Planning Commission - public_hearing

This meeting is called to order. All right. We will proceed tonight with applications and other agenda items in the order indicated on the docket limited copies of tonight's agenda and each staff report are available in the hall right outside if you are an applicant please make sure to review your application and the staff report before your case is called for each applicant we will proceed in the following order of business the applicant or the applicant's representative may present the proposal or simply answer questions from the board and the board encourages applicants to be thorough but concise the public will have an opportunity to speak on each application members of the public will be invited in if you do want to speak you'll need to fill out a speaker form and bring them over here to Ms. Navayas members of the public have three minutes to speak and if you're representing an organization you can speak for five minutes after public comment is complete the board will close the public portion of the hearing and deliberate after deliberation the board can take one of several actions the board can vote on a motion to issue continually issue or deny a certificate of appropriateness.

The board can, upon motion from an applicant, defer taking action until the next meeting or a future meeting. The board can vote to continue the case to the next available hearing or proceed to the next docket item without taking action if the board takes no action at the next regularly scheduled meeting the certificate of appropriateness is automatically issued and that's because the municipal code requires the board to take action within forty five days of the applicant being complete and ready to review so just a few comments on voting motions will pass by a simple majority vote if there's a tie, that results in no action. That's the same thing as not being approved. Actually, no. It just means no action.

It's as though the board has taken no action. And if the board votes to deny an application, a similar application won't be considered for a period of one year following the denial, and that is also in the municipal code. The board occasionally takes up matters other than applications for a certificate of appropriateness. We'll take a few of those matters up today. The public will have an opportunity to speak. So with all of that said, the first item on today's docket is the minutes from the last meeting. Mr. Conkey, I don't know if you need to read those in.

No, just take a vote on the minutes.

Okay. Does anyone have any proposed modifications or changes to the April twenty two BAR meeting minutes? No. Do any members of the public wish to make comments on the posted minutes? No? All right. Well, then we'll take a motion on the minutes. So moved. Do we have a second?

Second.

All those who vote in favor of adopting the minutes from the April 22 meeting, aye.

Aye. Aye.

Any opposed? The minutes

are adopted. Okay, onto the consent calendar.

Yes, sir. We have one item on consent calendar this evening. Item number three is BAR 2020 Six-one Hundred, Old And Historic District, request for alterations at 714 Wolf Street. The applicant is Robert and Elaine Flanagan, represented by Tobin Tracy, architect.

All right. Does any of the board wish to remove this item from the consent calendar? Does any member of the public wish to remove this item from the consent calendar? All right, then. All those in favor of adopting the

consent Do have a motion and a second?

Yeah. All those in favor? Give me wait. I need a motion.

Thank you.

Who wants to make a motion on the consent calendar? Thank you. Second. Do we have a second?

Second.

You got that? All those in favor of adopting

the consent calendar say aye. Aye.

Aye. Any opposed? Nay.

Nay. Yeah.

We have one nay. Yep. Okay. The consent calendar is adopted. Next, we have unfinished items and previously deferred.

Yes, sir. We have one item tonight under previously deferred. This is item number four and five. I guess that's two items. BAR 2020 Six-seventy 1, Olden Historic District, request for partial demolition, encapsulation at 732 North Washington Street. The applicant is seven thirty two-eight zero six Development LLC, represented by Kenneth Wire, attorney. And BAR twenty twenty six-fifty five Old Historic District, request for alterations and an addition at 732 North Washington Street. Applicant is seven thirty two and eight zero six Development LLC, represented by Kenneth Weier, attorney. Alright.

Thank you very much. My name is Patrick Bloomfield, PT Bloom's Development in place of mister mister Ken Wyre tonight. If you don't mind, can you pull up the the final submission package? And we can just scroll through. Or is this part of the staff report? I just want to make sure this is the whole thing.

It should be this it's all one package altogether. This is your submission package.

Okay, great. So right there, pull that up a little bit. Great. So first off, I'd like to thank the board for the suggestions. I think all of them added quite a bit of value to the aesthetics of the project and I think we're ending up with a much better building now. Would you mind zooming in on that? I just want to get a high level thing on changes. Is there any way to blow that up even for Got it. Okay. Okay.

Just to give a quick summary starting from the bottom. The board suggested that we turn the muttons to be vertically aligned. We thought that was a good suggestion. We've gone ahead and adopted that. The turnbuckles, we agree after further reviews more of a distraction than anything. So we went ahead and removed those. We found that with the shallow depth of the cantilever, we were able to figure out a way to support that without buckles. Mr. Spencer advocated for more curvature in the balconies. He thought I would soften the edges and we agree and decided to incorporate that into the design.

