 So yeah, just this is just a quick agenda. I mean, we all know what we're talking about, but today's going to be discussion about 1401 assembly street. And we just thought we would start with just a quick little run through of some of the, the designs we've seen over the last few years because this has been the ERC processes and has been approved a couple of times. So we thought that might be helpful if we need to refer back to some previous designs that had gone through the commission. And then at the beginning, we'll have a, if we have any public comments, I know we've got one letter to read and then, and then you guys can just get started on a more informal discussion. So going back to, I guess, September of 2015, this project came to the DRC for an informational presentation. So this was not for a DRC decision, but it was a, trying to get some additional feedback from the commission. And we did have some comments about it, but the team decided to go a different direction and came back in the spring of, or yeah, spring of 2016 with a different approach. And that was also informational to try to get feedback from the DVRC about a different kind of design aesthetic. And that was approved in August of 2016. This was the approved design four and a half years ago. And then in January of this year, the project had come back with some changes and was deferred based on some concerns that were raised in the evaluation and by the DVRC and a subcommittee work session was set up at that time. And then in March, the project was approved. One of the big concerns at the January meeting was the location of the crash removal on assembly street. So there's the floor plan rearrangement was critical to that, that approval. So that was, that was in March of this year. The project was approved. And then in September, the team came back to staff with some significant changes to the design. And there was staff had a discussion and raised some concerns about many of the changes that were made. And then some of those were addressed. And the project came to the DVRC in November of this year. So that's kind of where we are now, the subcommittee was set up in November. And so we're here today to talk about some of the concerns that are still present in this current version. And then I'm going to, unless anybody wants to go back and discuss anything at this point, I'll stop screen sharing. And then read the letter that came in. Okay. I mean, somebody's going to put up what we're, what our revised drawing, Andy, are you doing that? How's that working here? LJC is going to do it. I was going to kind of practice it. And then, and then we'll do, we'll go there up. Okay. Let me get this letter up. So this is an email that came through yesterday. I'm going to read it out. This is a letter from Matt kennel, who's the president and CEO of the city center partnership. It says, DDRC, dear DDRC subcommittee. A note to once again affirm the city center partnership support for the housing development by Clay Co. At 1401 assembly street. We're hopeful that the DRC can work with this quality developer on a final design that is able to move forward towards construction. This new development fits well in an urban setting that bridges, bridges and bridges. The new residents of 1401 will bring much needed customers to businesses in the area that needs such a boost, perhaps more than ever. Thanks for your willingness to work with Clay Co. On what I'm sure will be a stellar new building. For the heart of our city. Sincerely, Matt. And I don't think we've gotten any other correspondence. So. I'd like to, I'd like to piggyback on that. And to address. Perhaps to address a comment that was made during the hearing, actually by a member of the commission, which is that you guys, I'm sure appreciate that we are very supportive of what you're doing and excited about it. I know. I've actually been on the commission since the first scheme was presented for informational purposes. And I think Andrew, you and I, who had odd, similar names have gone back quite a, quite a ways on the project. So I, you know, where I want to set the tone and, you know, clearly and for those who also might be watching that we're, the media sees very supportive of this project. I'm personally very excited about it. I know I've said that myself and I know that. Other commissioners have said the same. In the past with the past two schemes that were approved. And I know we went through work sessions with those and it was successful each time. So, you know, I have all faith that we'll get there this time again. And I think it's all along over the course of five years. It has been a pretty cooperative process. So I just like to offer that spirit as we start our discussion. And I think we appreciate that. You know, we, there's recognition on our part too, that you guys have been good to work. Honestly, the community has been good to work with the library has been good to work with. And it's, it's, it's a large project. And, and there are challenges that are different today than they were when we started. But all along there have been some challenges. So we're trying our best because we really think it's a good market, a good location, good city to do development. And so, you know, with that in mind, why don't we roll into sort of our response to the commentary that