Okay.

Forget what I said.

Just keep it sharing.

Yeah.

The presentation will be here.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay, that's fine.

So leave.

Oh.

No, we can have that.

Okay.

Okay.

Almost down.

How are you doing?

How how do you adjust it to life in a new building?

I like the new building.

Yeah.

And I like this work too.

You guys are just right across the street in Tavern Square, right?

Yeah.

Yeah.

We are on the second floor.

I know I should come check it.

I will.

I will get it.

Yeah.

Come visit.

It's really nice.

And we have a lot of little rooms to meet and you know, like it's better.

It's better there.

Like we have everybody together.

It's good.

Yeah.

Oh, it's it's the permit for the line.

What's that?

It doesn't look appropriate for the looks.

Hi bud, nice to see you.

Sounds like a lot of things.

Oh, it says it's a space.

We do like a really better like face less kind of I don't think so.

Oh right.

Okay, I'm just talking about.

Yes.

Okay.

Okay.

I numbered them because we I think we're on the worst.

Oh, just order the ones.

Yeah, no.

And then we have someone else for this.

I think someone else just changed the either.

Well, Vino's the delivery is not.

Okay.

The last year.

Yes.

Okay.

You guys ready?

Um I think we are ready.

Are you guys good?

Okay.

Sit down and this meeting will come to order.

Right.

I'm gonna address everybody using the microphone right now.

Although after this initial portion, the board up here won't be mic.

We will speak up as loudly as we want.

But I do want to note that this um traption is gonna be recording everything that we say.

And so there will be minutes of tonight's meeting as usual.

And I assume this video uh will be available at some point on the internet.

Yes.

So I I uh I always begin the meetings just with a brief overview for the applicants and public.

Um we will proceed tonight with applications and other agenda items in the order indicated on the docket.

Limited copies of tonight's agenda and each staff report are available in the hall on a first come, first served basis right over there on that table.

For uh, if you are an applicant, please be sure to read the staff report for your review for each application.

We will uh proceed in the following order of business.

The applicant or applicant's representative may present the proposal or be available for questions.

This is not required.

The board encourages applicants to be thorough but concise.

The public will have an opportunity to speak on each application.

Members of the public interested in speaking on a docket item tonight should fill out a speaker form and hand them in to a staff member right here.

Please uh note your name and address for the record at the company's comments.

Members of the public will have three minutes for their comments.

And if you're here representing a community organization, you'll have five minutes.

After public comment is complete, the applicant may respond to any public comments.

Following this, the board and the public uh will deliberate the board will deliberate and have discussions.

During deliberation, board members might ask questions of the applicants, but it will no longer be open to the public.

After deliberation, the board can take the following actions for each application.

One vote on a motion to issue, continually issue or deny um deny a certificate of appropriateness.

That's what we're here today for.

Upon request by an applicant, we can vote on a motion to defer taking action.

We can vote to continue the case to the next available hearing, or we can just proceed to the next docket item without taking action.

And if the board doesn't take action um at the next regularly scheduled meeting, then the certificate of appropriateness would be deemed automatically issued.

So the board doesn't do anything, it's not gonna hold up the process.

Um after 45 days, they're just deemed approved.

I do want to make a couple of points on voting.

Motions pass by a simple majority vote.

A tie vote results in no action being taken.

And if the board votes to deny an application, a similar application will not be considered for a period of one year following the denial.

The board occasionally takes up matters other than applications for a certificate of appropriateness, and we are doing that here tonight.

The public will have an opportunity to comment on those matters.

So we'll have a concept review tonight, and um that's not here for action, but it is here for discussion.

Any appeals of a board decision and uh members uh applicants can appeal decisions of the board, as can the public um to city council must be made within 14 days of the board's decision and in conformance with zoning ordinance section 10-107, 10-207 or 10-3.

Okay.

So with that, I'm gonna take um the microphone.

I'll hand it to you and then um we'll get started.

I got it on because it's about two or three minutes.

All right, all right, Mr.

Conkey, let's get going.

All right.

Um minutes.

Yes.

Do you want to read in?

Uh no, but you can go ahead and okay.

Uh the first docket item is consideration of the minutes of the February 18, 2026 BAR hearing.

Do any members of the board wish to make any modifications or amendments to the February 18th minutes?

Does any member of the public wish to make any modifications to the February 18th minutes?

Seeing none, uh, can I have a motion on the minutes?

So moved.

And a second.

Second.

All those in favor of adopting the minutes from the February 18th B AR meeting, say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The minutes are adopted.

All right, onto the consent calendar.

Thank you, sir.

We have we have two items on the consent calendar tonight.

Item number three and item number four.

Uh item three is BAR 2026-00030.

Old historic district request for operations at 214 and 216 South Paving Street.

Applicant is Melwood Incorporated represented by M Captain Puscar attorney.

And item number four is BAR 2026-00032.

Oldness of our district request for alterations at 913 South Alfred Street.

The applicant is Ronald Southward.

Do any members of the board wish to remove either of these items from the consent calendar?

Do any members of the public wish to remove either of these items from the consent calendar?

Seeing nothing, can we have a motion on the consent calendar?

Make a motion to approve the consent calendar.

Do we have a second?

Second.

All right, second for Mr.

Adams.

All those in favor of adopting docket items three and four on the consent calendar, say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right.

Um docket items three and four are approved.

So if you're here for docket item three or four, your application is approved.

Moving on to new business.

Thank you, sir.

We have a couple of items under new business tonight.

First item is number five and six.

Uh this is BAR 2026-00014, Parker Gray request for operations at 632 North Columbus Street.

The applicant is Andrew Marquard and Aaron Gordon, representative of it by Peter Vanderpol.

And VAR 2026-00024, Parker Gray request for partial demolition encapsulation at 632 North Columbus Street.

The applicant is Andrew Marquard and Aaron Gordon represented by Peter Vanderpol.

The applicant here.

All right.

So if you can make your way up to the left turn here.

And if you could state your name and an address for the record, and go ahead.

My business address is 1713 North Bryant Street on line from Virginia 2201.

And uh you're welcome to make a presentation or to just answer board questions.

You can proceed however you like.

I have looked through the uh staff recommendations, and I think I'd be happy to answer any questions the board might ask.

Okay.

Um before we open it to public comment, do any members of the board have any questions for the applicant before we begin?

No question.

Just to make sure that we are tracking your application proposes three different roof lines.

Yes.

Or it suggests three different roof lines.

The first staff recommendation is that the applicant constructs the third roof type.

So I just want to make sure that we're in alignment on what which one that is.

Yes.

I think that it is referring to the one on page six on photo four.

Is that right?

Yes.

Is that your understanding?

Yes.

And Mr.

Conke, is that the staff recommendation is for the one depicted in image photo four?

That's correct.

Okay.

Love the lowest lowest slope roof.

Lowest slope roof.

Just wanted to make sure we're all on the same page with what the staff recommendation is.

Um and are these other recommendations?

Yes.

Acceptable to you.

Okay.

Great.

Are there any other board questions before we open it up to public comment?

I just don't know what one are the three.

Is it three defense slope types?

I'll suggest the three dependent ones on the choosing.

We had uh recently sent it in as a uh leave a two or twelve slope.

