Sorry.

This meeting is called to order.

We have a full docket tonight.

So any members of the public, if you wish to speak, please be short, concise, and to the point.

Individuals have to have up to three minutes, and those representing organizations have to up to five minutes.

All right.

Do any members of the public have uh any comments?

Or we do any members of the uh board have comments on the minutes?

Yes, I do.

Go ahead.

Okay.

There are a couple things there are a couple of things that need to be changed.

Um first of all, the minutes say that Ms.

Miller, Miss Zandian, and Mr.

Spencer were absent, and that's not right.

We were here.

And uh supported by the fact that we were later quoted for what we had to say.

And then the other thing about the minutes that I didn't find right.

It made reference to um the December 3rd meeting, but those minutes that we are considering were from the December 17th meeting.

Um those were the two things that stood out to me.

Okay, we'll make sure we get that fixed.

Can I get a motion on the minutes?

I move to adopt them.

Are we adopting them if they have to be corrected?

We can you can adopt them as corrected.

I can adopt them as correct.

Yep.

Yes.

Um second.

I didn't.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh all those in favor?

Aye.

Sorry.

Any opposed?

No.

Uh minutes are adopted.

Uh next item on the calendar is the consent calendar.

Uh Mr.

Conky, would you please read?

Thank you.

Uh, we have one item in the consent calendar tonight.

BAR 2025-00545 old historic district request for alterations at 201 South Washington Street.

The applicant of the City of Alexandria represented by Francis J.

Delimba.

Uh do any members of the board wish to remove this item from the consent calendar.

Uh do any mem does any member of the public wish to remove this from the consent calendar?

I do have one speaker form for this item.

Um, Scott Corzine.

Uh Mr.

Corsine, would you like to remove this from the consent calendar?

Mr.

Croissan, would you like to remove this from the consent calendar or just would would you want to speak if it had been removed?

Uh I I heard someone was removed off the consent calendar.

We've don't have we've not had anybody anybody want to move it off.

Okay.

Can I speak to it or I mean if well if you want to speak to it, we will remove it from the consent calendar.

Okay, please.

Okay.

Thank you.

Oh, one second, one second, please.

We should working through here, but we'll be to you in just a minute.

Oh sorry.

Okay, so we remove from the consent calendar.

Okay, we'll uh remove this item from the consent calendar.

Um please uh uh please state your name and address.

Hang on, hang on.

Let's let's let the board we have to the applicant gets to um present their case first.

I also want to remove it.

I also want to remove it.

Um I'd like to speak to it.

Well again, let's again let's let the applicant present their um present their case first and then we'll um is the applicant um here for item number um two zero two five zero zero five four five 201 South uh Washington Street.

No share this Mr.

Conky, what should we do?

We can I mean we can proceed without the applicant here.

Uh that's fine.

We don't need necessarily have to have them here.

We can ask staff can answer questions if we need to.

Um so Ms.

Miller, please go ahead.

Okay.

Um my concern is that there's not a wait.

Is there someone here?

Is the applicant here?

No.

No, we're gonna move forward without we have a cut of docket tonight, so we're gonna keep moving forward.

We got a rocket docket.

We're crowded docket.

Oh, a crowded docket.

Okay, so I was gonna um uh I wanted to know that whether or not this the applicant agreed with these uh city's recommendation that it be it be sunbrella or comparable material.

And also if we in in these cases we um need a drawing of what it's going to look like.

This is an awning, is it not?

Uh yes, and there's a there's a there's a rendering of well those are my my that's my input.

with the city's recommendation that it be it be sunbrella or comparable material and also if we in in these cases we um need a drawing of what it's going to look like this is an awning is it not uh yes and there's a there's a there's a rendering of well those are my my that's my input we need to know if the applicant agrees so we can quickly just move it to another calendar rendering for her well I think we can the board can take the action tonight without the without the applicant here if the board takes the action of uh adopting staff recommendations then that we could do we can we can do that tonight I don't want to slow us down but is that in compliance with what we normally do we usually review awnings we are reviewing the awnings yes there's nothing on it's just okay we did have we do have a public speaker yes um please uh yes so Mr.

Scott Corzine thank you good evening Scott Corzine living at 300 Queen Street I'm told that the awning uh being applied for is a plastic awning and um my understanding is that we require uh other materials when I renovated my house at 300 Queen Street and proposed composite windows I was quickly told they had to be wood and I complied why should the city be treated any differently with their choice of a plastic awning versus a more substantial awning thank you thank you um do any members of the public have comments um on this no uh do any board members want to make comments uh I want to continue my comments is this gonna have any um signage on it any verbiage or just not that's not as a pledge for no madam chair me madam chair can you close the public hearing please oh uh we'll close the public hearing at this point uh and open it up to the members no there's no this is this is on the um on the side entrance to the lyceum so there's no nothing is being asked for here it's just a just a cover for the door okay all right um okay would you like to make a motion yes I'll be glad to make a motion um I would uh make a motion to approve staff recommendations um with the clarification that there can be no vinyl or plastic and it needs to be comparable to Sunbrella if not Sunbrella in particular yeah that's the staff recommendations yeah I see that but I'm just want to be clear on it thank you thank you I'll second that um all in favor aye aye aye uh all opposed a so uh consent calendar is adopted um thank you we'll move on to the next item uh Mr Gonki uh the next item will start the new business uh could you please uh read number four and five sure uh number four item number four and five B AR 2025-00540 Parker Gray request for alterations at 602 North Alford Street applicant is Michael Lincoln represented by Matthew Gardner and B AR 2025-00541 Parker Gray request for partial demolition encapsulation at 602 North Alfred Street applicant applicant is Michael Lincoln represented by Matthew Gardner is the applicant present yes um hi can you please uh come uh to the stand and uh state your name and address please good evening everyone uh Michael Lincoln of well formerly of 602 North Alfred Street okay thank you um would you like to make a presentation or answer to questions uh I I think uh after reading the the submission that that you have put forward we're we're ready to answer questions if necessary okay thank you um staff recommendations any members of the public do you um do you have any comments we don't have any uh we'll close uh the public comments and um open it to to the members if you have any questions or comments um please go ahead I do have a question madam chair um mr would the applicant consider putting some sort of uh kind of railing uh around the uh and I'm looking at page five of the of the staff report but to put some sort of a uh railing perhaps you know just a wood railing around the edge we wouldn't be opposed if necessary okay because uh the reason I ask is it just at least as the photograph here suggests it's really open and bare to my to my way of thinking understood so I I think if uh a railing could be added I think that would might help make it blend in uh more

We wouldn't be opposed if necessary.

Okay, because uh the reason I ask is it just at least as the photograph here suggests it's really open and bare to my to my way of thinking.

Understood.

So I I think if uh a railing could be added, I think that would might help make it blend in uh more with the kind of the feel of the the street.

Yes, ma'am.

Could I follow up on Ms.

Pratt's comment?

Yes, ma'am.

Um did you guys get the uh we got it, and Luke is gonna bring it up here in just a second.

So we we sorry in the in this room now we we don't control the slides, the screen from up here anymore.

We control them from back there, so I just sorry.

Um the photo the photo indicates the block face, uh you know, showing um three columns, you know, two columns that are uh centered around the door, and then one on the corner, yeah, like that.

And I think that that it's a very character defining porch.

I think um your idea of opening up the porch is great.

It's and it's really gonna add to this block face, and I'm hoping that um you can provide the three comms in front and and and maybe you know the a railing that Ms.

Pratt mentioned.

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you.

Did you change the roof as well?

Or we didn't renew the roof uh as well?

We did not.

No.

Or wait.

That didn't?

No.

You mean the to the main building?

No, to the porch.

To the porch.

No, no.

No.

Um and I understand that this is an after the fact.

What uh wonder why you didn't pursue permit for such a large kind of demo and for this one I I would uh defer to uh Matt, who was the uh contractor on site uh as far as some of the the lines of communication that you know my name is Matthew Gardner, uh live in 7808 Hermitage Drive, Fredericksburg, Virginia.

Um we reviewed it with the building department, and they said that we did not need a permit.

Um the building department came to the job site code enforcement four different times and told us that we didn't need a permit.

And it was the fifth time that they came that we needed a permit.

So we started the process.

Thank you.

Um I have one other question.

The material that you have used, um it shows the one that you have mentioned here, Isaac?

Yes, Asa.

Um where is that used?

It wraps the beam and it's at the top and bottom of the post, and the post is wrapped with uh clear pine and stained right too.

And um do you agree with um with staff's uh recommendation to paint uh the columns?

Yeah, no, no issues for um other members would like to make comments or questions and should we go ahead and make a motion?

Um so I'll go ahead and make motion um to approve per staff's recommendation and condition of um adding uh fence similar to other um other buildings on the block and uh the third column as we mentioned and paint um paint out of it white.

Can I ask a question?

Sure.

Um for the railing, does it have to be a certain type of material or can we uh we prefer it wood uh and similar design as the rest as exactly what the picture of yours we are looking at?

Uh that's that's what's the norm for for this area?

Thank you.

Uh can I get a second?

Second thought.

Thank you.

Um Mr.

Glanke.

Um is this a roll call or yes?

This has demolition, so yes, it is a roll call but uh Ms.

Uh Ms.

Pratt.

Aye.

Mr.

Spencer?

Aye.

Mr.

Adams?

Hi.

Ms.

Miller.

I.

Ms.

O Nino?

Aye.

And Ms.

Andian.

Aye.

Thank you.

And you're done.

Yeah?

Thank you.

Congratulations.

Thank you very much.

Um thank you.

Moving to the next item number six, Mr.

Conkey.

Thank you, ma'am.

Next item our docket tonight is item number six, BAR 2025-00548.

Old Nistoric District request for alterations at 101 North Columbus Street.

The applicant is old town number one LLC, represented by Paul Beckman, architect.

Hi, welcome.

Uh could you please uh state your name and address?

Um is Paul Beckman.

I reside at 214 East Mount Ida Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia.

Thank you.

Uh would you like to give a presentation or answer questions uh and discussion?

Um I can give a very brief summary of what our intent was.

Um, say a an application of a material that is systemic failure.

Um we initially tried about a year ago to start trying to find a contractor to come in and do a repair job on the stucco.

Um considering the state, the location, and the system that was used to apply it originally, we've been unable to find um any contractor that's willing to take this on.

Um because first and foremost is that this is really not part of best practices to put stucco directly on to brick.

Um and so, in the effort to try to get as close as possible to the same aesthetic, found a cement board that has approximate same finish condition.

Uh, the only visual difference would be just um some slight seaming, which the efforts in the drawings that I shared uh is trying to minimize that so that from the street view it would still appear as though as it is right now, only better and not sparling off the building.

Um but also the intent of having the board application, excuse me, the board application for longevity.

Uh since it would then we wouldn't have to worry about it having to come back ever so often and constantly repair it.

So that's the intent.

Uh any members of the board, if you have questions, you can ask them now.

I'll feel free to defer them to the deliberation.

Have any questions?

Uh I do.

Uh Mr.

Beckman, is to your knowledge, is this the original stucco, or what when was this stucco originally put on?

Uh the best of our knowledge, I mean, we do not know, we don't have the original drawings for this building.

Um, but staff did an excellent job finding some photographs uh that show it in place.

Um can't remember the exact date.

Looking at that, I think like a look at that.

It it's 1909.

Yeah.

So we we understand it to be, especially with the coining and all the detailing at the corners as part of the original design intent.

So we we certainly don't want to change that.

And do you know how frequently it has had to be repaired in its lifetime?

Um at this point, since I've been practicing here for about 20 some odd years and I've never seen it repaired.

Um and going into the records of the current owner, they are not aware of any time it's been repaired.

Um the challenge that we're having right now, and I said as far as the it's more of a means and methods challenge, and because it is also creating a public hazard in the in the case now, and I'm sure five guys would like to get our scaffolding out of the way.

Um this was the the solution that we thought might split the difference.

Yeah.

Because it just seems to me that it's actually held up quite well in many regards.

Oh, I wouldn't disagree with that.

Yeah, and there's there's no way to put any sort of surface over the brick that then new stucco could be applied to.

It is there's different ways that theoretically could be done.

The challenge is that the tradespeople that would have to do it are saying they won't do it because it's not how it's it's done now, and they won't warrant the work.

So not disagreeing with you whatsoever when we started the process.

I figured this was going to be an easy solution.

Lo and behold, found some hiccups along the way.

And I think one final question.

How minimal can the seams be made?

So that is there any way to make it appear effectively seamless.

Well, the seams would be down to about half an inch.

And even with that, we can come back in and fill that little that gap in.

Yeah, which I think has contributed to the overall cracking that's occurred.

So but the intent there is and happy to work with staff on trying to get that as tight as possible and filled in so that again visually that we retain the current look as it's been known historically.

Yeah, and if if there's some way to minimize the seams as much as possible and to make them the same color.

Oh, absolutely.

Yeah, we were gonna take some of the some of the stucco down and actually do a color match to make sure that we have that as part of the installation process.

All good questions.

I I had another had a question.

So the installation process, is it the idea that you're gonna place this over the existing stucco?

No, we would have to take the existing stucco off because if you look at the very bottom edge and staff put an excellent photograph seeing where it's delaminating, there's a little step back in the brick.

Okay.

So that you you know, when it's installed, it's going to be just all in the same plane, and we want to make sure we're going to retain that relationship as opposed to just laminating over top of the existing stuff.

That's why I was asking the question.

Yeah, okay.

Thank you.

No, that's that's an important detail we're gonna make sure it's held on to.

So is this a paint finish?

Uh it's actually a fiber cement board that has a you know there's a variety you can get the finish in all kinds of different textures.

But and even custom textures, so we're gonna match the stucco finish that's up there, and then be able to, once we remove the existing stucco, put the new panels on, fasten that into the brick, since the fiber boards, they actually you know they have more internal stability, and then come back over and paint that and you know, treat the seams so that we can get it to blend in as much as possible.

Um so it is a paint finish.

Well, well, it's a we have like a quarter inch painted what's that?

Is it shop painted?

It'll be field painted because we want to make sure it's it matches.

But it's actually a it comes in four foot by eight foot sheets that you put up there on with masonry anchors.

And so the joints are every four feet, right?

But I staggered them so it works with the current uh detailing.

If you look in the in the application, I've got the details in there for how the seaming would work.

So it would be integrated with the the current layout of the facade.

Um are you planning?

Uh are you planning to do this everywhere to remove the stucco everywhere or just where the repair where it has been coming off?

Well, I want to investigate and see if we have to remove all of it.

We know we have at least four or five locations that it's delaminating or that we have to address.

Um if we're able to minimize the amount that we have to remove, that's great.

Um but right now I want to make sure we have the approval in case we find we have a worst-case scenario, and we have to go ahead and take it all down if we found that it's been delaminating all around.

