Planning Commission - public_hearing

hearing a call to order uh we have a full document tonight so please uh try to be concise and to the point if you are speaking and if you uh wish to speak on any of the cases please make sure to put out uh speakers and give it to the staff uh so first order of the business we have the consideration of the meeting minutes from july mcp Do any of the members of the board wish to suggest alterations to the minutes? No. Do any members of the public have any comments on the minutes? No. Can I get a motion on the minutes?

So moved.

Any opposed?

No. Thank you. Any opposed? No.

All right, we will adopt the minutes. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? All right, we'll adopt the minutes. Next item on the calendar is the Consent Calendar.

Yes. Before we get started, I want to point out a couple of things to board members. First off, welcome after our August recess. Nice to see everyone again. I hope everyone had a nice August. You'll see a couple of new things tonight. We're trying some stuff out and failed miserably. So tell me if you look at it again, but I'll try to, I'm always in a mood to try to improve things. So you'll see a couple of things. First, the staff reports have a new template. We're trying out the different template, try to push some of the more important information early in the document, make it easier to find, kind of a little more graphic, you know, that sort of thing. So we'll do that for a couple of hearings. Give us some feedback, things you like, things you don't, suggestions. So we could, as we go, that's one thing. The second thing is we're going to try out something new out where SNAP will do a brief, very, very brief, I've been promised a brief introduction to each case. So we'll just basically say, okay, here are the salient points in this case. Here are the things that are to be looked at. And SNAP is recommending this. And the recommendation and conditions will be found here. That's about it. Just trying to focus the conversation so we know what's really the important points in this project. So that being said, that's our new stuff. Now we're going to move on to our docket. As Andy had said, we have a number of items on the consent calendar that would be demanded. First item is number three. JAR 2026-00244, Home District District Request for Operations at 806 South Fairfax Street. The applicant is Solar Energy World, represented by Joanne. Item number four, JAR 2026-00254, Request for Operations at Ward 528, South Pitt Street. Applicant is Barry Braswell, Incorporated, represented by Gretchen Bray. Item number five is BAR 2026-00286, Oldenstreet District. Request for operations at 724 South B Street. Applicant is Richard and Sean Cathcart. Item number six is BAR 2026-00298, Oldenstreet District. Request for operations at Sides 820 South B Street. Applicant is Courtland Alexander, represented by MG Permits. And finally, item number seven is BAR 2026-00304,

Thank you. Do any members of the board wish to remove any of these items from the gallery?

Yes. I'd like to remove item number six for 8020 South Coal Industry.

And I would like to remove number five. Do any members of the public wish to remove any items from the exhibition?

Thank you. So, Mr. Kamaki, for the remainder of the items on the concert calendar.

I need a motion and a second, and then just a voice vote.

I'll make a motion to update the remainder of the items on the concert calendar.

Excuse us. We can't really hear. It's very humble back here.

All right, we will speak up. Thank you.

Is there a microphone?

We do not have microphones. We will do it better.

It's very more sound.

We will try to speak a little louder.

Okay, it's in our direction. Yes. That would be great.

We will work our best to speak louder so everyone can hear us.

All right.

Yes. I have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Okay, so we're moving on to number five. It's been removed from the consent calendar. AR 2026-00286, all district operations at 724 Southeast Street. The sound is really bad. What just happened? So literally what you have. We have adopted the consent calendar with the exception of item number five and six. I'm sorry, this is as best we can do. We do not have.

So which items are still left?

Item three, four, and seven have been approved.

So if you've been on item three, four, and seven, you believe your items have been approved.

For five and six are being considered. Okay. Again, item number five is next in line with item number five, which is 724 South Main Street, applicant of these supports. Yes, before you start with that, I'm just going to ask you to read through this.

So the applicants are Richard and Sean Capcard. You guys can remain standing. It's fine. The proposed scope of work is to replace three iron columns on the 18 foot wide front porch with three six by eight painted cedar wood columns on page two of the report. You'll see the site context is that this is third in line on a row of seven homes, all set back from the street to allow for curb cuts and larger front yards. Page three of the report shows the look of the wooden columns. And page three also draws attention to the design standards for porches that include that porches should be appropriate to the historical style of the structures and porches should be made of materials which are sympathetic to the building materials generally found in the historic district. Page four of the report has the age and staff representation.

Thank you. Can you please state your name and address for the record?

Yes. Hi, I'm Sean Cathcart, and our address is 724 South Bay Street.

Thank you. So I pulled this out just I had a comment on the size of the column because it seems very large for the for the basically roof that is for the porch and the roof that is holding. So my recommendation is to kind of look at the size of it to reduce it, similar to what your neighbors have that you actually have pointed out.

Well, if you're looking at the AI rendering, it is out of proportion. We are doing eight inch wooden columns.

It's about the same size as what the metal structure. It conceivably could go around by

But we decided not to wrap it. We decided just to remove the iron post and put new wooden post in. And then we're doing detailed color work on the top and the bottom.

Yeah, I appreciate it. It's making improvement by a lot. Just maybe I can comment because I not there to see. In the rendering, it looks really big. So maybe I can just come in to work with the staff to make sure that the size is similar to what the neighboring houses have.

It is. And to give you perspective, this is eight inches. And it's an 18-foot wide porch. So if that gives you any sort of visual idea of the proportions of it. Because I agree with you, the AI rendering is

a little bit too beefy so just to clarify i'm looking at the picture that shows your um facade with 726 south lee and 728 south so the size and measure the size of those columns and yours is in keeping with that size yes thank you thank you thank you

make a motion to approve uh that they work with staff to confirm that the column size is perfectly sized for the uh height of the porch there are seconds second all those in favor say aye which staff member do we work

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Congratulations. All right. Moving to the next item, number six.

Yes. Next item of the document, number six. This is BAR 2026-298 for district request for operations signage. At 820 South Columbus Street, the applicant is Cortland Alexander of East Alexandria, to be represented by M.G. Pernitz. Ms. Blackover is going to do a quick introduction.

All right. So the proposed scope of work is to install an individual letter pin mounted halo aluminum sign above the building entrance, which is the west elevation. On page two of the report, you will see The site context for this project is a residential building that encompasses the entire block of 800 South Columbus. And on page three of the report shows the placement and visible appearance of the proposed signage. Page three also draws attention to the design standards for signage that includes that styles and materials are sympathetic to the age and architectural style of the building. They do not detract from the architectural character of the historic structures. and the included lettering is appropriately scaled to the size of the sign. Page three of the report has the staff recommendation.

Thank you. Can you please state your name and address for the record?

My name is John Martel. I'm 12618 Magic Springs Way in Bristow, Virginia, and I am representing Cortland and MG Permits. I'm the contractor.

Thank you. Would you like to make a presentation or just answer the question?

answer to questions. I thought I was on the consent calendar.

So do we have any speakers or do we? Yeah, we do have three speakers.

First up is Todd Cohn.

Can you please introduce yourself?

Absolutely. My name is Todd Cohn. I live at 815 South Columbus Street. It's right across the street from the building. So staff clearly noted in their recommended approval of the application that it was consistent with recent halo illuminated signs approved by the board. However, they didn't cite specific examples, and it was impossible to determine if the approvals represented similar signs in similar residential neighborhoods. In the absence of that clarity by staff, I took the time to review the VAR's published meeting agendas in the age of 12 months in order to answer the questions. So in reviewing that over these 20 BAR hearings, I was able to clearly view that there were four proposals that came before the BAR seeking approval for internally illuminated signs. There were several dead links in the published agenda. So there were a couple that I was unable to determine if they were a lit sign or not. However, what was clear in reviewing that is that all four requests were related to properties on or around King Street, within the King Street urban retail zone. and none of the proposal requests came from properties in a residential-only area. So to be specific, the four proposals came from the 400 King Street, which is where the Alexandria Hotel is, one from Berkley Burbank at 100 South Fairfax, one from 100 North Pitt on the corner of King and Pitt. Interestingly, the approval recommendations offered by staff with regard to the application for the backlit sign of 100 North Pitt staff found that the proposed backlit sign was appropriate, as it was located, quote, on a non-street-facing elevation and was not adjacent to any residential properties. Let that sink in for a minute. But by publishing this, staff's own recommendation in the 100 North Pitt Street proposal set forth both clear and objective written criteria that should strongly be considered by the BAR in all future requests for internally eliminated signs, since by its own words, staff is using consistency with previous approvals as the standard to view all future applications. In this specific case, their recommended approval of the 820 South Columbus stands in contravention of any previously stated criteria. As 820 South Columbus Street proposed sign, be located on both a street facing elevation and will be adjacent to residential properties as a result we believe the board should consider viewing this application as inconsistent with previous board referrals i know i only have three minutes so i really thank you for your time and have to answer any questions you may have thank you our next speaker is janice croupier who you sorry thank you thanks