And then uh speaking with staff, they had suggesting that we might offer a uh one and twelve and a we're calling flat options so quarters.

And that's the third option.

Flat option is that recommendations proposed.

Any other questions before we open up to the public?

Right?

Do we have any public speakers on this one?

Yeah.

No.

Anyone here to speak on this one?

No.

No, all right.

Then we will close the public comment portion for this docket item.

We can begin deliberations.

Uh Mr.

Adams, do you have anything?

I think the third option is the one I would prefer.

Oh yeah.

Other people can hear what they say.

Um other questions from the board or comments.

No.

Ms.

Andian.

No.

I don't agree with the staff recommend motion.

Yeah, I'm I'm inclined to support the staff recommendations.

Um, in terms of a siding material, what would your inclination be for the siding material?

Well, the recommendation has been we the consistent rear is uh lap siding.

And we could choose a different weatherface, uh ship lab.

The preference was for a side or just like that rear wall.

Okay.

Well, I might propose uh if if staff is comfortable with it, a condition that just requires the applicant to work with staff to finalize the siding side.

We can clarify uh recommendation number two if you want to.

Um sliding material differentiates from the existing structure.

You could say work with staff to um, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Absolutely.

Okay, great.

Anything else?

Does anyone want to make a motion on this one?

Make a motion to approve for staff recommendations with the clarification to the staff recommendations.

Well, Mr.

Cal worked out.

So the clarification being work with staff on number two.

Okay.

Uh, do we have a second?

Second.

I think Ms.

Arnian got that one.

Is this a roll call vote?

Uh yes, sir.

This is a roll call vote because we have demolition.

Okay, let's do it.

Uh Mr.

Spencer.

Hi.

Mr.

Adams.

Uh Mr.

Scott.

Aye.

Mm-hmm.

Aye.

Congratulations.

You're approved.

Thank you.

All right.

What is next on the docket?

So uh next on the docket, we're actually gonna split between um some between new business and other business here.

So I'm so the uh item number seven and number eight are related.

So item number eight is the concept of view, item number number seven is a related dump demolition.

So I'm gonna read those two together if that if that's okay with the uh with the chair.

Yes, go ahead and read and you want to read them separately or come on, read them in, read them in independently, but uh but and you we can consider them together because the demolition is part of the is part of the part of the project.

So go ahead and read them both.

So we'll we'll make sure we vote separately on the demolition.

So we may as well discuss it all together.

Okay, I think that's great.

It's all one thing.

So yeah, I'll read them into them.

Okay.

So item number seven is uh BAR 2026-00034 old historic district request for dump partial demolition encapsulation at 330 North Washington Street.

The applicant is 330 North Washington Street LLC, represented by Mary Catherine Phillips attorney.

And number eight is the associated um concept review, which is BAR 2026-00033 Old Historic District.

Request for concept review at 330 North Washington Street.

Um applicant is uh 330 North Washington LLC, represented by Mary Kathleen Clips attorney.

All right, thank you.

Before we begin, I just want the public to know this is kind we're discussing two things at once.

One is the approval of demolition of essentially a car port.

Um, the other one is a proposal for an infill building, partly where the car port is right now.

The proposal is not here for a vote today.

The proposal is here just for discussion, it's a concept review, but we will be voting on whether to approve the demolition of the car port.

Um it's the drive-thru in the back of the Wells Fargo Bank on Washington Street.

Okay, um, so with that said, I will open it up to the board on before we get to the concept review.

If we can focus in on the demolition of the car port.

Uh oh, where's our applicant?

No, come on up.

We need you here.

Please doing the question.

This one.

Is it okay with you if we discuss the demolition first?

Absolutely.

Okay, great.

And I wanted to do this one presentation.

We have an architect here as well, but it's entirely up to you.

I know you've read your staff reports.

We we've read the staff report.

We do want the the um the presentation.

I'm wondering if we well, if the board's amenable to it, just addressing the carport first.

Yeah, and just get that out of the way.

Can we get a an abbreviated presentation on the demo?

Just show us the part about the the demo.

Yep.

Um and then we'll have to take a vote on that and then we'll go forward.

Okay, okay.

Uh first my name is Mary Catherine Gibbs, um, land use attorney for the applicant here.

Can you put up my presentation?

No, no, no.

It's this fixed one.

Yep.

Okay.

A couple of these slides.

Keep going, keep going.

And then to uh the next one.

Yes, sorry.

Okay, so for demolition, obviously, we're gonna talk about why we're looking to demolish uh a portion of this drive-thru.

If you've ever gone to that Wells Fargo building or to that parking lot, there are three um aisles uh now.

The operation of the bank does not need three drive aisles, and so they're gonna be left with one.

We're asking to remove the canopy for the last two with a westernmost two drive aisles, leave a canopy for the one that's immediately adjacent to the building and cap that um side essentially at the end so that they can it will be a finished uh track there.

I think there's a photo of what you're doing the next one.

So essentially it's the part in red is what we're seeking to demolish.

Can I get you to say your name and Catherine Gibbs?

Okay, great.

I just want to make sure we have that clear.

That's okay.

Okay, do any board members have questions on just the demo of this drive-through?

I have one question.

So approval of the demo are you for how you're going to finish that edge of that part of the next presentation.

That is a good question.

It was really to match the um what is in existence today.

That's what they would be looking to um uh to finish it with.

Mr.

Coffee, how is that handled since that's kind of new construction and we're gonna demo?

Yeah, I mean that's something we would we would probably do at the C of A level as a final detail.

Um, but I think the bigger question is so the project doesn't really work unless that part of the building is gone.

Right.

So I think is if we can agree that that part of the building comes down, then I think uh we can we can make that part of the certificate appropriate.

Yeah, the design of the edge.

Correct.

We'll do a detail.

We'll include a detail about the design of that edge and the C of A way it just distinguishes it from the um good question.

Any other questions on the demo?

All right, I know we have public speakers on this.

Do any of the public speakers wish to speak on the demolition issue?

I will let you speak twice if you want to speak on both.

You can have three minutes for each.

No.

Okay.

So with that said, let's um close the public comment on document item number seven, which is the demo.

Yeah.

And do I have can I get a motion on yeah, make a motion to approve her staff recommendations for the demolition.

We have a second.

Um it's a standard archaeological slide.

Yes, I'll second, I'll second that motion.

I think we need a roll call.

We do.

Let's do it.

All right, uh, Mr.

Spencer.

Hi.

Mr.

Scott.

Aye.

I'm a sandy.

Hi.

Okay, demolition is approved.

Thank you.

Now we will move to docket item number eight, which is the concept review.

And you are the same person that was speaking to us before.

I do want to introduce my client who wants to introduce his company to you.

He's not done any projects in Alexandria, so you know who he was.

Um, we also have our architect here, Rodney Williams, who's here to answer questions and we'll present to you the actual elevations of the project.

So the floor is yours.

All we ask is if you guys are gonna talk, just come up to the microphone so we can capture what you're saying.

First, thank you all for having us this evening.

My name is Brian V.

I'm vice president of Marion Companies.

Uh background on Marion and you can go back to the second slide if you don't mind, but either way.

Um so Marion was founded in 2006 by Bill and Brian Binston.

They were collected 75 plus a year in industry experience.