I mean, preferences of course to keep the original and minimal.

Uh, but then the question is is the thickness would it match exactly the existing stucco?

Yeah.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

I didn't have one more question.

Um how are these panels anchored?

Uh they have through bolt macery anchors that go through, and then you're able to, I mean, just like you have a drywall, then you come back over and you can put some quick little parging on it to make sure that it seals up.

So it's kind of counter-sunked in theory a little.

Well, the I guess my other question is fiber cement board.

I'm just worried about it cracking when you try to countersync it.

It's got some resilience to it with the the fibers on it.

So we have um in the packet that I submitted, there's even anchoring details that come from the manufacturer.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Is stucco becoming obsolete?

Uh that sounds like an existential question.

Um I used to live in Florida and I would have begged for it to be on my obsolete down there.

Um it's more of the question of how it's been applied here.

I see.

So the substrate is the challenge because all the contractors we would talk to, they would raise two issues.

One is we don't even want to bid on it because we don't know what's behind there right now, and without removing, or basically say we don't want to bid on it until you let us go up there and take it all down so that we can see the substrate.

Like, well, let's not go that far just yet.

And then the other approach is well, applying it directly to the exposed brick, it's not how that they would do it now.

And because it's not part of the current approved methodology, they won't warrant it.

So as I have to talk to my client, like, well, we've got to find some way for it to be warranted work that we can have a contractor stand up and support if there's any issues at the same time.

We're trying to make sure that we have a solution that maybe we can preserve some of it.

So it's trying to thread a needle here.

So it's not speaking to stucco being obsolete.

Um it's speaking to this methodology of applying is not really used in contemporary times.

So we just have to deal with how we can work around it.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Thank you.

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

No, we'll uh close the public comments on this item and we'll go to deliberation.

Umkey have a question for you.

Uh yes, sir.

Does the staff have any recommendations for anchoring this to the mortar joints?

We don't make that we don't make that recommendation, but there is a the broad recommendation is to determine how exactly this is applied.

So that would be one of our things we would be looking for.

I don't think we want to anchor this to the brick itself.

Right, right, right.

So the staff recommend recommendation the way it's written talks about finding the finding the best way to attach this or to treat this.

Um that would be one of the things that we would be looking for is not to go into the face of the brick and be, you know.

So yeah, but but you but I mean that certainly if that's a um something the board feels strongly about, that could be something that you add as a as a condition of when when you work on this, make sure you don't go into the brick.

That would be fun.

Something I feel strongly about, but I will see how many other board members feel.

Any comments?

Um I do think the stucco is a very character defining element in this building.

It's just beautiful.

And I am hoping that um any demolition would be very limited, especially because it is over a hundred years old, probably, and it hasn't had a lot of um expansion and cracking and so I think uh I can support it if it's um limited in area and if the the seams are made basically invisible.

I did have one more follow-up question.

So if you're putting in this new board, I guess is there any thought to the treatment of the edge of the because you're gonna have a gonna have to make a clean edge somewhere.

Is there any thought to the treatment of that clean edge of the existing stucco?

Uh the system that we proposed, uh they have edge edge turns.

The last thing you want is to see any sort of rough edge.

Um so it's they have corner conditions that we can finish off so it will become monolithic going around.

It's not the corner of the I'm worried about the corner of the existing stucco.

Well that has never actually been exposed to the surface.

Now it's going to be exposed because you have to do a clean edge in order to butt up the new board to it.

If we have, you know, worst case scenario if we have to remove the and all the stucco, then we're gonna have to take it all the way up all the way around, you know, make sure that we have that clean.

I'm hoping.

I mean, this is just me speaking as looking at this, not knowing until we investigate this, is that we can cut a line if you look at the seams right at the bottom of those brackets.

Okay.

So it would go at the window heads, that we would take everything that otherwise what's underneath that cornice line seems to be in better shape.

And if we can remove that lower portion where I have that horizontal and the localized to your point, um and then we could you know again have that that little seam line there.

I would I was being more mindful about how we're gonna treat around the windows and the upper portion because they step in with that same stucco condition.

And so just doing a flat board going in without having the details resolved, it was gonna just cause a big problem.

So to your question, absolutely, all the corners have to be finished so they come across as monolithic as well.

So is it your plan?

Let's make sure I understand.

Your plan is to remove everything from the window head down across the whole building, or just where you need to.

What is your intent?

Not saying ideal world.

The intent is that if we can localize where we pull this down, okay, umce we investigate and see what's spalling, because first and foremost, it's a public safety issue.

Right.

And so we need to get up there, start seeing the integrity of the existing stucco, and you know, what areas have been impacted or degraded, and then how far up do we have to remove before we can say that we've secured it and we don't have an ongoing issue.

So my question is if you localize it and you don't have to remove it all.

I'm concerned about the joint of the existing stucco butting up to the new board product, and now you have existing stucco where you've made a clean line so you can get a clean butt joint, I assume that existing stucco which had a surface to it that was always in theory protective of the stuff behind it.

Now you have an edge that's not that's now exposed.

Well, the intent is I mean, this is it's the edge of the existing stucco that I'm concerned about, not the edge of the board product.

So you're thinking of some sort of sealant or yeah, I'm just like how do you do how do you plan to treat that condition?

That's well, we would have to have a basically a corner bead to be able to protect that older cementus material, and then we'd come up there and then just like we talked about before, minimizing that seam.

You know, so the largest it would be is half an inch, and you would be looking at it from street level 50 feet away.

Okay.

So hopefully it would not be terribly visible, but certainly we can work with staff and trying to get that seam as as tight as we possibly can.

I'm not really worried about the visibility of it from my concern that I'm talking about.

I'm more about if that edge is now exposed, will it cause future damage, is what I'm more concerned about.

We're not gonna leave that as a as a raw edge.

Okay.

To make sure if that's the answer I want to hear.

So the problem with repairing it as in stucco, is it um is it because they want they they don't know what's behind the brick and they want to attach to whatever because I would assume it's kind of like some sort of lath, like a metal mesh or something that they want to put attached to brick or behind a brick and then put the stucco on it if they just wanted to repair the stucco.

It seems very simple.

So I'm not sure why it's it's the pro where is the problem.

Yeah.

Uh it really comes into the the current tradesman.

You know, they're looking at it as trying to assess how much has to come down of they are we don't know what the substrate is like on the on the back side.

By substrate, you mean behind the brick?

Behind the stucco.

Behind stucco.

I mean the brick is exposed, right?

In the places that stucco is um has fallen down.

So it's it's I think the problem is there is no lath.

That's the issue.

Yeah, there's no lack.

That's it.

It's the current methodology that you would have a laugh board and then you would come in and you know, just like you're talking about, you'd have something that would be able to hold the stucco integrity intact.

Right.

That's not there in this older application.

I mean, to its credit, it's lasted a long time.

That's great.

Um, but we have to deal with the life safety issue now, unfortunately, to figure out how do we solve it in a way so that everyone is one can warrant it and get as close as possible to the matching of the existing.

So I think I did have one more follow-up question.

So if it gets to the point where you have to take this all down, wouldn't it be in today's world, wouldn't it be more advantageous to put the lath up properly?

Right.

That's if you have to take it all down.

And properly install it in theory.

And we've asked the contractors about the same question.

And you know, we can ask them again, but we're in a chicken in the egg situation where the contractors are saying, well, we're not gonna bid it until it's all taken down and we can understand what exactly what's behind this.

We're trying to avoid taking it all down.

And so we're trying to find a way that we can split mitigate where it's failing in a way that potentially preserves as much as we can.

So again, you're absolutely right.

And and I agree with that philosophy.

It is the means and methods that's tripping us up on this on how to get this done.

Any other comments?

No, I did have a question.

Um I didn't realize I was gonna have this one here.

It's all the details.

So um the vertical half-inch joints, which is a pretty hefty size joint, really.

Um in it's an aluminum extrusion.

Is that necessary or can you butt joint a panel?

We can try to tighten them up even more so, yeah.

And you know, with a half-inch joint, I figured we would be able to come back in and fill that in as well.

So it has some flexure points.

Um again, paint over all that with the same matching paint that from the existing condition.

It's gonna have a different um, it'll be a little more concave, it's gonna have a different uh texture, and I think those seams are gonna be uh detracting from the elevation.

So I was wondering if you even need the vertical aluminum extrusion, or if it or the two panels can just be put together and you just kinda kind of tape it and paint it.

I mean, we can talk to the manufacturers.

I mean, they're the ones who are going to be you know, providing any sort of follow-up details, so I'm not gonna tell you no.

Um again in the drawings will show you the worst case scenario, which would have those seams in a very deliberate location, so at least they're responding to the design, um, as opposed to haphazard in the field.

So you know, again, we can work with staff to see how tight we can get these seams down and get it as invisible as as invisible as possible.

Thank you.

So I guess I think you have heard our concerns that we'd like to keep it as minimal as possible if you have to uh remove, but still our preference is to work uh with the staff and with the contractors to try to see if you can repair it and bring back stucco if possible.

Uh if not, please keep it minimal and uh minimal seam.

Um so if everyone is okay with that, we'll go ahead and make a motion.

I'd like to add to that if that is the motion.

I'd like to add to that motion.

Um if during the process you they find out that it all has to come down, then I think we would want to explore putting the lath up and going back to just stucco that's how I feel personally, but I leave that to the other board members.

I agree.

Um so Mr.

Klaki, did you get all that as a motion or do you want us to say that you're let's let's restate that, please.

So we make a motion.

Um staff recommendations, and in addition to keep it as uh uh uh uh first to try to repair it with stucco uh uh if possible, if uh you have to remove everything.

Uh again, explore the uh putting the lath back with stucco.

Um if absolutely none of these is possible, then try to keep the repair with another material uh to minimum and to keep the seams to minimum.

All the same color.

Sounds good.

And do you want to add the um Mr.

Spencer's comment we've got about um anchoring it into the joints rather than the brick?

Yes, please.

Absolutely.

Thank you into the mortar.

Yep.

All right, can I get a second?

Second.

Thank you.

Um all in favor?

This is not a roll call, right?

This is not a roll call, sorry.

Yep.

Um all in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Thank you.

It's adopted.

Congratulations.

All right.

So many questions.

Next item is number seven and eight.

Uh yes, ma'am.

Uh item number seven and eight is BAR 2025-00549, old and historic district.

Request for alterations at 601 with street.

The applicant is 601 with Street LLC.

Represented by Matthew Lee Architect and BAR 2025-00550.

Old and historic district.

Question for partial demolition encapsulation at 601 with Street.

The applicant is 601 with Street LLC, represented by Matthew Lee Architect.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Welcome.

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

Sure.

My name is Matt Lee.

I live at 2426 Chestnut Street, Falls Church, Virginia.

Um thank you.

And would you like to give a presentation or answer to questions?

Um I'll give a quick uh overview of our project and then happy to answer questions.

Um again, my name is Matt Lee with Lee Design Studio, representing the applicant and design team this evening for the submission for 601 White Street, formerly known as the Water Environmental Federation Building.

It's a project situated at the corner of White and North St.

ASAF.

Originally built in 85 with the exterior reflecting the time period.

Our team is looking to bring the aesthetic forward to 26 and change the building to meet modern living standards, converting it from an out-of-date office to a luxury condo building, melting the into the existing area.

Project is going to consist of a new lobby space screening the residents of the 18 units.

Uppermost floor will add roof penthouse access spaces, providing those residents with sweeping views of the city and the potomac.

The exterior will be upgraded with uh residential windows and balconies, providing great exterior space for those units and giving life to the exterior.

The existing brick will be stained in lieu of being painted, giving the building a clean, warm exterior and maintain the brick detailing.

The stain will provide a human scale base accented with the canopies and lighting, and while the upper portion having a lighter contrasting field, the final colors and products are being reviewed by our team, but intend to fit into the surrounding context.

Along with other accessory spaces serving the residents, thank you.

Thank you.

Any members of the board?

Do you have questions for the applicant?

Saying no, or you can also um ask your questions during the deliberation.

Uh I'll go ahead and open it to the public.

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

There's speaker forms for this item.

There is no there are not.

Okay.

Thank you.

We'll close the uh public comment uh section and move to deliberation.

Um board members would like to make comments or ask questions.

Um I'll ask a question on what is the material of the the in field between the windows.

Sure.

Um if you don't mind, I think there's a zoomed-in image on the presentation.

Sorry, could you please repeat um which part you'd like me to pull it?

Sure.

I think there's an image between the the residential portion of the windows.

Is it the close up picture?

Um maybe page 50.

Sounds right.

Page 50 or 52.

Are you looking for the renderings?

Just so we're um we can go back to the elevations.

Elevations are fine.

Go go to 50 or 52.

That one shows, I think.

Yeah, getting close.

Yeah.

There you go.

Is that the one you were looking at?

That's great.

That's great.

So uh right now there are existing ribbon windows for the the office space.

Like I said, we're gonna be infilling those spaces with uh more residential style windows, breaking it up the facade a little bit more, um, and infilling the space that was those ribbon windows with a hardy panel product.

Um right now we're looking at uh a fluted texture to that, but it would definitely not be uh any kind of wood grain or anything like that.

So it's a niche ha product.

Which is there's a couple of products or a couple of uh vendors that make it, but Nichiha is what we're using, I think is what we're calling out right now.

Only as I ask is Nichiha's a better product than our it is, it's upgraded as thicker.

There's a couple of competitors that are uh catching up with them, but it would be an upgraded hardy product.

Um and you're not set on the colors, right?

We're working through that.

We've got a lot of input on that.

A lot of uh people have ideas on what that wants to be.

Um, and we've run through a number of color combinations, but uh we've tried to express the tone change with with the renderings and and drawings given, so there's a good contrast between the upper and lower, giving that human scale that it's kind of missing right now.

Right.

I do uh appreciate the contrast between uh the two, but I am opposed to the gray on gray uh, sure.

We got to do black and white, otherwise we get a lot of comments on what it is.

So we're not thinking gray.

And uh I wanted to bring your attention to there is a sheet the pay page that shows the aerial view.

Uh if you can go to that do you know which page number that is?

I'll find it one on 22.

I think that picture kind of shows you the context as far as the color uh scheme uh for the context of the building and around the old town.

There you do see a lot of red brick.

Um some of the existing buildings I agree you do.

And some more contemporary ones are starting to see some variation in that brick color.

I'm not against uh staining it, it's just uh and I do like the uh contrast, just not gray, especially the light gray.

That the majority of it that's understood.

We don't want anything to look dull, we want to look attractive.

Right.

Any other comments?

Um yes, I think that uh it's wonderful the massing that's been developed, especially at the corner.

I think that's very nice.

The new entry and um insetting the windows on the top floor, I think is gonna make the building just look much better.