Good evening, chair, my chair, members of the board and staff. I'm sure there's some busy people. Thanks for the opportunity to speak this evening. My name is Janice Kubiak and I tune in at 815 South Columbus Street, directly across from the entryway of 820 South Columbus Street. I hope that all of you were able to review the materials I sent to staff last week, including a petition objecting to the signage as proposed. I sent an updated version this morning. With a quick turnaround, I was able to get 37 signatures of which only two are residents versus property owners and do include all of the owners of properties in the required notification zone. I respectfully request that the bar deny the signage request as proposed. A halo illuminated sign is not typical in the old and historic district, including along King Street, one of our busiest commercial corridors in the city. The city's own sign ordinance discourages this type of signage and imposes limits on nighttime illumination in residential zones. The entryway is, in fact, in a residential zone and across the street from eight homes, all of which have a bedroom located in the front of the house facing South Columbus Street. Four have kitchens and dining areas that face off Columbus Street, and of the four, two homes have direct view of the entryway from this portion of their homes. When the trees are bare, which is not in this picture, you will have full view and will not be blocked by flowers or leaves. The entryway of the building, as included in my materials, is currently fully illuminated during all overnight hours. The existing signage, when the building was known as the Claiborne, was black lettering and certainly appropriate for the character of the streetscape. I submitted additional documentation that includes photos of the South Washington side of the block. Photos include Ace Hardware, Frankie's, Southside, and the ABC store, none of which have illuminated signs. They have lights that face down over the signage, but they do not project outward. Even the sign at Edward Jones, which is on the South Columbus side is not illuminated. Again, thanks for the opportunity to speak to you this evening. Numerous residents in the neighborhood are opposed to the proposed signage as submitted to you. It appears that the concern here is not with reasonable identification of the property, but with the unnecessary introduction of additional nighttime lighting into a historical residential streetscape. The proposed halo illuminated corporate signage would increase light pollution and detract from the atmosphere of the 800 block of South Columbus Street, which is located in the boundaries of the old and historic district. There are many sign options available. Corporate branding should not outweigh the preservation standards and residential character that you all have been entrusted to protect on our behalf. Thank you. And I'm also going to share a sign that my neighbor made. She ate and she had the bedroom that faces the front of the building. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker. Next speaker is Nancy Ellen McCarthy.

And I'll be really quick, but thank you for this evening. I actually moved to 803 Green Street in the spring. So I'm on the corner of Green and South Columbus, so I can see the corporate properties. The building itself is done well. I think the addition of this halo-lit illuminated sign really changes the reflection not only of a residential neighborhood, but Old Town Abbotson as a whole. And I would like to pose like a hypothetical. They say as lawyers, and I'm a family lawyer, they say not to use hypotheticals. But just imagine across the street from my house, the building is allowed to put a backlit halo-lit sign on the front. What is to stop the homeowners and the townhomes to put halo-lit numbers on their homes? I'm just using that as a hypothetical to show how it changes the perception of a residential neighborhood. I urge you to vote against this request.

Thank you. Thank you. Any other speakers? All right, we'll combine the questions and the deliberation for the members. Does any member would like to go first?

I really appreciate the organized community, the solidarity that you have in your opposition. Thank you for coming out tonight and for all of your petitions and your letters. I will say I completely agree. This is a residential street, unlike King Street. And I think it sets a bad precedent for signage on more residential streets. So I support your sentiments. And I guess I would just ask, Courtland, is there an alternative signage proposition that you would consider that's not a halo lit?

Just three-dimensional letters, non-eliminated. I mean, don't understand i understand the residents concerned but we're talking about a halo letter which this face is solid it's just a light that shines around the letter it doesn't shine out it will not shine onto anybody's property not in anybody's room okay so but that seems to be a big concern of all these people that have come up and spoke that somehow this is going to affect They won't even, the front of the building is set back, I don't know, 40, 50 feet from the road. So, well, I've been there. It's not just 10, 15 feet. So, I mean, that's fine. Cortland would prefer to have a lighted sign. We will accept a non-illuminated three-dimensional letter sign. But somebody mentioned gooseneck lighting. Would any type of lighting be acceptable to people here and to the board? Or does the sign just have to be non-illuminated three-dimensional letters?

I would think for if you need to add lighting, like a response, or I saw that you actually have some ground lighting already there, so you might not have enough lighting, but that would be fine, not just an illuminated sign.

Okay, so not an internally illuminated sign. External illumination would be okay, or are we going to have a problem with that too?

I think you should clarify. This next sign, because that lighting could be included administratively, so that's something that we should be aware of.

As long as it aligns with the color lighting that we have this .

Okay, but also want to make sure that, would you all be opposed to?

I couldn't hear what she said. Other businesses in the neighborhood have points corrected above. So here's step one.

You would be okay with that if we did that? We'd like to see the proposal.

I'd like to see the proposal because I don't know how right you're going to make it. There's already lights along the street from Portland, very bright streetlights that they've installed. And they have a lobbying area that looks like a hospital. It's so bright. It's like 24 hours a day. I think if there's going to be something added to the building, I personally would like to see specifically what it is.

That's fine. I just want to make sure I'm not going back and forth with multiple.

What's the reason you want to add? It seems there is enough lighting there. Is that something...

They feel there would be better visibility. They feel that the entrance is set back from the road. I'll be honest with you, I've only been there in the daytime, so I don't know the lighting in the evening. But they just feel that because of the trees and so forth, which I know were not bloom all year long, but that it would just be better visibility, and that halo illuminated letters are a classic look on the building.

So I would comment, now that you know the stats of the neighbors, the community, to consider not having any lighting. If you really feel that you need to add, maybe work with the staff to do that.

All right. The board will make a condition that it complies with the training requirements.

If you want to. Yes, I did want to speak. I appreciate the neighbors. Am I loud enough? I appreciate the neighbors speaking in such a unified fashion. And I, too, think that what is there now is appropriate enough in terms of lighting. It's actually very handsome signage that you have up there right now. So I'm in agreement with no lighting. And could it just remain the same with Goosenecks possibly added?

Absolutely.

Otherwise, no change?

Absolutely. Well, adding goosenecks is a change to what's here now.

Right. Is there any motion? Wait. I think a resident wants to speak.

We are done with the public speaking. I'm sorry. It's closed. So...

I would just encourage you. I mean, this is clearly a hot button issue.

So I would. I'll speak to you guys at the end. How about that? I would just say that. Do what you're going to do with the proposal. Let me speak to them and see what they want to do. And then we'll come back and we'll do it to you guys and hopefully be administrative.

If the board would like to accept a deferral, that means we're going to come back to the board. If the board would like to say a condition of approval is that it may be in compliance with the administrative guidelines, then we can work with the applicants to do so. we have a board that has a uh submission in front of them in front of them you need to act on it can be either approved and i accept deferral um and again you can accept with conditions the conditions could be that it complies with the administration for the government and then move on mr conkey if we deny it tonight yes could they come back with a non-lighted signage request for an administrative yeah okay and another question if um

Can they speak now with each other and come back to us in a few minutes as we move along?

No, we have to come back for another hearing. We can, if the applicant would like to request a deferral, they may do so and the court may accept it if you choose to do so. But we can't be suspicious tonight. We have a long document.

Okay, with a deferral, I don't want you to deny and we can't make a change for a year. But that's what I heard you correctly. If you defer, they don't come back. You have to come back for another hearing. That's fine. Probably in a month or so. That's fine. I don't have a problem with that. But did I hear you correctly to deny my application? I can't do anything for a year? Correct. Okay. So can you please defer my application? The applicant has requested to defer.

I've got a question. Can they defer but also deny the halo lighting so that we don't have to revisit that anymore piece?

No. All right. Oh, we want to make a motion to accept the deferral.

All in favor?

I have a second.

All right. Go ahead. Hi. Oh, I have a second. All in favor? Aye. Thank you. Next item.

OK, I said it was intended tonight is under unfinished item. This is the first. This is the end of the week. And they are 20.6 that 0 0 2 2 3. All this work district operations and petitions at 4 1 4 2 Street. 4 1 2 Street. The applicant, Debbie Thomas, C, represented by John Lyons.

All right. The proposed scope of work is two-fold. It's to demolish approximately 468 square feet of the masonry wall area with a 24-square-feet maze and remove the existing railing and wood arch from the south end of the existing porch, as well as construct a two-story addition at the southeast corner of the property and replace the existing single door on the side porch in kind and add side lights and a transom. On page two of the report, and I should probably get to the actual report, my apologies. On page two of the report, you'll see the site context is a freestanding brick home with private alley to the south. The proposed addition and alterations will be visible from the right way. Page three of the report shows the proposed new addition Photos on pages 8 through, I'm sorry, 18 through 26 show the existing conditions. And page 3 also draws attention to the design standards that include that it should be compatible with the historic building and surroundings, clearly distinguishable from the existing structure, and utilize building materials found throughout the historic district. Page 4 of the report has the HP staff recommendation.

Thank you. Can you please state your name and address for the record?

Yes, it's John Blytham, 120 Sunrise Valley, Suite 100, Reston, Virginia. I'm the architect representing the owners.

Thank you. Would you like to make a presentation or answer the question?

I don't feel that I need to present the body of the work further than what staff has recommended for approval. We appreciate that. We would like to try to address the issue of the door on the porch that leads to the porch and the expansion of that opening. That's something that is important to the opening of the view from the interior space to the courtyard and the garden pool. And it is also something that tucked into the porch is not so visible, we feel, from the right of way. So we'd like to try and convince the board to accept that as a part of the design. Happy to answer any questions regarding that issue.

Thank you. Do any members of the board have questions for the applicant? We'll move on to opening it to public.

Do any other members of the public have questions or would you like to speak? No? All right, we'll open it to deliberation. For the board members, I had a question. I'd like to see, can we show the existing door versus the one that's proposed?

So this is the existing door here on the bottom right or left.

And it's proposed.

You may have gone the wrong.

Have I gone the wrong way?

I'm sorry. You are getting to sit now. I'm sorry. Yeah. So maybe one of the better ones is the page 17. Although if you keep going, there'll be a 2D hard line. Yeah. The next page will be the.