At the same time, you know, given the configuration and the layouts of the building, we found that that, you know, reducing the front balconies to Juliet's was appropriate and and if if you acknowledge that there's also a project next door across from Madison, 808 North Washington had a similar approach. We think this is very important to in convergence of office buildings and it's also just a market demand to have outdoor space on a multifamily level. Another suggestion that was made by the board was to heavy up the transition that occurs between the Mancers on the 5th Floor outdoor balconies. Again, we think this is helpful and is kind of given a little bit meatier, hardier approach and connects the two sides of the Mansert appropriately both on North Washington and Madison. And we also align the dormers.

I think that was just an oversight on our part but again we agree with the suggestion and have gone ahead and moved forward with the change. So if you don't mind, if you can just start skipping through the slides, I'd like to see the west elevation, rear elevation. There's one more comment I want to make sure that I've pointed out. I'm trying to be as brief as possible given the lack of Next the slide. I'll just keep going and I'll I'll I'll have you stop when I had the correct elevation.

One more. There we go. So you'll see and this kind of bothered me initially too as well. We we've added the keystones in the soldier courses above the windows. I will say, in exploring the existing brick sizes, they're an unusual brick size that are not made today.

So we wanted to get some advice from the board on potentially how you would approach adding some of the soldier courses above the windows because there's a good chance that we will not be able to match the brick exactly. And so I don't think paint is the appropriate path for that. But maybe there's a slightly darker color brick and that's been represented on the front of the I ask you a question? Sure.

I wasn't here for the first presentation. But had you discussed the possibility of using a precast material here? Or are you only considering brick or similar masonry?

I think the precast in that color would be very heavy and would look off.

In like a red color, you mean? Or like a gray stone color?

Potentially. I'm thinking more of like a solid through color above the windows. I think we'll have enough brick that will cut out when we make these windows opening wider. We'll be able to preserve that brick. So each window opening gets about 16 inches wider on either side.

So we're hopeful that we'll be able to utilize some of that. But on the soldier course, the bricks get longer because they're on a diagonal. So it'll be hard to replicate that to some degree. And I just want to know, you know, if this issue comes up down the road, maybe it's something we can have a conversation with staff the best way to resolve it. I'm not ruling out that we can't use an existing brick and figure it out but it's just an odd shaped brick that was produced back in the '50s and it's not a common size anymore.

Okay. Well, we'll get everybody's comments and see where we land. But thank you for flagging that.

Yep. So short and sweet, I presented kind of the full package on the last run and I just wanted to make sure I called out all the major changes that really were the result of great suggestions by the board.

Thank you. Before we move to public comment, do any of the board members have initial questions? You can also ask questions during deliberations. Okay, are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application? Seeing none, we'll close the public comment period. Okay, and we can pivot to deliberations. So the floor is open to any of the board members who'd like to offer their opinions

on this elevation that you're showing are the keystones and the bricks over the brick over the small windows, are those original or are those new too?

They're new.

I mean, you might want to consider not providing them at that minor little window because makes it look very crowded.

Yeah, I agree. We could maybe just do a straight soldier there or get rid of it altogether.

And you can almost, I would almost advocate for nothing. I'll let other board members see how they feel but I would almost advocate for just treating it like a bathroom window or something.

That's what it is. Yeah. I mean we're open to that.

Think it's a little too much decoration at that little window.

Who would like to speak or offer opinions?

Okay. Thank you to the BAR for including the Washington Street standards in their packet. That was very nice. Know, it's hard for us to remember what they say. I appreciate that.

And I think this design has been pretty responsive to our comments. I think a lot of the materials you're suggesting I think are really going to look nice, especially the steel windows on the Ground Floor and a lot of the aluminum cornice. I was a little concerned about the Mansard angle Because right now, the massing, it really reads as a 5th Floor. And if it were a real Mansard roof, that would help recede the massing. I don't know.

It was very hard for me to read the little FAR tabulation because it wasn't in a typical planning and zoning sheet that's easier to read. Was hard. I don't know. Are you planning on a zoning special exception exception on on this? This?

No. The existing so when you add the amount of bathrooms that get added to a commercial building when it converts to residential often takes away more FAR from the calculation. Calculation. So the existing FAR was a 2.4 with the full FLA-four roof accounting for even the further recess of the mansard, right? And we end up at a 2.38 from FAR. So we're not exceeding that.

Okay. I know that that's, you know, not in our purview, but I thought it was 1.5 if it's residential, if you have the residential component.

1.5

For the FAR.