Um and I agree too, having a darker base is going to you know bring bring uh bring the building into a more intimate scale, and again, it looks better.

Um the upper floors, though, you know, the board is really against painting or staining brick that hadn't been uh painted before, even uh newer buildings.

I know that there's a lot of talk about older buildings, especially, and um the staff mentions we had previously approved um the hotel on um I think that's not Montgomery, it's the AKA Hotel First Street.

Yeah, which is on the very edge of um old town.

But as precedent goes, and we continue to allow you know our red brick to be stained, you know, darker and gray colors, it's really taking away from the you know the material of old town.

And it I think it starts to look like you know, has the city gone through a fire?

Everything is tarred and gray.

So um I think the upper floors should be left the natural brick.

Thank you.

Uh any other board, Ms.

Ms.

Miller.

Um I appreciate Miss Del Nino's comments on that.

Uh as I looked at the uh application, I wondered why brick was being stained and changed.

Um so I would support consideration of not doing that on the upper floors.

Um a little bit into your present into staff's conversation to us or recommendations to us, is um it talks about the illumination of the buildings.

Um I just want to let you know that there are a few buildings within this neighborhood that are not in the historic district.

I believe it's one block, but it's not your block.

Um it is where the Harris teeter is, and so if you see um what is typically excessive illumination for the historic district at the Harris Teeter signs, that is not the norm.

That said, when I look at what you have presented, it appears that your um illumination thus far as submitted is good.

And I also have a question about the windows.

Usually we approve a window, Mr.

Conki.

Um, and you're asking that B A R.

I'm sorry, that staff approve these windows.

So staff is the recommendation is just for the technical aspects of the glass itself, and that's something that we do what we often do later on in the in the in the um working drawings standpoint.

So it's not not not the windows, it's just like making sure that the glass, the ultimate spec for the glass is clear, and that's that sort of thing.

So it's not the windows, it's just that sort of later final technical.

Okay.

Um I think that's it on my comments for the moment.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um Mr.

Adams.

I agree with Mr.

Deldino about the the brick.

If you get the base at a more contemporary color, it's a darker thing.

That's fine, and it'll relieve the too much brick effect, but it is the material of the city.

And uh otherwise, I think it's a very handsome job.

Project.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Um Ms.

Pratt.

No comments.

Thank you.

Mr.

Spencer.

Sure.

Um thank you.

It's a very nice project.

I think you did a very good job.

I appreciate them the work you've done on the massing, and it's all nice.

I actually like the niche ha product.

Um that you're proposing.

I would I don't remember seeing a hardy product, a harder hardy as a product that actually looks like this, but um in regards to the staining of the brick.

I'm I think I'm I'm flexible on that, but I my other board members have taken a stance, and so I think you're probably gonna lose that battle.

But um but I understand you're trying to reposition this building and maybe just doing the base of the building might be enough to help.

Thank you.

Um I uh I agree with board members on uh staining the bottom of the first floor, but leaving the upper floors um intact for the brick.

Uh so does anyone would like to make a motion or should I go ahead and yeah?

Yep, okay.

Uh I'll make a motion uh per staff recommendations and in addition to um to not stain the brick on the upper levels.

Can we discuss that before we move forward?

Sure.

Um so the intention was to, like you said, reposition this as a luxury condo.

Um right now it's an office building that looks out of date, looks like it's from 1985, it needs a new identity.

The intention is to pull the brick in and change the pink brick that looks like it's from 1985 to something more historic.

I've seen plenty of non-red brick buildings in Alexandria that are darker browns and different shades and different warmer tones.

That's what we're looking for.

We're not looking for this red brick building.

That's not gonna sell, that's not gonna be what the the clientele that we're looking to attract are gonna want.

Right now, it does not look attractive with that.

We've had a lot of input on it color being changed, and we're looking at different tones there to try to pull that together to match the lower the base as we all talked about and agree that that tone change there is important to match that you're gonna look for something in that same family as the upper.

We don't want a dark red base that's gonna have that contrast to tie it together.

That's not gonna be what's gonna be attractive to to the clientele that's buying this.

Otherwise, I I can't put a black down there.

I'm not gonna put a gray down there.

So, what we're gonna end up with is something that that feels like it's uh it's compromised in the design.

And I'm worried that not staining the entire building to change the entire identity is gonna be a mistake.

I would I would ask that we could um provide some images that maybe um we could all agree on eventually, and maybe that's that piece could be pivoted to later.

But we would really like the opportunity to stain the entire building.

Madam Chair, I would say the last time we did this staining process, there was lengthy back and forth and site visits to see what the actual brick would look like once it's stained in order for the board to approve it.

Because we didn't we didn't approve it via this kind of one process, if I remember correctly, Mr.

Conkey.

There was lots of site visits.

I remember going there multiple times before we actually did approve the stain of the hotel that you're referring to as a reference.

And we have uh had a lot of references, uh pre uh precedence that we uh exactly the same situation as converting a office building built in 80s 1101 King Street, that uh it wasn't stained, that we board didn't agree to staining the uh the building and it's uh that building is done now and it looks very nice.

You just clean cleaned up the brick and um I don't know it's a process of cleaning the brick necessarily, but I think that the the color right now is not something that the applicant and our design team prefers.

So we're hoping that there's some flexibility there and some way to work through that with your team.

Well, typically large project like this we do not approve on the first uh in time if you would like to defer to get take get a deferral and come back with options.

We are open to that to that is is your choice.

Mm-hmm.

May I also suggest that the that we could do it we could do a partial a partial approval um where the a deferral is requested for um a specific part of the of this uh as Mr.

Spencer noted.

I think that's what we did at the hotel was um was it was a it was a partial approval so that they could get a lot of the stuff sort of locked in.

Um and then they they um they did the mock-up of some different stain colors and then came back to the board and said, Hey, you guys all saw you guys all saw these stain colors, and then they approved it at that point.

So if if uh one possible option would be to do a partial um approval, we could you could we could approve the demolition and approve you know everything except for the the final stain color and ask that they provide some samples of that specific part and then come back for that if you'd like if you'd like.

I I would prefer to have on-site visits because it looks different in the room like this compared to if I see it on site very agreed.

Colored matters that's my preference, but I don't know how they have the board members feel.

Yeah, we could do that through a a partial partial approval um with one outstanding item remaining.

Okay, if everyone is in agreement, go ahead I have one question for you, Mr.

Conki.

Um more recently there was another case where it made sense to me to do a partial approval and hold something back to be determined, but I didn't think we were able to do that.

You're able to do that if the if the applicant agrees.

So you so the applicant because it's a because that's considered to be a deferral, right?

So it's a partial approval and a partial deferral.

So as long as the applicant agrees with that deferral, that's fine.

I think in the case you're referring to, the applicant did not agree on that deferral on that deferral.

So the board cannot the board cannot force a deferral, um, but it can accept one if the applicant in this case, if the applicant is basically if the if the the board is saying to the applicant, um we can move forward with the vote tonight with no stain, or we can move forward with a uh partial approval and let's revisit the stain at a later date.

That's up to the applicant, of course, to make that choice.

But the the difference is there, there is like I said, it's the applicant has to be um on board.

Are you uh I'd like to ask a question about that with the partial approval?

Um obviously this is a development, so the hold cost is substantial, and so the hope is that we can move forward with the building permit based on that, even if there's multiple rounds of discussions of color, whether it be pink, purple, whatever it is, we want to make sure that we can move forward with the construction, the demolition, and building permit with that approval.

Yeah, I think that's that's that's the intent of my suggestion of this as a as a um as a possible option for the board because I mean the the stain or non-stain or color of the stain on the on the exterior of the building has nothing to do with the building permit.

You know, so if you guys do a partial and you say, okay, we're gonna approve all the the window replacement, we're gonna approve the um balconies, we're gonna approve the demolition, that's a whole lot of work that they can do, and then we've and then we we we work on the on this on the college.

If I remember correctly for the hotel project, that was a construction site that we went to.

So they were definitely moving forward with construction.

That was a partial that was the one thing that we had to agree to as a board.

So they were allowed to continue joking construction.

That was a partial approval with the with this one last thing, and then like I said, you guys went out and visited it.

You get you guys had your opinions.

Like we came back for another hearing, and it was um just a single item which was just the stains and then discussed it at that hearing and finished the approval there.

Yep.

Yep.

This is acceptable.

That's acceptable to you.

Do you want to uh thank you for the flexibility in allowing that?

That's appreciated.

I'm agreeable to working with you on the finish.

But um or the stain, but are we but if we make this motion, does that mean that it will be a stain?

Are we eliminating uh no right?

We will be discussing the finish of the building.

Okay.

Okay.

Yeah, you could you could you can make a one of the one of the um one of the uh conditions be the that uh discussion of staining of the exterior building return as be or to be deferred at the applicant's request.

Yes, okay.

Yeah, I I mean looking at the southeast aerial photo, you can see the color of the brick is really in keeping with the color of about 90 percent of the buildings around it.

Yes.

So um you know, I'm I'm open to see you know the options, but I do understand this is a permanent stain on the building, so what is uh pertinent today may not be what somebody wants in 50 years when they change it back to an office building or you know, it's just the idea that it is permanent and it currently you know the color of the brick does um align with the existing buildings here.

It's hard for me to support stain, but I'll look at it.

Appreciate that so um I'll go ahead and make a motion on uh per staff recommendations as well in addition.

Well um partial approval.

Um per staff recommendations, but we will uh defer the finish of the break um to a later time uh in condition that you would uh research and uh present to us different um different options for the brick.

Uh we definitely would like to see some of the options that you would bring uh with the bear bare brick as it is with a with accent color different accent colors for the bottom.

Physical?

Uh you said bring your the the brick.

I would like it to be a site visit personally.

Yeah.

That's we're that's where I mean the as as the applicant too, we we want it to be right so that we were planning on doing something on the stain some inconspicuous part of the building that no one will ever really see.

Yeah, we've got a few areas like that.

So if you could put that in there that we do like to see options with the I think we'll leave it as a but I would only modify the language just a little bit to say uh accept the requested deferral for the continued study of the exterior, uh the staining of the exterior.

Sounds good.

Thank you.

Stain or no stain?

Yeah, to discuss the contain the the the potential staining finish of the that could that could be colors or nothing or whatever.

All right, thank you.

This is a roll call, I believe.

Oh, we need a second.

Second.

Mr.

Spencer, was that you?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

It was aggressive.

Okay.

Uh Ms.

Pratt.

Aye.

Mr.

Spencer?

Aye.

Mr.

Adams?

Aye.

Ms.

Miller.

Aye.

Ms.

Dandinion?

Aye.

Emma Sandian.

Aye.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Right, Mr.

Conki, next item.

All right.

So now we're gonna move into our call the concept review phase of the evening here.

We have uh we have several concept reviews.

Right.

Would you like to take five minutes or uh that's up to the board?

Yeah, sure.

We'll take five minutes and come back for the concept.

It's much easier with that.

I mean the simple time.

Yeah, that's right.

So you're all right.

I don't even have to say that.

We'll resume the meeting.

So we'll move on to item number nine.

Thank you, ma'am.

Item number nine is uh BAR two zero two five zero zero three zero five old historic district request for a concept review at three three three North Fairfax Street.

The applicant is Ken Wire.

Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the BAR.

I'm Ken Wire with the law firm Wire Gill.

Um we are here tonight to make sure we're headed in the right direction.

This is our third concept review.

Um hopefully you appreciate the effort put in.

Um we'll be short on presentation and hopefully long on discussion.

Um we are headed towards a public hearing for city council, hopefully this spring, and this is obviously a very key next step.

So I'll turn it over to Jack McLaren and we'll um hopefully get some good guidance from you tonight.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi.

Good evening.

Hello, nice to see you all again.

Yes.

Uh thank you very much.

Uh so good evening.

Uh as I've mentioned before, and some of my uh, you know, the last two times we were here, and I'm sure you're aware, designing new homes in Alexandria's old and historic district is both a privilege and a responsibility.

It requires balancing the preservation of a nationally significant historic fabric with the realities of contemporary living, modern construction, and evolving needs and lifestyles of future homeowners.

On a project of this scale, 32 homes, there is no single historic precedent to follow, and no single definition of what appropriate design looks like.

The guidance we've received to date reflects a wide range of deeply held perspectives, as Mr.

Conki alluded to in his staff report, some emphasizing close replication of historic forms, and others encouraging contemporary interpretation that respects scale, rhythm, and materials without resorting to pastiche or sloppy imitation.

Navigating these differing viewpoints, as we talked about last time, is one of the most challenging aspects of designing in a historic district or anywhere else for that matter, and requires careful judgment rather than a one-size-fits-all solution.

Our approach has been to listen, we hope, closely to the board's feedback and to study the old and historic districts architectural patterns rather than imitate individual buildings.

And to design homes that are clearly of their time while being firmly rooted in an Alexandria's historic context.

And then you know, you've seen these before, street skate images of of what's around on all four sides of the block.

So our proposed site plan as a reminder really has not changed a lot.

We've made great progress internally on the landscape architecture and paving patterns, which which you will see.

It's in our we just submitted our uh DSUP number two, I think uh yesterday it went in there.

So you guys don't often have a chance to look at that, but we've made great progress.

A lot of that detail is not quite in there, but we look forward to the day.

We're very proud of what what we're coming up to support these pedestrian access patterns that that we have talked about and the general porosity of the site.

So jumping into the architecture again that I mentioned last time we were here November 19th.

I went back out and had the wonderful pleasure of talking to some of the neighbors, and our context was our precedent context was really the adjoining blocks across Princess Street, uh both to the north and then to the northeast, and then across Lee Street directly to the east, and then we know that you know the precedent uh Caddy Corner to the south across Queen Street.

And again, these are some of the images that I showed last time.

There they have not changed.

So, one point of note that that I heard loud and clear last night.

I think there was really two overarching comments.

One was variety, we lacked variety, and then the other one was possibly roof form.

And so we really really spent a lot of time focusing on that.

What you see here is a slide that represents we abandoned the styles.

We had style one, style two, style three, style four, which were kind of directly related to what was across the street.

It didn't give us the variety that I think the board was looking for.

So we abandoned that style and went to uh more individual elevation designs.

The red, the blue, and the orange are our three home sizes measured in width and depth.

So I think there might have been an assumption naturally, it's kind of hard to tell it to scale that it was all the same home size, and they're not.

There are three different size homes on the site.

Is it that obvious to somebody standing across the street?

Honestly, no, but we have three different sizes.

The and that's indicated in the numbers, but also the colors.

The number below the second number, the single digit number is our elevation number we call them.

We say we have elevation one, two, three, four, five.

And then the parentheses is a variation in color scheme.

So elevation alone on 32 lots.

We have 14 different unique facade designs.

Whereas before, certainly a lot less, a handful.

So 32 homes, 14 unique designs.

