Planning Commission - public_hearing

That's a box.

is um

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

It's not. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah.

The first order of business we have is consideration of the minutes of June 3rd, 2036. Do any of the board members wish to suggest any alterations on the minutes?

Do any members of the public have any comments on the minutes? Can I get a motion on the minutes?

So moved.

Second. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Okay. Thanks, Adam. Next item on the docket is the consent calendar. I just wanted to ask you a question.

So we have two items in the consent calendar this evening. Item number three and four. Item three is EAR-2026-016-0, Old Restored District. Because the signage at 6153, applicant is a team representing the company represented by Patience, Patience, Schaffer, Kampbacher. And number four is BAR-2026-001-8-4-3-5, request for signage at 618-203, the applicant is Vance Vann, represented by Robert James, president of the department.

Do any of the members of the board wish to remove these items from the consent calendar? None.

Do any of the members of the caucus wish to remove these items from the consent calendar? None. Do we have more questions? Can I get a motion?

Make a motion to approve the consent calendar.

Thank you. All in favor? Aye.

Opposed?

We will move on to the unfinished business, and I know it's previously deferred. I'm happy to use this moment. Bye.

Absolutely. Thank you so much for getting me to work here. It's an improvement, so enjoy your evening. Um, item number five under unfinished visit to the first item number five is PAR-026-00130 for the historic district for the operation of the 409 South Royal Street. The applicant is more than correctly approved and is represented by Rachel Devon.

Hi.

Stan, I have a markup over here.

Certainly.

I think you should say your name.

Certainly. I'm Nate Moore, and I'll be presenting Rachel's independence as well. We need additional information. And my address is 3101 Woodland Lane.

Would you like to give a presentation?

Yes, please. I get to drive today, huh?

perfect all right thank you um thank you for hearing the uh proposal board and staff thank you for your very thorough historic evaluation for the progress all right so the subject property is 409 south royal it is a twin property with its neighbor and Oh, can we line up? Yeah, perfect. Yeah, it's a twin property with its neighbor at 411 and the are of the style Colonial Revival Revival rather. Some of the items had been approved or weren't part of the review process for this board. The three items that are remaining are the request to paint the brick and to install a decorative cornice and fascia trim at the front and the rear, and to install some decorative window trim. The homeowner is a big proponent of historic elements and would like to see some of those in this property. Staff was unable to support this initiative because they noted that it wasn't in line with the some of the aspects of colonial revival, and it also was preferred to have it match the twin property. So we are presenting to see if some middle ground might be able to be found here. So the first portion that is being proposed is to create some neighborhood appropriate window trim as kind of shown on the right. That's an example from Fairfax Street. Right now, the existing conditions of the window is as shown on the left. So that is the request for the window trim. There's also some historic examples of other properties that have similar as far as the other requests for the panes and the cornice. So you can see that there are other properties that were built as twins, but have transitioned over the years to more of a sisterly appearance as opposed to a twin appearance. And again, just driving around town, there's a number of examples of this.

Some of them are very close to what the homeowner is going for.

So I don't want to take up too much of your guys' time here. The ask is, again, for those three elements and to get a feel for the board's opinions on the matter and what flexibility might be able to be offered.

Members of the board, do you have any questions? You can ask them now and we can at the time of the meeting.

One question. Has any of this been or the shutters put on already or not? That's part of it.

That's not part of the review here.

They've already been approved.

Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this invitation?

John? We'll open it for deliberation for comments on the board amendments.

I think we'll open it for the public hearing.

Yes, I think we'll open it for the public hearing. We'll move on to the member board member's intervention. Anyone wants to go first?

I personally support the staff's analysis of the project and support. And although there are examples of door enclosures in the neighborhood, I think that they are not appropriate either. So I support going forward with Something that's not appropriate. Oh, sorry.

Well, I was saying I can't support painting unheated brick.

And I agree with the staff's recommendation of not putting this ornate trim onto the building that is not in keeping with the original building.

I also support staff recommendation in this case because it is a twin and because we don't normally, it's a rare exception that we ever approve unpainted brick to be painted. And also I really am not so, the decorative fascia trim Room cresting at the front side and rear elevations. I don't, well, I didn't see many drawings. I don't think it's appropriate for this. We've seen this somewhere, a roof line, in this kind of awesome property in 1952, I think it is. I mean, it is definitely not typical of our community, so I can see them applying it.

Stop it.

First, I want to applaud you for trying to take a building that feels uninteresting and make it more interesting. I think the unfortunate part of the proposal is it's hard to institute a lot of creativity in our historic district. There's some strict rules, as you know. I would love to support your thoughtful, you know, approach, but I do think there's some historic elements that probably are not appropriate. And I think really the biggest problem is that it really creates incompatibility between, and I don't know, maybe my colleagues could comment on whether or not there are some more appropriate details that if you were to coordinate with your twin and come back with some different thoughts, that might be a way to approach this. So thank you, but I unfortunately support the staff.

I've seen over the many years I've been here, in some situations like this. Maybe back even in the early part of Alexander being gentrified and so forth, there were even Victorian houses sometimes that were being switched into more colonial style by little tweaks as you've suggested. I'm not as opposed to it as the guidelines should be, that I should be, Because I've seen this happen in other houses, and I think to myself, what would I do? I probably, I think it's very attractive. And I also don't think twins need to be stay twins. I don't think there are many houses that were built, you know, often there were two houses built at a time, most of the pattern. And sometimes there's an extra floor put on water, they change. So I don't see the need for that. They match, Because that's not a pattern. It is such a geometric, simple thing. At one point, when I looked at this, I thought, oh, what if you picked up on the modernist? It was built in 52. Is that what it was? I mean, sort of this mid-century modern direction. It may not be what you'd find as embracing, but it could be an artistic or architectural direction to go in. you know, to strengthen the design. I don't mind the idea of putting, if we didn't paint, you can't paint it, but if you did apply more sure of the other one, stain, maybe that would be a way to deal with the color. I wouldn't mind. I know this house well. I live about a block away. And I've looked at it from time to time and said, what would I do? I think it's handsome. I like the cornice. But it's probably the academic solution that we're guided by, and our guidelines are very influential with our board. Occasionally, we do deviate, and we did allow some trim to be added to a house that didn't have it in the past, or it was unclear whether it had. This definitely did never have trim. So the shutters are there. Could you do any of this just with paint? The south of Italy often paints architectural elements. I don't think the board has a purview over decorative painting, does it?

This would be a painted mystery, so I guess...

Paint or stain, for it to be...

The board would have a purview over it.

You would have a purview over it. But I mean, if it was two colors of stain or wash or something like that, you might be able to get something done.

Let me see, was there anything else?

Well, again, I remember how other people have changed the stylistic things. It's been happening for decades. It depends on the mood of the community and the fashion that we follow. But it's very handsome. At this time, it seems at least we may have a stronger opinion in the other direction. Thank you.

Thank you. I agree with Mr. Adams that I am not so-so that the twins need to be identical twins, fraternal twins. Born at the same time, but they look different, subtly different. One's a girl, one's a boy, whatever. But I And I agree with Ms. Adams' idea that, you know, these are buildings, they will change over time, and our guidelines are our guidelines, but we as the board can actually say, okay, these changes are acceptable. Now, the changes that you're asking for, I don't support, but I am not against the idea of the building changing.

And I do agree with the staff foundation I don't disagree and we should do it that way. Also, the other changes that you have suggested are not in . I don't want to discourage you from changing, making changes to the house. It's just you're saying you keep any changes that you're making in accordance to the style that the building was built on, which is a colonial revival style. which for Windows is a pretty simple style of building. For Windows, I think I heard you said you are adding shutters, Google shutters, so that is typically one of the red windows. And these windows are kept pretty simple. So overall, basically, I agree with the recommendations of the staff. But do you agree with the staff?