Uh you know, done thousands of entitlements I've been with Barry the past 10, have 15 years of real estate development experience individually collectively, entitled thousands of lots.

Um, so we're not unfamiliar with this process.

Um, we currently are entitling a five-acre site in Arlington of Columbia Pike.

Um successfully entitled two and a half acres next door a couple years ago for 40 townhouse lots.

Um Bill Bitson, one of the owners of the company.

He was the lead developer in the acquisition entitlement and development of the eclipse, which also in Arlington, but some of you may be familiar, it's uh mixed use mixed use development as you kind of approach Alexandria.

Um similar mixed use, although larger in scale.

Um go to the next slide, please.

So that brings us to 330 North Washington.

We purchased this property in 2016 uh with the goal of redeveloping an underutilized surface parking lot.

In addition to that, to refresh a dated office building with antiquated building systems.

So, you know, over the course of the last 10 years, Wallace Fargo has been our ground for tenant.

It was originally a bank owned building, so it took a few years to negotiate with them to agree to a redevelopment.

They have since downsized their space in the existing building and given us the rights to redevelop.

A few years ago, we started looking into it and originally started looking at a 30,000 square foot condo building with underground parking, quickly determined it didn't fit within the mass scale of the neighborhood.

So put that on pause and similar to what Cromwell townhouses did in 2014, right before we purchased the site, they had used a portion of the surface parking lot to develop uh five or six townhouses.

So we determined that that was the best path forward.

We looked at various different layouts for how these townhouses could fit within the parking lot while also providing adequate parking to serve the existing office building.

We eventually determined uh through our civil engineer that the only way to efficiently do that was to share a dry aisle that is shared with these townhouse units, the um Columbus Street townhouses.

Uh so that is what brings us here today.

Uh, we appreciate your time, thought, and efforts in the staff report and for the public coming.

So thank you very much.

So I think you guys all know what we're talking about.

The um uh Wells Fargo building is it has the 330 on it that faces Washington Street.

Um the Cromley townhouses are the white roofed um townhouses to the west of the red um rectangle.

We're talking about the red rectangle area inside that parking lot.

Um if you go to the next slide.

So here's the the site plan.

What we're going forward with is a development special use permit with a site plan for the construction of six townhomes.

Um those townhomes would be facing the east, their doors would face the east.

Um the last town home on uh Princess Street would, although it's the side of that house, has architecture that making that its actual front entrance.

So it reads as a house that enters and exits on Princess Street.

And in between, there is a 24 foot drive aisle that currently is an emergency vehicle easement uh as well as a public um an access easement for uh the owners at Cromley Row so that they could get into their townhouses, which are immediately abutting that drive aisle.

Um and so we it's a little bit more than you need for a um EVE, but um when there was room to do it so that they have 24 feet there.

Um, with that, we are looking for um your um input on our initial concepts.

We are going to be having um uh we had a community meeting with a number of the the neighbors they are here in attendance.

We're gonna continue to engage with with the public and with the staff.

After this, we've received comments from the staff on our concept two submission and so we're moving forward in that regard um after we can consolidate everybody's comments.

So with that, Ronnie, I'm gonna turn it over to you.

I think we need to go forward a couple to get through the demolition slides.

Yeah, keep going.

Keep going.

Hi, my name is Rodney Williams.

I'm an architect with Deborah and Associates.

Um, I don't know if many of you have seen this.

Uh a little bit of what we were trying to do.

Contextually, we're trying to stay within the confines of what's happening typically on those first four blocks off of Washington Street.

Um, with a three-story with a habitable loft uh attic space, not necessarily a full four-story.

Um grade, uh the no piles that appears as no elevated um first floor.

Um we've lowered some of the levels to get us under the main roof height of the 35-foot mean.

Um, and we're trying to use, if you can go to the next slide, we're trying to use some of the um contextual detailing and materials of what happens in Alexandria.

We're gonna try to uh use masonry as much as we can on the front and varying the different colors.

Um the style that we're trying to stay with is a little bit more of the transitional, where we stick with the traditional styling, but try to do um a little bit more contemporary um I guess windows sizing of the windows and some of the detailing.

Um, typically some of the bandy that you see just as relief for the front elevation.

Uh, we have like maybe two bands of pulled brick just to add um some more detailing and bays.

And part of the staff recommendation is maybe varying some of the bays and trying to make those a little bit different, which we're still in the design process.

But this is just one of the frontal issues we just wanted to show to show you that we're trying to kind of um kind of kind of have a different like uh orientation from each unit to the next, trying to set up so there's not like one big monolithic one color brick.

Um, and then we also saw the recommendations about the dormers up top.

Um, those dormers are typically can be an entertainment center or maybe a bedroom.

Um, but that is um gonna be uh trimmed out bays.

Um textually would be possibly a cementitis, not GVC.

Um, and I'm trying to see.

Can you go to the next slide?

The rears, we try to hold the brick to the first level all the way through.

Um, so the brick wraps around, and then the color that you see is a cementitious siding as well.

On those varying colors, it would not be, even though it's a little bit lighter on this uh photo.

They would not be all the same color.

Um different colors matching the brick, so they'd be complementary of what's going on.

And on the top level, we have a terrace that kind of creates some more of the open space on the top.

And the one more slide.

Yeah, and then this is what uh like a 3D image of what it looks like from I guess the Will Spargo bank side just showing the fronts.

And yeah, so we tried we're right on Princess Street.

We try to address the entrance on Princeton Street with um symmetry and uh some of the opening doors so that they could uh access and aggravate what's happening down below stuff.

Um one more slide, I think.

Yeah, that's from the opposite side.

So if you see that and entertain any questions you might have.

All right, uh, thank you.

And because this is a concept review, I'm gonna open it up to the public now, and then we'll have deliberations by the board.

So do we have any public speakers on this?

Yeah.

All right, who's our first speaker?

Uh Michael Gaffney.

Michael.

We all have to share.

Sit you can sit down if you want, yeah.

And then you can come talk afterward.

We only have one mic today.

So all right, as you approach, just please state your name and an address, and you'll have three minutes.

Thank you.

Um, could you put it up?

Oh, could you?

Okay, I'm sorry.

Uh my name is uh Mike Gaffney.

I live at uh 317 North Columbus Street, uh adjacent to the project.

Um we appreciate the opportunity for the concept review and uh for the merry group coming in and looking for the feedback uh that we'd like to give.

So I'm here because the current proposal represents a significant departure from the design principles of the old and historic district.

Specifically, I wanted to address how the discretionary parking preferences are being used as the primary justification for a design that struggles to be the board standard for orientation and massing.

Um the developer's proposal turns all six townhouses away from the street, orienting them towards an internal parking lot.

It's critical to note that the developer's proposal requires a developmental special use permit specifically to move forward with the design that isn't street facing.

So while I realize parking isn't an issue for the bar, the parking is being used as the justification for an orientation that is part of what the bar should consider.

Uh, this choice directly conflicts with the established preservation principles.

So the city's guideline state building should generally be cited parallel to the street and should include as much frontage as possible by requesting the permit to turn its back down Princess Street.

The project fails to provide the street wall necessary to maintain the character of the district.

We understand the applicant is communicated that a street-facing orientation is not possible due to parking requirements.

Uh on the community call, we talked about 24 spaces for the tenants at 330 North Washington, and they're requesting this development of special use permit to allow for an internal versus street-facing orientation.