we got? I don't know what was it two weeks ago or something like that. Great. And so I'll just say, you know, what we came away with from the November 12, the ERC presentation was, you know, we heard your concern about really two main issues. And that was kind of the openness along the assembly facade, both at the street level and above. And then also the prominence of the glass corner element at assembly in Washington. So those are the areas where we focused. And, you know, we think that we've made a few changes that have definitely been improvements to the design. So I'm excited to hear what you guys think about this. And with that, I'll turn it over to Drew or Bob. Okay. And I can, can everyone see the elevation? I just want to be sure my computer tells me you can. You can. You can see it. Yes. Yep. Okay. Great. All right. Well, um, yep. We really appreciate all the feedback. Just to reiterate with Andrew and Jay had already mentioned, and I know it's listened. I, I, I. It's actually 2015 is a long time ago. I had actually forgot about that initial, that initial design concept that we had submitted. And you just took me back quite a ways. Yeah, it was quite a different approach. I remember that. I liked it. I remember I was a new commission member. I liked that scheme quite a bit. I had forgotten about that myself. Yeah. Yeah. So, um, yeah, I also commend you on your, your ability to organize and be able to retrieve information. That's a real, uh, that's a real skill. But, um, so I'll just. I'm just sort of skipping the preamble. We sort of put together the full deck so I can, I can certainly cycle back and get to the plans or anything that you like to see. But, um, again, just given, given the history, I think we're all probably pretty familiar. And I'll just start with the elevations and say that the plans remain remain unchanged from what you, what you saw previously and what you've seen over the last couple of years. Um, so what I have up is obviously the Washington street elevation. And I think, um, primarily, um, this, this has remained unchanged. Um, what we're, what we're showing to, and I, um, I, there was a comment last time and just the door to the trash room wasn't really, um, wasn't represented graphically on the elevations. I just wanted to start there and just go ahead and confirm that that was just an oversight in the graphics. Um, I think that the real emphasis in what we, what we came away from the last meeting, um, which was really the concern, um, as we took it along assembly street, um, where in terms of the density of the glazing and just sort of, uh, you know, the, the silhouette, we wanted to go back to that and just, uh, sort of rethink that. Um, so, um, for that said, we, we, uh, started doing it side by side. We looked at, uh, you know, where we were, um, we didn't go back as far as it's intended, but we, we started looking at the, um, southeast corner. So we, we reintroduced, um, sort of the percentage of glazing there. So we started to, um, uh, introduce that hierarchy. Um, so we're really favoring and, and drawing attention more to the intersection, and also just the entry of the building, which I think there was a lot of synergy there. Um, and so we really appreciated that comment and just going back to it. Um, the other thing we did was look at the next was we looked at the street front. So before we were bringing the columns all the way down, um, down to gray, but, um, just to help them live in and bring more energy to the, to the assembly street, uh, the assembly street, um, literally the street. Uh, we just brought more glazing and we just, we held that pair up. We're so maintaining the awnings going across. And, um, the other thing, um, uh, we started to address and we tried to do it just barreling, barreling the same form language. So, um, as you know, from the plans, we had the elevator, the vertical circulation, so there's an elevator shaft here. And so, uh, from the previous scheme there, uh, we were just starting to work with the, uh, finished materials, but it was more, it was, it was all okay. There wasn't any glazing there. So what we did was, and it's, um, and I hope this reads on the computer screen. Okay. On the WebEx, but, um, we introduced two columns of glass, um, that, that just sort of back up to the elevator core, um, just be completely, um, completely frank about it, um, because that is going against the elevator and it's, it will be spandrel glass, um, on levels, on level six and above. So there's, we distinguish that color that's more of a, like purple shade here, but in terms of the rhythm and then just keeping the, um, you know, the articulation on the horizontals, we're maintaining that all the way across. And then we just sort of broke, broke down just that middle. I will just continue through, um, the north elevation. Hey, Bob. Yeah. Yeah. On the ground floor, those windows are significantly bigger than they were in the, in the original presentation. You know, there was a little transition going on internally where we, we looked at that. Did you mention that? I, I did not. So yeah, we, in terms of the overall case, we've increased the glazing by a little over 10% on the, on the, just in the podium and then in terms of the residential floors from level six and up or at 40, 40% in terms of the glazing. Yeah. I just, let