I mean, to a large extent, it's not my place to say exactly. I've noticed that when we've been in front of the board with larger projects where we're building additions or doing things like that, we get a greater degree of flexibility on the style changes that we can make to things. But again, the regulations are pretty clear. Again, staff did a great job of outlining what the historic elements are and the relevant regulations are. So I can't necessarily disagree with that. I would ask for a couple other pieces of guidance in moving forward with this. Mr. Adams recommended a stain. I don't know if that would be something that would be agreeable to the board. to give it some kind of delineation. Additionally, the homeowners asked if she coordinated with the neighbor to do some of this with some of it to be possible. Most notably, the cornice. Right now, there is no cornice. It's just a bent piece of metal. I do find it a little hard to think that the board wouldn't approve some kind of something that's a little bit more decorative. I mean, that just looks bad the way that it is now. So I would ask if there could be some kind of flexibility on that, given that there's not an architectural element worth protecting when it's a bent piece of metal across the roof of a brick building. As far as the window trim and detail, I get it. It's part of a different period, different style. So those would be my questions for guidance. Is A, would the board be more open to it in coordination with the neighbors if it was done at the same time. B, would the board be supportive of not painting, but washing or staining of any kind that would be more period appropriate? And C, would you allow some kind of detail for that roof line that right now just doesn't look commensurate with the value of the property?

So it's acceptable for the

That's the question about our timeline. Do we discourage stating on unfinished prayer? Yes. So that's the third.

Yes, the other guidelines are very close. The board has the exceptions. I don't have the exceptions in various cases, but the guidelines do discourage it, yes.

And that's because it's a permanent application for this thing.

Correct.

i don't know excuse me for interrupting but on that subject is lime wash is that permissible again it's not it's not encouraged but again the board can be accepted but it is discouraged well i would consider um i would consider giving more consideration and likely an approval to all three of the items you mentioned

the river line something other than the matter of the state um possibly a lot of sugar about staying we do occasionally magic sessions and um oh my what was the third thing you said oh if the neighbors would do this something similar and of course the cornice yes yeah that really uh i don't know that that influences our guidelines over it doesn't but um Certainly, it's a consideration. What the neighbors think is always a consideration for me. So I'll just share that with you.

I don't think it necessarily needs to match the next door that we see changes over time between the two buildings. But I personally don't support the but the other items, again, we're not saying we not to improve or not to change it, just in accordance with the colonial revival style. So if you want to change the corners or the windows around the window, I find it is in accordance with the style that the building was built in.

I didn't know if you, there are other, I didn't know if you looked at the stairs and railing and the concrete you're seeing and stuff. I'm looking at moving the set. I'm supporting with staff to, you know, beyond the building itself, the stairs going up to the front door. And, you know, I don't think you necessarily have to reset the neighbor if you're changing, if you're going to develop a, you know, an appropriate tram, you know, for the quantity of the tram to be the steward on this building, then that's acceptable. And again, I can't support permanently staining the brick. You know, we can actually take the paint off of the brick, which is sometimes more acceptable than permanently staining this brick. That'll be there for another 100 years.

meters or something so i asked for a point of clarification on that yeah oh sorry i don't know the protocol for interruptions um what about sealants that'll just change the sheen is that because that wouldn't be a stain that would just be a change of machine as a sealant um i feel like it could fall under a maintenance category nearly too so the beauty of really being homeless

So if you feel the brick, you start to trap moisture in the walls.

That's part of the reason we don't want it to be painted, not to trap moisture. It's a whole system. I was going to chime in, so if you don't mind.

I could support some changes, as I said earlier. I think the cornice, changing the cornice would be very handsome on this building. I'm not sure if I supported the dental cornice that you were proposing that I saw here. I think that one's appropriate, but it's simpler for the cornice, and I think if you wanted the staff to come up with a simpler cornice, that would be very nice. And I think the idea of what are the current steps in railing systems?

It's just as you see painted concrete metal rail.

I think changing that with stones make a dramatic difference on this house. And upgrading the railings to be a little more interesting could actually be something very interesting as well.

What about portico? I haven't checked with zoning if portico would be allowable, but from this board, would you be supportive of portico?

We've allowed some

covers over some doors. I think that would have to come back to us and see what that would look like. Fair enough, yeah.

We don't pull it out tonight.

Okay, yeah. So, would you, I mean, we can ask to all of the staff for an appointment.

The board can ask them if they'd like to defer and come back to this board with some additional designs. I would say I'm okay with it as long as the bridge is not painted to work with the staff in changing other evidence that one can afford to the colonial side.

I would almost prefer having to come back, especially if they're going to explore a protocol ID.

We obviously haven't discussed that with the homeowner yet, so it's just a question.

Flexibility to at least explore the ID.

Would you like to ask one of the federal?

Well, the homeowners in attendance can inquire with her.

Yes.

Would you like to have the hearing deferred and take some of the suggestions from the board to resubmit with possibly some of these changes? Or would you like to see if the board can give enough guidelines to have you just work with Rachel from the team and staff to make some improved changes?

I'm not sure we can provide it. Basically, We want to see if we can design from you that matches the colonial style.

Got it. Okay. So that is off the table then. Right.

Okay. The office tonight needed to have a vote tonight, an up or down vote, or to defer and be able to come back with some change at a later date.

If it doesn't pass, did you say that everybody?

If it doesn't pass.

If it doesn't.

come back for once it is again if it gets to nine and it can't not come back to the board for one year i think that makes my decision pretty easy um i i would like to defer uh and i would really appreciate the opportunity for our team to work with the staff to come up with some proposals that would be more mentally support i really appreciate everyone's time and interest um and care in this matter so thank you very much thank you a motion second and i'd vote to accept it make the motion to accept it

I'm going to. I'm going to.

I'm going to. I'm going to. I'm going to.

I'm going to. I'm going to. I'm going to. I'm going to. I'm going to. I'm going to. I'm going to.

I'm going to. Thank you. Thank you, Seth. Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm going to move on to the next item.

We are going to move on to the next item. Let's see if the docket gets a familiar name. So I will read it. Absolutely.

Docket number six and seven is BAR 2026-00116 and 113.

it is requested for full evaluation and tax elation at 4.24 as well as the addition and all operations at the same address and we have the archetype sure i'm karen conkey and four seven softly so um good evening thank you for hosting us again uh My client, Julie Acker, is here. She took very seriously your comments at the last hearing on May 20th, and we've come tonight with some provisions that we'd like to show you and hopefully your approval. So if we pull up the staff report, I think there's a pretty good image. That's fine. Well, we can keep talking about that. So if you saw your board packet, The bay window at the first floor was reduced by one foot in overall width. This was to have more brick area on either side to address the comments that were made. The layout of the bay was also changed to have three windows. There's three windows in the second floor, so now there's three windows on the first floor and then Models are more in scale and similar size to what is there. And let's see. The roofing material at the film mansard. Oh, there we go. There's demo. So one more page. Might be bad. It's a little hard to see here. Something happened with the hatch pattern in the PDF there. But yeah, there we go. We can kind of see it. So we changed the roofing material at the film mansard roof to be standing seam instead of just asphalt. And last but not least, we reduced the dorm by quite a bit. That was the main concern of the board. So we reduced it by three feet to basically tilt out a window. And so we've gone from four windows, or sorry, five windows to four. And we've reduced the height by changing to casements. I think that was Ms. Del Nino's question or request. We reduced the height of the dormer to give more roof space around the dorm itself. by going to a casement, but it still needs an interest requirement. With that, we agree with the staff's findings and are happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Do any members of the board have questions for the applicant? No? Do any members of the public wish to speak on this application? None. We'll go through the comments of the public and open it to deliberation from the board members. on the ones to go first. I think this is such a nice response to our last meeting, and I appreciate the attention that's given, and I'm hoping that I get to follow on it, and so we go in in terms of the time for the videos.