When you add on the color variations to that, there's just more variety in there.

So we felt like we were you know pretty strongly addressing you know the issue of variety.

This is I'm going to go in order around the block, buildings one through seven.

So this is the building that is on North Fairfax Street.

It's kind of funny looking at the two.

I do have before and afters, but these are the same.

It's kind of messing with my mind a little bit.

So what you see here is the building on North Fairfax Street.

Okay.

We heard loud and clear, especially from Miss Sandian.

Roof form, roof form.

You didn't listen to me.

I hope you feel like we listened to you this time.

I do want to acknowledge in terms of detailing, we have a lot of work to do.

This is not the certificate of appropriateness.

I'm kicking that process off next week based on feedback that we get tonight.

Dormer sizes, proportions, cornics.

I have a lot of work to do in that regard.

So this this set of drawings you see is not ready for C of A for permit set.

This is still in the conceptual world.

So I do acknowledge that up front.

Being at this meeting tonight is about general scale, height mass, and architectural appropriateness.

Hopefully, you know, we can get there when we get into the C of A process.

So immediately you'll see this corner elevation, which is a side entry elevation, which is trying to be the front.

We introduced the mansard roof form with some dormers.

So the fourth floor is built into the mansard roof.

And then the roof terrace is moved to the rear of the home.

And then adjacent to that is a play on the Italian eight style.

Again, not trying to imitate, but trying to kind of embellish and uh pay a nod to history, and then the immediate context of the neighborhood with the Juliet balconies, which I think is appropriate, not appropriate on the style.

And then the last three units from left to right are very similar to where we were before in the sense that I felt like that transition to the Hoffman building further to the south on the street, needed something that really responded to that.

So the three homes on the right hand side of the front elevation, uh, number three, four, and five, are very similar to where you were, but we did vary the brick colors.

Uh again, through body brick, but using a rose, and then maybe the gray materials, and then you still see the variety in the parapets and what we think are thorough architectural details on the parapets with some corbling and some pier elements, and then the trellis elements on the roofs.

The rears, like I said, you see the terrace on the end unit as the rear, the terrace on the rear now, where the others have it on the front.

And then you can see the side elevation on the bottom right hand of your screen.

We feel like that mansard roof and starts to create a symmetry, and we provided some articulation in the building facade to again reinforce that is relief in the building facade and the plane of the side elevation.

So that mansard starts to really create a symmetry and accent the centering of the door on that on that element.

This is the building in combination with the streetscape on the drawings we have for that Hoffman building.

It's you can see we pulled it from the BAR appeal case from 2024.

I assume it's very similar today.

But again, that's that transition up the street to try to at least be relevant and start to transition as we go further to the south.

The next building is building two, which we've been calling the Muse units.

We had two and three that were the same.

Now they're unique.

I'm bringing back that three-story bay on the end on the corner.

It still has a side entry, and then the cantilevered bay, and then the Italian eight unit, and then book ending on the other end that rose.

The base element on the on the first and fifth units is the cut stone, that kind of limestone-like precast material that is that is very dense.

Airscraft is the manufacturer.

I'm sure you're probably familiar with that.

So we're holding on to that.

These are casements.

The other homes have double hunks.

So the rose buildings are casements, and you see some hoppers in there, and then the other hungs are more traditional.

You see the month and pattern with some variety.

And then the wrought iron parapets versus the more uh corn trimmed up cornices versus the Italian eight.

So again, to try to provide some variety.

And then here's the 2D version of that.

If I progress to the building three, now I'm bringing back the mansard form with different materials, a different uh color scheme in there.

Again, double hungs with a two over tune pattern, and then you'll see similar elevations from across the Muse, but just put in a different pattern.

You know, the A, A, B, C, D that we talked about.

This would be more of an A, B, CA kind of pattern rather than A, B, B, B, B, you know, where we we might have been before or something similar.

I'm making that up.

And then this is the 2D elevation of that.

So we had mantreds on both ends of this.

So one of those manters is internal to the to the piazza in the center of the site, and then the other one is is on the street facing side.

And then building four is very similar to uh what you saw before.

We felt like there was kind of general consensus that maybe, you know, this this was an acceptable building design.

We did vary the brick on it.

Prior, we had uh uh the the three units, the two on the right and the one on the left were the same brick, but now we provided a little bit more variety in the brick material.

Building five.

Now we're back to the mansard with the end entry facing Lee Street.

Uh we felt, you know, there is a home on Lee Street that does have the door on the side.

The other ones are strictly sides, so we wanted to, you know, kind of kind of work with that uh uh precedent there a little bit, and then you'll see the two rows with the casement windows, and then the the one on the end there all the way on the left has I think Bill called it a form of mansard.

I called it a pent roof.

You know, I'm not I I think that's still accurate in there, but uh, and then you see the arched window.

So again to try to provide some variety in the window sizes.

Um there was a comment, Mr.

Conkey, in your report about the upper windows being taller than the second level windows.

The second level windows are doors, so they go to the ground, so maybe it's just a little bit deceiving, but it is the intention to have that hierarchy of of window sizes, you know, from from top to bottom in there.

So those are actually doors behind the Juliet balcony.

Um, I kind of like your report said it was cream on this one.

I want to do this in a white.

Um, we know that that the house on uh Queen Street on the corner there is in a white with a with a similar roof form, different cornice materials in there.

I like the white, I think it's very elegant in this in this mansard roof form.

Uh the next build.

Oh, and I'm I apologize in your report, and Bill called me out on it.

This sheet had a graphic mistake in it.

There was a layering in the PDF program that I'm embarrassed about.

What you see on the slide is correct.

So I apologize for that.

The report has an error sheet.

Bill does have the report.

I think I probably got it to you too late after the after that you created the report.

So you know my apologies for that, but this is accurate.

Um, and then the next building has has a similar, I'm going to go back and forth real fast.

So the mansard, the three story bays, and then the penth roof.

Now we are whoops, mansard, three story bays in a and a different architecture on the end, closest to the Muse, except this Mansford I want to do in a cream style and do a darker tone on the precast with the rosettes.

Again, lots of work to do on detailing and all that.

Do I end up with those rosettes and the same precasts when we get to C of A?

You know, maybe not, but you know, I want to hear what you guys had to say, but maybe not.

But then this is also a end entry.

And you can see how the Mansford roof form kind of kind of really works in that regard.

And then last most infamous building uh on Queen Street, and and you know, there was comments about this might be the most important because of the traffic and its relationship to the mixed use, and it's it's that much closer to King Street, and and we respect that.

And so we felt like we made some moves on this one.

We have the two-story bay facade, we have the Italian eight, and then the pent roof on the end.

Um, and then this is the straight on.

In terms of materials, I do want to paint the three on the left.

I want to do the white and then the cream, and then what I call incense gray, which is in the the old when Duron existed, it was in the historic colors.

We've we've used it in many of our other projects uh in Alexandria.

I just think it it kind of looks a little browny there, but it was the incense gray.

And if we remember across the street on uh on the south side of Queen Street, it's white, and it's this gray that building towards the west is gray, the single story building with the piers on it.

It's kind of got like a warehouse feel to it that is gray, and then the one on the corner is the white, the retail building, and then you go around the corner and now you're closer to King Street, you're into the red brick.

So we tried to make some moves there.

So I believe that and so here it is in relationship to the Hoffman building, and again, I think maybe the color schemes start to you know speak to it, and that might be why they decided to go to the Grays too, because what is immediately across the street in there, and I think that okay.

So here's some before and after.

So I I did concept one on the bottom left, concept two, top right, a little bit larger, and then the current where we are, so you can see the movement in the before and after.

Who knows?

You might say, you know, I don't like what you did on this one.

You know, I like where it was on two.

I don't know, you know, but I put it in there so you you have it all, um, and you can just see the movement in in our in our approach and our design.

And uh, you know, I spoke to the details.

I'll just kind of hang on each one for a little bit, and then I think I'll be done.

This was when the Muse units were the same architecture.

Now they vary.

Contemporary, oops.

Building six, and then you see the big, I mean, stark difference with with building seven on Queen Street.

So and then you know, I I don't know that you need to see these, but these are these are in your package.

No, they're actually not on your package, they're in the D SCP, but to try to put them together, and I love these monarchies, these are great.

You know, it's hard to kind of put the whole block together, but you know, that was one of the things Mr.

Conkey suggested in his staff report.

We're we're largely in agreement.

You know, he pointed out some, you know, where the where the mansard kind of truncates, and then you have the the the terrace next to it, you know.

We want to work on that, and like I said, I mean there's a lot that is from now to C of A, but we we hope that in terms of height scale matching architectural purpiness.

You see the variety, you see the roof forms, you see the movement, the individuality is expressed a bit more in a and I'll kind of hold right there and see what you think.

Answer any questions.

Thank you for your presentation.

Um do any members of the board have questions for the applicant same no we'll open it to public.

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

Yeah, I have a couple speaker forms for this item.

The first one I have is for Scott Corzine.

We want if there's a slide we want up, then I'd be happy to put it.

Yeah, there's actually a slide after you want oh, okay.

So oh, you got Trump, okay, cool.

Hi, I'm Scott Corzon, living at 300 Queen Street.

Do we have that?

We're bringing it up right now.

It's sorry, it's coming.

We're our technology is different than it was than it was before, so we're still trying to usually I'm never faster than the technology.

We're a little slow.

It's it's coming.

Well look, while it's coming.

There we go.

Nope, wrong one.

No, this is the the one that was emailed in.

There you go.

It's the world's shortest slide deck.

That's it.

So uh I I just want to say I love these revisions.

I I have never witnessed a constructive engagement process like this where with Concept 2 meeting, the architect, the developers, their attorney really listened, at least to to some of my concerns, and I think some of yours, and made really remarkable changes.

I think the new design looks fabulous.

Um I love the fact that it adds porosity and pedestrian uh pedestrian movement that we didn't get with the monolithic 301 project, so it adds some porosity to that block.

Um again, it it it it breaks up the massings, which 301 didn't do.

Um, and uh I just think it looks great.

I'm I'm wholly support this uh with one suggestion for consideration.

Um no uh I I took a picture today.

This is the the white uh building with Mansard roof uh on the hundred block of Queen.

And since that's the since building seven is the building most proximate to that, I'd love to see that corner building have a matching mansard roof.

That's my only suggestion because I think it it ties those two blocks together beautifully.

But uh I really want to thank you guys.

We're not used to this sort of cooperation from develop from developers or their attorneys.

So you you have all our thanks for this.

Great job.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh any other applicants?

Okay, the other speaker form I have is for Elizabeth Hayden.

Hello, please state your name and address.

Elizabeth Hayden, 309 North Lee Street.

And I would echo the fact I'm very much in support of this whole project, and I think it's gonna be a great improvement.

We are the only house in the 300 block of North Lee that faces this whole block.

Um, so the way it looks is very important.

Um the only thing that's been changed on, so we're on the corner of Lee and Princess, and really the only thing that changed was the brick color, which I do appreciate the variation of the color.

Um I hate to say it, but I'd also like to ask that a mansard roof be placed on the corner of Lee and Princess, because if you look at the corners of this whole structure, it would really uh bring a different look to it and caps, you know, like a cap end of the roof and really create some variation because that particular building, building number four, I believe it is, it it's all flat roof, um looking very similar uh to not apartment buildings, it's gotten much better than the first version, but just to consider putting a mansard roof on that corner uh building.

So that's that's my request.

Thank you.

Uh any other public speakers?

I don't have any more speaker forms for this item.

All right, thank you.

Sorry, I was off.

Uh we'll close it uh to public and open uh for uh comments to uh uh or discussion for the board.

Um I actually just wanted to ask a question.

I wanted to thank you so much.

Um uh first it has um made tremendous improvement uh to the project.

Very happy to see that you have heard our comments and uh the changes you made, especially the Mazart roof.

Uh but uh do you have any uh any elevations of the Princess's street?

Uh well yeah, they're in individual form and then they're in the streetscapes on the end.

If it you want me to can I still okay, let me get there.

There are you know, there's a match line, right?

You know, they're pieced together because it's just too long.

I see.

Let me see how so you know the the bottom right is Princess Street, the bottom right is or the top right is Princess Street because the building is reversed, you know.

So they're an individual, but when we get to the where they're pieced together.

So that's this.

So again, you know, see the match line.

So if you could kind of see how they're going together.

Thank you.

That's all I wanted to see.

Okay.

And again, to reiterate.

Sorry, Jack.

The the corner unit there, and I appreciate the comment on the mansard.

What was important to us is that corner.

And that's why that two-story bay, and the same with the Queen Street and Lee Street.

You know, we were trying to articulate that corner.

Doesn't mean the Mansford roof doesn't can't somehow do that, but the symmetry is just a little bit different.

But okay, thank you.

Um like to uh open discussion.

I'll say thank you very much.

I'm totally pleased that you listened and responded.

Um you could be a model applicant to the BAR.

We may use you in the future as a reference.

I especially like that you gave us the slide of uh this is what was the first presentation.

This is the second, and this is the third, because it really helped to see the progress that you had made.

Um thank you.

We look forward to seeing it.

I look forward to seeing it built.

Um so I I agree with your uh corner on Princess Street with it being a little bit lower.

I think that's it's nicer because you're stepping down into the lower mass of the uh homes that are further toward the river.

And um I think there were some aspects of concept too that I thought were very uh very redeemable.

Um like if you could pull up your building number three, for example.

Should I go to where the three are on the same slide?

Would that be um sure, or maybe the the little perspectives you have?

Yeah.

Um yeah, that's good.

So I think these two-story bays are successful in bringing the mass down.

And with the three windows, it's more of a classic proportion.

I think it looks uh nicer.

Um, the in this particular building, well, that's building five, but there are other ones that just have all four windows that are flat, and I think when you have the two-story bay with the three windows.

That one yeah, that's that's kind of all those those do have projecting bays.

Maybe um building number seven, the Queen Street.

Let's look at that one for a minute.

Yeah, so that is it's kind of flattened out.

I don't know if I think that having the projecting bay, and if it's slightly shorter, I think it's it helps the massing.

But otherwise, I think it it all looks good.

Congratulations.

I think it's really a beautiful job.

I like the way you've responded.

There some of the comments may you may want to consider.

I think they're valid comments, but looks like you're a very talented.

Thank you.

I will simply echo what my colleagues and uh members of the public have been saying.

I mean, this is a pretty remarkable transition from where from the first set of concepts to where you have have arrived now.

I think I do echo uh Mr.

Corzine's uh comment about doing a mansard roof on uh would be building seven, the I guess the right hand most, if only to also give a little more variety to it, especially because of the more monolithic feel of 301.

But I really well done job.

Thank you.

Thank you for your presentation.

I look forward to seeing you at the uh stick with appropriation, sniff good appropriateness.

Thank you so much.

