and not on the part of the city. >> on the motion, to deny the request.

[calling votes. the vote is 4-0. jurisdiction is denied. >> there is no further business.