I'd be willing to work with staff if you want to reduce the number of lights, I'll read the comment on the chair.

We concur with the staff recommendation to approve and thanks the applicant for being responsive to board recommendations and especially for making the shift over both shorter and longer. It's much better. Great. Any other comments?

It looks very nice. I think the windows on the second floor with the larger scale panes actually looks better to me. And I've seen that done in other, even period campuses where the scale might be a little bigger there. I think the larger scale kind of fits nicely.

I had heard match the second floor, so that's what I was trying to do there. Yes, I was angry, I think.

The current window configuration is a little busy, so making the window lights a little bigger on that second floor is nicer. The question I have, though, is when you reduce the bay, when I look at the existing window layout on the first floor, they line up with the second floor windows on the existing. You've reduced the bay, so are you toothing in brick to fill that back in? I mean, the hope

I pondered that and really debated about that.

That's what your elevation is showing.

We're taking out a lot of brick. And I did a project at 101 Quay where we raised a windowsill. And I did Google Earth. I went down there and looked at it. And the contractor, one of the contractors they're looking to use did a phenomenal job. We really can't see how that was healed together. So we would just have to make sure the contractor does a really good job there. But yes, that gave me a little heartburn as well. Okay.

Didn't want to see like a double-lined situation.

Yeah, exactly.

Or a ghost of where it was.

Right.

Other than that, I actually appreciate all the hard work you guys have done.

Thank you. I wrote in my notes, well done. Thank you for listening to us. And I especially like that you've changed the asphalt roofing to metal roofing. I think that's going to make it that much more special. Thank you.

I have the same comment about the muntins. I think a six over six configuration like you had on the previous bay is less busy and more appropriate to book space. Other than that, thank you for being so responsive and receptive. Enjoy your view.

Thank you for the changes. I think it hasn't improved so much from the last time. I believe I was impressed for the last time. So anyone wants to make a motion?

Make a motion to approve first staff recommendations. Second, I do want to put the change of the buttons on the second floor, the pattern on the second floor to be larger lights.

Second, we'll adopt a friendly amendment with staff.

I accept your friendly amendment.

Mr. Spencer? Aye. Mr. Adams? Aye. Ms. Robbins? Aye.

Ms. Miller? Aye.

And Ms. Stone? Aye. And Ms. Zandy? Aye. All right. Congratulations. Thank you so much. Have a good night.

Yes, sir. I'm sorry.

I'm sorry. What are you doing? I saw it.

I know.

I appreciate it. My point. We have a couple of items on the business tonight. I'm sorry, one item on the business tonight. Good evening. How are you doing?

My name is Gizem Eskaya. I am representing Police Design and Modeling this evening on behalf of the homeowner, Claiborne. Can you present your address? 401 North Lee Street. Would you like to give a presentation? Not necessarily. I think we fully concur with the staff's report and recommendations and would like to skip the presentation. Do many members... Any members of the board have questions for the applicant? Do any members of the board have questions for the applicant? None. Do any members of the public have any comments for this application?

We don't have any.

Awesome. Thank you.

Okay. We have a bigger for this for now. Oh, okay.

We'll close the comment section for the public and open the deliberation to the staff. Sorry, to the board members.

Do any of the board members would like to Any other comments on this?

I mean, this is another project well done, and I will support it. Thank you. Likewise.

Thank you. I just have a question on the ratings on the roof. Is that going to be painted black?

It's actually white. The existing actually is also a white color. The remaining is black, yeah. I support this, I think. Thank you very much.

Can I get a motion to take no comments?

I have a motion to approve. Second.

Do we have any more votes? Second. Michelle. Aye. Ms. Strachan.

Thank you so much. Thank you. I think we'll move on to the last item. What about this?

I don't know how it is.

P.A.R. claim required to review 5.2 on the grant. But the concept review of 4.1.5 is that the three have to be equally ruined by the entire attorney. I will remind the board this is a concept review. Second time you've seen this project. And as a reminder, concept review is a mass-scale general official character. You will see this again for specific appropriateness after the entire discussion.

Hello, welcome back.

Good evening, members of the board. Here to present some of the changes that we've done to address our VAR concept one. Patrick Enfield, PT Bloom's Development, and on behalf of the 415 in North Alfred address. So just high level changes to discuss. One of the more prominent issues that came up during our last review was introducing variety into the exterior skin. So we introduced a lighter color brick and decided to space them with a little bit of asymmetry to help improve that variety. We have added gables to that light brick color and we have included a herringbone finish inside the spandrel panels. which we further intend to add additional brick detailing, brick mold around the edge of the spandrel as we develop the details further. We have added windows to the north elevation. This is allowing us to kind of break up the mass of the brick wall, which is occurring on that left side of the photo. We have introduced variety in the style of the base, everything below the water table. So the intention is to have a cast stone water table that kind of consistently runs through the five townhomes. And then we have a vertical stack brick pattern on the beige properties. And then we have more of a cast stone band, larger bricks, large format brick profile that would go below that water table. introduces a little bit more flavor to it um on the beige townhouses we also included mansards to add some variety to the roofline i believe i believe in the staff report uh it was suggested to potentially uh move one of the gamers to all the way to the right to kind of i guess make it more symmetrical and reduce the the parapet height on that right side. I'm going to go through a couple of slides now, get into a little bit more specifics.

Just another high level breakdown of the floors.

So there are three levels. They start about 15 inches above grade on the first floor. They have private patios in the back. They have a fourth floor penthouse rooftop access. And they also have a separate garage with an ADU on top of the garage. These are a few different properties that we use to drive our inspiration, kind of big hardy bays, one of which was a quite read that address but i think 215 north alford 211. um and then there was two other properties on north columbus and north alfred that also have a similar bay projection and kind of a heavy cornice line that runs across the top We're virtually identical in our ADU setup. While this is a kind of middle block, and this can be seen from the end of the block, we have a very similar setup where it's kind of a private patio in between the main structure and the ADU structure with the garage. That's a view from the back right now. So one of the other improvements that we've made is there's a building, a one-story building there that'll be demolished. And right now it's basically face online. The alley is very narrow. We're pulling that back 10 feet so we can allow 22 feet spacing there. So that should help and benefit the neighborhood as well to make it a little bit more easier to move around and for any homeowners to access their homes.

Actually, it's 12.

There's a 10-foot alley, and then we're pulling back the garage 12 feet.

I'm going to skip through this one, get through the color ones. It's a little bit easier to see.

This is a side angle from the north elevation showing the fenestration on the window facades.

and the mass of one of the smaller properties on the block. And this kind of highlights what we've changed overall.

So along with the changes that we've made in the front, which I'll recap on here, We've also made a bunch of changes at the alley to bring in more natural light, kind of break up the flat walls, the monolithic walls, and add a little bit variety by adding different material inside of the outdoor spaces. So on the old submission, you'll see it was very, very consistent design, probably a little too consistent for BAR's liking. And so what we did, you'll see the gable roofs, those black areas are really where the mansard sits. That's what we've introduced to kind of add variety to the roof line. On the rear side of the main structure, we've really opened up the glass to let a lot of nice natural light in. It's hidden from street view. So we think if there was an opportunity to be more modern, this is where it is. And then you'll see at the bottom, we've paired two sets of balconies together and then a singular one on the left. And I think Bill mentioned that we've He may want to figure out a better way to divide those spaces with screen walls, and I'll show you that here in a second with the color rendering. I think we agree with that and we can work with him to get that fixed up. It's a pretty stark difference. Overall, the general massing is the same and the bay projections are the same. We wanted to make sure that, you know, new construction reads like new construction, but does pull elements of historic design from throughout the city. So, you know, we're not trying to be inauthentic here, but we do appreciate, you know, the character of historic looking buildings. So, you know, that's why we've added the herringbone spandrel panels. We have the cast stone sills for the windows, cast stone bands at the cornice line at the water table, cast stone below the water table in certain areas where the red brick is. The red brick will have a more natural variety, very common in older bricks, not just a flat red brick. The beige will probably be more consistent, more of a wire cut brick, more modern, kind of fitted in between the two structures. And then we've introduced, again, the gable to break it up. And again, we're open to the suggestion to move that gable to the right and kind of cap the sides of the property. We've also broken up kind of the monolithic mass for the fourth floor. We don't see this being visible from the street, but at the off chance it is, we feel this helps, one, introduce light into the space, but also make it feel less noticeable.