No, we're at 2.5. It was converted under SEP to a CRM UX.

Okay. So it did go through the SEP process GREEN: for that? Okay. But I think that with the additional 10% on the Mansard Slope, that's going to make the dormers really read more like dormers and reduce the massing of it looking like a five story building instead of a four story with a mansard roof. I think that it's important to bring that back, especially given, if you don't mind going to BAR number nine, the existing slope of the roof.

You're referring to the Washington Street standard?

No, I'm just looking at the existing elevation.

Oh, page nine.

Yeah, page nine. Yeah.

Oh, do I have to Our

eight is fine.

Here we go. How about the photos? There you go.

So it really reads like a four story building. I think it doesn't need to be that sloped back. But I think that additional 10 degrees makes it a typical mansard slope. And it'll help with your dormers. That is

GREGORY Would you mind if I shared with you the two precedent buildings that are on North Washington?

Sure.

It's in the package. Can you go to I believe it's either a couple pages before this or a couple pages after. One more slide. So so this this is located at 900 North Washington. It's about two blocks to the north. You you see that the the pitch of the mansard and the projection of the dormers were virtually matching this on this building. We went back. We stood in front of the building. We looked at it. We felt that the pitch of the roof was very similar.

If you go to the page right before this again, this is a more modern interpretation. But again, the pitch is also just as steep and the dormer projections are also virtually the same. We felt

I did look at that. And these are three story buildings. And they're much more delicately treated, especially with the elevation, with the way it goes ins and outs. So if you don't mind showing the other mansard roof that's on King Street that's in the packet.

Yeah. Page 20

So there you're seeing a much taller building. And here the mansard roof is reading more like a mansard. It's really helping reduce that whole floor. Look at 100 South Royal, 320 King Street. Those are much closer to the building that we're looking at tonight.

Appreciate the suggestion. And we can always look at it further.

Okay, thank you.

Can I just point out, since we have this on, you've got for 320 King Street in this image, you do have that precast material instead of a soldier course? I'm not suggesting you would have to do that, but it is something that you could consider as an alternative if you don't think you have enough materials.

Sure.

Yes. Since she's on the mansard roof, can we go to one of the renderings that shows the mansard roof? And I just had a question about, Yeah, that one's elevation is fine. I guess why did the material, the mansard roof stop at the balconies? Because that just feels strange that it stops there. I would think the mansard material would carry across it. Across the balcony.

We were trying to tie in the ornate details of the balconies with the outdoor area on the 5th Floor. So that was what our goal was. We felt it was a little too heavy to expand, do like a parapet wall which would be on a slope and kind of feel like a pocket cut opening into a roof.

That's what it looks like, a pocket cut opening to the roof even in your renderings. That's why I asked for the columns. And I think the columns that were shown are just kind of not haphazardly placed, but they're not really designed columns. They're just somebody pulled a rectangle down and said, there's a column there. I think if they had been designed columns, would have been tasteful. But with or without the columns, think the material the mansard needs to carry across to make it feel more uniform because it doesn't feel like a true mansard. It feels like just bits and pieces of a mansard.

Well, we tried to pull the windows back off the corners. We reduced the dormers. We aligned them. We felt that was enough of a change on the mansard roof to bring out that design a little bit further. I'd like to say I really do like the rail across the it's not very tall. It's only 18 inches.

I'm not talking about it from the bottom. I'm talking about the top material.

Oh, yeah. We can put sleep there.

Can I ask a question related to this? I see that the height of your building is 53 and some inches. Is that as tall as you can go under the zoning ordinance?

This was a map amendment? Yeah. Was it a map or a text amendment? But it was done during the SUP process.

So I'm just asking if you could bring the mansard roof, make it slightly taller to show the pitch of it and really make the dormers really read more as dormers?

We are fairly restricted given that the height is already taller than the North Washington standard at 53. We really have very limited flexibility

You wouldn't be able do Okay.

Well, where are you?

We did tighten the windows though. You did. That was another suggestion. The height of the windows, we weren't seeing this kind of it's a little bit more pronounced line across the top of the dormer than was there before. So we did shorten the windows about six inches to accommodate that.

SPEAKER So I just want to make sure I'm tracking this conversation. So for the cutout in the center for patio there on the 4th Floor, 5th Floor, you would suggest instead of metal on the top that it just be continued

slate. The manser's slope slate would continue across.

And you want it to follow the slope too?

Yeah. So it looks like a complete manser.

We'd be Okay with that.

Are there other thoughts on that issue?

I think that's a good point. And then if the internal walls are turning back in, should the mansard also have that slope? Right now, it's just a vertical side walls of the inset.