me just clarify this for the group. So when, when we submitted our plan that was discussed at that zoom call a couple of weeks ago, these ground floor windows were the same size as the windows. Uh, you know, up above. We, the middle glass and made that, that opening bigger in two of those bays. And then we also brought that spandle glass all the way down. So that the tower expresses more as glass. So that's the difference. I just wanted you to know that because I know that that was one of the comments that the base of the building had less glass on it. And now we've opened that up quite a bit. So I just want to make sure everybody knew it. We had actually looked at that internally, but because of the way the presentation works, we, we couldn't get it to you in time. So anyway. So you've also, it looks like you've increased, I think that's Bobby said that. You've increased the lazy at the south. Well, right. Yes. Yeah. How many, how many, uh, did we add one roll of glass or two? I forgot. Actually we, we added two rows. So the glass now extends to the north. So it encompasses the, uh, the first column and then the punched window, um, essentially now is absorbed into the glazing. And I'll just, Well, you know, I think switch, I'll switch back. I think that makes a big difference. It was one of the things that was consistent with the previous teams that had been approved was the, uh, uh, from a compositional and formals, formal standpoint, putting, uh, making that the primary corner, which the, the, the previous team that you've been in a couple of weeks ago, I thought that was really just ambiguity between what's happening outside of that assembly. But I think you've reordered it, uh, back more similarly to how it had been in the past. So to me, that, you know, that seems like the right move. I have one sort of, sort of the, the architect in me kind of question is, I think it's great that you have, uh, opened up the base, uh, and stopped the pilaster short, except that I'm wondering if, um, maybe you have it as a detail, this is something that spans across, you know, the brick, uh, a couple of soldiers or something that spans across that, uh, that receives that piece of pilaster. Yeah, it looks like it's about to fill it in you when you, you know, it's just a, you know what I mean. Absolutely. I sure do. And that's, that's, uh, that's a detail that, uh, yeah, couldn't, couldn't agree more. Yeah, that will, we want to have a, we want to have some finality at the base of that. I guess about, I'm at that period. It comes down. Right. But I, I mean, I'll, I'll let other commissioners. Well, I'll let you, why don't you go ahead and finish. I didn't mean to interrupt. Sure. Sure. Sure. I'll, I'll just, I'll just go through, there aren't, um, there aren't many more changes. So I'll just go through quickly just to confirm that forward. And then we're, we're glad to go back and, and, uh, get the feedback and answer questions or discuss further. Um, so again, the North, um, no, no change. This is what you saw a couple of weeks back similarly on the West. Hey, Bob. And then. Haven't we, wait before go back to that one slide. Haven't we decided to get rid of upper landscaping? I think everybody raised some concerns about this upper landscaping, you know, keeping it alive in simple terms. And I thought we decided to eliminate that. I guess, um, I guess that's something that you can discuss. Yeah. I mean, I know it came up at the meeting. I think it came up in Lucinda's comments. Sure. It came up internally too. Like ground level landscaping. I don't have a problem with. I'm just a little nervous about. Maintaining what I'm going to call the second floor. Those, those boxes. I think that. Right. I'm about to carry here. Yeah. We all run their risks. It gets hard to keep alive anyway. All right. So keep going. Okay. Um, okay. And then what I wanted to just point out in these next couple of slides, I know there was, um, there was a comment about the stucco. We're a transition to the white in the leg of the, the two short legs of the sea. So we, um, we just had to pick them into that stucco so that it'll, it'll represent the, um, the front face or the south face of those, those two wings of the residential floors. And then you'll see that again here on the, uh, I'm not sure if you guys can see that. Um, You know, I think that's probably the best elevation of a scale. Yeah. So then, um, We just brought those elevate the model into the 3D view. So you can start to see where there's more. Yeah. Much greater hierarchy here on the Southwest corner. To see the rhythm going back on assembly. What about street. Street scale detail. Yeah. You know, I actually thought that, uh, the entrance now actually resolves itself better as an entrance at the corner than it had when you were coming straight into the corner of the building. Yeah, I think, yeah, appreciate that. There's a more transition, I think there's a little change in scale to bring you in. I think it was improving. And then just from the north, from the west along Washington, and then just stepping back in terms of and sort of pick up on the coloration and just the change in pigment at the stucco and then the overall. And yeah, so that really represents our current thinking. And we're glad to get your feedback and have more conversation. Answer any