There we go.

So we happen to be on the taller side of the block. So we feel it's appropriate to build the scale that we're doing. I believe the staff agrees with us. One thing that was not clear on the last submission was property 403A, which really has a much higher roof line. And we are very consistent with that in our design. The same with 407 and 405, which is kind of sandwiched in between. But really, the ridge line of the roof is really where we're lining up versus 403A, which is more of the front cornice line. So here's kind of a street view standing on the other side of the sidewalk at an angle. You can see you can kind of barely see the top edge. of that access, so visually it should go away pretty nicely. These are just your typical floor plans showing the layout across first, second, third floor. There'll be a little bit of variety based on where the entry into the unit is. These kind of enlarged elevations really capture how many windows we've added. We've done it both on the front and back of the ADU. So great natural light coming in breaks up the mass from the back of the structure and also from the alley. And we also shifted or reduced the outdoor space slightly in order to allow for more windows and just kind of moving around to accommodate the request of the board. the general layout we were moving around. The upper elevation, you'll see that's kind of the full elevation backside of the ADUs. You'll see that before there was no windows at the top. We've added quite a bit to accommodate that request. We've also agreed to expand the depth of the sidewalk to six feet. It's a natural brick. It's a little bit One of these is misrepresented as concrete, but right now it's a brick paver. So we'll extend that about six feet. That'll bring it closer to the house and match up with the standards of what the city's looking for. And then we're introducing landscaping beds to add a little bit of variety to the front of the buildings. And then obviously we're adding street trees in accordance with the standards for TNS. And so

I'll give you one last image.

So you'll see the backside of the ADU now has, we're thinking of more of a wood appearing, probably not actual wood, like a cedar, because it just deteriorates so quickly in the natural sun. So we'll probably do a material like maybe a trex or timber trex or something that mirrors that and warms up interior of that space um but we do feel it's successful in breaking up that that wider siding in the back so that's that's all i have i'd love to hear your your thoughts uh do you have any uh members of the public is wayne neal

I would like to get your permission to say something about my credentials that I didn't say last time.

before the clock start. Well, I'm past president of the American Institute of Architects in the late 1990s. During that period of time, the thing I'm most proud of is we need two design boards for buildings in Alexandria. One of them is 915 Washington Street. It's a triangular building at the corner of Allentown and Washington Street, and it was designed to stand character hold down north. And the other one was 1215 with Pitt Street, two office buildings that were intended to do the same thing into the waterfront, the new waterfront area. I didn't say that last time, but I think it's important and I'm going to try and read this in two minutes. Many of the residents of the 400 block of North Alfred Street have reviewed the design submission made by the developer P.T. Balloon's and offer the following suggested revisions to the design as submitted. The purpose of this review is to ensure that the new construction will fit into and improve the context of the streetscape, enrich the character of the historic district, and assist the developer in producing a project of higher value. There are six fundamental suggested refinements to be made to the design as submitted. The mass of the overall structure is visually inconsistent with the existing streetscape. And while a variation in brick color from one unit to the next is good, the design remains inconsistent with the variation in architectural styles existing on the block and throughout the neighborhood. A couple of things are needed. A, offer additional style variations on at least two units, such as round top windows or beads. and belt courses, jack arches, and cast stone lentils. Number two, the same color brick should be used on the rear of each of the units to promote individuality, as most townhouses in Old Town portray. As presented, the rear of the project looks like a single office building. Is the rear wall aluminum siding? Are they steel or wood garage doors? We don't know. It's not believable. The window paint color should be coordinated with the brick colors and not all black as proposed for all units. To eliminate street noise and pedestrians from looking into windows, raise the first floor elevation to two to three feet above the sidewalk, two feet at the end units where footing depths must match existing footing depths from existing buildings, and two and a half to three feet at the interior units. Three interior units could have optional basements without increasing the floor area. The ADA access is required for Mr. Conkey, but it's not shown and possibly does not work. It doesn't indicate anything. Provide architecturally enhanced stoops.

Thank you. Two minutes is over.

I have three other bullets there in the paper that I have.

Please look through the drawings that are submitted.

I think we've got another speaker. Next up is Daniel Ferreira.

I'm Daniel Ferreira, and I live at 410 Lincoln Street.

I'm right across from this. I'm going to see it every morning when I leave my house. I'm going to see it whenever I look out my front window. I do have some concerns about it, some of which Wayne brought up and many of which are covered in the document that he gave you. But I just want to highlight a couple that are of particular concern for me. One of the main ones is the way that the roof line doesn't It's not consistent with the roof lines on either side, so there's no flow. It's just kind of like a big block right there in the middle. It's hard to see in the images that they're providing, but you can sort of see the difference between the one on the right and then the building next to it is like quite serious. It's like almost a full story. So some kind of gradual raising on either side, both on the left side and the right side, I think is something that would make it look a lot better and a lot more integrated into the environment. The other major concern I have is just about, even though there is some variation here, instead of it being five cookie cutter structures, it's like two cookie cutters and three cookie but it's still very, very similar. We're just a couple of blocks away. If you go down there and look, it is a really eclectic block. There's just a lot of different kinds of architecture. There are really no two houses that look very similar. It's going to be this big imposing presence right in the middle of the block. That's a concern to us when we think about you know, what it's going to look like, how it's going to integrate. So that's all I have to say.

Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, Stephen.

Diva, hi.

Thank you. You need to say your name and address.

Yeah, I'm Deva Kyle. I'm also at 410 North Alfred Street. It's my husband who just spoke. And I agree with him on all the points. I also agree with Wayne on the points that he made. You know, we do have a lot of concerns with this new building going up. And part of it, you know, beyond those that have already been raised, is because it is, although there was some variation from the previous design, it still felt very much like one building, which is very inconsistent with the character in general. And I noted that the developer, when he spoke, you spoke about, you added modern touches to the facade, But, you know, our house was built in 1900, right? Most of the homes on our block come from the last turn of the century. And you can just feel that this feels substantially more modern and inconsistent with the community as a whole. You know, the large picture windows, the way in which it is, the surround. There's a lot in terms of the way the design works that just doesn't feel consistent with the character. And while they were able to find two or three very large buildings, they're kind of one-offs, again, if you have a very eclectic neighborhood. There's no other place where there's five buildings in a row that are essentially four stories, right? It's three stories of living, but then they have this additional structure that they built on that's a non-dwelling structure, but is a fourth story building. And so having what is two-story buildings on either side, and then this very large, five-story block that essentially feels like, or excuse me, five-unit block that essentially feels like one building is going to change our community, I think, pretty drastically. And so I have those concerns.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mark Hamilton. I was going to say your name, but I couldn't hear you.