So you're asking is just the material of the mansard turn back and let the back wall itself be?

Yeah. Okay. So if it's reading like a bay, like two bays, you know the outside slope of the mansard is here but the inside slope is not. Ah, you're

saying slope the inside. So that is another approach if you want it to be two bays, is that you start sloping

the inside Aesthetically, it may be possible. We do have door entrances coming on that are not quite visible there.

I saw that. Yeah.

Looks like you might have a little wall space or something.

It's a good suggestion. Don't know. Would you feel about something like that?

I do like that the outside corners of the mansard are sloping from the building shell. And so I worry that if we put them on the inside, you're almost creating two separate mansards and they would read like two separate buildings. It would almost be in contrast to one building.

Two peers in theory? Yeah. That's why I was trying to slope to

I think slope to the top and adding slate there is fine. We'd be open to that.

I was going to say it might be interesting to take the slate back, though, on the sides even if they are perfectly straight. So it looks like it's going back on there. It's something you could study,

not sand Yeah, maybe like 18 inches or something. I

know you can't take it all the way back, but architect in me wants it to go all the way back.

Yeah.

Well if you'd allow me to study

that with Bill, we'd be happy to explore that.

Okay,

I'll let you guys talk. Do we have any other comments

on this one?

I just wanted to say that in regard to what we're specifically talking about right now, I really liked Mr. Spencer's suggestion that the if I understood it correctly, that the ends of the on the fourth level I'm sorry, fifth level, that there be columns rather than just a long rectangular space on the ends of what looked to me like folding glass doors. Because I think visually, it would help bring the eye up. So I would suggest I would agree with Mr. Spencer that columns would be nice there.

Otherwise, I might as well go ahead and make my comments. I think you've really listened to our board and what we suggested a month ago. And I can't tell you how much we appreciate that. Thank you very much. I think the building is better for it. Those are all my comments at the moment.

Thank you.

I'll go ahead and give my so I don't have necessarily additional comments, but I do agree with the bathroom windows. Not necessarily they don't need to have the top. And I do agree with Mr. Nino about the Mansard group. I think the angle needs to be more to kind of show that is a Mansard group.

So I think that makes a big difference also because of the height of it because it's such a tall building. It helps to reduce that effect. And for the balconies, as we talked about, I also agree with just sloping the top part of it and have the same material. Thank you for the changes you have made. It does look much better.

Thank you. Thank you for the suggestions.

I have a comment as well. Briefly, I think this design is really a handsome response and it's going to improve this building immensely. I can't wait to see it on Washington Street. Appreciate the consideration you gave to all the comments. I think your changes are thoughtful.

I really like the evolution of the balconies, the shape, and the weight at the bottom, which I do think could be echoed where you have the soldier course with cast material. I think that would be an appropriate substitute if you do so need that. If we could go to the detail of the actual balcony railings, it's towards the end of the presentation. I just had one comment on that. So maybe we could zoom in on the decorative railing.

So this is a small thing, but I do think it's going to be really noticeable on the building. I find the detail of that very Gothic in nature. And I think it could be simplified potentially to just the ring band railing that you see. Just I think a simpler, cleaner design might be more appropriate to the building. But I appreciate that you wanted to add some detail. I'm just not sure that's the right detail.

Understood. Thank you.

That's all.

I have one more comment. Can you go to page 35, please? Yes, right there. So at the balcony carve out again next to the bay window on the right hand side there needs to be a little more material there. Right now you have looks like a slither of material there and it doesn't look

like I agree with you. I noticed that earlier today. I agree with you. So we can extend that maybe 12 inches or so.

Yeah, maybe a little bit more. Maybe it lines up with the window frame or something because it just I think 12 inches might look a little danky. It needs to be enough meat there to make it look like it's

I agree.

Really carving out.

Yep.

In that case, should it be on both sides to be? Or you can maybe again adjust the windows just so that it's in the center.

Centered up. Yeah, that's another. Yeah. If you're going to do that, yeah, could the window slide a little bit so that if you add some more material to the right that the whole thing is centered up? Is there a space to do that? Let's start with that.

I'm not sure if that's a bedroom. You're saying shorten it to two windows?

No. No. So on the carve out if you add the material on the right side next to the bay, can you move the windows within the carve out, center them up in that space.

Yeah. Can shorten that. Absolutely. Thank you.

And I do like the current balconies. I don't want to be all negative.

They won't be difficult. I mean, they'll be difficult to make, but it'll come They're decorative

railing, you mean?

No, the curved balconies and stuff.

They were square initially. They're really nice.