questions. I'm sorry, Bob, could you repeat that, please? Can you show me the north elevation? Sure, of course. All right, the white part in the middle is all back in. I'm sorry, Bob, you broke up a little bit there. If you were asking about the material, that's stucco, the white. Okay. The white is stucco. Our concern is on the north elevation, especially in South Carolina or Columbia rather. It does not give any sun. It doesn't give much sun. So when you use that stucco, you can make sure it's mildly resistant or whatever. There won't be that much sun. Okay. I apologize, Bob. I know you felt like you were mentioning a concern about the sun. And then I missed the last part. It just broke up my audio. Yeah. You got it, Tom? Well, I think your question was about how to mitigate against the potential of mildew because it's such a damp climate and it's not getting any sun. Was that your concern, your question? Yeah, it doesn't get that much sun. And since that stucco has that wet looking and eventually gets dirty and dirty. I guess in response to that, I hadn't really thought that through specifically, but I think in terms of just the stucco and just going with that, I think it'll just be something that we'll try to address within the application. So if it's more of a hard troll finish, we'll try to make it sort of control the porousness of the material and make it as resilient as the material allows us. I can, if I may, this is Jim Manimax. The technology today exists for there are actually coatings, or I'm sorry, there are admixtures that go in. It's into the product that help to keep the surface clean. It actually helps to keep it clean and avoid what you're talking about, Bob. So the newer technology stucco, if you will, really mitigates those concerns because those are absolutely legitimate concerns that the manufacturers have through science and admixtures mitigated. Well said, thank you. You're welcome. I have just sort of, I do have a question about this white piece, both north and south, and I think the south elevation is more or less the same as this, if I'm not mistaken. And it also gets to the west elevation, which is that the earlier scheme, the marked scheme, they were larger openings, they were asymmetrically, the mullion pattern was asymmetrical, but it seemed like there was a very deliberate composition there. I guess I'm wondering if you couldn't look at, you know, I'm trying to understand the rhythm and it's sort of a two, one, one, one, four, one, one, one, two, and it almost looks, it doesn't seem like it's got enough kind of compositional hierarchy. I don't think it would take much to make it a little bit more deliberate, so that it doesn't just look like a bunch of punches, if you follow what I'm getting at. I'm not really talking about adding expense, just maybe grouping in a way that, you know, you've gone to a lot of effort, for instance, in the foreground elevations to create vertical horizontal hierarchy and then to have a different kind of expression at the corners, but that, and this is something that we talked about in the actual hearings, things are so much shallower, that facade on the south and the north, we were really talking about the north, but not much more, not much more visible to the street, and at the same time, it's less interesting, for lack of a better word. The only thing I would say, Tom, is, and I'm going to kick this back to the architects, but some of this has got to be driven by where the windows fall in the unit, you know what I mean, so we don't want to do what happens a lot of times in architecture, where you sacrifice function for the exterior view. We did a project in Chicago a couple of years ago, where we alternated the window pattern on every floor, and it looked really cool, except that every other floor, the windows didn't function so well. No, I'm not suggesting moving the windows, I'm just suggesting make the pattern a little bit more deliberate. In terms of the exterior, I'm just saying, it looks like compared to what you see in the foreground here, which is actually pretty nicely composed, it just looks like, sort of, there wasn't as much energy put in there, and it's now pretty prominent. And I think what we're trying to do, and it goes to Jay's point, is working with the layout of the units themselves, is to get the central unit where we can, is to group units, the bedroom units together, so those four that you're seeing in the center read as a block, then the three gets spaced out, then you get another block, so that we're trying to do, you know, that there are four tight, three loose, four tight, three loose, and I think that'll read more in the actual building. I think it's hard to portray here with the emphasis on the horizontals that we're seeing. I think the vertical rhythm will read as well in there, as it does in the south elevation on Washington Street, where you do get the kind of pilaster quality to it. So in these were, I think the drawings may not serve us as well as they could, but you're seeing that grouping of four, three, four, three, so it's hard when you only see it just through this piece, that you don't get the rest of it going as well, and then the corner elements open up, and there's a deliberate double window at the corners to kind of punctuate it. I'm just testing that for instance, you might