The developmental special use permit is not due to any difficulty with the condition or shape of the land and lot, but it's driven by parking commitments.

But this is a self-imposed hardship rather than legitimate impediment to development.

Moreover, on the March 9th developers' community calls, the developer confirmed to us that they only have a formal obligation for 11 spaces for Wells Fargo.

The remaining 13 spaces that they were talking about are not obligations, but a preference for one or two spaces per tenant.

So finally, this site is in an enhanced transit area where the city's mandatory minimum is only six faces for this area.

So the applicant is asking to build in opposition to the guidelines and for us to accept a hundred-year architectural compromise to accommodate excess parking for optional convenience.

We should not degrade the integrity of this historic streetscape or a private parking preferences to for exceed what's legal or contractually required.

Next slide.

Okay.

That would accommodate thank you for your comments.

We really appreciate them.

Thank you.

Do we have any more speakers?

Yes.

Julie off to Mayor.

And if um if you have any more materials you want to submit, you can email them in and the board can consider them at the next concept review or in the interim.

And then you'll have a chance to speak at the next separate review as well.

So I guess we'll okay.

That's actually you can email it in and we'll take a look at it.

Okay.

Good evening.

Thank you for the opportunity to comments to the proposed development at 330 Washington.

Oh, can you give us Julie or I am?

Okay.

I am the homeowner at 319 North Columbus Street.

And I lived in either the Parker Grade District or the Old and Historic Alexandria district for 18 years.

Old Town Alexandria has been my home and is continues to be my home.

My neighbor Mike Gaffney just discussed the widespread concern that the sideways orientation of the proposed development violates the design guidelines of the old and historic Alexandria district and is predicated on developers' commercial lease commitments, which are entirely negotiable and rather than the preservation principles of Alexandria Historic Districts.

Okay.

The board's design guidelines make clear the front entrances to new residential buildings should be reoriented to the primary street frontage, and the orientation of a building to the street is important.

The community shares Mr.

Gaffney's concerns that the proposed development disregards the historic preservation principles of Alexandria.

Additionally, when it comes to infill construction, the design guidelines make clear that the board is primarily concerned with the compatibility of a new building with adjacent historic structures.

When assessing the appropriateness of proposed construction, the board is to consider overall architectural design, form, style, and structure, including but not limited to the height, mass and scale of the proposed development.

According to the design guidelines, residential building heights should generally reflect the existing heights of buildings in the immediate vicinity.

And most single family homes are two or three stories in height.

The developer is proposing four-story residences that appear in the renderings to overshadow the existing residences adjacent to the proposed development.

While four-story homes may be typical of the developers' other projects in various parts of Northern Virginia, single family four-story residences are an aberration in the historic district of Alexandria and completely overwhelm the residences in the immediate vicinity, including 711 Princess Street, which dates back to 1797 and is the most historic structure in the area.

I respectfully ask that the board request from the developer two things.

First, please require the developer to provide a street elevation view so the board has the necessary information to fully understand the visual impact of the proposed development relative to its surroundings to ensure the proposed development fits the character of the street.

Second, please require the developer to conduct a building massing study to accurately visualize the proposed development's footprint and height within the context of neighboring structures and site regulations.

Under Article 10 of the Alexandria zoning regulations, new buildings shall not detract from or overwhelm the historic buildings in the vicinity and must closely reflect and be proportionate to the massing of the adjacent buildings.

Consequently, it is essential that the board require the developer to conduct a building massing study to better understand whether the proposed development is consistent with or disregards the historic preservation principles of Alexandria.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

All right.

Next speaker.

Edward Rodin.

Hey everyone.

Okay.

My name's Ed Rodin of 325 North Columbus Street.

In fact, I just moved in last week.

So this is a surprise.

Moving from 116 North Columbus is there for six years as we're going down the street.

Um I just learned of this project over the last week, actually.

Uh what's going to happen to the infill project.

And really I'm concerned about the overall appearance of where I just bought in 325 North Columbus.

And there's two things I'd like to emphasize.

The first thing is street-facing design, which I think is critical.

Second thing is the Muse style type of design, I think will look a lot better than that part of Alexandria.

Thanks for listening.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh, next speaker.

No more.

Are there any wasn't Christine Robert?

Okay, are there any other speakers on this?

All right.

So at this point, I will invite the applicant to come back up.

And I'll just first open the floor to you to make any comments in response to the public comments, and then we'll we'll just have a colloquy with the board.

We appreciate that.

And we appreciate the neighbors participating, and then they are very active in terms of their conversations with the developer and on this process.

I I would say two things.

One, um, while um the guidelines say generally the the building should be street facing, it doesn't say that you cannot have buildings that are in a muse, and there are several different many, many instances where in the entire olden historic district, there is a Muse condition where you have a row of townhouses with one that sits on the public street and the remainder go back along the muse.

That is a standard occurrence in old in the olden historic district.

Um I would also say that um in terms of the uh is an aberration of the um uh within the character of the neighborhood.

Um there are three and a half to four story towns houses all over the old and historic district.

You just approved some um down on at three 333 um North Fairfax.

Um you've approved them in all areas of the historic district.

So I don't think that that is an aberration.

I think it's actually well within the context of the street.

If you could um go back a couple of slides, because I think the the question about the um uh well street view, the elevation of the entire street view of Princess People.

So this is this is our um right now I don't I don't have a flat elevation, I have a perspective.

So this is the entirety of Princess Street on the um southern side of the street for context.

That's the Wells Fargo building on the far, and this is the Cromley Row right here, and um the building in between is what we are proposing, and we think it's well in keeping with the um uh differentiation of heights along this street.

All right, thank you.

Um okay, I'm gonna open it up to the board.

Would anyone like to begin in terms of giving comments?

Oh, but by the way, I just on the concept review, just to remind everyone.

Usually there are multiple comp concept reviews for project like this, typically two, but they will build on each other.

So each concept review is an iteration in the design process.

So we'll give comments today, and then in our next hearing, we'll build on the comments from today.

It won't start as though we had never seen it before.

So any members of the public, and I encourage my colleagues on the board to be thoughtful about your comments um and to remember them the next time the applicant is before us.

Mr.

Calky, can you uh remind us of the items we're supposed to be speaking to in a concept review?

Uh good question.

Uh concept review, you are looking at the height, mass, scale, and general architectural character.

You asked to provide feedback on those topics.

Thank you.

Does anyone want to start?

I I'd be happy to start.

Okay.

So uh first of all, thank you for coming.

Thank you for the presentation.

We really appreciate it.

We know well this block.

Um, I will say my initial feeling is that uh can you show the uh aerial view of the development?

It's back a couple there.

Yeah.

So it visually it's a lot of parking.

It takes on a very you're on a city block here, you're in the middle of the city, and you've got you know, parking on three sides essentially.

Um it is designed in a very sort of suburban archetype.

I think less parking in your overall design.

And I it sounds like you have some spots that you're gonna give to Wells Fargo, but you've got two car garages for every unit.

That's probably enough parking for anybody who's gonna live here.

If I might clarify, that parking is not for the residents.

The remaining parking is for there are offices in the Wells Fargo building with additional tenants that use that parking for their and they're gonna park up against the residential building.

