mr. teague. but but but, uh, but but what was new information is that it's. thank you for asking it. uh, commissioner. and then i also hate you for asking it because it forces me to ask a follow up question. it was just disclosed that there is there is a bedroom up there and there is an apartment, uh, which is a separate apartment which is used, being used as an office when it's when it's not being used as a residence. is that correct? i'm sorry. say that again. so, so your your disclosure is that that unit which you want to which you want is a merger is currently not being used as a, a residential apartment, but it's being used as an accommodation by yourselves as owners, uh, for a, for a commercial purpose, that is to have houses office. correct. extension of our own personal space. we use it as part of our apartment. but it's still a separate. but it is a separate unit. it is apartment number two. apartment two. it's a separate unit because they won't let us combine it. yeah. i mean, a lot of

mr. teague, um, the. appellant's counsel spoke about, uh, the inappropriateness of a applying the residential design guidelines as, uh, you know, in the most recent, uh, doctor prosser. yes. uh, and also the, the illegality of applying the regs. so can you react to that? i think what he was referencing is, you know, um, updates to state law more recently along those lines, um, relative to the controls that are not objected live. so design guidelines that are not objective if the project is otherwise co complying. um the nuance there is that the decision the planning commission made was that the permit that was proposed. and that's before you here. what was proposed was not co complying because it violated the conditions of approval for the project prior and because the planning code, section 170 for those conditions became basically code requirements. right so you they basically said they rejected the idea that you could throw off objective conditions of approval just by filing a new permit for what they

mr. teague, i just had a question about any comments from the planning commission.uh, or new comments or additions that maybe could inform our commission. sure um, nothing specific from the planning commission on since they've they haven't taken any additional had any additional conversations or actions since november 30th. um, i would say one point to, uh, to address miss childish's point, um, is that the ordinance creates two separate thresholds for a preservation violation to be into eligibility for this higher penalty. one is demolition, which is a higher bar. you have to do more work, theoretically to do more removal to cross that definitional threshold. but the other is significant alteration or damage, which kind of by definition is a lower threshold. and if you meet either one, you're in, you're in the penalty box, so to speak. so um, that's why we talked at the last hearing a little bit about that for non article 1011 resources that are qualified for this penalty. um we proposed for demolition using the proposed definition or the existing definition of de f

mr. teague. thank you. just to speak briefly about the variances, um, there's three of them, but they're all relatively minor and they are very much responsive to kind of the unique property situation. and to the need for the for the canopy at the bottom for the wind. um which is also done in a way very much intended to meet the spirit of the underlying requirements. and so i'm supportive of all the variances. great. thank you. any other comments or questions from the commission? if not, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve with conditions on that motion. commissioner braun, i, commissioner ruiz. i commissioner diamond i commissioner. imperial i commissioner coppell i commissioner moore, a commissioner president. tanner i so move commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0. zoning administrator would say you close the public hearing for the variance and intend to grant the standard conditions. thank you, commissioners. i will place this under your discretionary review calendar. um, f