You can probably tell we are very pleased with the changes, all of us.

Any more comments?

Anyone?

No?

Thank you.

Yeah.

All right.

Mr.

Conkey.

Moving on to number 10.

Yes, ma'am.

We'll stay in the concept review world here for another couple more items here.

Item number 10 is BR 2025-00373 Parker Gray.

Request for concept review at 806 North Columbus Street.

The applicant is Ken Wire.

Welcome back.

Good to see everybody again.

My client in the back, he's making his way up here.

I'm just here to sort of help make sure we're heading the right direction.

This is obviously a different scale project.

This is 806 Columbus.

And we're heading to um, I believe City Council for the subdivision and the applications, hopefully, in February.

So we look forward to your comments.

Thank you.

Do you have the presentation up or can we pick that up?

Do we have a very short slides?

Thank you.

Yeah, we're working on that in the back here.

Yeah, but you were no, we've I've lost I've lost all control.

I think it was a reflection of my previous my previous actions.

Uh good evening, members of the board.

My name is Patrick Bloomfield, PT Blooms Development, and we are here for our second concept review of 806 North Columbus.

Uh as you know, the project consists of uh three townhomes.

Um we are here basically to explain um the old version and then what we've done to us um address both neighbor concerns um and just general mass of the neighborhood.

Uh as you'll see from the front and later slides we'll be able to point out we've reduced the height.

We have uh reversed the bay on the left side to address uh the Marin's concern about window uh views off of his angular bay.

Um we have pulled the building back three feet um to align with uh better align with both of the neighbors, also to preserve his view.

Uh we've pulled uh the upper story in.

Um it still provides you know a decent recreation space for our user, uh, but also you know allows for a walkable deck and kind of reduces the mass of the fourth floor.

You'll see here in the back.

Um we made a more of a concerted effort to sh to break up um the massing on the back.

Um, you know, this this means that we're we're adding uh a fence really in front of the cars all the way across the back.

Uh you know, this makes the yard private and kind of breaks up the alley in the in the back side of the uh of the of the property.

Um I do want to point out that you know we have we have researched all the deeds, and this is a there is a public access easement here.

It is not private when Ken Wire uh sent that to the HOA.

Um I'm not sure if it was distributed, but it seems to be an issue that keeps coming up, and I want to make sure we address it.

Again, this is you know, inspiration uh for uh you know how we approached kind of the fenestration and the scale of the project from uh neighboring properties at 827 Madison, 781 Montgomery, and uh 920 North Alford.

Uh two other examples, 814 North Alfred, 826 Montgomery Street.

So here's the proposed elevation.

I think it it's gonna be better shown here what we've changed in these next couple slides.

So I'm just gonna skip these two.

So what we've shown on the left hand side is the old submission is what used to exist.

Uh the first thing we did, uh, and you'll see in the red boxes there above each bay, is we pulled down the bay uh to reduce the mass and scale from the street.

Uh this allowed for the parapets to run continuously across the top, and that aligns better with the adjacent properties.

Um we also pulled in the fourth floor as I stated before and reduced the height overall by two feet uh to be in more in line with the with the character of the street.

Um just wanted to point out that you know uh the rear property um uh drops to about 28 feet in the back.

Uh it's 32 in the front and then 25 on the left-hand side.

I would say the 25-footer is shorter than what's typical on the street.

Um, and so we're kind of trying to blend um the the two worlds together.

This is the rear elevation showing what we've done again, pulling in the fourth floor um off the two property uh lines, and then also dropping the building approximately two feet.

I'm sorry, approximately how many feet?

Two feet.

So this is the this is the elevation uh basically looking at from uh it's a south elevation looking towards our building from our neighboring properties.

You'll see uh that we've added the actual slope of the existing roof that's adjacent to us so you can see what will be uh exposed.

Uh the mass is has dropped you know pretty considerably uh just by pulling in that fourth floor.

Uh so the intention here is to go with a a darker brick on the front facade and the returns on either side, and then lighten it up uh very similar to some of the you know to the property across the street, try to feel uh make that mask go away visually.

You'll see here this is old versus new from the side.

This is from the other direction, so be from the north side elevation.

Again, um reinforcing what we did.

You'll see on the front side of the old submission, there's a red box.

You'll see how we pulled in that bay, uh, which which helps uh step down the mass on the on North Columbus and be more in line with the neighboring properties.

This is a blow-up just so it's easier to see uh of what we're doing with the parking condition.

Um you'll see here shortly in red where where we're actually fencing off the private outdoor areas.

And then this uh is uh an example between old and new of you know we take our neighbors' uh concerns and uh and seriously, and uh if there's any way we can accommodate them uh without you know uh meaningfully impacting our design, we're always open to it.

So uh, you know, David approached us and his wife approached us about you know staring at a big wall, and um we thought, hey, that's an you know important concern, you have to stare at it every day who live here.

So we opted to uh reverse the entry so that automatically pulled the mass back three feet, and then we step the building back another three feet.

Um so a total of six foot change.

Uh and obviously you can see the sh the on the new submission portion on the bottom side, you'll see the dotted lines is showing that his his view lines are preserved.

Red, obviously, that's the property line and the fences we talked about before.

The intent is to do uh horizontal planked um uh uh fencing very similar to the neighbors to us that are directly uh to the south of us.

Um these are the floor plans, not much has changed on this end.

Uh you'll see though that you know having the rear deck uh does help pull the mass off the back as well.

Um and you know, it's actually a nice amenity for the for the neighbor or for the new owners.

This is FAR diagrams, and happy to take any questions.

Thank you.

Um do any of the uh members of the board have questions for the applicant.

I have a question on the when uh on the plan view that you just passed.

A floor plan or just the floor plan that was showing the back, the rear uh I'm just curious why the middle one has a different uh configuration for the backyard and and the parking than the other ones.

Yeah, that one on the bottom, number one, view number one.

Right.

Can you uh if you go to the to another view that shows all of the three uh properties?

I think you passed it.

This one.

Okay.

The one in the middle uh has a different configuration.

I was just wondering why.

We're just pinched on space.

Um we have 52 and a half feet, it's not quite big enough to get 18s.

You need about 18 to get two standard spaces in the back.

Um, so the tandem space is dictating the irregular yard.

Two cars part.

I see.

And it's the width is small, it's about 16 feet.

Okay, thank you.

Um questions from the board.

Um, do we have any public speakers?

We are opening it to the public now.

Uh, if any uh one uh members of the public would wish to speak on this applicant.

Yes, I have two public speaker forms for this item.

Um the first is for Lynn Beasley.

So may I have a second one?

Sure.

Sure.

Um the other speaker form I have is for Kate Cerns.

Can you please come to the uh stand?

Oh, we're working on getting the um the step again.

This uh speakers asked us for a uh a graphic, so we're working on getting that pulled up as well.

Sorry, I guess I did get up now.

So it's maybe there.

Sorry.

Sorry, just give us a second here.

Um can you please state your name and address?

My name is Kate Zerns.

I own the property at eight fourteen North Columbus Street, which is directly adjacent to the proposed development.

Um this model here was put together by a resident at 700 North Columbus Street, and it shows sort of a visual representation of how architecturally uh jarring it would be.

First, the inspiration pictures show four-story buildings.

In no instance, including new build, are there any four-story buildings adjacent to two-story historic homes?

This would be the first that includes the EYA project in of Old Town Commons Gene's land in two thousand uh tenh and breaks precedent.

You can see in this photo the blue house at the bottom and the cream colored house next to it.

One was built in uh late 1800s, the other was built in 2010.

You can see no appreciable difference in height.

That is three stories with a recessed three stories.

This the development proposed would be where that blank space where the trees are and would rise to three stories with a recessed four stories.

When they mentioned a decrease in height, the total decrease in height was only three feet.

It is still two full stories taller than the adjacent properties, and the precedent in the old town commons is that there is a step up next page, please.

You can see here those brick buildings are two stories.

It raises to two stories with a recessed third, and then goes up.

There is no precedent, and in fact, it is counter precedent to have a full four stories with a recess next to two-story buildings.

The last thing this is that was mentioned is one neighbor will their bay window will no longer be blocked.

In these photos, everywhere there is sunlight will be a forty-seven foot wall.

This will be gone.

Next slide.

Next slide.

This will be a 47-foot wall, blocking out six of 11 windows at 814 North Columbus Street.

So there is considerable blockage of the sunlight as well as decrease in livability.

And this is quite out of harmony with the existing structure.

The developer mentioned this is unusually small.

It's not when you look at the rest of the neighborhood.

They are two-story buildings.

They rise up to two stories with a recessed third in the new build.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Also, I do invite anyone to come over and see for yourself really what the visual impact would be.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do we have any other speakers?

Yes, yeah, there's speaker is Lynn Beasley.

Okay.

Thank you.

Please state your name on address or direct order.

So Lynn Beasley, 826, Snowden Hallowell Way.

I have a few points.

I'm just gonna read them because I'm not a good gauge on time.

So the first one is the rear of the properties must include fencing that's consistent with the existing fences of the historical properties.

Currently, they are proposing horizontal, they need to be vertical.

I don't know whether or not the one that the one that is next to it that's horizontal was recently installed.

I don't know if that ever had bar approval, because I never saw any signage for uh the look.

So anyway, so it needs to be vertical.

Um second, while the height of the proposed townhouses was reduced by three feet, the height still exceeds reasonable expectations for the specific lots.

The concept indicates that the town homes will be four levels.

It's widely out of sync with the existing existing historical properties along the 800 block of North Columbus Street.

The adjacent townhomes are two-story, the proposed townhouse homes are too high, they need to be in line with existing homes on Columbus North Columbus, not townhouses that are two streets over.

Um comparisons need to be made to align with North Columbus, not Old Town Commons, as this project is not part of Old Town Commons.

Um while the height was reduced by three feet, the height still exceeds the reasonable expectations.

Um just repeating that um three.

If the completed townhouses ultimately exceed the approved height limits, what will be the remedy for the surrounding properties?

Would it be financial or tear down?

Um, the front and rear facing roof patios add to the intrusiveness of the properties over the existing two-story townhomes.

Um the height to width ratio of the four-story townhomes will not be in harmony with their historical and architectural setting and environment.

Um five, the existing townhomes on North Columbus Street average about 887 to 936,000.

So I think that the price point, the construction and design should plan for that price point.

Um, at what point does the developer intend to reach out to Old Town Commons Board of Directors for coordination on any construction impacts to the old town commons community?

They will be significant.

Thank you.

Uh any other speakers?

Yes, I just got one more speaker for him from Andrew Brack.

Hello and welcome.

Please state your name and address for the record.

Sure.

Uh my name's Andrew Brack.

Uh, live at 728 Snowden Hall away, uh part of the Old Town Commons uh association.

Um I also sit on the architectural review board uh for the HOA.

Um as Lynn previously mentioned, uh there's some concerns for the neighbors.

Um my specific uh concern here had more to do with logistics uh and the arrangement of the HOA and servicing of uh Stonehall Way.

Um the applicant mentioned that there is a public easement.

Um I haven't researched that myself yet, but uh but the concern is that uh when Old Town Commons was built, Stone How Wall Way was a subdivided block.

Um it was never dedicated specifically uh to be maintained by the city, so the HOA, we maintain the street.

So when the new homes come in and the car access is coming in from the back of the of the homes, um there's been no coordination effort made with uh our HOA to the board of directors or anything like that concerning any of the the maintenance, the construction uh and and impact to the street to the to the owners of the homes along the eight inner block of Snowden Hello, um, and more importantly, the long-term effects uh of access in the back.

So you know, uh what we'd like to suggest is that there's be communication uh between the development team as well as uh the old town comments HOA so we can at least work work those things out.

It's not unsolvable, but uh but again there's been no communication made to this point.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do we have any additional speakers?

I don't have any more forms.

Thank you.

Uh we'll close the um public speaking uh public comment section and sorry.

Um would you like to respond to any of the comments made?

Sure.

Uh first of all, I was apologizing the reaching out.

We did reach out to your management company.

I actually Googled Old Town Commons and couldn't find a contact.

And uh in the small world department, the last applicant built Old Town Commons and I did the entitlement.

So we can give you assurances now.

Any construction impacts, we have to coordinate with you, take care of our impacts.

We we will absolutely work that out before we leave tonight.

Please give me a mail to Jerry and we'll take care of that.

Um a lot of the other comments on the um the um the woman who gave the comments about blocking her view.

That is that is true.

We are not here to dispute factual things, um it will block the view.

Um, what I can leave you with is that the benefit of the BAR, if we were not in the BAR, we would come forward and build a 45-foot tall building by right, we go to planning commission, and that would be it.

The benefit of what today is this conversation is have we done the changes to the facade that pay homage to the best we can to a surrounding neighborhood.

Uh Patrick's done a lot around the neighborhood.

I know there's been long-standing conversation with the community.

Um, this is our proposal.

We look forward to your comment.

Um, we know it doesn't alleviate some of the concerns.

This is a two-story block.

That is true.

Um, but we are in compliance with zoning.

Um, we look forward to your comments.

This is our proposal, and we'd like your feedback.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um now we'll open it to the board members for discussion.

Right.

Go ahead.

Um I'm still puzzled given the feedback that was given the first time, and then I thought we reconsidered saw this again in December, if my recollection is accurate.

I don't see what changes again in response to feedback at that point have been made with this current design.

To me, it is still far too large for that space.

Um and I find it really interesting uh just with uh the docket item or the concept review we we just did, just how responsive that developer and and its architect has been.

I also find it very interesting that for the next concept we have at uh 415 North Alfred Street, which involves the same architectural firm, that that uh initial concept seems much more in scale and in mass with that block, and I don't understand why that can't be done here.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other board members have comments.

Um I I was just gonna reiterate my comment from uh the our last meeting about the I guess it's the north elevation.

You've turned the corner with brick and then uh start it up with siding.

I think it'll be important to continue the brick on that north elevation, it's gonna be very visible.

And I would encourage you to um because it's visibility, there may be opportunity to express the floor level or something beyond just like a straight brick wall there.

And um, I think that I have seen you know some improvements.

I think there've been uh some design changes based on our comments.

It's very important that you brought the uh predominant face, the east elevation back before it was protruding beyond the faces of the other buildings um on Columbus.

I think that's good.

And you know, bringing in the fourth floor.

Um there may be an opportunity to reduce the mass again, possibly looking at uh maybe those bays instead of three-story, maybe they could be two-story and and have some outdoor area for that rec room on the third floor.

That could help alleviate some of the massing there.

That makes sense.

Thank you.

Um there.

I'm in agreement with both of the comments that were made by I'm in agreement with both of my colleagues on their comments.

Um I was looking back to some paper, uh, your submission from October the 16th.

And I had made the note that you were asking for an open space variance with the city, and then you would be back to us on whether or not you were able to set it back any.

Have you received that?