There are um five compact spaces in the rear and two um uh parallel, and then the parking along the edge down there.

That is existing parking, almost exactly like the parking that's on the edge of the Cromley Row.

Those are the parking spaces that will remain within this lot.

Okay, well, I I guess my overall comment then is is maybe try to shift the parking around somewhat so that it's not it's not surrounded by parking on three sides.

Um just these are city buildings, right?

This is not a suburban development, even in other parts of Alexandria, this might be better, but right here you've you've got a suburban context.

So I personally think that the design presented by one of the members of the public where you have the units more or less two buildings instead of one.

I think that is a better visual design than what you've presented.

Um I think you could make this work though, with less just my view, you just have parking on three sides, and uh it's it's overwhelms the design of the building.

So that's my general comment on the layout, right?

On general architectural character, can we go back down a couple of slides?

There we go.

That this is fine.

A few comments.

I think you your dormers are really big.

You have a couple of different designs and on the end units you've got dormers joining at a 90 degree angle.

It's a very busy design and um it doesn't seem to have a coherent um design approach.

So I would encourage you to look at maybe you know the Cromley row is an example those are all pretty consistent with each other.

So that's one one approach you could take uh and then the other approach would be to show more variance between each individual unit.

Here you've kind of got a hybrid of the two they're all similar but they're all broken up into a lot of different elements um and it just has kind of a disjointed general appearance I also think in this location as with the Cromley row they should probably be the same material all around because that you know visually because you're building a muse style as opposed to the three up three against three if you wanted to do that it would you would have a cleaner back of your building but because this is going to be visible from Columbus Street and also from Washington Street, I would think masonry all around or um you know certainly not up a back of of siding.

So those are my general comments on general architectural character I I we can look at the the image of maybe the next slide there you go.

So you can see just how the dormers really dominate this design and uh they they appear to be out of proportion with most townhomes you would see in the city.

So I I would re I would rethink that and then finally um with the rooftop decks on the back you know the the Cromley design has them down on the first level um that is a fairly successful design because you still have the volume of the building going up you want to put your your decks all the way on the top because of that um you're creating a cutout on the side and so for at least the facade along Princess Street I would think you would want not to put a um not to cut the facade of that building just on that end unit maybe both ends but certainly the Princess Street end with with a top level um patio.

If I could respond yeah no you can so we're looking to use as the Cromley Row folks did um elevated open space.

We can't count it as open space in the old Mistoric district right um but just as the Cromley Row did it we were looking to provide each of these homeowners with a level above um individual open space.

Yeah no I I wouldn't object to that I just if you notice the Cromley it's all on the first level right and you think being adjacent to that would would it affect their privacy on their level so we actually thought the staggered and different levels of the open spaces actually meant both entities could have a little bit of separation.

The logic is there it just kind of disrupts your roof line right and that's what you know it's going to be visible from Prince from Columbus Street and and you're gonna be the part of the building that the eye is going to be drawn to is a bunch of roof decks versus you know the guidance generally for roof decks is minimally visible.

We approve them all the time but generally we we ask that they be not very visible because you're placing them so high they're extremely visible um so you know maybe you put a parapet wall around it or you design it more so that it's visually appealing from Columbus Street.

Yeah I hear what you're saying yeah I think my initial goal was um when you have a hip it kind of takes that roof and pushes it away from you from the facial line the corners line the hip kind of recedes and goes back but if we went with the reverse gable on that side you would not get the dorm or this in the middle and you could hide a lot of the open space behind a little bit parapet wall that's kind of concealed.

So from Princess Street it would almost look like three stories of brick and then the upper level siding or some other kind of like um cardboard.

I mean I think that's generally my the yeah that's the theme of what I'm suggesting.

Yeah.

And just generally we give more scrutiny to roof decks than we do to ground level or first level decks, because roof decks, you know, people look at the roof lines of the buildings, and you can look, we have lots of examples of applicants where we have force them to push back roof decks to tone them down to make them minimally visible.

What you should look at when you look at this building is the top of a building.

And if there is a roof deck there, it should be cleverly concealed.

I think that's my opinion.

But you know, the floor is open to my colleagues on the board.

To continue on that, it could be extension of the roof uh instead of the railing.

Yeah, I agree.

I agree.

I know what you're saying.

And um, and that way it would almost look like there's just one dorm where you wouldn't have the dorm or on the end condition, it would almost be just windows within the gable side.

Right.

I do I do believe that it's busy on the top right now with with all the different lines of donor that line, the angled uh wall in the back.

Uh so I think that needs a little bit of work.

Um I have a question.

What why did you not choose to do kind of like the music style of three and three, like uh one of the neighbors, the first speaker showed.

Had that been considered at all?

Sorry, could you repeat that?

Uh, what what was the other like facing the street, the princess street what uh scheme that one of the speakers showed?

What was why was that not considered or did you ever sure?

And that scheme was similar to what we had looked at over the course of studying the site, and I believe that was from the initial concept one submissions that you know the city provided that feedback.

And so the reason behind it, and it's been mentioned parking is really constrained on the site for any development in that surface parking lot.

And I know it was mentioned that we have 11 that are allotted for Wells Fargo, but the reality is today there's 43 spaces in that surface parking lot.

When the building was fully occupied, those 43 spaces were spoken for the building condition has you know the hurt leasing, so there's not as many tenants in place right now.

I'd have to double check, but I believe at least right now there's 25 spaces spoken for, and that's with 35 to 40 percent vacancy in the existing building.

Um so really for a healthy thriving office building for that to remain viable, we would need you know sufficient parking.

And even at the 24 spaces that we're showing in this layout, you know, we're gonna have to get creative in order to do that.

Um so in short, you know, you create a new drive aisle with surface parking, and you have those two back-to-back three-row townhouses, and then you eliminate uh so much surface area that could be potential parking.

Could why not push parking up against the Wells Fargo building?

So Wells Fargo, they have a drive up ATM.

So there's parking can't be, you know, pushed up.

And you and a bypass is also required around that.

So those are two reasons why you can't, you know, abut the parking to the actual space.

Could you reconfigure the drive-up ATM to be on one of the sides of the building so that you can use the back there of parking?

So that is you know, we have I've got to think back to see if we looked at that.

That would have to be something that would be negotiated with Wall Spargo.

And I don't I don't know if that's viable or not.

We could study it, but I know that's not part of your application.

I'm just thinking like for my comment with your residential, you just have a lot of parking wrapped around it's sort of giving mosaic district, right?

But this is not the mosaic district, it's old town, and it should read as an urban setting.

And if you just surround your building with parking, it's not appropriate for that location.

I I hear you, and what we did, I think we got some feedback initially for those parking spaces that are right in front of the townhouses.

And in response to that, we try to create a you know significant landscaping buffer.

So it would look and feel like two different uses.

In addition to that, we're now considering a fence as well to really separate the uses.

Um, you know, I do I do hear what you're saying.

I think, you know, obviously it's a tight site, and we're we're working with constraints, but you know, note your your comments.

I I do agree with that comment that is surrounded by parking lot uh just gray asphalt.

Uh one comment is that to have more greenery on the back side as well, because it's very bare, and that's what the neighbors are going to be looking at, you know, having their uh open space on the second floor.