So here is the red door on the right is the door in question.

And then. I should, I'm sorry. Don't mean to interrupt, but I should clarify that the door does have an existing transom. So what's being proposed is an expansion horizontally, not in height.

I think you can see the door actually on page 19.

Yeah, you can see in the upper left-hand corner the door partially in both of those images, and in the lower left-hand corner is the proposed If it's possible to zoom in, you can see that it's the existing door. The size of the door is proposed to remain the same. What we're proposing to do is to add a side light. There you go. Thanks. Add a side light to the door and extend the transom across the wire.

That's to help open the view up from the interior to the courtyard.

I do agree with staff recommendation, but if you want to bring more light beam, I would recommend for the sidelight and transom to have the same mullions as the rest of the members.

That's something that I think the owner should be adding mullions to that blazing. If that would be subject, if that would be part of the condition for approval, then sure.

I'll let other members speak.

I've been to the site and reviewed the plan. I commend you on the plan. I think it's a really engaging addition that is largely, particularly this door is, I don't think it's visible from the public right away. So I don't have a problem with this door.

Mrs. Vincent.

I'm going to echo the same comments as my colleague, that I don't think this door is very visible. So I don't really have an issue with this door.

I agree with my colleague. I might add, is there a way to repurpose that door elsewhere?

Well, again, the idea is that the door would remain. We're not changing the size of the door. It's simply adding a sidelight to the door, which would mean that the transom is enlarged to go above that wiring. But we certainly could add mullions to those openings to be in keeping with the proportions of the existing conditions.

Thank you. So I'll make a motion if everyone agrees to accept the suggested design with the condition of adding mullions and mucking similar to the floor and the rest of that, the openings for that. Thank you. Thank you.

Not sure about that, just because there's a bunch of different mullion patterns already on this building. Which mullions are you lining it up to?

With the door, you know, the one that's right next to it. It's a one-hole assembly, the door and the transom and the side door. So that's without matching there.

That's fine.

Sure, that's a deal-breaker. It's not a deal-breaker for me. That's what you guys want to go on, that's fine.

I'm second. Yeah. All right. All right.

All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right.

All right. All right.

All right. All right. All right. All right. All right.

All right.

All right. All right.

All right. All right. All right. All right. All right.

All right. All right. All right. All right. number eight, number 10, department grade 2026-00166, department grade, professional operations in addition at 1010 Oronoco Street, on behalf of Suzanne Simpson, representative of Peter Vandervoort, and VR 2026-00167, department grade, professional operations in addition at 1010 Oronoco Street, on behalf of Peter Vandervoort,

All right, the proposed scope of work is to demolish the existing rear addition and a portion of the south wall, as well as construction of a three-story addition. Page two of the report shows the site context, which states that the proposed addition will be located on the south side of the existing structure and will be wider and taller than the existing structure. The addition will be visible from the sidewalk on the north side of Coronoco. However, much of the elevation will be shielded from view by the existing building. The alley behind the property is public. Many of the nearby buildings in this block also have modern additions or other modifications. Page five of the report shows that... That one. shows the placement of the new addition, and there are more plans on pages 15 through 18 with elevations on pages 19 through 20, and the renderings are on 24 to 25. Page 3 draws attention to the design standards that include that additions should respect the heritage of the historic buildings to which they are attached. Additions should remain subordinate to the historic structures. additions should serve as a compatible background element or echo the design features on the primary structure, and that new work should be compatible, but distinguishable. And page six of the report has the agency staff recommendation.

Page six.

Thank you. Could you please state your name and address for the record?

Peter Vanderpool, 800 Wharf Street, 52 Washington, D.C.

Thank you. Would you like to give a presentation or just answer the question?

I agree with the conditions and would happily agree to those. Bye-bye. Thank you.

Do any members of the public wish to speak on this application?

None? We'll...

Do any members of the board have any questions for the applicant? If not, we'll move on to deliberation. Just a minute. I'm ready to approve as presented.

Any other comments from the board members? All right. Well, we want to. Would you like to make a motion?

Yes, I'd like to make a motion to approve that recommendation.

I'll second. Second. All in favor.

This is. Hi. No.

I.

AND I'M SUPPOSED TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.

Okay, next item on the agenda tonight is 9-12, VAR 2026-00238, Golden Stork District Equestrian Operation at 121 North Fairfax Street. The applicant is Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority, represented by Michael Patrick. I'll just, yes, and here is the clicker in here, one second.

So just, yes. Yes.

All right. A little bit of background here.

The proposed scope of work is to replace the existing wood shingle roof with a standing seam metal roof. On page two of the report, you'll see that the site context for this page is a freestanding house.

That sits mid to the point back on the lot that spans to north of E Street. Page three shows the proposed roof and the existing roof with a photograph. Page four draws attention to the design standards that state the original roofing material is missing and cannot be determined. Roofing appropriate to the architectural style and period of the building should be used. Page four of this report has the HP staff recommendations. And with that, we have a presentation. Yep, and then it was loaded. Oopsies, I'm sorry. It went rogue on me.

It's okay, while you're doing that, I can just introduce myself. Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the BAR. My name is Justin Wilson. I am the Executive Director of Nova Parks. For address purposes, in this case, 5,400 Oxford Fairfax Station. I also have a couple of addresses in Alexandria as well. It is great to be here and great to provide a brief presentation on our proposal, and we are excited about the opportunity to continue to invest in this historic property. We have half of the people in this room work for the Nova Parks team, and I just want them all to stand up so I can tell you we have a number of people here who can answer questions for you. We have them, including our preservation architect, Mr. Marshall Brian Nolan from our planning team, Adler also from our planning team, In fact, he was our historic site manager at Carlisle House, one of our park superintendent and . This year marks a half a century that we have had this property open to the public, interpreting the history in this property, and continuing to invest in it. In the past couple of years, we have invested about a million and a half dollars, and we are prepared to do a similar number over the next two years as a regional entity. We continue to invest in this important historic property, both for Alexandria and our region. Very quickly, as the staff mentioned, the proposal is to replace the existing roof on this facility with a new roof that is designed to resemble the historic metal roof that was on this property for a significant portion of its history. We are excited to have the support of the staff and we appreciate their support and their collaboration as we work through this project over the last several months. This is the condition of the existing roof. Unfortunately, this was a roof that was installed 20 years ago, and one of the reasons that we are proposing to now replace it with a metal roof is a desire to not have to go and do significant work on this property frequently. It is a very historic building. and we would like to not have to do the level of disruption that is required in order to replace a roof and disrupt the building. And so we believe that by returning to the historic metal roof, the standing seam roof that we are proposing here, that we will be able to avoid frequent disruptions on this property. uh we're proposing to do uh use a freedom grade um as detailed in your staff report um and uh here's uh some examples not in the city here but here's some examples of that roof in action and how it would uh would look We drew, as I said earlier, inspiration from the history of this building and the history of other buildings in the old and historic district. In the case, we have two pictures here that kind of show you at various points over the Carlisle House's history, the noncombustible metal roof on this property. Those are two examples of that. We also drew inspiration from the city's preservation of other properties that are in the city's inventory, including the Murray Dick Faucet House, a property where the city recently installed a replacement of a metal roof on this facility. We, and obviously we believe over time this roofing will age appropriately and consistent with, again, the previous existence of a metal roof on this building. Finally, in addition to the staff's support, which we greatly appreciate, we have also consulted with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, which holds the preservation easement on this property. And they have, as noted in your staff report, provided support and affirmation that this is consistent with the Department of Interior standards for rehabilitation. So with that, as I said, we have a significant number of people here to answer any questions that you might have. And we hope that you will be supportive of the certificate of provenance application for Carlyle House. So thank you.

Thank you. Do any members of the board have questions or we can wait on your deliberations? No? All right. Do we have any more speakers? We certainly do.

We're going to start with Bob Weinhagen.

This is Bob Weinhagen.

Can you please state your address, Mr. Allen?

211 Cameron Street. And I speak both as a neighbor and as the president of the Historic Alexandria Foundation. If I'm not loud enough, kind of tell me. Ever since I've gone to my pulmonologist, he's focused on breathing over talking. I think that what I would say here is I'm opposed to the metal rope. So it's H-A-F. I don't think that two wrongs make a right. And I'm hoping that I'm today preaching to the choir. I think that the fact that there was a metal roof on at some point in its lifetime is really irrelevant. What you're supposed to do is have the property and the roof and everything about it exists like it should have existed in 1752 when it was established. And I have a report, which I think you've seen by Willie Graham, a curator of architecture retired from Colonial Williamsburg. And he makes the point that if they had used the correct wood, which was cedar, and it was the correct thickness and applied properly, it can last every bit as long as a metal roof. You can debate with him, but he's really an expert on this subject. And it would argue that the roof originally had to be wood. The one thing we know is it wouldn't be metal. Metal was more Victorian era wood. And wood is what would have been done. It would either have been wood, thatch, or slate. Certainly wouldn't be thatch. It's not an Irish cottage. Slate we would have known that would have preserved it. So obviously I think it's wood. And like Willie Graham said in his report, The appropriate question is what roof covering best serves the nationally significant 18th century house interpreted to the 1750s and standing within one of the country's most important historic districts. And I think that's what you all have to focus on. This is a tremendous property. It's probably the most important property in the old historic district of the city of Alexandria. And it had a wood roof. And if you look at it, it's a four-sided roof. It's stunning. And it's next to City Hall. It's the building where General Braddock planned the French Civil War with other colonies. It's where Jordan Washington was commissioned into the British Army and crossed the street of Market Square is where Washington drilled the troops. So I'm just saying that it's iconic. It should stay as it is. It should be wood. And the fact that they're going to have to repair it again, maybe in 20 years, maybe in 30 years, they do it properly. They won't. I don't think it's a factor that should be considered by the board. Thank you. Any questions?