So the um application is into the city.

They haven't approved it yet.

No.

And the question is really about parking.

We would not need an open space variance if we did not have two parking spaces.

So that that's really the the push-pull on the open space area.

So we filed for it, but to be clear, we have not received approval yet.

That is something that will come later, should the planning commission be inclined to approve it.

Would it be presumptuous on my part that you're gonna move back that you're going to set it back more if you get that approval?

Set it back more.

Um I'm sorry, I'm not following them.

Um I thought the open space variants was too so that you would be set the property back to be in compliance with what is a block face.

Oh, I see.

Well, there's two reasons.

I'm sorry, now I'm following you.

Apologize for my being bent.

That's all right so you're correct.

As you push the building back, it does make the open space in the back smaller.

Right.

That is a proportionate issue, but the major issue is the parking in the rear.

So yes, you're getting pushed on both ends, if that's what you were trying to lead me to.

Okay.

I um trying to watch in your presentation um for a shot, a photograph or drawing of looking down the block, whether this is an alignment with the block face and the street face now.

Um but I didn't see that.

I might have missed it.

Go back one, sorry.

There we go.

So where is your block face now?

I'm sorry, yeah.

Right.

Um you were there before, yeah.

Go back this one.

No.

This is a better one.

No, it's a plan view.

We need the floor.

This is a first thought.

I want to look at the street.

That's the view you need.

Okay.

So you did set up and thank you for that.

Certainly, and I just I want to address, you know, there's a certain certain amount of square footage that we need for this to make sense for us.

And so we decided that you know that we would would try to address the neighbor by pulling the building back.

In theory, in theory, you you know, you could stretch the building out and reduce the fourth floor, but then I would have to push the building back towards the street.

So in order to address the neighbor to the south, um, you know, by reversing the bay, that's one portion of it, but pulling the whole building three feet back, you know, allows us to maintain a decent open space.

It also allows us um uh you know the ability to to help the neighbor to the south.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Adams I agree with uh what our other members have said about any effort to reduce the appearance of volume.

Uh reduce maybe the bay from the third floor could be pushed back.

It's a rec room, I understand.

Uh I think you've done some good things about setting back, uh making adjustments to be good neighbors as best you can.

But it is a difficult situation where you have by right could can build a certain amount of square footage.

Um so uh leave that to code enforcement on aesthetics.

The only thing I do like I think the uh north wall should be brick because it's so visible.

And I'm not sure if I asked about the windows, the the two end units have this sort of picture window in the middle, which is sort of an anomaly to me, sort of harkens to the 1950s picture window look.

And I I think that's that's not exactly right the way you've got it.

So if you revisit that.

Um can you put up the sheet number seven should have that?

Uh front of the front.

This one.

Yeah.

These first floor bay windows.

That is a window, right?

Yeah.

I think it's it's stylistically seems an odd situation to me.

Thank you.

Yeah, just gonna start off with saying I agree with Mr.

Adams about this the bay window.

It's just not appropriate for Yeah, it's just not appropriate the way this looks at this point.

That's it's just an oddity that needs to be redesigned.

Um but I agree with Ms.

Del Nino's idea about the north facade um being brick, and maybe you could do some inset brick there to simulate what what in theory might have been a window, but not really a window.

Um so that it actually does have some depth in it as opposed to it just being one flat facade.

And I do uh appreciate the idea of lowering the the bay by one story, if possible, in order to bring the the feel of the mass down because you are in a situation where you could build this by right, so has to be some compromises made to you know try to keep everyone happy.

So maybe lowering that bay by a story helps because it keeps it kind of relates to the two-story line of the adjacent buildings.

Thank you.

Um I agree with uh my other colleagues.

Um and with the staff recommendations, um, or I should say comments.

So in the design guidelines, it states that building height should generally reflect the existing heights of the buildings in the immediate vicinity of the proposed new construction.

So I do still believe that the uh building is too high for the street that's it's sitting and for the immediate adjacent buildings.

I do want to thank you for all the changes that you have made.

It has definitely improved, especially the setback for allowing the bay window of the neighbor to have the view.

The setback on the fourth floor is very um helpful.

I do agree with uh lowering the bay windows um to to the second floor.

Um if you could lower the third floor also a little bit more, I think to to match exactly the neighboring building, that would be helpful.

The north facade, um I also believe it should be a brick.

Um if it could all or or maybe just the north unit would be all brick on all sides, that would be uh even better.

Um the north facade since it's uh adjacent to the neighboring uh uh unit and they can see it, it would be nice if it had some kind of projections or not just like a flat uh flat brick.

Um I do so some of the I don't know if you have read the uh comments uh this uh from the staff, city staff.

They do mention uh they're very good comments here.

They did mention the window uh on the first floor that is not characteristic of old town.

We do like to see it more um kind of divided.

Um do we have um on the bottom uh the stoop is that do we have uh stone in one place and uh I think it was some something about brick base?

It's possible, but the intent is for it to be uh concrete stair with like a paper on top of it.

Okay, and that goes all around to the back of the building.

That would just be stair and they the space area below the course right there, or the bell line right there.

Okay, I see colors right here.

Right, right.

Um I wanted to add you ask the question.

Sure.

So if we were to continue the window rhythm from the second floor bay down to the first floor, would that address your concern?

What was that?

That would address my that would address my concern.

Okay.

So you should basically pull the window rhythm on the second floor in the bay, bring it down so that you have three punch windows on the bottom.

Oh, right.

Um yeah, that would do.

I think we can manage that.

And then on the north wall, I think we're open to adding brick there.

Um so if if you wanted to introduce some detail, would we just extend a corner slide?

Can we do corners lines?

I I don't think it's appropriate necessarily to have punched openings for windows.

No, it's it was it was a it's a fake punched opening, so you're recessing the brick back like a half an inch.

Right, but do you think we can just do cornices and you sort of detailing that is just take it out?

My concern about the cornersing is that it's just gonna feel like one big flat wall, even if you cornice the break.

What about a soldier course?

That's steel corners.

I mean, that's that's the same concept.

I would just recess a couple of half inch.

You're not talking about recessing bricks so far back that you're really making a punched opening.

You're talking about moving a brick back a half inch to make it appear like a window.

Okay.

I'll take a look at it.

Yeah.

The other question I have since you're up is like what what other brick detailing is here?

This is just pretty much just I see, I think I see a couple of codes sort.

A soldier course there, but I mean it's it's it's it's hard to read this drawing in general because it's all the line weights are just not doing in much for me, and I can't really follow this very well.

Um so I can't really tell like the level of brick detailing you're really talking about doing on this thing, and maybe that's gonna be the next submission, but absolutely.

And and we're open to that.

Um, you know, the intent here is is for mass and scale.

Okay.

So we wanted to put in you know, in general forms what we're trying to do with the fenestration, bay projections, etc.

The intent here is to produce color renderings and much more extensive, you know, uh blow up or uh capturing, I guess, larger details.

I look forward to seeing that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um any other comments.

No.

Um thank you.

We'll move on to the final item on the docket.

Yeah.

Thank you, ma'am.

Uh we do have uh one item one more item on the docket tonight.

Um this is uh just a just a note that's a little bit confusing in the way that it's in the docket, but um this is a concept review uh with a permit to demolish.

The permit we've done this, we do this fairly often in in development projects where the um the demolition of the existing building is sort of key to the project going forward.

So um we we can discuss the the two together tonight, but just as a reminder, we will need a vote on the permit to demolish.

Um whereas the concept, of course, is just a feedback.

So uh let me read them both into into the uh record.

Um item number 11 is BAR 2025-00552 Parker Gray.

Request for concept review at 415 North Alfred Street.

The applicant is PT Blooms represented by Kenneth W.

Wire, attorney.

And uh number 12 is BDR 2025-00551 Parker Gray.

Request for complete demolition at 415 North Alfred Street applicant PT Blooms represented by Kenneth W.

Wire attorney.

Uh hi again.

Hi again.

Um no need to have Ken speak again.

I think I can take it from here.

Um would you mind putting uh pulling up the presentation, please?

Um who's the in the back.

Okay.

I was wondering who who is who's in charge.

Um can we please have the presentation on the other thing?

That's the the um report, the historic evaluation report by wetlands.

That's not the that's not not the presentation.

Um give us a minute, please.

Is there a separate presentation or is it is it the submission materials?

Basically submission.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, just um we can just bring up the submission materials.

Thank you.

I didn't think I had a separate okay.

Okay.

So the plan here is to is to demolish a non-contributing historic um, sorry, non-contributing structure.

Uh uh in place we will build uh five townhomes.

The intent here is to have uh cohesive design and introduce a little bit of asymmetry with the bays, but our intention here is that uh there is some uniform, you know, finish that kind of ties everything together.

Um I think we potentially we'd be open to you know uh modifying some fenestration details um as we get further into it, but this is you know just uh really appropriately for for mass and skill at this point.

So before we get into um the design side, I just wanted to say I've had pretty extensive conversations with neighbors already.

Um I met with Wayne Neal for an hour and a half.

Um he's uh the owner at 407 North Alfred, which is one over from the right, also a trained architect, had some great ideas, even actually had a full set drawn up for this site that was very similar from in scale and mass.

It you know, it was a three-story structure, it had a private patios in the back and a separate garage.

So there was a lot of similarities in what was done, and I appreciated his thoughts and listened to him and and you know, we had a very collaborative session.

Um I also had a conversation with the neighbor directly to the right of us.

Um it was brief, but we've engaged and we had a teams call.

Uh 417 on the left has a courtyard that encroaches about three feet onto our property.

Um it's existed for 60 years.

We're working with him to create an easement so we can preserve that.

Um it's not reflected on the site plan here.

It's something that's developed over the last uh couple weeks, but we have verbal agreement on terms and we're working on the legal documents for him.

So uh you know, we think it's important to engage our the members of the community, and I think we have um pretty substantially thus far.

Uh the project is located mid-block uh between Princess and um Orinoco on North Alford.

Right now uh the site is pretty much a hundred percent occupied by a one-story structure.

Uh we hired a consultant wetlands to evaluate the historic um character of the building.

They determined that it had been modified so heavily uh and was built after certain time periods where what's left isn't relevant uh and and really more of a non-contr uh you know contributing structure.

Um the staff agrees, and so um without speaking out of context, I'm I'm not gonna get into too much of the of the detail on uh what what was already presented as a supplemental document for the historic report for all of you to read on your own.

Um if you have any further questions, I'm happy to answer, but he's the con he's the the expert.

Uh you'll see here he's pointing out to modifications that have occurred over several decades.

Um this one I think is the more prominent one.

You'll see that there's a common bond brick on the left side of the structure, and then you'll see that they put a new brick on the face of the structure um uh uh you know around the 1940s.

And modifications include adding um uh an existing building to this to the right, if you're looking uh face on in the elevation.

Uh the right building is new and has uh no can uh contributing structure.

That's to the right of the you know existing existing courtyard.

Right here is um an existing conditions and demolition plan.

You'll see that uh the the area in gray is actually the footprint of the building.

Um and you'll see that front courtyard, basically everything behind the courtyard and to the right of the courtyard is new.

And really the only thing that's that's that um is preserved uh at all is the common bond brick on that uh on that left wall there.

Uh goes back about probably probably 90 feet.

We drew our inspiration uh from primarily from two 211 North Alfred Street.

We really like the the kind of the chunky bay with the with the transition um uh you know back on where the parapet is.

Um we felt that really kind of uh gave it a hearty feel to the street, and there's plenty of examples on three 332 North Columbus, 401 North Alfred, and 211 North Alfred uh that show similar detailing.

Uh we opted not to go with an arched window because we felt that the windows and the fenestration on the street were more square, so they're attempting to align that.

Uh back here is a picture of the existing uh butts alley.

You'll see that uh the rear property line that building is is right on it.

Uh so that would go away with the demo permit.

And below are examples of ADU structures where uh you have you know a more affordable living options above a two-car garage.

Uh this is a site plan.

You'll see um you'll see the main structures.

That little L-shaped piece is is really just a rooftop access.

We tried to contain um that mass as much as possible.

This is more consistently a two-story street.

Um, there's much more variation on North Columbus, much more variation between two, three, four stories, five stories across the street.

This one is consistently two to three stories up and down the block.

We decided, along with the fact that the lot was about you know 10-13 feet deeper, we had the ability to stretch the structure, stay you know, stay on the property line in the front because the buildings aren't set back irregularly, right?

And so that allowed us to get the square footage we need, but also you know fit better with the mass for the neighborhood.

Uh this is an exit, these are breakouts of the FAR just to kind of show you how we got to where we are.

But you'll see on the right side, really it's just a rooftop access.

Um there'll be elevator, these are these are really age in place units focused on uh empty nesters, downsizers.

So we went want them to have the opportunity to to buy and stay for a long time.

Um and then it just provides access to a roof deck.

There's also a really nice uh patio courtyard that's private, and we intend to do like ballasted string lights and uh connect that to the to the rear garage.

Here's an here is a a blow-up of what we're doing on the ADU portion.

So the intent is to is to uh build a you know 350 square foot studio uh that could be rented out uh by the owners to someone who needed it, and you know, we are providing access directly to the alley with a means of egress, and then you'll see potentially on future versions that you know we'll have this three-foot uh side yard that will kind of run continuously to the back to the alley, which will allow fire access uh for the ADU.

Here is is a good example of a sight line across the street.

Um we are on the other side of the sidewalk, and you'll see that um the the fourth floor is barely visible from that from that vantage point.

Um, and obviously that's intentional.

This is a good um street view kind of showing what we're building up against.

Uh, you'll see that the neighbor 405-407 North Alfred.

Um roof deck is 33 feet.

We have the neighbor really to the top of the the um the crust of the roof at 35, so we're very much in line with the neighbor to the right, and and the the property to the left is unusually small uh uh and usually shorter in comparison, but we feel a three-story building does allow prefer uh you know uh proper massing on the street.

And the 35 feet is really the limit for the height, so we're we're two feet below that right now.

Uh we envision uh you know uh a cast stone band along the bottom uh to kind of establish a you know solid base.

Um we envision adding more detail inside of the spandrel recesses that occur under the windows.

Um and we are using cast stone uh bands at the corners and then uh and also on the corners there in the top of the bay.

Um and we're working on additional details uh to present at the next session.

So with that, um please let me know if you have any concerns, questions.

Thank you.

Uh do any members of the board have uh questions about the Abdikan?

I still have well I'm saying steel, but this is a new project.

The the bay window is still not working for me in this one either.

Just an FYI.

That's my first initial comment.

Um what is the buttress element that sticks up above the roof between each unit?

That's just intent to define each unit.

Um it's common, it's a common feature in in the area for stores.

It looks looks looks odd to me, but that's just my eye.

I think we're envisioning kind of like a core believer.