Um if I may um that drive aisle in the back, it's a shared drive aisle to serve the garages for both the existing Columbus Street townhouses and in this layout the proposed townhouses.

Right.

I'm just saying if possible in between the town, you know, townhouses or somehow to add some green areas.

That would be uh and for generally the with the in old town uh historically uh the house uh does have the same material going all around.

So I would also recommend to have the bridge going all around, especially that these are very visible, uh kind of two fronts almost when you're going through the princess street.

You can you can see in this actually image that it's really visible.

Uh so I do recommend to have the three wrapping all around.

Uh and then the dormers are very large, uh and they are very monolithic right now.

They're all the same color, kind of like in a row.

Uh, but the buildings are actually I appreciate that the buildings uh each townhouse is differentiated from the other one.

I recommend reflect that also to the dormers too, so that they're not all big.

It really looks very it's even bigger and more uh things.

I think that is all I can think of right now.

Oh, yes.

Oh, sorry, one more thing.

Uh to evaluate it like better for us correctly.

To be we need to see like a section through the the townhouses through your uh basically a street section, all the way from Washington to the other side townhouses.

So uh the Columbus, yeah, so the streets.

And with uh with dimension all the way because I'm looking at the height, I'm trying to find a height here.

The it's not very helpful because I don't see a height all the way to the rooftop.

I see a 45, a 34.

There's a slide, I think down to the me roof height um of the main roof, it's like under 35 feet, and uh to the actual peak.

It might be 38 years.

We do have a perspective that is not in this presentation, but we'd be happy to share it with you.

Right.

Um so yeah, I would like to see the overall side all the way to the top in comparison with the existing townhouses on the other side.

Uh and the the alleyway in between you you did mention is 24 kilogram feet, I think on on either side.

Uh to just to have that so that we can evaluate it better for the next front.

Okay, thank you.

Mr.

Adams.

Oh, thank you.

Well, thanks for the presentation.

I first saw the application, you know, I was pleased with it.

Of course, now we've gnawed on it and hear more comments on each other.

And I think all these comments have been very uh very good.

Just as an aside, that the Wells Fargo building on Washington Street Washington Street, North Washington.

Uh many years ago, there was I don't know if it's the AIA or whether it was group of architects were asked to identify building they thought was very successful in the in you know the past 50 years or so.

I don't know if it was built.

But this was the one building they've they thought thought was the very best.

And I think it's interesting to look at the facade of it, the windows on one side, they're a little clear stories, and it just has a beautiful uh architecture, beautiful design.

And every time I drive there every day a couple times, I'm pleased with it.

So your addition of these infill you're in a special place in the Cromley houses are also well liked and and masterfully designed.

So I and uh I also want to say uh I think all the comments uh have been spot on.

And you know, thank you for saying that.

I think you know, part of the vision for redeveloping service marketing was to also be fine existing building because it's fill in inside recently, but the outside is beautiful, and the inside could use some um the um you know, we would look at something and we're trying to be critical, not to be against something, but just to make it better.

And I think the general thoughts well about the um the side plan.

I think the muse idea that the three and three is something really to consider because it sort of breaks things up.

It's so monolithic right now.

The the garage back of it is so you know, just so much.

The garage doors and um and I the repetitive.

Um the um I think the materials as others have said to if one building should have more or less the same uh building material if they're individual, the dormers.

I think they are a little bit, although you've changed the roof lines on them.

Sometimes the sills are at a different level.

And I don't know, just to I've always been an advocate for variety when you're building something all at once, just make it appear as though it might have been built separately, as old town often has.

Often there were pairs of buildings uh put up at a time, and that that seems fine, but and it you've done that already with the various um building bricks on the the one side.

Maybe the windows might be some would be six over six or two over two, just to break it up a little bit.

So they appear to have been even designed by a different person or at a different time.

Um it may not be feasible, but the often the heights and the widths of the houses, sometimes other developers have put a narrower house and a wider one so that you again you get that sort of variety as though it's evolved and not just one felled swoop.

Um the parking is they've said it, it really is what is you know, every side of this building has parking on it.

And if the if that muse idea that was presented by one of your neighbors, if that helps change that or you have more green space, um pocket it in at different locations.

Uh I don't know the answer to that, but it it could be uh make it more attractive to the buyers as well.

The um I think you know it's a good it's a good start, but carry on with your architect is a challenge.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

And uh yeah, I do take pride in trying to make stuff look like it's built over time, especially with um where it is, we're sitting right now.

Um and again, many years ago I spent some time with North uh Columbus Free at 517 and did my last year of architecture school in Alexandria.

And I stayed on Columbus Street at 517, so I didn't walk up and down the street quite often.

Oh, sorry, oh you always want to move on those are I just notticed something uh on the elevation.

Uh the look that uh the townhouse that's facing the princess's street, it's uh on the sides, it's missing.

Uh I think that should be a window.

Because it's I I understand that the other ones have a door there, and it's but it's just it looks like it uh closed up uh no the door is on the princess.

Right.

But on the other side, parking lot side.

It's right here.

Okay, one that did that's this.

The other side one of that.

No, no, I'm saying the townhouse that faces the same.

The door is on the picture with the window on one side and the other.

Is that what you're saying?

Can we go to go to the cell direction?

That's the one that's the other one.

Okay, this one for that.

Okay, that's the door of that townhouse is on the house.

Yeah, gotcha.

That this is the place that is sort of the is big up, right?

So it should be a window.

It's fine.

Some side there, there are some um uh utilities that are located.

That's why we have that brick wall that's on on the side.

So there was an issue with how to what how far you can be from a transformer, and you can't have uh I don't know that they could have another window there and that close to a transformer.

We'll look at that, but we'll get you an answer to that.

Yeah, we just we didn't remove the the door and just put a blank spot there.

I think it has something to do with the utilities.

Okay.

Okay.

Well, it's just I want to thank you guys for coming out and presenting to us and for me.

I just start with height.

I don't really have an issue height, you're kind of below the by-right requirements um mass.

I feel like the layout that was previously presented by one of the community members is a better urban solution as far as urban planning goes, where you kind of have the three town houses on the facing Princess Street, and then the other three facing the other direction.

I in my mind almost visualize that as almost like another street because you can if you pull the townhouses back a little bit, you can get a little greenway in the cars supposed to kind of park in front of it.

I don't think that's the worst solution.

I think that's actually pretty elegant.

So I think you guys, as other board members have said, I think you guys should explore that one again because I think it's a successful option for as layout goes.

In regards to the townhouses, um architectural character, I kind of feel like I've seen variations of your main elevations in a bunch of different places, some in Old Town, some in other places.

Don't get me wrong.

I think the elevation of the Princess Street is minus the roof issue.

It's probably the most interesting of the ones you have because it's actually kind of trying to make its own statement and everything in that area is making its own statement.

Well Fargo makes a statement.

And at this point, this would just be a background building.

That would just blend in to Old Town.

I don't know if that's really what you want to design.

So I would say if you're going to build upon something, make it make it something unique and interesting.

Um, like founding loss were very special when those came online.

Those were highly sought after, they're beautiful.

People love that building.

And people love the Wales Fargo building.

If I walk past this, this would just be a background building.

I would walk past.

And it wouldn't be anything interesting, in my opinion, architecturally.

Um so that's tight mass architectural character.