Any questions? Thank you. Our next speaker is Gail Rockrock. Good evening, board members.

My name is Gail Rockrock. About two weeks ago, I was walking along North Lee Street and I noticed the BAR posting board application of the Carlisle House. And being a sometime volunteer gardener there, I thought, oh, well, they're going to do something with Placement Kind, and I'm sure it'll be for staff administrative approval. But by golly, I looked at the docket, and it was for a change in character of the group. So this is not appropriate. It's our landmark kind Georgian museum property. And I think NODA's mission is to preserve our natural and cultural heritage. I was really surprised they're going for a metal roof. So turning to the staff report, the certificate of appropriateness standards that should have been found are 105A2A, overall architectural design, form, style, and structure, And B, architecture details including original materials and methods of construction. And we know both from the late Graham and from Al Cox that the original material for this roof was wood. And for the record, just to adhere to the city's preservation ordinance, BAR is instructed to apply its standards for a certificate of appropriate consistency with the design guidelines, which was stated in the salary reports. So for this case, we were fortunate to have several experts laying in, as you saw in the documentation. Martha Raymond, National Park Service retiree with a 42-year preservation, pointed out that the application should be the Secretary's standards for restoration, Restoration is the treatment that should be followed where the express goal is for the building to appear at its most significant time in its history. That period is John Carlisle's tenure. And Al Cox, former city historic preservation architect and AIA emeritus, points out that metal roofs were not available until the 19th century and were not common here even until after the Civil War. And Bob Wynnegan has spoken about Louis. William Graham's point. And I think we need to address that because a good roof with the proper wood and the materials will last 50 years. He's had that experience at Williamsburg. Finally, maybe it's lucky that this application wasn't for replacement in time because now Nova Parks has the information and advice to do this properly correctly by putting on with truth. And it's my belief that NOVA could apply for grants from HAF and from the Alexandria Association and from groups like Friends and Carlisle who might do some fundraising to help them to be in a program with the correct proof.

Thank you. You're three minutes out. Thank you. Next speaker.

Our next speaker is Alden Bilbrick.

If you could actually, if you guys can be on the blue.

Yeah. I'm going to echo a lot. My name is Alden Philbrook. I live at 133 North Fairfax Street, which I happen to be the only residential neighbor of the Carlow House. I look at her every day from the Bank of Alexandria. And I who love historic renovations and feel everybody should be great stewards of the city and the old historic district. Carlisle House happens to be probably the most prominent building in the city for a handful of reasons. The age, of course. The builder and the founder of the Carlisle family put it there at the founding of the city. The history that occurred in there that my colleagues stepped through. But also it's open to the public in a location that's very accessible. So they get to come through, see what Alexandria is all about firsthand. They go up into the rooms and the staff shows them where the Kailau family lived and it's interpreted to 1753. A lot of other things happened in the building, but the building was built in 1753. I'm very concerned with the... But two things, and I hope that one other thing, the Willie Graham report you read thoroughly, because it's very fortunate of us to have access to Willie. He's done work at the Bank of Alexandria, but also throughout the Mid-Atlantic. concerned that the ordinance says that if you can't find evidence of what the roof was, then you have to go back and use material that's appropriate for the style and for the period. And the examples that you saw on the slide are are styles and periods, but they're not of Carlisle House. Metal roofs were not available back in 1753, although there was one in 1880, which is true. That's the first Sanborn map that shows evidence But that map, that was 130 years after the house was born or put together. So the house was historic at that point. And a stone Georgian had either slate or wood for the size of the house. It wouldn't have been thatched because of the investment in the house. And slate was not available this far south in 1700s. So it pretty much was wood. The Willie Graham report put its hands on an old shingle that was found in the house with 18th century nail holes. So there's some circumstantial evidence of wood. But buried in his report is the fact that if the wood material is correct, a white cedar, if it's the right thickness and it's installed correctly with under layers of breathing, it will last 30, 40, 50 years or more. So it's not a reason to put metal on a roof in this case. So I want to appeal to everybody here that a wood roof is appropriate. That's the most important house in Alexandria, and it should be interpreted as it was when it was built.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any more speakers? Yes, we have two more. William Dickinson.

Hi, I'm Bill Dickinson. I've been living here in Alexandria for almost 50 years. I live at 21 Jameson Avenue. I served on the Park Authority Board for about 12 years, representing Alexandria, so obviously I had a great interest in for us, and so had others. I'm agnostic on this issue, but I thought I had some information that might be useful to you. Alden is quite correct. There was a report put out, a very extensive report, in 1980, that looked at the renovation of the house, which took about six years. It took a huge amount of money. It cost, at that time, $2.5 million for the renovation. Put that into today's dollars, that's about $14 million. They went through extensive work, detailed work. No question about it, the roof was with cedars. But interestingly, the report has only very little mention of the roof. What mattered was the hall. It was where the grand Congress could assemble. It also really put the emphasis in report that the restoration had two purposes. One is to tell the history of the house. And curiously, they never mentioned the history after the grand Congress and never talked about the civil war, but then anyhow, that's what it was. And the second thing is to show the best restoration. methods possible. And that's shown in one of the rooms, the interpretive room, which shows the 18th century construction techniques along with the restoration. In 2006, the roof was falling apart. I was on the board. It was a devil to get money for it. We got a Save America's Treasurer's grant from the National Park Service. Thank you to Jim Moran. And then we had an issue. If we put on cedar roofs, fire marshal did not want the wooden roof in the city for obvious reasons. But here we start with we want authenticity. So we went with the idea of a shingle cedar shingle that was treated with fire retardant and painted red. Now, we were told it would probably last 20, 30 years. Well, it didn't, or maybe pretty close. But you can see where it is. It's not in good shape. My concern is that that building be protected and preserved. And so you have a balancing issue that you're going to have to do. As far as the secretary's guidelines, I'm a layman looking at them, they're the experts to look at them, but I did read them and they said, you know, if you want to put electric items in there, plumbing, things like that, that's okay. And also that it complies with code. So there you go. So it's up to you all.

Our last speaker is Yvonne Callahan.

Good evening.

My name is Yvonne Wade Callahan. I'm president of Old Town Civic Association. Appreciate your standing offer for five minutes, which I will not take, I don't think. Let me start off with what was on the Mount Vernon website. Wood was the overwhelming choice for Virginia roofs in Washington days. Same as Carlock. Washington purchased hundreds of thousands of shingles for Mount Vernon during his lifetime. Most of them split from Cypress trees cut down in the dismal swamp of Southern Virginia. So we start with the premise that this would have been wood. There could have been slate in those days, but probably not. My understanding is that slate was sometimes brought over here as ship ballast and then sold. But I'm not aware of original slate here in Old Town. But that might have been I think if Mr. Carlisle had slate, he would have used it because he was a wealthy person. He probably undoubtedly used wood. So what you're being asked to do is kind of overlook the issue of the period of significance in this case. There's one period, the time that Carlisle House was built. That is not the case with the Murray Dick Fawcett House. It was a deliberate choice to show that that was a living, breathing, occupied house for hundreds of years. Now, it was also not mentioned, was that the front on Prince Street, we know to be wood. So even the significant part of the Merdick Faucet House exemplifies what was put on there before. And we have a longer period of significance because of its continued occupancy. I would also suggest that my friend Justin and I should probably take a little trip around. Because if I understand it correctly, Gatsby's is now being replacing its wooden shingles. And the HAF building on Wolf Street also recently replaced its roof with shingles, presumably with consultation and approval of staff. Obviously, they wanted that to go down. Now, I think that the fire issue is, there's a fire station two blocks away from the Carlisle House. Shingles can be made flame retardant. Shingles can also be covered. You could actually put metal under the roof to make it a little bit safer. Shingles can also be treated so that they last longer. In fact, I'm sorry, you may have heard Christine Roberts, who's had a medical emergency and her family was not able to be here, but she has located shingle companies where they have a 50-year warranty. I would suggest that the notion that there was a movie filmed here is, okay, what are we going to do? We would agree that maybe terror should be maintained because it was a movie, but that's about it. If we jumped into the 21st century and said, oh, we could have met because there was a movie filmed here, we have forgotten everything we were ever supposed to learn about historic preservation. So I would urge you to, Let's just keep on working and see what we can do. The hidden elephant here is cost. You're not to consider that. We know that. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Thank you. We'll move to the deliberation of the members. Anyone would like to go first? Would you like a chance to respond? I would like a chance to respond.

Thank you.

If I can, and first of all, we thank the comments from the speakers. Many of you are good partners and volunteers at Carlisle House and share the love of this facility. My friend Yvonne and I, I would be happy to go on a tour with you, but I can save you some time and provide a little bit of a visual tour of a number of properties in the Old Historic District with similar roofs from a similar time approved by the VAR. Furthermore, I think it's important to note that we interpret multiple periods of significance, historic significance at Carlisle House. I think the suggestion that there is only one period of historic significance that we interpret at Carlisle House is not accurate. And I would quote, and I think we've talked a little bit about the Murray-Derek Fawcett House and Al Cox commissioned a report for OHA back in 2023, and I quote from that report, for practical and economic reasons, metal roofing has been installed on a majority structure for approximately 100 years, the same amount of time that wood shingles were used here. So the appearance of a standing seam metal roof has also acquired historic importance in its own right as a character-defining feature of the dwelling and should be reinstalled to match the material and appearance of original as closely as possible. And so I think it's important to note, again, for a significant portion of the history of Carlisle House, we have had a roof much akin to what we are proposing to install.