My name is Mark Hamilton. I live at 424 North Alfred, so across the street from us. I appreciate the applicant's investment in the property, and I support thoughtful redevelopment of the site. My comments are not intended to oppose the project, but rather to encourage revisions that will better reflect the character of Parker Gray's historic district. The first concern is architectural character. While the front elevations have been designed to resemble individual townhomes, the rear elevations appear much more like a single large residential building. The board's guidelines emphasize massing, rhythm, and the appearance of individual buildings within the historic streetscape. I encourage the board to require greater differentiation between units, particularly on the rear elevations through materials, architectural detailing, and massing. Second, I support the recommendation to enhance the stoops and entry sequence. Traditional stoops are an important feature throughout Old Town and Parker Gray and create a stronger relationship between the home and the public streetscape. Third, I ask the Board to carefully consider the scale of the end unit bays, reducing those elements from three stories to two stories. would create a more appropriate transition to neighboring historic properties and reduce the perception of mass. Finally, I'm concerned that the project appears to maximize development intensity through the inclusion of ADUs and the near complete build-out of the site. While additional housing can be appropriate, the resulting design needs little room for storage, service functions, and other amenities typically associated with residential use. The board should consider whether that intensity is driving design decisions that are inconsistent with historic residential character of Parker Gray. And one other thing I'd like to point out is the rear of this building is very important. There are two vacant parking lots. Those parking lots are deeded to 300 North Washington Street and require parking for that building. So the visual for Columbus is unimpeded to the rear of this structure.

That's all I can say. Thank you very much.

That is Jessica Lefebvre.

Thank you, Jessica Lefebvre. 901 Princess at the corner of North Alfred. The site entrance to my house opens on to North Alfred. First, I'm going to say I appreciate the board's attention to this project and the developer's responsiveness to the need for design modifications appropriate to the site location. The historic areas of Old Town, including Parker Gray, are unique. They are internationally acclaimed, and they are a valuable asset to the city precisely because of the visual appeal of the streetscape and the story history told through architecture. I remain concerned with the jarring visual impact, as my neighbors have noted, of the overall mass of the proposed structure as currently rendered. This is due in part to the need for further design variation, again, as noted by my neighbors, to make the structure visually consistent with the variety of scale and historical design prevalent on the street and in the surrounding neighborhood. In particular, while the proposed height of the structure is within code, it nonetheless has the potential to overwhelm the streetscape, as has been mentioned. Only four of the 22 structures currently on the block are three stories. The proposed structure is taller and significantly more massive than the three-story residences immediately to the south, and it entirely overwhelms the two-story townhouses to the north and across the street. Recommendations for modification should include, in addition to what my neighbors have already recommended, two-story bays on the end units, as described in the name of the petition, variation in window design to reduce the sense of uniformity, further variation in brick color and style, as well as variation in other materials. At least two of the townhouse facades should be rendered in historically appropriate architectural styles that differ substantially from the current relatively uniform presentation. The newer development of 401 and 403 offers a good example. Finally, the inclusion of trees to break up the sense of mass, as has been done with the recent development at the corner of Princess and Columbus Streets should be required. Further modifications such as this will preserve the developers' return on investment while bringing the visual impact of the project more in line with the existing street scale. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions? Sure. There's a question for everyone. There's a question for you. I just wanted to ask you about

heights of buildings on the street. You said there are three that are four stories?

There are no four stories. There are four. Four of the 22 structures are three stories. The rest are two stories. Some with spires, bits and pieces that will rise above the two stories, but nothing compared to this massive scale.

Thank you.

Good evening, Madam Chairman and members of the board.

My name is Ed Luckett. I served on the board many years ago, Tom Holfish. I have a background in architecture and in city planning. I've worked for the city for five years and helped redevelop Kingsbury. I'm passing out just a little sketch. It took about 10 minutes to do. To give you a sense of the relationship of this you a sense of the relationship of the neighborhood to this building um oh excuse me i'm at 418 420 north alfred's now very frankly we don't know what the nature of the ownership is going to be of the property that is in question It could be one ownership with rental in it, which would not have to go before subdivision at that point, anything of that nature. It could be condominium, or it could be sold individually, but we don't know, okay? So, well, we have to assume the worst, and since we don't know, and the worst is that it's a mass. It's 93, 97 feet long by 100 and some odd feet deep. It's roughly four stories high. It's a block, a big brick, middle of the block. Okay. If you look at this...

Pardon me? Maybe the owner can finish this later.

There's four plans in the packet that show their fee-simple townhomes, and there's a rentable ADU in the back, which would be under the ownership of each of the five towns. Not multifamily, not condo, not rental. There's no plan in addition at all.

Okay. So we know that it's going to be sold off individually.

Is that correct? That's fee-simple townhomes.

Okay. Very good. So that's the first. Second issue is that if you look at the sketches there, you can see all the houses in the neighborhood and this one big block in the center there, which represents the property that is proposed. It also happens to be the same footprint of the property that is there now, but it's a very large scale. Okay. My point being that this mass, and I call it a mass, is not in keeping with the height, the scale, the character, or the general, nature of the neighborhood. It doesn't fit period. OK, so my point is that it needs to be considered more like the other developments in the neighborhood and more like the other styles. If you look at the end of the block closest to Princess St you will see in the recent development there is keeping in scale with the rest of buildings in the neighborhood. So this is just violates everything that we know about our neighborhood. The second point I would like to make is the back wax just refined design in every regard. That needs to be completely redesigned, in my opinion. The third point I would like to make is simply that there was no evident effort to make it compliant with or similar to other properties in the neighborhood. The easiest thing to do, for instance, the two-in units, instead of having the base three stories high, having them two stories high, and would have a better relationship, but that's just a minor thing called the whole thing out of scale with our neighborhood. And I'd like you, when you look at it and see that, that you vote on accordingly. And that's my presentation.

You can go back. i'm ralph brooker i live at 422 north alfred i'm a genius here we're in agreement on this the i do appreciate that the work has been done by the development of vacant better it is better than the last review but

I think we have uniform consensus and sentiment from the entire block. It's a big building and it's out of character for the middle of the street. And the key words I'm hearing from the developer, which I think to most people would be good words, a building, uniformity and symmetry, those are bad words. Those are not what we want to hear for a description of a big old building in our neighborhood. It looks like A giant building just rolled in from any town in the USA, bulldozed the existing structure and plonked itself down there. And now it's the main character of the whole street. So what I would like to request, I don't disagree with the other comments, but my main first point is it ought to at least look like five individual residences. They should not look related to each other. We need to allow people to have individuality. The street needs to have a home. block full of different housing, not just one big fat thing that's got this beautiful symmetry like a little crescent. It needs to be all a mix of different things. The other point I want to make real quick is logistical. I hope this is an architecture related thing that's parking. As I understand it, there's no basements. There's also no attic storage of any significance. Therefore, what will inevitably happen, the garages will be used for storage. And the residents will go to City Hall and get parking stickers. So we will get one to two vehicles on the street for each of the two dwellings. There's a dwelling in the front and a dwelling in the back. That's 10 to 20 vehicles on the street that we don't have right now. Right now, we have an office building that empties out at night time. Overnight parking is not that bad. It's sometimes an issue. It's not that bad. We have 20 new cars all piled up overnight. It's going to be very, very difficult. If there's a way for the board to factor that in to the way that the property is used, number of people who are in it, I think this is going to be a big blow-up issue down the road.

Do you have any more comments?

Yeah, lots of loss now.

Thank you.

We'll call it to the public comment at this point and open up for positive reviews for the board. Any more questions?

Mr. Connolly, do we consider parking as part of our purview?