They were square initially.

So we're kind of all over the place here. Does anyone else have a comment on the decorative railing? We did have a comment on the style of it. And I just wonder if anyone else wanted to weigh in on that.

I agree with your comment. Okay.

Yeah, I do too. I think that's a good comment.

I like what's there. And I would be open to exploring exploring other other possibilities. Possibilities.

Are there any more comments from anyone on this? So the only thing that seems really substantive right now is whether oh, first of all, did you read the staff report? Did you see there was a recommendation in there on ensuring that the material on the sides of the dormers and the dormer window surrounds would be metal, similar in color?

It will be metal.

Okay. Just sort of to blend in with the synthetic slate?

Yes.

Okay. The issue of the roof pitch, do you have any how are you responding to this suggestion that it be a slightly steeper grade? Do you have flexibility there?

I would prefer to keep it, in my opinion. Again, you have to understand where we're coming from here. So on the existing design, it was such a such a shallow pitch that we're trying to achieve the opposite of that. Right?

Yeah.

So we felt that there was enough precedent on North Washington to achieve that. Whether the whether the building's four or five stories, I still think it. We bought this building under the assumption that it was going to be a five story building. And we're not going any higher than it was.

So

we don't really control those factors.

SPEAKER So I'm not an architect. I'm wondering from our architects if are there architectural details that could be incorporated that would be different from changing the pitch of the roof, such as making the dormers a little bit lower or, I don't know, doing anything to distinguish the dormers from the roof. I don't have any suggestions. I just wonder if anyone else does.

What is the pitch on the dormers?

I honestly don't have the degree. I meant to write it down before I came in here, but I do not have it.

When you look at this building right now, it looks like a four story building. And then this one looks like a five story building. So we really like to, if you can bring some more like a, you're not asking for too much slope like the one that is existing, but some slope just to give that a feel of this is actually a mass or

There may be room for a very light adjustment. Okay.

Yeah, I was thinking just 10%, 8% to 10%.

Let me examine it with my architects. And if you don't mind, if we could I'll ask Bill's thought, and we can work through it with the staff.

Yeah. Mr. Conkey, is that something you could work through?

I've been given some pretty clear directions, I'm happy to work with him. Okay.

My only concern is we had talked about this last time, and it was a problem. So I have a feeling, unless we ask them to please

take If you can give me a clear direction to say you would like it at no less than something, if you would like to be that specific, I'm absolutely happy to work with them, to work with the applicant to figure out how to actually achieve that. Happy to do so. But if you'd like to be very specific about that, that just gives me more guidance.

While everyone is thinking, I'll offer some comments. I live very close to here. And I think you've done a great job. I think it's a really nice design. I wasn't here for the first meeting, so I didn't offer any comments.

But I think it's going to be a huge improvement to the block and to North Washington Street, which everybody cares a lot about. So I just want to thank you for the careful and thoughtful design here. I know we're talking about some little details, but I don't have any large comments. I will say I agree with Mr. Spencer that the small bathroom windows elevation probably don't need any kind of decoration on the top I think it's fine if they read just as small windows and it's getting pretty crowded over there by the other ones so that also might allow you to save on some brick material.

I have a question for you, Teresa. I guess my concern about sloping it too much is the headroom on the inside. I know that's not in our purview, but they still have to be functional. But is there an opportunity for the I forgot my architectural terms at this point. The cornice to be maybe more decorative so

the eye stops. Would that help?

One thing I wanted to point out before the issue response. The dormer windows are pretty large. So I think as far as the height, you know, maybe something, you know, I don't think it affects too much, at least 50% of it, right? Like it looks

like

50% or so or more.

The window height at the dormers is fine. I'm saying beyond the dormers is what. Right.

I'm saying that because the dormers are so large, 50% of the interior have enough headroom at least if we do just 8% to 10%.

Do we have a section in the back

We don't. So that's why I'm kind of concerned about saying it has to be at a certain percentage because we don't have any idea of what that would actually do.

Yeah. And we also don't I mean, could eyeball what 5% is. But I would hesitate to give you a minimum pitch change because we don't have that sort of sensitivity analysis with us. I will say, I've noticed you've beefed up the cornice molding from the last time. Could you beef it up a little more? I was asking Teresa, would that help?

Or more decorative or something?

Yeah. I'm thinking it's the massing, really. That's there. It looks like you have 10 feet floor to floor. So bringing that in 10 degrees, I'm not too sure how that's going to really negatively impact the interior.