And I'm happy to answer any additional questions for Board members.

Thank you to all interested parties. Thank you, Mr. Wilson and even staff for your recommendations. I have been, when I first read about this, I wondered why Slate wasn't being proposed. And I understand that that would have been an option way back when. I was involved in the transaction on the 100 block of Prince Street that has Slate as its roof and it was built in the 1780s. So I do know it's an option and the story is that it came in as balanced as I believe one of you mentioned. in a ship, and that ship owner put the slate on the roof, and it's still there, believe it or not. So I guess those things happen. I take it at your word that research has been done, and that this was very likely a wood roof from the get-go. I am of the disposition that this is a wonderful opportunity for you all to restore it to its original brander. This house, this home is really in rarefied air in Virginia and throughout our country with its history. So many people that come to Old Town speak of the Carlisle House. So I think while it may be difficult pill for you all to swallow, I think the appropriate thing to do is put a wood roof on this house, and that is how I will vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you for your stewardship of this property. And I appreciate everything you're saying. I do think that Mr. Graham presents a compelling case for the wood shingles, as well as some techniques that could be considered in applying them that might make the roof last longer. And as you know, it's not our job to assess costs or maintenance in our deliberations. but rather what is appropriate to the age and the significance of the building, given that this is a museum that's largely interpreted from the 1750s. And given the fact that we are in Virginia and potentially the gold standard of historic homes including mount vernon just a few miles down the road i think if we want to be taken seriously as a historic destination in virginia we need to take the roof of carlisle house seriously and do the right thing for the roof so i i too um would prefer to see which shingles replaced and properly done and that's all about it Thank you.

Assistant Spencer?

Thank you, everyone, for your speaking on this item. And I really appreciate the work that has been done and the information that has been provided to us for this. Typically, I am not one for saying that something Alexandria should be a sealed museum box and nothing should ever change. But on this particular item, I tend to lean with my colleagues that a wood roof would be appropriate, but maybe there are more modern installation methods that could help it last longer, which may be more expensive up front today, but actually would save you money in the long run that you should explore as far as construction techniques to actually make that roof last longer.

Thank you. And I echo the opinions of the rest of the members. I won't repeat it, but it's It's a very important building, historically, and I believe it's worth it. We don't muster the cost, but it's worth spending a little bit more, and keeping true to the history of the building. So, I agree with replacing it with wood, but a good quality, and done properly, so it can last.

Anyone would like to make a comment?

yeah i think hearing a unanimous uh from the board i don't think there's any merit in uh requesting a deferral i think we'll make a decision about whether to seek an appeal all right i'll make a motion

I motion to approve with the condition of using the appropriate wood to keep it in its proper period of 1752 with all the modern needs that there can be to make sure that it's as safe as it can be.

Second.

Madam Chair, can I clarify the motion? So our request was to replace the roof with a metal seam roof, which was recommended by staff. I think what I'm hearing is not a denial. I'm hearing an approval of a request that we're not making. So I want to be clear on what the motion is that is being asked here.

It's not a denial of changing the roof, but the material of it.

Well, so a request to just replace the roof in life is an administrative request. It's not the request that we have before the board today.

We just want to make a motion to deny this application.

Second.

This does not require a local government.

Thank you.

That's just not what we're about. We didn't do any of those things. They are all in paper. I.

Thank you.

We'll take a five minute break and back at this point.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. This one. Yeah. Tell me. No. Thank you.

That's right.

Okay. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Well, thank you. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Well, it's the same thing. It's the same thing.

It's the same thing. It's the same thing. Thank you. There. There. There. There. I'll leave it here. Well, that's fine. um oh Just. Just. Just. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. She's not sorry. My voice seems to be going way up. All right. Item number 13 tonight is BAR 2026-00274. Question alterations at 335 North Royal Street. Applicants Paul and Julia Lesney.

The report is to install two wood privacy screens on the second floor rear northeast elevation deck. On page two of the report, You can see the site context is a corner unit with residentials abutting both to the south and to the east of the subject site. The proposed privacy panels will be visible from Princess Street and North Royal Street. Page three of the report shows the placement of the proposed screens, and there's more photos on pages 13 and 14, including photos from the balcony itself. Page 3 also draws attention to the design standards that include that the design should not hide, obscure, or cause removal of the historic or architectural elements. It should be made of materials which are sympathetic to the building materials generally found in the historic district, and it should generally be painted the predominant color of the building or the color of the trim. Page 4 of the report has the HP staff recommendations.

Thank you. Can you please state your name and address?

My name is Paul Leslie. My wife and I own the property at E35 North Royal Street.

Thank you. Would you like to make a presentation or just answer a question?

I just want to make a presentation. I sent in the other day when I saw the staff recommendation three additional photos. Did you see them? I don't think we can see them. I have three versions of them here.

Okay, yeah. Sorry, I don't mind. Whatever reason, I don't think it made it so nice.

The first photo is the photo of the rear of our house. And I just wanted to indicate that the architecture between the two homes there are very, very similar, almost identical. The second photo is our neighbor, adjacent neighbor, who also has a privacy screen already on her porch, on her deck. And then the third photo is a picture of what we view from our deck, which is a property that's on Princess Street. The orientation is that we see the side of the house all the way down to where their deck is. The view from those windows actually look onto our deck and right into our master bedroom. And we have a four glass panel door on the deck itself. So it's pretty open. So that was what the original request was. And so my response was really to the staff concerns. The first one was that the proposal is incompatible with the architectural character of the building. And then the second one is that the building is located at a gateway to the historic district, which I never knew was really a station. And so I'm not really sure what exactly that meant. But we have in this photograph, you can see that the townhouse immediately next door, which has the same architecturally designed burglar, has an existing privacy screen incorporated into its decorative structure. And I understand that that screening was approved by the board at the time of its original development. This is particularly relevant because the proposed screening on my property could serve essentially the same architectural privacy function. The existing neighboring example demonstrates that the privacy screening can be incorporated into these structures while remaining compatible with the architecture of the overall development. And so, you know, we're concerned about the fact that we wanted to implement or integrate into the existing architecture of the building. And we definitely feel like there was a need there for privacy. So we request that there's a proposal for you for us.

Yes. Do any members of the board have questions for the applicant?

I believe we do have a public speaker.

We do have a public speaker. Sure. Can we have the public speaker?

We'll need to get a .

Please. Yes.

It's me, members of the board, Stephen Flinsky, 104 Northwest Street. And I haven't met Mr. Leslie before, but I did want to say this is a project that my office did about 10 years ago. There is nothing historic visible from this back deck. I see what Mr. Leslie is doing, and I respect that this is something that we would have done had the money been there earlier on in the pandemic. for the project to develop this. There's nothing sacred about this. I think you should allow this. No offense at all. Very proud of these buildings. I like that they're the gateway to the historic district because there's a little historic sign across the street saying this is the historic district. And there's a lot of information online where you see that picture and you see these four houses that were developed. They're kind of implying that they're historic. No, we're not. I think it was a successful project, but we expected it to adapt over time like this. So we'd love to see this.

Thank you.

Any other members of the public who wish to speak on this?

No? We're open to deliberation of the board members. Anyone would like to go first?

I'll go first. I agree with Mr. Kalinske. I think that screening on this property seems appropriate. I don't have an issue with the screening. I do have some concerns about the design of the screen. And I wonder if the applicants might consider doing something that's more similar to the next door neighbors. That's more of a lattice design as opposed to the heavy slats. I feel like the slats are, they feel chunky and create a lot of extra lines that don't agree with the other lines. Whereas a lattice might just be more compatible also with the neighbors.

We're just really looking for the privacy to

Thank you.

Well, with that said, if you're totally fine with that, I'm totally fine with approving that.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you.

Do you want to make a motion?

I make a motion that we approve the certificate with the stipulation that the lattice is designed to appear the same as the natural neighbors.

Thank you. Second.

So this is not a roll call, right?

It's not demolition. All in favor? Aye.

Any opposed? No. Thank you. All right. Moving on to item number 14, I believe. Yes, ma'am. Item 14 tonight is AR 2026.

dash zero zero two eight five historic district demolition encapsulation at 213 South Fairfax Street, black, I think it's John, presented by John Cole .

Excellent. So the scope work is to demolish 228 square feet of the west or rear base wall and removal of the existing porch screening and frame and guard rails. This project is demolition only. On page two of the report, You'll see the site context for this project is standalone brick home with a private alley to the south. Pages 11 to 16 of the report shows the rear section to be encapsulated. Page three of the report walks you through the demolition criteria. And page four of the report has the HP staff recommendation.

Thank you. Yes, I'm thinking, hi, can you please say your name and address for the report?

John Cole. Okay.

I'm happy to answer questions, but I think it's pretty straightforward.

Any questions from the board members? Do we have any members of the public who would like to speak on this? Are you open to deliberation or do you want to make a motion?

I'll make a motion. I'd like a motion for approval. I'm sorry. Yes, I'd like a motion for approval of staff recommendations. Thank you.

I'm assuming this is a roll call.

This is a roll call. Do we need a second?