No, that would not be considered under the board. Trees? We do not consider it under the board. Just wanted to know. Thank you.

um yes does the developer have any feedback additional comments based on what you're trying to find in the ownership yes please so would you like to speak as a person so three of the four three-story structures on the block are to the right side of this building

Okay, so if there's any appropriate place to add more, it's here, nowhere else. We've also, because of the way an existing space was being used by the neighbor to the north, we opted to grant an easement to that neighbor to continue to use that space and to access the rear of the property, right? So that helps pull that three-story mass off of his building and provides a little bit of separation there. So you're going to have a three foot walkway that runs front to back, but it's six feet in the front. So that really helps break up the difference. It's not right next to it. We are not opposed to introducing more variety. I think there's enough. One of the conflicts of doing a two story bay on the ends is if we're moving the gable to the right side, the gable would not look right in that context. But we're not opposed to to increasing variety. We reduced the opacity of the trees on the street, but you'll see there's five trees, two of which are existing, and I believe we're adding three more, but don't quote me on that. We could, under an SUP, go to four stories on the street. We opted not to do so, right? We thought it would be appropriate to be three stories. There's many other examples of four stories throughout the Parker Gray District, And the one that was done by Bill Cromley on North Columbus are five identical properties that have the same exact skin all the way across, and it was improved then. We've gone way further than that in this design. Another aspect that Wayne O'Neill and I have met with twice to try to address concerns, if you're building four or more structures, four or more townhomes, you have to include Type B buildings. accessibility, right? We have the city code director has approved those entrances to come off of the rear of the building, right? And that's a by right that's built into the code. But it reduces our flexibility to raise the building because what Wayne is proposing would make the building taller than it is, all right? That's three to four feet above, that would be above the 35-foot zoning room, right? And his solution was to add five ADA accessible lifts at $30,000 a piece, right? Combined costs. That's not a realistic solution to have five individual ADA ramps or ADA lifts for five different properties when there's a very little chance that any of them will be used for accessibility. We don't mind the compliance. We're fine with that. But it's a terrible eyesore to do that and that kind of repetition. I think that addresses most of the comments. Please feel free to add your thoughts. Mr. Coffey, do we include costs as a part of our consideration?

Thank you.

I had a question for you.

Reading over our minutes from the last meeting, we were almost all in consensus above the building height not being appropriate for this particular plot in this location. And so can you address how you responded to that?

I went back in the minutes and I saw maybe one or two comments about that. I did not see a uniform consensus on height. I think what we're showing here is really a good middle ground, especially when you have... I mean, what if you had... you had two stories on both sides, then maybe there'd be a point of tapering down. We examine the heights. We are as tight as we can go to sell this type of town. Now, I know cost is not a consideration. We have to balance economics with design, right? And so that's why we could sink it to the ground like all the other new townhouses, but we think that really reduces the stoop appeal to next to nothing. I mean, everything that surrounds that project at the venue, those 40 townhouses, you enter off the sidewalk flat. to water issues. It doesn't add for a prominent entrance. We raised it up two steps. If we wanted to reduce height, we could flatten it out. But we think it's aesthetically inappropriate for this block, for anywhere. It really should be elevated to some degree. And if we had the flexibility on height, we'd be opening and lifting it more. But there's other considerations on this site. There's very light vapors from the existing dry cleaner. that we have to deal with through the course of construction. We have eight feet of unsuitable structural fill causing us to have to install helical piers. So we can't just put a basement in because the cost of that is exorbitantly expensive to haul that to soil safe facilities, right? There's all kinds of stuff that were backfilled in there, brick, asphalt, it's really a dumping ground. That's why we're using the helical piers to go down and hit you know, bedrock or to the point of refusal, which is about eight or nine feet down. So all these considerations have added quite a bit of cost to what we're doing that we didn't consider when we first acquired the property. So we're just trying to balance that with the design.

What are the interior floor to ceiling heights on the various floors? 1099. 1099. 12. 12.

I'll start with my comments, if you want to go first. I agree that we all are concerned about the height of these houses, and you can see that the one just right to it is a three-story townhouse, similar to what yours is, but the top of the third story almost as the beginning of the third story that you are proposing. So why does this townhouse, which we saw, it has to be so tall? If you go to page 11 or the elevation on sheet BAR 10, that's probably more.

This is 11, right.

You can see what I'm referring to, that the top of the, basically the bottom of where the roof starts, the bottom of the roof, It's almost matching where the third story starts in your buildings.

What about 403A, though?

Yes, 407. To the right of the property.

So, I'm sure there is room to lower things, buildings, if you're setting them that high. I think at the highest one, it shouldn't be any higher than the 438. I do think that it should be at least a gradual climb as it's going on. The ones on the sides should be lower, not to seem lower, but actually be lower than what it is now. The massive ones, they help to make it look like it's lower, but it's not actually lower. So what I'm requesting is to lower the other ones, the red ones, or at least the two that have the corners to be lowered more. Because you technically have a fourth story, right? I know it's a set bank, Chinese axis, but it's even wonderful. all the story about every other house in this street. And it's really nice with the AU units on the back. It just really feels stamped. The other thing, I should have started with, it is much better, I think, for the changes we did, it is much better than the previous one that we looked at, but I do believe that we still need more variety in the townhouses. It seems that only the written color basically has changed on the top of the roof, but the fenestration is exactly the same in all of the buildings. So it brings on more variety in the look of the kind of how you have the windows from one unit to the other. I think there should be more variety. Now we have two different ones, which helps a lot. But if you bring more, that's even better. But definitely between the ones that you have, it should be different. One of the comments that was mentioned, which I think is very good, is the color of the window frame now. So we should change to match the color of the building floor again just to bring more variety. One very important thing is to wrap around the bridge, all around the building, not to stop it. I saw the back elevations they were signing, I think, for the board of ITS.

I mean, we would be open to the rear elevation of the existing structure, but it's way too much cost to do it on the ADU structure.

Again, we don't consider the cost, but for all of the townhouses in Old Town, I mean, this is the townhouses that will be building Old Town. And our guidelines for adventistory houses, they always have the living wrapped around with the same material. So you have the plant and the side of the brick. We recommend always to wrap it all around. And some of those actually I wanted to suggest for the... A unit needs to be the same where you have the siding. To change it to bricks, I think the combination of the brick and the wood, it actually would be nice.

There's plenty of examples in the city of the properties that have siding on the back. There are new construction. Plenty.

We don't want to go back to the ones that didn't or was something that they're not.

But they don't establish precedent?

Not necessarily. We want to make good precedents for the future.

So that's another one.

So I think as mentioned, most of the, also the comment I wanted to raise, that you can reduce this mass for all five of them together is, as we have talked four times, to reduce the light of the bay for the corner ones to two-story rather than three-story. I think that is an easy fix to do, to follow clearly. There might be another way, but I'm we assume that the actual part should be ignored as well.

I think that's the most of my comments. Move on to other board members.

I was not good for the previous concept, but I do really think this is moving in the right direction. I especially appreciate that brick detailing that you've added and the variation in the brick color, style, and it does make it seem less monumental to me. I do feel like in terms of the variety on the front, we do see examples historically throughout Old Town where townhouses have been built in groups like that, and there's similarities. You know they were all built at the same time, but there's differences from house to house that aren't quite as dramatic as what some might have suggested. So I feel that While, you know, I always go for something that's not quite as high, and I do feel like maybe you could consider a 10-9-8, you know, and lose a foot at least, and still have a very generous, you know, ceiling height in the main part of the house. I do feel like the scale and the massing of this block is not as overwhelming as I've seen in other places. So I do support that overall scale and massing of this. And I think the staff has done an excellent job with their recommendations. Just to note a few things that I think were really on point. I think that the doors on the front, I'd like to see those be solid instead of glass. I think that makes it, whoever purchases it is gonna probably have to put the shade or something on it anyway. And I think having a solid door It's just probably a more consistent detail and it provides a little more variety and opportunity to create individuality. I think, and you've already alluded to this, if you could continue to develop the brick detailing on the facades and maybe create more variation between the building types, for instance. I love that you've created the spandrel and you're putting the brick coursing around it, but maybe they don't both have herringbone. You could vary it in that way. I am uncertain. and I'm not sure I concur with the staff recommendation to move the mansard roof. I really like the asymmetry that this provides, and I think that it almost creates, you know, a single, a twin, single, a single, as you look at it as a whole. So I think if the mansard roof moves one down to the right, we actually end up with a bigger mass in the center, which I think is less appealing. So I actually prefer this facade over... over that staff recommendation. And then I would say on the ADU, I do think this needs to be continued to develop. The staff is pretty vague on exactly what the recommendations are, but I think, again, it's moving in the right direction there. One thing I noticed is it seems like the doors and the windows on the balcony level as they're adjacent to the corner seem like they're really wide. I think there could be some large breathing room And then I think potentially the fenestration pattern on the top floor could relate better to the lower floor. So I think it's just, again, an overall review of how that AD looks and continue to work with staff to develop that. I also agree with the comment that the garage doors seem exceedingly large. And I noted in one of the drawings there was a suggestion to have a door on the garage in the back. I don't know. I would like to see those doors not be quite so massive. I do think that making the brick of the main, the rear main house brick.