Well, there's a structural component to it as well, if you don't mind. So right now, with the existing pitch, it's just at an angle where we don't have to do these like freestanding beams and then have columns drop to the middle of the floor plate which would really influence the layouts quite a bit. So we're trying to balance that out. So we can use the existing CMU all within the brick to support it, you know, kind of a cantilever for a column to come down tighter to the wall. Otherwise, you start losing you have to start furring out walls.

You really start losing quite a bit of livable square footage if you have to pitch it even further. So it's a consideration we're balancing. I I think we're open to it. I think I'm reluctant to to agree to a comment within the approval right now without having my architect do a study of what that entails. And so I think if you can just give Bill some direction on what you think is appropriate, I think he he's very well suited in making the right decision that would align with your interest.

My one concern of 10%, for example, 10% reduction of the mansard is finished product when it's redone or the drawing is redone, what is it going to look like? Is it going to be the improvement that we're looking for? And we won't know that if we don't see it again. So I guess we'd be putting that in your court, Bill, right?

Mean, it's What's going to look like with It would be up to I mean, it would be up to the board to how you would make the condition. If you were to state the condition to be a minimum number, then we would need to achieve that number. Otherwise, you could word it in such a way that it's I don't know. It would be an improvement to the slope it back so that it effectively does whatever you're trying to achieve. It depends on how you word the motion, I guess, is my long way of answering a short question.

Yeah, I mean 5% to 10% probably isn't going to affect livable square footage, but it probably would affect your structural component for your 5th Floor, right? That's probably the main consideration for you there. Well, I'm going to go over what I've got in terms of notes right now in case anyone's thinking about emotion or just to make sure that I've captured everything that I think we've talked about. The first would be the 5th Floor cutouts would have slate material at the top instead of metal. Number two would be work on staff on designing a few columns to sort of break up just the open expanse on the balcony, make it look a little more residential, a little less corporate the third would be the authorization if needed to replace your soldier course with something like a precast material or using working with staff on that That would be a permission.

The fourth would be working with staff on using a less Gothic element in the decorative railing. The fifth would be on the north elevation on the right side to add some more material between the dormer and the cutout. And

then

the sixth one would be essentially working with staff to increase the pitch of the roof ever so slightly to make the dormers pop out a little bit more. So I think we would all I don't want to speak for everyone, but even a small change could be beneficial.

May I add a 6A? Yeah, yeah. Which was at that dormer that we're seeing on the screen on the right hand side is that he was going to re center the windows within the bay once he adds the additional material to the side.

Can I make one suggestion maybe to give it a little bit more depth on

the dormer?

What if we extended the roofline of the top of the dormer a little bit to project it a little bit more so it adds a little bit more contrast to the slope?

The height?

No, the depth. Like maybe a little bit more of The dormer. The roof on the dormer.

Adding like a more substantial cornice piece at the top.

Maybe or make it deeper.

I think if you could slim down the slim it down, it might be better.

Right. I was going to say is it possible to shorten the dormers a little bit?

We may be able to adjust the pitch down a little bit. But we're pushing up against the It's hard to tell here, but that parapet wall sticks about 18 inches above the floor. So we're pushing those windows pretty tight if we go any further. We've already shortened it six inches to accommodate having more of a heavier line run across the top. So I'd be reluctant to do that if we can avoid it.

I also want to add an eight. Okay. I'm going to make you make the motion. Which we discussed when I was talking. Said that they would explore turning the mansard material back on the vertical wall.

You mean within the cutouts? Within the cutouts. Is it programmed to be right now? Brick or kind

It's mostly glass. Whatever we didn't have glass would be a metal panel most likely that matches the dormers.

So it would just go back on that vertical space.

So on the interior return of the cutout like maybe put some slate in there or the synthetic slate?

That's kind of what we were talking about.

I think we can take it maybe to the doorway opening. To the doorway opening. It would return a little bit and then it would be glass. I think that would accomplish the same thing. I think we're certainly open to that.

I know that you're familiar with the building on the North Side Of Madison Street. You've got the old historic home that's been relocated to the corner. And then there's the building on Columbus Street and then the other building that's programmed to go in there on Washington Street. Just can you refresh my memory? How tall is that building? Do you know?

50 feet.

It's 50 feet. So it's a little bit shorter than this building.

Correct.

Okay. Just by a few inches.

This building's 53.

Oh by three feet.

Yeah. By three feet. But then the row house sits below the 50 foot structure pretty substantially.

But in terms of looking at it as a block?

It will feel the same appropriately.

Will be a little bit taller.

I just wanted to say I commend you on the beautiful renderings that you have provided. And I think it's the window, keystone and the window header that's brick right now as it's shown is really beautiful. So if you can keep it and reuse the brick, that would be, of course, preferred.