Yeah, I I get what you're trying to do.

I just not sure if it it feels like it uh something that's been attached to the building, and it doesn't quite blend in yet if that's what your idea.

I'm thinking that if you're gonna try to do something like that, it needs more work.

We can work on that.

Um because I'm not so that that idea is really sticking.

I agree, it needs a little work.

I had a question on um, I guess it's the building to the south.

The if you go back to 105, that slide.

Is that building is that got a flat roof or is that a pitched roof?

What what's happening there?

It's pitched, but it is it's pitched towards the back.

I got it.

So the 35 feet isn't it should be halfway up the pitch, right?

Well, it's a little it's a little deceiving there because there's a courtyard that's six feet wide that recesses back about 40 feet.

So we're really not even directly next to that mass.

I'm just trying to understand, you know, the the block face.

Let me try to get let me see if I can get you an image here.

See, you see the the courtyard space?

It doesn't really show the the the building next to it, but you'll you'll see.

I think I have a better photo of the existed.

It's hard to zoom in here, but you see the right side there?

Right photo on the left hand side, you'll see what the the condition is of the roof right there or 417.

That's the west side.

Yeah.

I was looking at the the south.

It looks like there's an archway for parking or something, that building.

Because in your elevation, it made it look like the roof was really up close to your flat roof, but it's it sounds like that's where the ridge is.

No, it's it's 25 to the front.

I don't think there's a mansard there.

I think it's just a flat roof.

I'm I'm not sure I understand your question.

Would you mind repeating it?

That's an angle roof roof.

Building on the right side is the side.

Oh, right, right, right.

Correct.

We're going to right side as an angle roof.

Correct, yes.

So if you go to 105, your image on 105, you're representing that that roof is 35 feet to the mid slope.

But it's to the top of the ridge, right?

Not to the midpoint of the ridge as zoning would call building height.

It looks like it's dependent.

Yeah.

The height of the building is the darker black line.

You're correct, but it's still a height and mass at the street, and that's why we're dropping the bay to a line with closer to the front of that building.

So is the black line where the in theory the gutter sits on that building?

Correct.

And the the 35 feet is to the ridge of the roof, so the midpoint is really at 33 feet, roughly, right?

Because that's the midpoint of that roof.

Approximately, yeah.

That's what you're saying to right.

Um it's showing that it's 318 to that black line.

I'm reading that correctly.

And then our roof deck is at 33, and the only thing that's going above that is the is the parapet.

And really that's just an access point on the fourth floor.

So that's not part of a zoning designation.

I was just looking at the the height of the existing building to the south at the street level, which is about you know 75% up your uh window of the bay, right?

Correct.

Okay, uh any other questions?

No.

All right.

Do any members of the public have questions or comments?

For disappearan, please.

So I have several public speaker forms.

So we'll go in in order of the forms.

So the first form I have is there's two names, hey Su C and Alan B.

Um if you'd both like to speak, you can speak um one after the other.

Hey, good evening, everyone.

I'm Alan Bonzio, 419 North Alfred Street.

We're in the double block uh 417 and 419 adjacent to the 415 project.

So uh before we get going, just want to say thank you very much for your service for your time, for your dedication, and uh to make sure that Alexandria has a really great aesthetic.

Um for also for context, there's a few other other speakers, and uh Mr.

Wayne Neal will be speaking, and he has a petition, which we are also the signatories on that.

He'll get into that document.

Um just a note on 400 uh North Alfred Street.

I don't know if any of you have driven down that block recently or in the past, uh, but it's pretty much a hodgepodge, okay.

It's uh has architecture from 1880s to 1980s and everything in between.

So you're not you're not looking at a traditional historic neighborhood, just has a lot going on.

So uh you know, we look at this as uh a tremendous opportunity.

So what you all are presenting is great, uh, but we have some requests to to make a couple tweaks to this uh to help to improve and unify the historical aesthetic of the block, okay?

And uh Mr.

Bloom, I think you mentioned earlier that there was you said something about something was unusually short or something.

Unfortunately, there is nothing usual in the 400 block of North Alfred Street.

So here we are.

We we would like to make this uh this project really an anchor for something really good for the neighborhood, okay?

So uh it's it could be a win-win, but as presented, it's extremely monolithic in design.

Uh so we would like to make sure that that's noted.

Um so, and if it were to be built as presented, we think it would be a misfit, another misfit on the the block of misfits.

So uh there was also a note about the private alley, just two things on that.

It's important to note that uh there's several utilities on there, and it does have garbage service regularly, so just note it, even though it's private, it does have these services on it, and we are we do have a concern about the wear and tear on the alley with with the the added traffic.

Um we do support uh the project, but just really ask if you would just take a little bit more care on the design, and I think you're gonna hear this echoed multiple times, uh, so I won't take up many more time.

Thank you very much for your time.

Take care.

Thank you.

Okay, the next speaker for him I have is Wayne Neal, um, who has a handout that we're going to pass out for the board members.

Good evening.

My name is Wayne Neal, and by way of introduction, I'm an architect who has practiced for 40 years in Old Town Alexandria from 1976 to 2015.

I serve three consecutive three-year terms on the old and historic district BAR, retiring from the board and from the profession of architecture in 19 in 2015.

2015.

Over that period of time, my firms designed a project in virtually every block of Old Town, and including no less than eight projects on North Alfred Street.

Uh all different sizes and scopes, and including the remodeling of the Black History Resource Center.

Significantly, I designed and built two houses at 405 and 407 on North Alfred Street.

The adjacent side to this site.

45 years ago.

Mr.

Patrick Blumfield, the developer attended by my invitation a meeting at my house where he described the status of the development of this property, and he subsequently sent a copy of the design by email at my request.

And he subsequently sent a copy of the design by email at my request.

For review.

After that meeting, I also reviewed the two other projects he is developing in the middle of developing in the district to become familiar with his work.

I'm sorry to say that neither project impressed me.

Upon review, the question that I believe the board should be asking about this project is the proposed building compatible with the surrounding streetscape.

And the answer is no.

In which he said he was inspired by the demolition, the demolished Parker Gray School, which is a municipal building.

Bay windows usually have windows on the side, so you can look up and down the street.

These bays have none.

It feels more like a single institutional building than a row of townhouses.

By contrast, an examination of the housing on the block reveals a range of house styles with a variety of features.

No two houses or pairs of houses are alike.

Many styles are evident in one block.

The widths vary from 17 to 20 feet with one.

I'm sure we fit our time limit.

Yes.

Thank you.

So you are out of time.

Thank you.

All right.

Do we have any other speakers?

Yes, next speaker is William Olson.

Good evening.

My name's William Olson.

I live at 422 North Columbus Street.

And I'd like to reiterate what some of the other speakers said.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project.

One is just a factual observation, which wasn't in the application materials, but it was mentioned in the presentation.

That there's a mixture of building sizes, which is accurate.

But I think just one thing to point out in assessing this size and scope of this project.

I think it's important to note that the three properties that are directly behind 415 North Alfred, which are 418, 420, and 422, which is a group of three townhouses, they are all two-story wood townhouses.

So just to kind of get a sense for the block, I just want to make sure that you all are aware of that.

And so you know, I think that's relevant to the you know observation in the in the staff uh staff presentation on page eight with respect to you know the brick and the side, you know, sort of the the notes on this on the the brick use of brick and and the size of the buildings.

Um and I think another thing to just keep in mind, it's not in any of the application process but um the 415 North Alfred property was was or is connected with the parking lot at 424 North Columbus Street, and that it's my understanding that 424 North Columbus Street they will be at some point an application for townhouses to be built there as well, which is directly adjacent to my property, and it's just one thing to keep in mind that this is gonna be a broader project.

There's gonna be these five townhouses, and another developer is going to be building townhouses at 424 North Columbus Street.

And then I guess finally, the last thing I'd observe, and this is sort of the reiterate the comment about the alley.

Um I you know, note that there has it seems like there has been some contact with neighbors.

I'll just say me, someone behind this property has had no contact from the developer apart from the notice of this hearing.

If there's a demolition and there's like I don't know where the trucks are gonna go.

I think I just asked the applicant to keep us in mind and be communicative with us.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Next up again.

Next speaker is Ralph Brooker.

Thank you.

My name is Ralph Brooker.

I'm at 422 North Alford Street, uh right across the street from the project.

I look at this building every day.

I go past it on my way to Misha's and back.

So very familiar with it.

I completely agree that the current building doesn't add any particular value to the neighborhood at all.

And so I'm generally in support of the project.

However, um this is a weird block, as others have stated.

There's no consistent historical um design on the block.

There are buildings that date that are quite recent, all the way back to I think early 1800s, the house we are in.

You can we think you can see on the palamentary print, which is 1853, at least there were some buildings.

So there's this huge mix of all kinds of different styles, different income levels have lived there, different income levels do live there now.

Um so what we'd like to see is some individuality in these five townhouses.

But the way the project reads to me now is it's it's a big, presumably red brick industrial 19th century mill.

Um it looks like it hasn't it doesn't have individual characters for the residents who live there.

The if the design is implemented in brick, my concern would be for the reasons that were discussed earlier in the meeting, the residents will never be able to change that.

They won't be able to paint it or stain it.

So we'll be stuck with um five identical red brick or whatever color brick uh um residences that cannot express the individuality of the owners.

Um the developer gentleman mentioned using four uh sorry, 211 north offered as a as a model reference, and it certainly does stand out.

I mean it sticks up like a like a tooth.

Uh I don't think that's a particularly attractive building, and I'm was not too excited to see that build as a model.

I'd like don't particularly want to see five of those all stacked up side by side on our book.

So um I was pleased to hear that there's some consideration for the the passage in the neighboring house to the north.

Uh that's a real tough problem.

There's a young family that lives there.

So I'm glad you're I we really hope that you work that out in good faith.

Um, but I think uh we speak for our neighbors that we'd really like to see some interests, some individuality, uh, some characteristics, some some character for these five townhouses, and not just a monolithic big facade that just dominates the street uh and overwhelms all the other odd little houses that we have.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Alan Jacobson.

Good evening.

Uh thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Uh I thought all of the speakers tonight have been terrific.

I agree pretty much with everything that that has been said.

And I do hope that you give adequate consideration to all those comments.

Um I'm a former uh healthcare professional, so my comments are a little bit different uh focus.

Uh there was a dry cleaners there for uh I believe five decades on that site, and uh as a result, uh as you I'm sure know dry cleaners use very uh toxic solvents, especially uh in the time period that we're talking about, which I believe was the 20s to the 70s, give or take.

Um so you know, I'm concerned about the the perchloroethylene and the trichloroethylene uh relative to groundwater and um soil contamination as well as potential vapor intrusion.

So I assume there was a phase one study done uh to analyze the soil and air.

Uh if so, what were the results?

Uh what remediation steps are planned for a likely phase two based upon my research?

There should likely be a phase two.

And what monitoring will be in place during construction to protect the neighbors, the young children who live in adjacent structures around that facility.

And what will periodic monitoring continue after project completion?

Because my understanding is that it can continue to show findings after construction is completed.

During construction, what steps are going to be taken to protect the neighbors?

And then also, is there an existing environmental covenant on the site?

And if not, will there be one afterwards?

And like you asked relative to the mass of that three-story uh building, how it works relative to perhaps setbacks relative to the two-story surrounding buildings.

Again, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Nathanie Cotz.

Nathaniel, by the way.

It's okay.

Hi, Nathaniel Choates.

Some call me Nathaniel.

Why am I doing this?

I'm the only one in this room that doesn't know anything about architects.

I've learned a lot in the last two hours.

I took notes on my phone.

I came here with nothing to say, but now I'm gonna push these three minutes.

I own the properties at 402 and 404, North Alfred, across the street.

Had them only for 36 years now.

I lived there for 11 years, moved out, and I can't wait till the kids are all out of the house, and my wife and I want to move back to Old Town, back to the house that I've been renting for 25 years now at 404.

That's the reason I care to be involved in this.

There's no question that that block is the island of misfit toys of Old Town Alexandria.

But I would just hope that we don't just take the worst toy on the block and say because it's terrible, anything's better than it is now.

Directly across from my house, there was a black top parking lot on the corner that I can't tell time.

10, 12 years ago, somebody bought that and built three townhouses: 401, 403, and I think 403B.

They're gorgeous.

They helped our block considerably.

It made it look more like Old Town.

So I'd rather, I just don't want to see us go, well, that building's no good.

Let's just put in a cookie cutter building.

Yeah, they're all unique, but in the first presentation earlier on 333 North Fairfax, I think they used the word variety well over a dozen times.

And they showed the three um various designs, step one, step two, and step three, he said, and you could see the change that they made.

And when I watched that, I was like, that's what I'd like to see.

But that first design that everyone kind of snickered at light years better than this one.

We're starting at a lower spot.

So just saying, I think the other word that got me in the staff report I read was it said um conforming uh it talked about to the local architectural character.

Maybe in isolation it does, but it's not one, it's five buildings, and I see nothing about a huge five-building piece of property that all five look the same as conforming to anything.

That's what I'd like to say.

Yeah, appreciate that.

Thanks.

Next speaker is Ed Luckett.

Good evening, Chair Lady and members of the board.

My name is Ed Lockett.

I live at 420 North Alfred Street and on the adjacent lot 418 North Alfred Street.

Uh as a matter of history, I have a bachelor's degree in architecture, five-year degree, and I have a master's degree in architecture.

Also, I worked as a city planner for the city from 1970 to 75, and was involved in organizing the development of King Street as it is today.

Additionally, I served on the Board of Architectural Review with Tom Halfish for I think nine years.

So I have a little bit of background in architecture.

Starting out that when I heard that this project got its inspiration from Parker Gray, the uh school that was on the block where now the recreation center is, that was an institutional building.

This is a residential site.

So I just don't see how they come together as a good mix of ideas.

Okay.

The second thing is has been said before, the oldest buildings on the block are Mr.

Mrs.

Mr.

and Mrs.

Broker, Brooker, and my house, which were built around 1830.

They show up in the big picture on behind City Hall or behind the uh the IS at City Hall and the uh hearing room.

The buildings have been built over that period of time.

Some have burned down and been rebuilt again, or where sites were and rebuilt again.

But what you have is a really joyful collection of buildings from different periods fitting together to make a really neat little block.

It's one probably the only one like it in all of Alexandria.

Now it has a sore thumb in it, right in the middle of it, which is this garage.

Polyprim had their trucks there, and they had materials there, which they were involved involved in doing their laundromat, and they had uh laundromat on the corner of uh northwest corner of uh Orinocker Street and uh Alfred Street the site, they took over a building was formerly known as the Colored Girls Normal School.

So uh the uh building that they're using as a model was built in 1920.

It has really no historic character.

When you go down the street and you look at this plan or this elevation and look at the street from any direction you travel, you you have a feeling that you're sort of in a musical concert, and all of a sudden, when you look at this, there's a dead note.