Second. Aye.

Mr. Spencer? Aye.

Ms. Miller?

Aye.

Ms. Anderson?

Aye.

Thank you.

Thank you. Congratulations. Next item is item 115 and 16.

D.A.R. 2026-00288 from the District of Quessleville Operations and Petition at 811 South Columbus Street. The applicant is Joan Gardner, represented by Diana Greene, Architect, and D.A.R. 2026-00295 from the District of Quessleville Operations and Petition at 811 South Columbus Street. The applicant is Joan Gardner represented by Diana Greene,

Hi, good evening. I'm Diana Grieva. Just one quick minute here. So you're completely fine. The proposed scope of work is to demolish 100 square feet of roof area on the front east elevation roof and then to construct two normal windows on the front east elevation. On page two of the report, you'll see that the site context for this project is part of a row of eight townhomes with a public alley to the west and subject site. The proposed normalers will be visible from South Columbus Street and Jefferson. On page four shows the placement of the dormers. And then we draw attention to the design standards that say the style and scale of the dormer should be appropriate to the architectural style. Dormers should not be taller than the existing ridge line of the roof. Dormer sashes should be compatible with the other sashes and the trim on the structure. New dormers should be centered on or between the existing windows. And then lastly, dormer sidewalls may be covered to match the existing roof material if it is wood, slate, or metal. And then page five has the staff recommendation.

Hi, good evening. I'm Diane Arriva, and I'm at 3303 Rondale Avenue. And the client would greatly appreciate she has a large space up there in the attic, and wants to utilize it and have egress as well. So this would be a perfect fit sort of mirroring some of the architectural dormers on the street there. And we'll follow the staff recommendations.

Thank you. Do any board members have questions from the applicant? No? Any public members who would like to speak? No? All right, we'll open for deliberation. Are there any board members? Do you have any comments or want to make a motion?

Make a motion to approve her staff recommendation.

Second. Second. Thank you. Is this a roll call?

Excuse me, I'm sorry. This is a roll call. Ms. Robinson?

Aye.

Mr. Spencer? Aye. Ms. Miller? Aye.

Ms. Anthony?

Aye.

Thank you.

I am going to suggest to the board that items number 17, 18, 19, and 20 be discussed together because they are attached to each other, same architect, same time, all those things. I'm going to suggest for the sake of revenue that the board discuss them together, and then we will need to do a separate vote for each one if the board is okay with that.

Yes, sir.

Yes, OK, great. So let me read them all in. There's a bunch of words here on 2026-00293 Old Distort District. Question alterations in addition of 500 with Washington Street. Let's give you architects. You can see that was invested. And 18 is VAR 2026-00292, Olden Stark District, question of project demolition, encapsulation, and biohacking with Washington's creative applicants, with a group of architects at BC, represented by Stephen Litzke, architect. Then number 19 and 20, VAR 2026-00294, Olden Stark District, with Washington Street, applicant is 500 Washington, LLC, represented by Stephen Kowinski, architect. And finally, number 28, UAR 1026-020291, oldest architecture, project, project demolition, encapsulation, 502, with Washington Street, applicant is 500 Washington, LLC, represented by Stephen Kowinski, architect. And I should have asked, is the applicant okay with considering all four of these together? Sure. Thank you.

So the proposed scope of work is to demolish portions of the rear of the structure and the roof of the building for the construction of a new addition. It's also to construct an addition on the third floor to the existing building and a three-floor addition to the rear of the existing building. On page two of the report, you'll see the site context for this project is a corner parcel built as a duplex originally in 1926. All three sides of the building are visible from the public right away. Pages four and five show sort of some renderings. And then Page six also draws attention to the design standards for both OHAC and Washington Street. They're two separate standards. Together, I'll just read some of them that say, addition should remain subordinate to the historic structure. New work should be compatible but distinguishable. Materials should complement the primary building. In general, the group form should reflect the group forms expressed along the block face. And lastly, the design of the addition of the, and to the existing building shall be complimentary to the historic buildings found on Washington Street. Page seven of the form has a staff recommendation.

Thank you. Would you like to introduce yourself?

Sure, real quick. Steven Plinsky, 404 Northwest Street. I just like hearing Bill say my name eight or 10 times.

That's the whole reason why I'm here.

Just real quick, my clients are taking the building, and it's currently used as commercial offices, and we're going to try to convert it back to the two original residences that it was. In Zoom, we're keeping everything as carefully as possible along Washington Street to respect the Washington Street design guidelines. We did everything we could to be deferential to the original building and to Washington Street in our design. It steps down in the back, You can see it. The report, the staff report, very, very nicely presented all that. And my compliments to whoever came up with the new staff report format, because it really is a big, big improvement. All staff reports are fine, but this really helps you look at it. So I'm here to answer any questions.

Do any member or member have questions for the audience?

Any public members who would like to speak on this application? Okay. We'll close the public portion and open to deliberation. Ms. Crack, would you like to?

So I think this is a nicely expressed building. I've been curious to know what you were going to do since we approved the demolition of the garage behind. So I'm glad to see this. come to life, and I think the terracing and the stepping down and the variation of materials is very attractive. I have one concern, and it's the chimneys. My first concern about the chimneys was that they're not in the same spot, but I recognize after driving by that they're not in the same spot in the original building, which is a little weird, but it is an asymmetrical front. But clearly, and I assume this is because of the cove, the chimneys had to be raised and they feel very prominent to me now as these sort of silos that have no, because previously they were connected to the building and now they're just sort of shooting up in the air without kind of any connection to the actual building. I don't have that answer, but I would love to see a different solution.

Different solutions to remove the chimneys. That's the only way to do it and still have functioning.

And is that because you want them to be wood burning? Does it have to be vented that way if it's a gas?

It really comes down to the manufacturer specifications. And if it's an open gas thing, it needs... full chimney and full clearance, two feet above, anything within 10 feet. But if it's a sealed event, then if you get rid of it, you can do different things. I could bring a vent, a B vent out the side, but I think that would be significantly worse than raising these chimneys up the three or four feet that they're going up. I mean, I like the prominence of a chimney, so I'm not at odds with it. but there is no good, easy solution to just lower them.

Thank you. Thank you.

Mr. Spencer?

Sure. I agree with the chimney solution, but I also understand the concern. I guess typically in Alexandria, we do have a history of having nicely designed chimneys, and then maybe if there's a little more design aesthetic applied to the chimney, maybe some nicer brickwork or some decorative brick elements that make it feel like it's a statement and not just a really functional chimney stacked on the sides as a possible option.

We could embellish the top, but we weren't going to do anything below the original fabric.

Typically, when I think of the nicer Alexander chimneys, they were like near the top or

maybe a few feet down, that they're actually... We'd be glad to consider, you know, with staff approval, you know, kind of a more articulated top of the chimney.

Yeah, I think that would help. Then they become more of what we've come to love about some of the Alexander chimneys. They are actually statement pieces of the house. Other than that, I think the design is good. It was a great design. I really appreciate the way it steps back and it steps down as it goes further to the rear and it doesn't really impose itself on Washington.

Thank you. I'm looking at, okay.

I think you've done a wonderful job and I'm very excited to see that this is being converted back to residences. And I've been asking myself why we don't see more of this in the city of Alexandria because We have vacant commercial spaces and we have a national need for more housing. And so rather than building new housing here in Alexandria, it would be great to see more of this happening, conversions from empty office or less than full office residential. So I like that. All right. That's totally off the point, but I'm pleased with the nature of the project.

Picture on page five, finger four, to me, it looks like the chimneys are the same height. It's not the height, yeah.

The heights do match the location on the side elevation. Yeah, but they're not in point. We're raising the height of the chimney. Yeah, but both are being raised. They're currently in the same height and they will be raised at the same height. They're just on the once farther back in the elevations.

I see. Was that your concern? My concern was the height.

Is that the only change you're making to the chimneys? Is that the only change you're making to the chimneys? Just the height?

Yeah, just the height.

Oh, yeah.

That's your concern for both chimneys?

Yeah.

I got it. They're not placed symmetrically on the side of the building. Right. But that's just the fact of the chimneys as they exist today. But since they've been raised to clear the top roof line, they're really standing out to me.

All right. This also reminds me of a building in the 200 block of South Fairfax Street. The applicant that we just approved before you, the Procopio's home, this is right next door to them. And it's two, and the sister house was immediately next door to them. So this reminds me very much of that. Pardon enough of my ramblings. I would like to approve this.

All right. Thank you. I think it's a great design and the stepping back. I appreciate that and the change in material. I really do appreciate that you are keeping the original chimneys. It's really important to the history of the building and wood burning especially. I think it's great. I agree that it may be, it would be a little bit more ornate. Three votes would be nice, but I don't know.

We'd love that opportunity. I have to convince my clients.

So should we make a motion?

I'll make a motion. Make a motion to approve. Can I do both at one time?

So let's make, I do need two separate votes. So let's call this one for 17 and 18.

Make a motion to approve 17 and 18 for staff recommendations.

You want to include the moving focus that on the top of the chimney?

Wasn't that 19 and 20?

I thought I'd make two separate motion.

Yes. Do you want to do one more with the that on the record proposal project.

Okay. Oh, oh, I was looking at it. The one one was for demolition of everything.

Oh, yeah.

Yes, I see. Well, now that I read that, I'm reading the words that are on the page. Yes, I want to point that out first. So yes, I make a motion for staff recommendations and that they work with staff to enhance the chimney brickwork.

Thank you.