Desirable, yes, absolutely. That's our preference.

Right. Ms.

Miller, go ahead.

And I have a question,

Mr. Scott, on your number five

condition, were you saying work with the staff to reduce the Mansard slope? Is that what you meant?

I think that was my number six. But yes. Just work with staff to reduce it. It's up to the board, obviously. I'm one person on the board. But my thought is, I don't know that we're well situated to suggest a particular pitch change because we just don't have that information before us. 10% over 10 feet is going to be a foot in. So that's really not going to change livable space that much, but it could change the structure to some extent.

Yeah, because if you can imagine, there's a steel beam at the top that needs to run across. So the further you peel that in, the deeper the wall gets. It will impact space if it comes back above.

But 5% over 10 feet is like half a foot, right? That's kind of six inches.

Kind of what I'm thinking.

That might be doable. Mean, inches will provide a greater reveal there at the top of your dormer. It will be visibly noticeable. Yeah. It'll just make them Okay. So maybe that fifth condition is to work with staff to get somewhere in the neighborhood of a 5% increase in the pitch.

That's a minimum 5%, if more possible.

GREGORY Okay. All right. I'm going to read these again because I've had to renumber them. And I wrote one down twice.

So

here we are. Number one is 5th Floor cutout roof would be slate. Number two would be work with staff on designing some columns to break up the open patio cutouts on the 5th Floor. Number three would be a permission to eliminate the soldier course on the bathroom windows. And then I guess number four would be use precast in lieu of soldier court.

It's just a permission, not a requirement, in case you're having issues with the brick. Then number five would be work with the staff on a decorative railing just to make it more consistent with the style of the house. Do want to note though we have encouraged more decorative railing railings especially on King Street at times. And so I think what I'm hearing from my colleague on the board is that for this particular building the style of this particular building a Gothic style railing may be not appropriate okay I just want to make sure we distinguish it okay so that would be would be work with Stephan, Dick, and Rilling. VI would be on the north elevation on the right side by the dormer.

Just increase the amount of material and also sort of re center the windows within that bay. That's six. Number seven is minimum 5% increase in grade on roof. Slope. Slope is the same thing as grade. And then, Ms. Miller, I

think you had something else for me that I haven't said. Did I forget something?

Work with staff to reduce the Mansard slope.

I just said that.

Okay, at least five degrees.

That's number seven. Does anybody have anything else?

I had one that you got, which was returning the slate material inside the bump outs. Not bump outs, but inside the cut outs. GREGORY

To the door, right? Slate on return All right.

Can I ask you one question?

Yes, sir.

Condition two was the columns, right?

Yeah.

See, intention of the alternative design was to show how awkward it feels to me, personally. We can certainly explore it, but I don't I really do not want to obstruct the views that we're creating there.

I agree that is pretty awkward. I think the idea would be to make it more decorative so that it wasn't so awkward.

Right. The idea was that they would be not black spots that come down like that. I guess in idea, were going to be kind of decorative white columns that kind of blends in with the all your rendering show that recess is white, so it kind of blends in with that. And it's sitting at the front face of the edge of the mansert it could be set back a little bit so it actually looks like it's supporting something in the mansert sticking out past it a little bit so I think it's just a design thing because this doesn't feel like these columns were designed they were just kind of pulled and said here's a rectangular mass and there they

are I do, to your point, think that without having some kind of a column there, you almost do read it like it's two different roofs. And I think it will understanding your comment about the views but I do think it will make the whole roof seem a little bit more like a single plane. And it reads more residential with those columns. I also think people would look right through the columns and look at the view of the river there. I don't think they would notice the columns at all from the inside.

Would anyone else like to add anything to this motion? And we're going to add staff recommendations.

Staff recommendations, yes. Okay, have you been hearing what I've been saying?

I have

written it all down. Okay. Yep, I have written it all down. I'm good. Sophia, I have a motion and a second for the staff list.

And staff recommendations.

Yeah. I need a second. So do we have a motion first?

That is the motion. That is the motion From the chair.

From Andy.

From the chair. Am I allowed to make a motion?

Yes. Of course.

Okay. Unless anyone else wants to. I've just been taking notes.

Second that motion. Okay.

And I assume we need a roll call on this?

Yes, we do since there's a demolition.

All right. Well, let's call the roll.

Okay. Ms. Robinson?

Aye.

Mr. Spencer? Aye. Ms. Sandian?

Aye. Ms. Miller?

Aye. Ms. Sondinio? Aye. And Mr. Scott?

Aye. Congratulations.