Thank you. That's all. Thank you.

One other thing I wanted to ask is the, it seems from one of the things that I did that the, what's the height of the, The garage and the unit above it. It seemed it was 10 feet each, which is pretty high for a garage.

The garage is 8 feet, and then I think the ceilings are 9 feet with two floor assemblies. So that's about 17, but it should be 19. I believe in the staff report it was quoted as 21. Maybe it's misrepresented. As soon as I can find it.

It can't be lowered. I think that would be helpful to the houses.

Oh, that section.

Grab ceiling 10-3, so the door 9.

Yeah, that can go to 8 and 9, so I can take a foot off. Can you scroll to the top a little bit?

So that's...

There's something off here, I think, about this. I don't know if it's a grade or what, but it's shorter than that.

Anyone else?

Thank you. It's good to see the changes that you've made, and we appreciate that, a variety, and that we mentioned it in your presentation as well. Probably the group here wants to push a little harder for variety, and the neighbors, and you're so fortunate, Mr. Neal, for the time for reviewing this, as well as Mr. Luckman. From the comments from Mr. Neill, I like very much the idea of lowering the end bay, the end units to lower the bay, and the other people also mentioned this, to two floors and maybe one pair of it. And I think Mr. Spencer is going to speak to that also, but it sticks out and it has some kind of nicer tap on it. The floor levels, I agree that I think that the success that's reaching too far to have a nine, eight, I mean, the numbers you mentioned, I think nine, eight, six, eight, six, but then eight would be still generous. The span, the exterior, the, as Mr. Robinson said, the front door should be solid. And every new townhouse I've seen on the north side of town that has all these windows on the ground floor, they're never open. People have to immediately put shades and curtains in these places. And I think that that is a mistake. Nobody wants to live in their living room on the sidewalk like that. Also, the window pattern, I think, again, the mutton pattern should be not 4 over 4 in every single building. It could be 6 over 6 on one of the styles and 4 over 4 on another. You've changed the roof line, but not much on the brick color. But it's so repetitive, the window section. That's an easy opportunity to change things. The recess panel or spandrel, I think, should either be on one of the types and not, again, uniform. It's an easy way to break it up with different stylistic. Maybe the, I don't know, an arched window could be used some places, just somehow to make these things look more different. The spacing of the ground floor windows also might be different. Maybe instead of three on all the houses, you might have two on one of the styles. So they start breaking up more definitively. This is a Victorian version. This is an early 20th century version. that you're latching on to stylistic differences from different eras. I think everybody else has made some really good comments and you're moving in the right direction. You're lucky to have an engaged neighborhood. It may not seem that way to you right now, but the sales will be even better. Thank you.

Thank you for the changes you've made. And I do see the progress that you've made. And I do appreciate some of your comments. I don't think anyone's talking about lowering the ground floor. I think that I agree. That's a bad idea in general. And it's bad for water, bad for a country. Not an idea that I think we want to entertain. I think previously we had talked about that, but I was never a fan of making the tree a step down. I think that's just creates all kinds of nightmares then for the future homeowner that we don't want to deal with. I do appreciate the changes you've made in regards to the brick color changes and all the detailing. As Mr. Adams has mentioned, if it was to stay as is, I think the ones with the pop outs or the bays, the cornice at those bays should be stronger to help some stand out so the eye doesn't drift past in any way, but it'll give you a hard line to kind of look at and stop the eye a little bit. So it's not so hard. It's not just drifting up to what's above. I do agree with the comments about the window pattern on the fourth floor, but at the same time, I'm also kind of struggling with that one because if it's set that far enough, you won't see that pattern. but it would be nice if it did kind of relate to the building below on the fourth floor, the window pattern. So right now, the massing on that floor just seems a little odd compared to how the rest of the building comes together. I know no one ever sees a building in elevation in the alley, but looking at it right there, it just feels just not quite right. I did look at Mr. Neil's sketch about lowering the two fins. It's an interesting idea. I'm not going to say I can't explore it, but it's an interesting idea and I think it would be interesting. I don't know if I, the one thing I didn't really like about this idea was to step up all of a sudden and putting the two table units next to each other feels odd as well. I do like the way you've broken them up, so maybe if you did explore that idea, I don't think they should be right next to each other. They should be separated. I do like Mr. Adams' idea of maybe the window patterning is different based on the style of the individual units. I do like the idea of recess in the bays or the recess bridge work that you have. And I also agree that the idea that it could be different, not all the same exact patterning within that recess. I think for me, the thing, I think your front is going in the right direction, and yes, it needs some more development. But I think the rear is where I have the most problems or the most concerned. The massing of it just, I look at it or visualize it as a mass, it just seems strange the way it's the grouping of the units. And I think all the white siding on the back doesn't quite work so well. So I guess I was going to ask, idea of the brick wrapping at least on the main block of the house and maybe you have a different material. That's an idea you can possibly explore. I don't think the ADU, in my mind, needs to be the exact same material, but that's a lot of line siding. Regardless of what color it is, it's just a lot of siding that's on the back. We can play around with that. That makes that back just feel like this one big, massive thing, where the front is at least trying to break up. The back is not really working at all. I did like the worn wood tools that you had in there, and I think It would be better if it was more of the warm wood tones as opposed to the white that you had everywhere. I also think that the brick, it wraps, it should at least wrap the main mass of the building where you kind of look at some of the historic buildings where their original house was brick. And then they added on something. A lot of times there was brick too, but sometimes they did change that material. That helps to note, at that time, that helped to note it was built at a different time and era. So you could pick up on those kind of clues and like, okay, this main mass is this, and then the ADU is maybe something different, complimentary, but something different. Those are my general ideas that I had, general thoughts that I had. I don't think I was one of the few people who didn't really have an issue with the mass, the hype that you were suggesting. And I think there are lots of places in Old Town where we have a three-story building budding up to a two-story building and budding up to a different site building. So I don't really have an issue with that personally, but maybe you can work with your neighbors. I do agree with Neil's idea of that first bay on the right, maybe stepping down and stepping up.

We can look at that. One thing I thought of, the red brick buildings, really what's driving that height is the parapet wall. At the top, right? So I can pull the guardrail back so it doesn't have to be fall protection. It'll probably be out of sight and then I can bring that wall down a little bit. I think they were talking about bringing the bay down, not the actual. Well, I'm just talking about the red brick just to help with the without really impacting what I need for the.

So, but yeah, we'll explore the two story bays on the ends and see what that looks like. Yeah, I mean, you may end up being that you put your red brick And then someone going with red brick buildings right now, you put your two red brick buildings on the ends, and then you get a gabled unit with another flat roof unit in between with another gabled unit. So I'm not saying that's the mix, but it's just, I don't think the two gabled units are the same. It just does feel odd on the sketch. That's all I have.