Okay, okay.

And I don't have too much to say other than it isn't critically considered for the site.

And it if I were to say what should be done to it, which I probably will say right now, is they need to start off from scratch because it doesn't fit, it doesn't belong.

That's my comments, thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Steven Goldman.

I reside at 407 North Alfred Street with my family.

Um apologize for my parents, my neighbors have seen me dress better than this, but I coach eight-year-old girls basketball, so this is what you got today.

Um it's it's with that family in mind that that I have words to say today.

Um moved in right when my daughter was born.

Like I said, she's she's just turned eight years old.

And the house is a townhouse that was pointed out, it's just on the south side.

Ms.

Danino, uh Del Nino pointed it out.

Um we have light in the front, we have light in the back.

These structures being put in place are somewhat of a monstrosity in compared to the houses next to them.

Um, as was pointed out, the peak of our rooftop is maybe where that line was, whereas the the true height of our building is much lower.

This is going to tower over our building, but also go much further back and pretty much cover the backyard.

Whereas right now we get practically all of our light from the east through those back windows.

We have a split level, that's where all of our light comes from.

This is this property goes back pretty far deep.

Um, and and frankly, I was um a bit dismayed that when actually I reached out to the developer, they didn't reach out to me.

We had a brief conversation, and it almost seemed like the developer had ideas about what we might be concerned with and how they plan to address those concerns, but didn't actually listen to the true concerns we had.

It felt rather dismissive.

Um that is one of the concerns.

And so most of what we heard is the front facade and the appearance on the block, which I wholly agree with.

I think my neighbors who have a lot of architectural experience uh did a great job uh emphasizing the uniqueness of our block and and keeping in the individualized nature of all the buildings.

But you know, I have livable concerns too, in that the depth and this and the broad size of that project is going to block out a lot of light.

It's gonna dwarf the home.

And that's in addition to you know, we haven't talked too much about the demolition of the property, but in addition to the potential environmental concerns with a laundromat, um, you know, being there in in the past, but also the parking.

Um it for for Woodsworth, maybe it's fortunate that we've been living here with two young kids and haven't had to worry about parking uh for a long time with a somewhat commercial building next to us.

But when I'm now hearing that there's gonna be demolition in a property like that with construction trucks and no real uh way to address that, that there's now going to be five residential townhomes moving in with the idea that we're now gonna be renting out um you know homes, single families in the ADU or I guess studios in the ADU.

Um, it does lead to a lot of concerns about the livability of of that neighborhood for my family, like I said, with an eight-year-old child and a two-year-old child, and and what that will be like moving forward.

So thank you for listening.

Thank you.

Uh that was the last speaker.

Yes, that was the last speaker for um some of the board members would like to hear uh what Mr.

Vane had to say if you would like to point uh we'll give you uh if you could please keep it to two minutes.

I do have a few more comments.

Sure, if you could keep it short, please, to two minutes at most.

Um I left off, but uh the block should be considered to be a totally different context than the developers 805 North Columbus Street project in the handout.

There's a collection of pictures that I've taken to illustrate how new rows of townhouses could be designed to fit into an historic context.

And of note, the majority of the of the existing townhouses in our block have their first four living spaces two or three feet above the ground.

This is true.

Most of the better older houses as well as the newer ones.

Why are the first floors so near the ground?

Is there a reason why the first floors of the houses are only one foot above the sidewalk?

Wouldn't they appear more regal or statuesque or just compare uh compatible if they were raised out of the ground?

As designed, pedestrians walking down the street would look directly into the linear plans of the living room, dining room, and kitchen in the manner of a retail shop.

As one of the people in this room who will be the most impacted by the proposed design, I have to say it needs to be better.

All new buildings should attempt to improve their settings.

This design, even schematically, doesn't go far enough.

Rather give us the variety of individual townhouses which will enhance and enrich the streetscape and further weave this street into the desirable part of old town.

Um members of the board.

Um as the block warden, me by default.

I've been wanting for 45 years to see this streetscape completed.

Please encourage the developer to take the high road and make this the best new project in old town.

The proposed design doesn't do that.

Make it a solution that we're all proud of.

Please give us what we, the residents of the neighborhood deserve.

It will require your guidance.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um we can open it to discussion, or Mr.

Clanke.

I also uh understand that there's a demolition section to this.

Um I think we don't have any more public.

Um yes, so that so this is a two-part application, as I started off this conversation with saying we do have a permit to demolish, um, which does require a roll call vote, and then there's the concept review.

Um it and we can discuss them together if you'd like.

But of course, um, as the board knows, any permit to demolish um should be considered on its own terms and not not relative to anything that may or may not be replacing it.

We when you consider a permit to demolish, we look at the criteria that are listed in the um staff report and say, does it meet these criteria?

If it does, then the permit to demolish should be awarded.

So while it is useful to understand what's going on, um we the board really needs to make the decision uh about the permit to demolish based on it's just its own standards, and so um it would recommend maybe we um have a brief conversation about the permit to demolish and we address that and then we move on to the to the concept review if if that's amenable to the chair.

Sure.

Um is anyone in agreement that demolish?

Yes, let's get a call.

Roll call.

Well, we need a motion and a second to approve it, and then we can do a roll call.

Um I'll make a motion to um to approve the demolition of this uh project building.

I'll second second um Mr.

Adams.

Okay.

Uh Ms.

Pike.

Aye.

Ms.

Mr.

Spencer?

Aye.

Mr.

Adams.

Hi.

Ms.

Miller.

Hi.

Ms.

O'Neill.

And Ms.

Andy.

Aye.

So the permit to demolish is approved.

And uh let's move on to the concept review.

Thank you.

Um any of the board members would like to make comments.

Mr.

Adams.

Thank you.

This has been really wonderful evening to hear this uh the comments from the neighborhood.

And uh two of the esteemed architects from Old Town have spoken tonight and are residents of this uh this area block.

And I I just want to say how much I respected their work and uh the words they um describe the unique nature of of this uh the 400 block.

Um just as they said, there's such a variety of house ages, types, sizes, shapes, everything.

And just as I've observed, there's a variety of all kinds of people here who live on that block, and it's just the perfect image of Old Town.

The voices you've brought to us tonight and the houses we've seen when we've made site visits, it's it's exceptional.

And I think it's the opportunity for the developer to match the level of uh variety in the in the neighborhood.

It's a special block, it has just the same opportunities that the first houses who restored houses on Prince Street and what was then a risky neighborhood, probably, and the earliest developers who did some of the houses maybe on Royal or close to the Safeway were felt it was risky, and they did a lot a little bit less expensive type of construction.

Now the 400 block of Alfred will be like Lee Street in the quality and diversity of uh houses that your neighborhood will be just as important as some of the streets closer to the river.

And that's what I think the payback will be for a developer putting more effort into the design construction value of the of the uh houses here, these five houses.

That the payback will be even greater, not based on square footage, but based on design and uh quality of design.

So I think variety, what we saw from the first project Mr.

showed us on uh Queen Street is a great example of and also the ones Mr.

Neil uh showed us.

And I want to thank Mr.

Luckett for being here tonight.

Thank you.

Um Ms.

Mader.

Um I'm just so pleased with all of the neighbors coming to speak to us.

Thank you very much.

It's so important to me in deciding a project to hear from the neighbors or not hear from the neighbors also says something for me.

Um and thank you for the uh Mr.

Wire and Mr.

Bloomfield for your presentation.

And I think enough has been said tonight that um you have clear direction um about where to go in and realizing what a special block this is and how much interest there is in what you're going to come up with next.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um Ms.

Delino.

Um so uh you know, as a concept review, we're reviewing you know the mass height architectural character of of the proposal, and I agree that um it could be further developed to uh to have five distinct uh townhouses expressed.

And I agree that it could be further developed to have five distinct uh townhouses expressed.

I appreciate that it's in brick.

I think that's appropriate.

And also concerned that we're if it is in brick, that the whole volume should be expressed in brick.

I think there's opportunity to maybe reduce uh maybe the base or the height on the south end is um your adjacent to that building um there.

I think uh referencing 401 North Alfred was a nice move that the project is really sublime in how it works with the city.

I think that's really very nice.

So looking forward to further development.

Thank you.

Um I'm gonna echo what Mint Stellinho said about it being brick, but I think there's also an opportunity to have different colors of brick, and instead of having one big brick facade that's all the same color.

Um it just seems a little monotonous.

I mean, I and I think that is some of the variety of Otown when you see houses that are all exactly the same, there at least is a color difference between them.

Um but I do agree that you know some of the roof lines could change, um, especially on your uh your bump out.

That could that could make I mean some things to make it more interesting so that it has more interest because right now it's all kind of singing one note.

It's like you know, one house has been designed and you just marched it down the street.

Uh and yeah, I think you just need to play some more with the the roof lines at least of the the roof lines of the the bump outs could be different.

And I mean I've seen that in Otown as well, where that kind of gave it some character where the roof lines are from one the townhouses look very similar, but they had different bump out roof lines that actually help define it more, and each one felt different from the other one, and there was a subtle difference.

And I think the um, sorry.

Oh, the window down there.

Yeah, I that was the first comment I made earlier is that the the bay window just doesn't work, um, which was seems like a carryover from the other design.

I don't know which one came first.

Um but yeah, I just I think the brick is an act, I think brick is a great idea, but I think this is opportunities to introduce different colors of brick, maybe some different roof lines to help define the character.

I think the the general idea of what you're trying to do in this neighborhood, I think is a good idea.

But I just it it just feels a little the easy button was pushed on the design, and this is what it is.

I mean, I understand the interior is what it is, and you lay out and you get you got the open space from the floor plans.

I saw that's all great stuff.

But the four the facade on this, I felt like the easy button was pushed, and it just need to be rethought, developed, add some real character to this thing because it feels a little like a little simple, just a little too simple.

Thank you, Miss Pratt.

I'm not sure that I can add a whole lot more, but uh I need it needs variety.

Uh and I understand this is very early, relatively speaking in in the process, and perhaps not from your perspective, but um right now it just looks too much uh either like an apartment building or condos, not individual townhouses, and certainly not homes the way that the rest of the block is.

Uh so uh at sometimes there's only so much you can work with what you've started with, whether you want to try to do that or just start right off with going back to the drawing board.

Um, you know, perhaps play with uh even differentiating the roof lines a little bit in terms of height, uh, or maybe possibly pushing back the end units uh a little further from the street, uh just something to help break up the mass.

Thank you.

Um I basically agree with all the comments that we have heard from uh members and the public.

Um I'll start with the variety.

Uh to I'd like to see uh much more variety in between the townhouses from the height of it or the projected um bay height, you know, it could be one lower, the middle ones higher.

Um and uh I really appreciate the use of brick, but I think you can use basically a different color of brick on each one of these um townhouses that would bring much more uh richness to it.

Uh I do agree with the brick to go for this one and the other project as well to just go all the way around the building, not just the front uh of the building.

Um and on the first floor, the uh similar to the other project, the middle uh window doesn't seem appropriate for old town.

Um and similar to the other one, if you just match it with the uh upper uh window that we have, that that would be fine, or if you like to have another configuration, it's just um not what we are seeing here.

The most important thing for me is the height of the building.

Um I think it has uh room to be lowered by uh a lot because the one uh the building to the right is also a three-story building.

Uh but it's it's uh much lower.

Uh and I I don't uh you know I don't see a reason why this should be so high.

Uh I think that one is around 30 feet or so.

So if you can work to bring the height uh to match the one on the the building on the right side in on the elevation, I think that should um that should be much uh works generally better uh for the whole streetscape, as these are five uh buildings.

Um as uh we mentioned before, maybe you can have the ones on the corner lower, um, you know, just different in height.

That would help as well.

I think that was most of my comments.

Thank you.

And anyone else has anything to add?

No?

Thank you.

Mr.

Conkey, do we have anything else on the docket?

There's no other items on the docket, just a couple of uh announcements, a couple of things to as we go forward.

Um we right now, right now we are looking like we may not have a hearing at the first hearing in February.

Um we don't have any cases um unless uh our brick stain guy um stains some brick really quickly.

We probably won't have a hearing in at the beginning in February, so um yeah, we can all take some time.

Um we are working towards uh having having the February the second February hearing um in Old Town at a rec center.

Um excuse me, excuse me.

Can you can you can you guys get away?

Can you guys step out in the hall, please?

Excuse me, the meeting is still going.

Can you guys step out in the hall?

Close the door behind you, please.

Thank you.

Um we are working on um trying to get a the second hearing in February in a rec center.

We're working still working through that.

I'll let you know as it goes.

Um we do have a um uh an appeal.

Uh I'm sorry, I'm distracted.

We do have an appeal um this Saturday, 910 King Street is being appealed to City Council, so I will let you guys know how that goes.

Um Mr.

Scott has agreed to go and represent the BAR at that hearing.

So and then I think I do believe Ms.

Pratt has something to uh talk to the board about as well.

Do I need to be on my own?

Yeah, it'd be helpful.

Okay.

Um I with much appreciation for the time that I've had on the board.

I am tendering my resignation because I am moving to Boston in three weeks.

So to a somewhat a town that at least has a historic preservation commission.

I'm not sure if that it's actually a board of architectural review, but I am moving to Brookline for family reasons.

Um so after I get myself settled there in a few years, I will uh see how I might be able to come become involved civically.

There.

I thought that it needs to be uh lose you, but I thought it needs to be a uh exchange program that if she's gonna go join another BAR someplace else that she has to find someone in Boston and get them to move down here and join this because if we lose one, we gotta get one.

So I really enjoyed getting to know you and have you on our board.

Well, thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good luck.

Thank you.

After being in my house for on South Lee Street for almost 30 years, it's going to be a huge change.

But I'm going to a condo, but it is two family structure built in about uh I think about 1920.

It has I think all of the original flooring and woodwork.

The windows have been replaced, and I will probably do some more replacing.

Um so it it's going to be a huge change, but one that I'm excited, some trepidation.

My mother had died last year, and my father is still he's for being 88, he's doing pretty well.

And my brothers are there.

So just having retired in September.

It it makes sense that to put my energies into starting a new life up in Boston where I grew up in Cambridge.

Yeah, I grew up in Cambridge.

Um not too far from Brattle Street, which of course has beautiful, beautiful old and historic.

I not just old but historic homes.

And Brookline has a few too, I think.

And Beacon Hill.

So I have nothing else to do.

Um I guess I wanted to um just mention how I appreciated um Mr.

Scott's representation um of the board for 40 minutes, you know, last Saturn, Tuesday.

Yeah, Tuesday evening.

He was eloquent and you know, I I think he did a wonderful job.

It was 40 minutes uh uh initially and then lots of callbacks.

So it was it was it was he he he put in a lot of work on you, Jordan.