Thank you. What

is next?

Okay. We have a light docket tonight. We only have one more item tonight, item number six and seven under new business, BAR 2020 Six-eighty 8, Old Historic District. Request for alterations and addition at 229 South Pitt Street. Applicant is Chris and Courtney Cox, represented by Susie O'Brien, architect. And BAR 2020 Six-ninety 2, Old Historic District. Request for partial demolition encapsulation at 229 South Pitt Street. Applicant is Kris and Courtney Cox, represented by Susie O'Brien, architect.

Hi. Hi.

I'm Susie O'Brien from Thompson and Cook Architects. I'm representing Chris and Courtney Cox. They hired us to design a small mudroom entry on the side of their home on South Pitt Street and to sort of give them a little bit more space at the entry on the side so that they have more of a mudroom. And then to also bring more light into the existing dining area at the back of their house by rebuilding the bay window that's currently there and just creating more taller windows and bring more light in through those. And I'm available for questions.

Thank you. I will point out to my colleagues on the board, if you look at page three of the staff report, this is almost not visible from the public right away. So it's quite concealed. With that, does anyone have any initial questions for the applicant before we open it for public comment?

I had a question. Were you planning on gutters and downspouts?

Yes. I'm not sure if we're showing it or not. But the idea would be we try to keep copper gutters, either half routes or K style gutters, in keeping with the architecture that's there. But yes.

Do we have any public speakers on this application? All right. We'll close the public comment period. And if anyone would like to offer comments or make a motion, the floor is open.

Make a motion to approve per staff recommendations.

Second.

I'm sorry. Miss Miller, was there a second?

No. Thank you.

Have you reviewed the general notes on the application? Yes. Okay. Everything's fine? I think so. Okay, great.

It's roll call? Yes, is. It's also has demolition.

Call or roll?

All right. Miss Robinson?

Aye.

Mr. Spencer? Aye. Miss Andean? Aye. Ms. Miller. Aye. Ms. Don Mignon.

Aye.

And Mr. Scott.

Aye. Congratulations.

Thank you.

Okay. I think that's it for business today.

That is all we have for tonight. A couple of notes about the next hearing. It will be back at Charles Houston. As everyone here knows, we are continuing to fine tune our Charles Houston setup. I think the last hearing went much better in terms of ability to hear, ability to communicate with the public. We're continuing down that road. I will say that the first hearing that we had there, the recording was almost impossible to make out, unfortunately. The second one was much better. We're still working towards it. So just, you know, any suggestions, anything you guys have come up with as we're continuing to work through this, let me know. And we'll continue to improve it.

I will just oh, yeah, go ahead.

So because of the structure, way that they because the Parks and Rec department is a sister department to us and schools are very separate, it would be very difficult to use a school facility because of after hours access, all these other things. It's much easier for us to work with a sister department than it is with something while schools are all under the city government, they do function sort of separately. Because we looked at I think it was an early suggestion about using the school board chambers. And we had the same problem. It's just it's difficult to we end up having to reserve it. We end having to spend money on it. It's difficult. So we just it's easier for us in terms of logistics to work with rec centers.

Is the pool part of the rec center department?

Yeah, which pool?

So when the pool is rebuilt, maybe we can have our meetings at the pool.

You go. We can have the meetings in the pool in July.

Okay.

So I have a question. I'm sure you have looked at it. But is there any space in the space that you have been moved to?

No. In fact, that's actually causing us some problems. So we're trying to set up our design guidelines committee. And now we're looking for space because we don't have any after hours access to our current office. We can't have any after hours access. So we're trying to find space for our design guidelines.

You can't go to the building after hours?

No, because it would have to be open to the And the elevators are locked after hours. And so we'd have to find some way to keep them open. It would be difficult. So we're struggling with that. Again, we keep coming back to rec centers. They're open all hours.

GREGORY I do just want to point out to my colleagues. I've looked at preliminary docket. It's a pretty big docket for next week, including some townhouses on North Columbus Street that may be controversial. And so I would just ask everyone, if you have time, to review the docket and the docket items before the meeting. Because I think we will all be overwhelmed if it's a case of first impression when we're looking at the materials for next week.

So not that you aren't doing it, but in two weeks. Sorry, next time. Yeah, it'll just be that's a good opportunity to practice reading and visiting the sites in advance, which I know we're all doing anyway. Okay, with all of that, I will adjourn the meeting. And we'll see you in a couple of weeks.

Have a good evening.

Part of the city hall renovation is the renovation of Market Square, which holds the Old Town Farmers Market. The 100 block of North Royal Street

from