Second.

Ms. Robinson? Yes.

Ms. Robinson?

Aye.

Mr. Spencer? Aye. Ms. Miller?

Aye.

Ms. Andy? Aye. So that's 17, 18, that's 500.

19 and 20, I make a motion to approve first staff recommendations and that the architect works with the staff to enhance the upper part of the chimney brickwork. Same motion.

Second. I'm sorry, are you the second or the first one? No. Second.

I'm sorry.

And this is . Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Thank you. Thank you all. I'll say it any more times in the next one.

We're getting there.

All right, next item is item number 24. This is BAR 24.0-00302, Olmsted, Clinton-Stork District. Request for the operation of signage of non-interior renewing for the National District. Applicant is AFMA, representative of NG Permits.

All right, the proposed scope of work is to install three halo illuminated wall signs on the west, north, and south elevations. On page two of the report, you'll see the site context for this project is a seven-story office building surrounded by commercial and residential buildings. The proposed signs will be visible from North Washington Street, First Street, Montgomery Street, and North St. Cassif Street. Page three of the report shows the placement of the proposed signs here. Page 3 also draws attention to the design standards, which include sign lettering should be appropriately scaled to the size of the sign and optimized for pedestrian viewing. Signs should be attached in a manner that causes the least damage to the building material. The board discourages internally illuminated halo-lit, backlit, and neon-style signs, and where signs have lighting, the illumination should be adjustable with the final level determined in the field by staff, and the color of the light should be warmer rather than whiter slash cooler. Page four of the report has the HV staff recommendation.

Thank you. May you please say your name and address again?

John Montell, Virginia. representing the owner, the tenant, and everybody else associated with the sign.

Would you like to make a presentation or just answer? Yes.

Well, I mean, again, so this is a little bit different than the last time you saw me. This is a commercial. This is on North Washington Street. This is a commercial building. I do understand that there are some residences around, but this building towers, this is kind of the big, the tallest building. In the area. So when you come down, you know, from National Airport, this is you start to get into town. This is one of the first buildings that you see on your left. So we agree with everything in the staff report, except one thing. And you're probably going to guess, but the 3000 Kelvin illumination. You know, that is really not appropriate for this type of sign. That's really, it's a yellow. It's not white. I understand that the LED Kelvins run from 3,000 to 7,500. If you get to 7,000 to 7,500, they're bright, stark white. But I don't think it's appropriate that, you know, when you look up the information on LEDs and Kelvins, it's 3,000, 3,500. They talk about that being indoor light. type of soft lighting for offices for smaller areas. So I'm hoping that you guys will consider allowing something a little bit more that's white. I mean, my client has a sun, you know, their colors are red, white and blue. They don't want a sign that's red, yellow and blue. So.

And I mean, questions from this lab as I thought board members.

I have a question. I just want to clarify. This is currently an illuminated, an internally illuminated sign.

Yes, there are. We are replacing times.

Location. The exact same location.

Almost. There are on the front where you see AFPA and photo one, above there, there's something that says five star. They are like the owners of the building. That goes away and a new AFPA sign goes and we're adding a sign around, I think it's photo three of the south elevation. That's a brand new sign. There is no sign there on that elevation right now. But that elevation faces the river and when planes come in, I think they want that kind of look that people are going to look over and they're going to see the AFPA sign. Why, I don't know, but I think that they want their name for that.

The photo number one, you said that it's going to move from where it is to upper.

There is already a sign right now that says AFPA there. There's two signs on that elevation right now. Above it in that where the cursor is, it says five star. And that one is not activated. They're all illuminated.

They're all illuminated.

They are all illuminated. Whether they're working right now, I don't know, but they all... And the F is not working. Okay. So the new ones will be. But yes, but they are all supposedly... I mean, if you go up there, you can see the wire. We want them to be illuminated and... We want them to be halo illuminated, which is appropriate and not front lit. And so it's still the soft... office type of look versus a retail you know that stark retail look that you get they are illuminated now or they're supposed to be illuminated now so at one point they were approved to be illuminated um so we'd like that but we'd like you to consider instead of that 3000 kelvin restriction to let us do something that's 5000 kelvin is considered white consider daylight white And we would like something that's white. So when you look at it in the evening, there's a white halo around it and not a yellow or brownish or dull halo.

That's exactly what we don't want, you know.

But this is really, I mean, this is not, I mean, I understand that it's technically Old Town, but I mean, again, this is a seven-story office building. And if you're going to put an office building, a brick office building, I mean, you've got to allow or I would hope that you would consider allowing the tenants to have an appropriate sign. Yes, the owner and the tenant is asked to have a question.

So I have a question for Mr. Colton.

so when we just this is just me talking off the top of my head when we do our guidelines i think most of the time when i think of our design guidelines i'm typically not not defending your stance just gonna put that out from um i typically think of walking down king street and seeing small residential not residential but smaller buildings

kind of street level street level where you typically would want something that's kind of a soft glove right i mean that's kind of how i think of our signing yeah i mean the vast majority of the signs that we see right forces and the status is administrative the vast majority are strength level retestants right and the the color temperature that we've developed um as a recommendation has been based on that as the type of sentence so i guess then yes that is that is the vast majority

My concern is that we go full bore with this light fixture.

That it would be too strong even though it's seven stories up. But I have nothing to really judge this off of. I might agree with you that the 3,000 cabins might be too low, but I'm not sure if going five plus

Is the halo light temperature adjustable once it's installed, or do you install it at a particular temperature?

It can be adjusted. You can get them to read or they're adjustable, so we can do that. But usually, you determine how bright you want it, and that's what you get for your LEDs because they make 3,000, 3,500, 4,000, 5,000, 6,500, 7,000, 7,500. So when there's no restrictions, we're always going to put in 7,000 or 7,500 because people want, wow, you know, they look at it as my sign is bright and everything. But trying to be sensitive to your guys' requirements, we thought, I mean, 5,000, like I said, it's considered daylight. And it's, I think, a fair compromise between a really stark bright 7,000, you know, K versus a very yellowy 3,000, 3,500 K. So we just want it to be white versus, you know, yellow. And I mean, I looked up, it was LEDlightexpert.com. And they talk about the different Kelvins. And, you know, 3,000 K produces a warm, calm, inviting light that is great for general indoor lighting. You know, 4,000, 4,600 to 6,500 is crisp, pure white light. 5,000, which is really what we're asking, is daylight white used for outdoor lighting. That's what it says in there.

And to go with 4,500. Chris White Light. I know, I'm just saying, it's still much higher up in the building, so it's not like... And one of them on the north side is the originally facing residential building.

But this is the north side, is that...

It's the first street.

Is there like the apartment building... the one that's like the apartment building or whatever, but it will be higher than the apartment building. And it's halo illuminated, so it's not as if it's going to be shooting any type of glare into anybody's windows or anybody's, you know... Lighthouse.

I don't know where you're finding its way.

I understand, but again, being halo illuminated... Yeah, I understand what you're saying. Versus, you know, if it was front lit... sign where it was a letter that that would be much more starting i'm going to ask the same question can't you order with the range i agree that 30

3,000 kelvins is probably too low for this application. I'm not going to say that that's not true. Maybe even 3,500 is a little low. That's 4,000 to 6,000. I wouldn't even say 6,000. But if you get it with the range, then you can adjust it.

We're happy with 5,000. I'm happy to put 5,000 Kelvin LED modules and put them in there. And again, it would not be.

Did you get something that ranged between 4,000 and 5,000?

means you said they're adjusting so can they adjust between those two ranges um that way i'm not sure how i'm going to be honest with you i'm not an expert i just install them so i do know that you can put them on like a dimmer and that type of stuff so we could i mean we could look into doing something what i like don't have to speak i don't want to speak for anybody other than jordan what i would like to see is that

If we approve something, staff go out and look at it and give the final approval on the launch.

Staff would have to do it in the evening. Yeah, so. Because you won't see it during the day. So you would be willing to approve something. So basically I got a dim. We were able to dim this. It would be something that would be then else. Okay, well, I'm just saying, so I could probably, I mean, I just need to figure out before I say, oh, yes, I want to agree to something, and then they tell me, you can't do that.

You want to defer?

I really don't want to defer, but rather, I mean, I like your proposal, and I don't see a problem with that. I just, somehow I need to protect myself. I mean, because if we do, are we going to give you a range?

Do you mind if I say something? Sure. Okay. I have some concerns about it. I first want to understand, did you say the five-star light sign is coming off the building?

Correct, yes.

Okay, that's an improvement. Thank you. Okay, this is a gateway into Old Town.

Correct.

We talked about gateway being 335 South Royal, I'm sorry, I think it's North Royal Street earlier this evening. I'm surprised to find out it's out towards the gateways. But anyway, this is truly a gateway into Alexandria coming from the airport down the parkway. And that five-stop star has driven me crazy for 40 years. So I'm really glad it's coming down. But I am concerned about the lighting of it. When I go up and down Duke Street, now this is outside of the historic district, but the Motley Fool and another business called Five Guys, They've got big illuminated signs and they definitely, I can't tell you if it's soft halo or what the Kelvins are on their signs, but it really stands out. And that's allowed in other parts of the city of Alexandria, but not so much in Old Town. So I'm hesitant here to go with what you're asking for because I think this is an opportunity to dial down what has been less than attractive for a very long time.

But I believe that if you dial down the Kelvins and try to make it a yellow light, that's not going to look as nice as if it was a softer white light around the letters.