Yes, I have a lot to say. As I'm listening to this meeting tonight, I am not sure that this site is viable for your expectations. And perhaps another site would better allow you to realize the objectives that you're trying to achieve with this project. And I'm just listening to what the neighbors have to say, what architects have to say, and my colleagues. But I'm not so sure at all that it's been fit because it's as tight as it can be. And when our, you know, several years ago, our former mayor, Mr. Mayor Wilson and his city council approved accessory dwelling units in our community. But it was never meant to create what you are presenting this evening. I don't mean to criticize you. I'm just telling you what is real. The thought behind allowing AUDs was not to pack them in as tightly as you could. Yes, it's allowed by code, but is it the right thing to do? No, and that's why I reached the conclusion that this really may not be a viable site for the project that, I mean, you've suggested several times that you can't do such and such because of the financial constraints. I appreciate that, but we cannot address that on this board, but I can tell you that something's gotta get done. And it's not necessarily the competency on this block. Now, this particular block that you're planning to build in really is unique in many ways. And clearly the neighbors are very concerned about the mass of your building. And I think Mr. Luckett that your drawing was especially helpful just to see how much space this site occupies for me because I also see how tightly this project is being squeezed into the space with the accessory dwelling units. And also I think you're going to get some kind of, you're hoping to get a variation on parking, if I understood the S-U-V correctly, no?

No, we don't need any parking, honestly, and by code.

Okay.

Providing two perfect townhouses.

Mr. Coffey, in your, report you said that that was going to they were going to apply for an sup and that there was something regarding parking and also regarding setbacks and we don't deal with parking but it's just telling me that you're asking that you may be asking even more of the site um i'm going to let you look for that or it's just not true though i just want to make sure we speak facts okay And then I want to tell you a few other things. That's looking at this just based on what I heard this evening. Quantitatively thinking and looking, I have some serious concerns about your approach. We have good working relationships and we try to have good working relationships with our applicants. We try to do everything we can for them. For the Woodley, commercial building in the 800 block of North Washington Street, the 732 North Washington Street, and the three infill townhouses, townhouse developments that you have brought to us, some which include the accessory dwelling units, are not speaking to the character of our community. And I'll be happy to take you around give you a cook's tour or whatever I can do, but they're not speaking to the character of Old Town. What makes Old Town Old Town? What makes Old Town a city that is ranked number one, two, three as the best city to come to? We can't build buildings that don't have the same character as the other buildings on the street. So even if you were to go forward with this and find a way to work it, another point I want to make to you is that I think whoever did your submissions were... I would call them comparables because I have not only a sign background, but a real estate background. So to me, this, that you've submitted are comparables. The project, and here's a very good example, that Steve Kolinski did at 401 North Alfred Street, it blends seamlessly into the neighborhood. And there, it is not... It's not a big building that's bulging outside of the boundaries of the rest of the block. And also, I want to say that what you've given us so far, if I begin to add the architectural embellishments or details that he has, I realize this is concept review and you are going to bring in some other things. Generally, the first concept review is much farther along than what you've brought us. And so we are not where we should be at the second concept review, in my opinion. The 332 North Columbus Street is all, you submitted them as a comparable photo. They're all two stories. And then 211 North Albert Street is a building, three story building with a projecting front bay. We don't have a projecting front bay going on here. And that was a building built in 1970 by John Rust. And I actually think it has far more embellishment architecturally than what I'm seeing.

When you say there's no projecting bay, what do you mean?

Comparable to this is what I meant to say.

We discussed potentially lowering the ends to two.

This is a two-story bay.

That's a good thing.

Okay, the next thing I want to tell you is that I think that something that would really help, and again, it's not my decision. I don't think this architect that you're working with is in step with historical data. And either you get it or you don't. And this architect does not get it. And so I think my own opinion after sitting on this board for a very long time, you're far better off hiring a really good architect than you are hiring a lawyer. Because good architects come in here and present their projects without lawyers. And they breeze through with much less back and forth than we're having to go through on this project. I'm not telling you how to run your business, but I'm a little frustrated with all this. So those are some of my bigger picture comments. Clearly, I don't think the building is, as submitted, is ready to go next to City Council. I don't think it's ready to go to City Council tonight, after tonight's meeting. I just can't even begin to consider it ready. Even though you've met your requirement of two concept reviews, because then it comes back to us and we can comment on architectural, but it's not there yet. So we'll have to figure out what to do with that. I would feel uncomfortable saying, work with Mr. Conkey and complete this project. I think it's make accommodations to some of the things that you've heard, and maybe you're not going to maximize every single square foot on the site, but if you plug it in to what's in Old Town, it's going to sell on heartbeat. I can tell you that. And I want to tell you also that you mentioned Mr. Cromley's townhouses as their five in a row on the 300 block of Columbus Street. In my opinion, Mr. Cromley's townhomes are absolutely beautiful. They are replete with fine architectural detailing. And each townhouse reads as a townhouse. It doesn't read as an infill, a drop, from a developer with infill townhouses. And so if there is a way that you can, it's a big picture. I'm not giving you any specific details right now. I think many of the architects in the room have, but there needs to be a better understanding of the community that you're in and what works doing infill in Old Town. On an office building or a big building like the Woodley, that's a little bit different, but This is in people's block. They walk in front door and look at it every day and it's not, doesn't fit yet. So I hope that I'm not being too harsh, but I'm telling you what I think. Our chairman once told me that he thought I was a unique voice on this board and maybe he's not here this evening and maybe I am, I don't know, but it's important to get Old Town and it's not all about maximizing everything financial at the expense of architecture integrity of the project. Thank you.

So I, I also agree that this is going in the right direction. I think that in and out on the street is really going to help the mass scene also to do so, but of the expression of the height. And I also agree with what I heard this evening, that if you were to develop the ends of the building as lower elements, maybe beyond just the two-story bay, but maybe a 988 ceiling client, or even look at a different type of structural flooring. So you don't necessarily need a 15-inch or 50-inch to be like the beams. If you were to do that, then the windows won't all line up, so it may help differentiate and still have the same square footage. I think it'll be important, especially on the unit that's adjacent to 417, because that's so abrupt. So I think with a little development, I like your idea about lowering the parapet and having a guardrail that will be back. That's going to help. I think that's a good idea. I think it's also very important to have the structure brick. It should just be brick on all the sides. And if it's five units, it should really be five units even in the back. is appropriate with siding because it used to be accessible units had siding in the alleys although they do have 10 story 10 feet ceiling height so i think you know if you are going to um you know reflect an excessive unit it should be a little bit more humble and you know as an accessory And, you know, I think we will be able to develop some of the intricate details going forward. I think there's opportunity to do stuff, especially on the hands. I don't think it necessarily has to be symmetrical. And the more you can I continue to did learn to consume it. I think the more it's going to be, um, particularly when this particular neighborhood, um, you referenced Columbus street, but this you're sitting next to St. Joseph's school, and that's a pretty large mass building there. So I think that each block has a certain adventure that, um, can be recognized. And I think we're beginning to recognize that.

Thank you.

Thank you. Our chair also had some comments that I thought you would be sending close to you.

I wanted to read you both what I was talking about. The development and page five of your report bill, the development special use permit associated with this project will be heard by the Planning Commission City Council at a time to be determined. The following approvals will be requested through this process. The development site plan of modifications for rear yard setbacks for the principal and accessory structures. That's one thing I was talking about. I believe it sounds to me like you're asking for some variations to the setbacks for this project to get a little bit more square footage in. And then the second thing it says is parking in the required rear yard. will also be brought up at that meeting and then the proposed subdivision. So that's, it wasn't out of thin air.

Okay. I will have to, I'll have to look at it, but that's, that doesn't seem right.

Okay.

Right. But for the rear setback, we're only improving the depth of the alley.

I hope that's what you said earlier, and so it's in contradiction to what.

Yeah, I'll read the comments going out there with. As you can see, this is what you're referring to is the DSP, which of course, no city council. September 1st, so we'll have a little time to maybe. Yeah, OK.

Thank you, thank you. I think we don't see a long time for a review. possibly because I think there's a lot of changes that we discussed.

Thank you. Thank you. All right, that's all we have for tonight.

We have two more here, and we have two more to go on. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

You guys probably need to go here. They didn't get much. I just want to get back to you. I just want to get back to you. I just want to get back.