And the when I looked at this Princess Street elevation, it looks very interesting.

But when I looked at the perspective of it, it's flat.

Means like there's no depth there, it's just it's all in the same plane.

Yeah, you change the materials, but there's no depth there.

When I look at this, I'm thinking I'm gonna get some depth.

There's some there's some character going on in there, but it's just very flat and very it falls very flat and it doesn't have any pop at all.

I just think there's more work to be done.

I'm not gonna speak on the Gomers because that was the first thing I noticed too, but you've heard enough of that.

And thank you once again.

Thank you.

That's all do you have further comments?

Are there any further comments?

Thanks for your time and thank you.

Um we will remain available to you if if you would like to have a work session.

Um, we can meet with you individually or in pairs to help you or to give you more detailed feedback as this goes along.

But you can talk to Bill Conki.

Um, thank you, thank you very much.

I'm sure this is gonna end up a really nice project.

So thank you.

Appreciate the time.

Thank you all.

Okay, what's next, Mr.

Conklin?

Okay, we have one more item on our talk tonight.

Yes, yes.

Uh item number nine, yeah.

You are 2026 00035, perfect gray.

Applicant is Robert Chief is on a contractors incorporated, represented by M.

Catherine Puscar attorney.

It was stay told to the back of the 330.

Can I just show everything?

Yeah, right there.

They were 330 Washington Street.

Oh, was it?

Oh, I was wondering why this was really the back of the oh, sorry.

Uh yes, okay.

Yeah, I've got to go to the rain.

So it's sure.

Almost the original one, the layout.

So it's like you guys just the site first or the one.

Oh, it's okay.

I'll wait to the end.

Do you want this or do you want to?

That's fine.

Okay, I just was gonna orient the project.

Uh Mr.

Chairman, I will I'm not good to go.

You are good to go.

Please give us your name and your address, and you're off to the races.

Great.

Thanks so much.

Kathy Cascar with Walsh Balucci.

I also have Steve Kalinski with Kalinski Architects, and we're here uh to present the concept for 1019 Cameron Street.

I heard the chair talk about how concept uh reviews come back and back as they get refined.

I'm hoping this isn't one of those.

Um, it's a modest 4,400 square foot addition to an existing building.

The important part is we're here on behalf of Pizano contractors, and they have had their third generation uh company, and they've had their offices in this location since 1971.

The good news is at a time where many businesses are struggling, um Pizano contractors is actually growing.

And so they're looking to try and keep their business in the city of Alexandria and accommodate their employees through once again this modest addition um to the existing building.

And so we have an application for rezoning to bring the property into better compliance with the zoning rules than the existing building.

Um and we do have uh use permit with site plan and uh, but we are in the old historic district.

So I'll turn it over to Steve.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman, members of the board for the record, Stephen Klinski.

The address is 104 North and West Street.

Um if we can pull up a elevation of that would be.

Yeah, I'm gonna have it to the case.

The guys, we were wonderful.

Take it outside.

This is good.

All right, thank thank you.

Um so we were tasked with adding some additional office space to the building.

Um and it's a very unique building.

Uh 1921.

Uh it it has a lot of the the corner building, the one that has the little canopy on the side with the port co-chair, um, had a lot of character to it.

We wanted to add some additional space to the building, and in order to do that, we determined that the warehouse portion in the back, which has the little candle on the front, which accommodated an old railroad spur that allowed you allowed the the trains to pull up to the building because it was all the meat packing plant.

Uh that piece was added years later.

I don't have an exact date on this, but it is a very unadorned warehouse.

Um, and normally when I come in and I do my work, I usually do something, and I think members of the boards have seen this fairly contextual, you know.

I don't stray too far from what's going on on architecturally from what's on site.

But this is one of the rare conditions where something more modern on top of the old old uh unadorned warehouse made sense, and it allowed us to leave the original front part of the building alone because it has a lot of unique character to it, it's something you don't typically see in town, and we didn't want to destroy any of that character.

So we came up with the idea of staying within the the footprint of the existing warehouse, which is that little one-story portion on the back.

If you look on the middle, yeah, right there, and and you can see the roof of it on the on the uh slide right below it.

So we came up with with it with a more uh more modern take on it because that helped differentiate it and keep you from keep people being fooled from what the actual nature of building was that it is going to be new, but in doing so, we've we've kept the building within within the parapet walls of the structure, and then we've stepped it up as we've stepped it back as we go up.

And a lot of what you see in our design is kind of an honest representation of what the program is inside the building.

So that so we look to the panels on the right, you see two kind of darker gray protrusions, those are both stairwells.

Um what we're doing is we're taking that warehouse space, which has been used as warehouse space since 1971, and we're converting it all to office space so that they can accommodate their their clients here.

One of the net positives of this is the fact that uh warehouse space currently does some loading and unloading along Henry Street and you know, creates a backup or potential backup or traffic disruption uh quite often.

So that's going to go away.

So it's a it's a net positive, particularly for the neighbors.

Um we're we're trying to keep the the and respect the uh angled nature, the faceted face of the building that was due to the railroad siding coming off and kind of celebrate it some with our new addition.

Uh we're keeping the height of this to be no taller or within a foot or two of the existing elevator penthouse that's towards the front of the building on the right hand side.

And we we took all these little cues.

Um the windows are just a little bit sleeker, more modern interpretation of some of the same openings that are on the existing, you know, more character-driven uh facade of the front building.

So we we've we've played around those design cues and we've come up with this as our concept, and we're looking for your your input to tell us what works, what doesn't.

Um, one thing to factor in is on the left-hand side or the northernmost face.

That is our property line.

So you're gonna see a wall there that is uh blank.

It doesn't have any windows on it because we don't we're not allowed to have any openings to make that work.

But what we've what we're trying to do there is is play with materials in order to represent it, leaving the original bride down on the bottom portion and then building on top of that, not tearing things down and replacing us.

So that um and and just to end it contextually across the street from this building, um, are four-story condominiums.

So yeah.

Thank you.

Um are there any public speakers on this one?

Great.

So we'll Christine love it.

Well, she uh she had to leave.

Oh, Christina had to leave.

So well, hopefully she'll submit comments for the record.

I will I will ask her to do that.

Yes.

Are there any other speakers on this one?

No.

Okay, so we'll close the public portion of this concept review, and I will open the floor to my colleagues.

Is there anyone who would like to start or do you want me to start again?

I should start.

Okay.

Um thank you for your presentation.

Greatly appreciate it.

The most interesting thing that I thought you said during the whole presentation was about the former use of this building for me packing and railroads, and then my mind started to wonder how were you tying that into the architecture of the building.

And I'm asking you that question.

Um mass of the building, I have no issue with.

I'm more concerned about the architectural character.

How are you tying that?

I think this is an opportunity.

You have an opportunity to tie that to the history of Volto, and not just making a modern tape on a building.

So that's my challenge, and that's what I'm asking you how how are you have you considered tying it.

Well, we we purposely went, you know, looking at the guidelines, and you can match or be, you know, do a stark difference.

We purposely went with the stark difference, which doesn't necessarily give me much much there to go on in terms of tying it into the character of it being a meet meat packing building from way back when that's something we could certainly explore to see if there's see if there's some element that we could include that reflects that.

Yeah, I'm not saying you have to make it look like an old building.