Well, then that's another comment that you made, and I do want to talk with you about it. I'm not trying to say, you know, my word is law, but... We have a CBS sign on King Street that is, as we talked about, smaller commercial, and it's diminutive compared to this. But that CBS sign is supposed to be below 3,000 thousands, right?

Oh, I don't think that's it. I think that's it.

Well, I don't know, but it is supposed to be. And we went around and around on that, and it's supposed to... You all are supposed to go check it if there's any questions about it and whether it's been installed and what will be approved.

But that's like... Is it the same type of letter? Is it the same? Is the face light up? Do the letters light up red? It is halo.

What I want to tell you is it's white. It's not yellow.

I can't speak for them, but I would say that they did not use 35... Well, yeah, I don't think they used... I mean, you can't change. It is what it is. 3,500, 3,000 kelvins, it's yellow. I mean, I wish... They have a chart that kind of shows you, you know, gives you little light bulbs and tells you what it is. And you can see, you know, it goes up from yellow and then a little bit less yellow and then just a hint of yellow. And then, yeah, yes. So there you go. I mean, you're seeing stuff like that. So that's why I can't tell you what they put in there. And they're silent. I can't speak to what we wanted to. But we wanted to kind of get in the middle, which is not, which is the first where it's primarily white versus having a yellow hint. I don't think that's, I mean, again, this is also, you know, you're speaking of signs, which I agree with you, James, that on King Street, pedestrian level, that's a little bit different. But this is an office building. These signs, as you can see, are six, seven stories up in the air.

They're very eye-catching coming down the hard way. I will say that. Are you planning to, in this picture that I have, which may not be adequate, the letters look more of a darker blue to me. All right, where is the white going to be? It's going to be glowing behind the blue.

Yes, yes. OK.

It was just a minute with your application.

Yes.

Yes. Sorry. Well, I don't mean to hold you up, but. Right there.

So, again, that's done with probably light that was higher than 5,000.

That's pretty white. So, what did we say to work with the staff to something between 4,000 to 5,000? Like, we usually don't have all this. But they thought it was up higher, and it's in a commercial, more of a commercial zone. Maybe something between 3,000 to 45,000.

Yeah, 3,000 to 4,000 might be good.

4,000 is still going to be yellow. 4,500 still has a hint of yellow. I really wish you would let us try 5,000 with, you know, I guess the caveat that, I mean, I'm pretty sure you guys won't have a problem with it, but I would certainly, if you could put in there that, you know, you have, I don't know how you work it, how you say, you know, whatever you said for CBS, you know, the same type of wording or something along those lines. Let me work out the word for it.

Right. I'm sorry.

No, the board could make a condition that it be adjustable. The staff investigates it on site to determine if the level is correct. And if the applicant goes back and finds out that it cannot be adjusted, then the applicant could return to the board to modify the approval. So at that point, basically, if you say you go back and find out that it can't be dimmed, you can go back to this board. That's fine. I went back and looked, it can't be dimmed. I'd like to modify the approval. Okay, that's fine.

I'm pretty sure it can be dimmed. You know, I don't want to say 100% I'm positive, but certainly we would be able to do that. We could certainly do something like that and we would, yeah, you know. I think that's a reasonable compromise.

What do they need to put a condition of?

It can 3,000 to 4,500 or 5,000 for a dimmable so that the staff can take a look at it and if it needs to be dimmed, you can take it to 4,000.

It's happening. My colleagues know that.

I'm on by during the day. Any day you want. Yeah, that's fine. We'd be happy to do that. I mean, by the time we get it installed, it'll probably be dead of winter, so it'll be dark at six or something. Okay.

Are you okay with that?

We need to check the flights. I have some destinations in mind.

All right, so I'll make a motion for the applicant to work with the staff on a dimmable halo sign between 3,000 to 5,000 K, and for the staff to check the installation to verify if it needs to be, or what level it needs to be dimmed.

Yes, we will do it. All right.

We have a second.

Second.

I didn't make it.

I asked if there was a second. I heard a question.

I didn't hear it.

There was a question down at the end.

Is there a second for our motion?

For our second, if you mind, we will.

Wait, did you just second yourself?

No, I didn't make the motion. It's been a long night.

All right. So, all in favor? Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? No. Aww. I'm sorry.

I understand.

You're going to be very happy when it's done.

I promise you. This will be an improvement to have the halo light with the internal illumination.

Yes.

And also, thank you. You were one of the first cases and one of the last cases. Yes.

Thank you very much.

Talk about clouding. Thanks.

I appreciate it.

Thank you all.

All right.

So, your line is fifth.

right so what do i so i mean it's going several months before this gets installed so just contact you guys okay sounds good all right thank you so basically the cds the generation or the uh the veterinary clinic around the corner right so i know we have the same approval methods i guess my question is was stopping them from, which I think might have happened. You go out, you look at it, it looks great, prove it, boom. You walk away, crank that puppy back up.

I mean, anything can happen, but I mean, what we'll do, I mean, since you have, the board has asked me to check on it, I will go back and check the approval language for that and see if it was supposed to be available and check to see where we are on that, and we will contact them.

I think that would be, definitely. But I'm saying, what if they cranked it back up after you walked away?

I mean, that's, It requires constant vigilance. We have two together to consider. It's also our last.

So VAR 2026, 0306.

which is the twice per partial demolition and encapsulation at 108 Wing Street, as well as VAR 2026-307, which is the alterations at the same address. The applicant is Keith Lawson-Moore, represented by Karen Compe, our architect. The proposed scope of work is to demolish 76 square feet of existing slate roofing, both on the top. Is that basically an answer? as well as to add a roof terrace, a new stair enclosure, and a shed dormer to the south-facing Mansart Roof. On page two of the report, you'll see that the site context for this project is part of a group of seven attached townhomes, one of three in the second building and from North Union Street. The alley behind the home is private. Page four, of the proposed project, or I'm sorry, page four of the report shows the proposed roof dormer and roof terrace. Page five, get there, there we are, draws attention to design standards that include the style and scale of the dormer should be appropriate to the architectural style. New dormers should be centered on or between the existing windows below. New dormers should match existing dormers in style and proportion, and composite deposit siding, such as fiber cement, can be used on all sides, provided that it is of a smooth finish and is paintable. Staff 5 of the report has the HP staff recommendation.

Thank you.

My name is Karen. I'm here representing my client Lawson Moore. He gives his huge apologies. He had a business meeting that came up or dinner that came up this evening, so he could not join us. So I'm sitting by myself. Lawson brought this home earlier this spring. In the staff report, there's a picture of 105 Queen, which is a project I did, I guess, about three or four years ago. He fell in love with their roof deck and said, hey, can you do me a roof deck just like that one? I said, let me see what I can do. So he's proposing a cable railing around the perimeter and then a stair tower or stair enclosure that's similar to what we did next door at the neighbors, so that's how we knew we could do it, and a small outdoor kitchen. And with that, answer any questions and maybe agree with the staff framework. And we love the new staff framework too, by the way. We do too.

Thank you. Any questions from the board members? Any questions from the public? So we'll move to deliberation. Any comments? Can I ask this? Yeah, I do have a question.

Is this the house we've worked on before?

It is. I did the bay window and the shed door more on the back, I guess, in 2016.

Yeah, and we've talked a lot about the window proportions to one another, right? Or do I have a different?

It's possible to be different when I've worked on the house next door. Okay. Both houses on either side, too, so. Okay. Yeah, no. Okay.

I'm just going to rename it Cocky Girl.

Yeah.

Really? All right. So that's my only question at the moment. You are adding a dormer.

So the dormer on the front elevation is what we're adding. So currently it's just a faux mansard roof with no dormer. And so he's adding those three little windows up at the top. It's because if you go up in that third floor, it's like it's very slopey. So he's trying to get that. He's got the square footage, but you can't really.

Make sense. I just was wondering that on the roof of this addition, are you using the slate that you're taking out to?

No, it's a metal, stainless steel metal roof, low slope metal. Yeah, a slate would require a deeper slope on the dormer. So we're keeping the slate around the dormer, but the actual roof of the dormer is metal. And it's the same slope as the dormer on the backside that we did in 2016.

Anyone would like to, do you have any questions more or want to make a motion? No? I'll make a motion to approve for staff recommendation.

Second? Thank you. Do we, if it's a roll call?

Yes, it's a roll call, but that's you make the motion and Ms. Robinson seconded, right?

Yes.

Okay.

All right. And roll call it is.

Ms. Robinson. Aye. Mr. Spencer.

Aye.

And Ms. Miller. Aye.

Thank you.

All right. Score. Thank you very much for a long evening.

Thank you. Bye-bye.

All right. I think we're at the end of our talk for today. Again, please give us feedback on what you like and don't like about our staff report template and all the great things that Ms. Weisgruber did tonight with her staff and her introductions. Any comments would be helpful. We're trying to fine-tune this a little bit and try to make it a little smoother for everybody.

Good stuff. Yeah, it's good.

We like it.

I think that with the introduction that you're all giving to each project, it got to be a little long by the end, but I think we're going to have 22 minutes.

Yeah, the goal is they're not giving more than 90 seconds, which is also why I'm not giving you every single standard that we are putting in our staff, the staff report, because the goal is you guys are reading the staff reports before tonight, which is great. So the intent is we are one of the few boards to not do this. So to try and better align with the other boards and commissions, as well as just highlight the things from the staff report. So if in any way it won't drive the discussion or, you know, whatever the debate may be.

All right. Thank you. Sure. Thank you. All right.