That's not what I mean by that.

It can be a modern building, but it can take clues and ideals of giving context to the form of the history of that building.

Um, one of my favorite examples of that is the apartment building on King Street that was done by Wynn Stanley.

Um, where they they used metal tracery to kind of talk about what was actually around the corner of the mirror office.

Yeah, you're see another window.

Yeah, and um, but they use the trade three on that day to talk about you know the kinds of things that were done in Alexandria.

And that's kind of I think this is an opportunity to do that, or not that exactly, but to come up with some kind of notions of architectural character that can tie to something of an order older time.

Well, as an art as an art architect, I appreciate that.

And you said it in front of my client, which gives me a little bit more uh opportunity here.

I like that.

All I got.

Um is Zanyan.

I just echo Mr.

Spencer's uh comments.

I have no further ideas and I thought Mr.

Adams.

I I like uh the idea of actually I love the idea that this is an industrial building and it had that background, and we've sort of uh gentrified everything else in town, which we know there was a lot of dirt and blood and yuck around here until we cleaned it all up and made it so pretty.

So I I and it reminds me of childhood when you used to walk by the railroad tracks and put the penny down before the train smooshed it.

And so I I like that you've keeping the character of this.

Um I think you've done it beautifully.

Uh maybe the idea of a some symbol or tool that reflected either your current business uh or the construction contract and such for yeah, I mean that'd be a fun way.

Maybe meat packing, we don't necessarily maybe if we get to dig C pig sign off the box on the roof.

The slide is not entrance.

So I'm I'm excited about it.

I like the kind of laundry and esque of the way you've added on to it.

So very nice.

Thank you.

It is a very nice design.

I also like it.

I think one piece of feedback I would have as you show the rendering here.

I know is your intention to paint the building white, or is that just how it looks in this picture?

Well, uh the the building's uh gray.

Yeah, I'm familiar with the but in this rendering, it just looks very bright.

I I'm not making a comment.

Oh, gotcha.

No, no, that that's that that's just a reflection of the light.

So in the software.

Um so it's gonna be the same gray color that the building is now, except we will have some darker tones, you know, as part of our edition.

I think maybe with the new like my opinion, it it's it's it's a little bit monolithic with the new addition, all in the same color.

And I might think about with this more modern section, setting it apart from the more historic building, either you know, removing the paint from that lower um level and just showing the original raw brick, or just painting it a different color or this like vertical element you have, cladding that in something warmer looking or industrial solar metal or you know raw large wood or something, you know, just something to just um break it up a little bit because the style is broken up, but the color sort of makes it blend together, and I think it can sort of stand on its own.

Um, because I do think it's a nice design.

So I think maybe a little more differentiation.

It's just my perspective though.

Great, great feedback.

Thank you.

Any other comments from anything?

So going back to my original request.

Yeah, um, is it possible for us to take your comments this evening and work with staff between now and certificate of appropriateness?

I wouldn't think we need another concept review, do you?

I think you're so close.

Yeah, sure.

It's it's an unusually small project.

Right, it's very for the client's benefit.

It would be easier if we just work.

I don't think we need another concept review.

Much appreciated.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Very nice design.

Thank you all very much.

Good job.

Thank you.

All right, what's next, Mr.

Conky?

We don't well, so there is something on the agenda, but we're not going to do it tonight.

And I'm gonna explain why, and just kind of I want to hit a couple of just announcements and then we'll all be on our way for the evening.

Okay.

Um first off, I know I've said this before, but this time it is official.

It's actually been it's been put out there in the world, is official.

Our night, this is our last time coming out to the Mark Center.

Yeah.

Or for I know, I know, I know.

I've said it before.

Um the next hearing on April 8th, uh, we'll be at the uh Charles Houston Rec Center.

Uh in all kinds of it'll be a very similar setup to this, where we're gonna have to, we're still trying to figure out the tables.

We're sort of trying to figure out the um recording.

This has actually been a really good uh test to see how the owl works, and we're gonna we're gonna watch it back and make sure all that stuff worked out well.

So um anyway, I look forward to being back in Old Town uh in April.

Um did we set you see something that says discussion on fiber cement?

This is a long promised um workshop that I have I finally put together.

Um and it's basically it's going to look at um different types of fiber cement and you know that the everything a range of different different different product types, um different installation methods, uh how you finish it, how you install it, all these different things.

And I put together this presentation on it.

Um and I have lots of samples.

It's gonna be kind of kind of like the window presentation we did a while back.

Um is that great?

Yeah, thank you.

Um something similar.

I think what we've what we what came into my mind is that we've seen a lot of projects where it has all that fiber cement, but not all fiber cement is the same.

So let's try to get a better understanding of what that means.

So I'm gonna do that.

I was gonna do it tonight.

Um I want to make sure we get it to as many board members as possible.

So I'm gonna not do it tonight.

Um, and we will do it.

Well, let's look at a uh a hearing where I know we're gonna have um pretty complete attendance.

I just I think it's useful for everybody, so let's do when we have everyone here together.

That sounds great.

In your presentation.

That's it's lovely.

I assume it is.

But I know you're a man who loves the beauty of things.

I do.

Are you indicating when which is appropriate to use certain times of fiber cement for a residential house?

Yeah.

I want a larger scale commercial.

Yes, sorry.

That's a good question.

I think the idea here is to orient us and the public on different kinds of fiber cement, and then from that we can start maybe developing the design guidelines about which types of fiber cement are appropriate for which building topology.

Nice.

It's a basic to outline to outline the way the presentation works.

The first first line is literally historic site.

And how do we how do we evaluate whether historic setting is is is is in place?

Can it be reused?

And the you know, our our goal is always to keep historic material intact wherever possible.

So the first slide literally is like how do we go out in the field and identify historic sighting and make sure we can keep it where it's possible?

So that you know, I I always try to say, and this was true of the windows too.

Keep the historic stuff in place wherever we can.

And that's the first line.

Next slide is gonna be covering um the current guidelines as they are right now, where you can and cannot use uh fire cement siding on residential projects.

So that's so so let's first off start off by saying keep it old if you can.

If you can't, here's what here's what here's the uh guidelines as I currently read.

So this is what so we kind of set that as as our as our our standard, and then we go then it just basically goes through I want to say I have four or five different uh product types and just talking about that you know the the width, the installation and all those things.

So yeah, it's gonna be it starts off with it with it saying where it can be used and and um with our current guidelines because yeah, maybe it's worth it's worth revisiting some of those things if it's a little more knowledge.

Great.

Anything else from anyone.

Thank you guys for coming out.

Great.

This hearing is adjourned, and we'll see you next at April 8th.

April 8th at the Rec Center.

At the Rec Center in Charles Houston Rec Center.

I won't be there, so you're I'll be I'm gonna be in Vietnam for work.

Yes.

You'll be chairing, but yeah, but we don't have a very uh lyrical document.

It's a very uh sun docker.

Yes, uh documentary.

Well, we're into Vietnam and back to Singapore and we're going.

So it's a place called Diego Garcia, which is an island in the middle of the South Indian Ocean.

It's a British.

But we cleaned the always uh, yeah.

That's the community than the technical characteristics.

So we'll have to go to the Vietnam, we're gonna go to the most, I mostly unleash your medical plan.

So you're