make those small pilasters between them, or whatever you want to call them, between the windows where you have the grouping for a slightly different color versus you have these groupings, as opposed to the single individual ones. That's all I'm saying, because I don't think there's enough difference here. I've not been suggesting moving the windows from the beginning of the comment, I'm just saying. We definitely hear you. We can get that working. Sure. Pardon me? Yeah, that helps, Tom. Yeah, your clarification there. This is not a big change. And the only other question I have, and it's on the West Elevation, I'm just wondering why you wouldn't treat the West Elevation more similarly to how you treat the East Elevation, which I think has been a pretty big improvement. You've got this block of, you've got sort of three different things going on. You've got the southern half, and then you've got that reveal, then you've got another thing of these windows, and then you've got a corner to the corner on the East Elevation. But I wonder why you wouldn't continue that? To me, I think that the hierarchy of the verticals and then the background horizontals works better than just the punches, and you've got two different things going on in that elevation. I understand you got the parking deck below, but other than that, it seems like you could stay longer if you didn't make that switch. And it's going to be really visible, even though it's not facing directly on a street. Tom, part of that was when we were looking at the plan, it was tough to pull those windows to get the six equal in there. We ended up with this A kind of Bs, and then an A at the end in the northern half of the facade. So we couldn't get that pilaster reading the same way. So then it was to exactly, if we couldn't get it to read the same, we said, well, let's make it feel a little different. And your point about the base does, it figures into it a bit, but it was, we could not get that feel of the pilasters running through cleanly and still have it meet the plan in the way that we needed it to. And I think that was the struggle that we had. We thought that this at least gave it kind of a sense of its own piece as it comes around. So. Well, I mean, you guys are the designers. It's not, it doesn't seem as strong as the, certainly doesn't seem as strong as the east facade, but I don't, you know, I don't know what the layouts are, and it's not our, not our job. So that would be my only other comment. And I'll open it to other commissioners. I don't have any other comments other than that. I would encourage if you can continue looking at this elevation to, I mean, I think you understand what I mean is these things don't really need to do with each other. Not as successful as the other side. Yeah. Yeah. And I think we've really looked at the massing and we've tried to introduce sort of this you know, overall symmetry and then sort of group symmetry and family. So whether it's on the south side or the north side is as Drew was mentioning it. We've been trying to introduce that at different scales, hoping that it resonates, you know, through the overall composition, but I certainly understand your, your comment. And it's just that, it's that fine balance between a program in form that we, the riddle that we, you know, as architects always contend with. I'd like to hear from other DDRC members if anyone has anything to say. I would start to agree with with Tom on this north facade, but overall, I think you know, this design that you guys listen to, you know, the number of the commissioners concerns and address those in this round of the design and I think it looks good, especially this this furniture way where you extended the glazing another two or three panels. I can't recall the number that you said. Overall, I think that you're concerned to the board and happy to see them addressed here. You know, you flip through that. I do. I would like to emphasize the north and south quite facades if you could. And I think I explained my concern. I'm not thinking about anything really significant, but just pushing the differentiation a little bit to maybe a change of the vertical elements in the bunched windows or something just to I think to clarify that. Hey, Tom, this is Jay. I want to try to my goal here is to try to, you know, get some, you know, consensus. And I'm not sure I understand your comment. So could you help me understand exactly what you're talking about? Again, that and Drew explained it, which I could see. I mean, it's clear to me. But yeah, if you take that rectangle and take it across one, take it to the left window, capture the left window as well, both windows either side and pull that all the way down, all the way down to the terrace. That, for instance, to me seems like a competition. And you've got a similar thing that's all the way to the left and all the way to the right, where you bunch the windows. I just think, you know, maybe just a matter of changing the color of the verticals or it's you guys, you know, can work through that. But if you could make it, make that more that and the two at the other side where you're bunching the window, just somehow compositionally make those more distinct from the ones where you have the individual three punches. Because it also agrees like it's all just a little bit too similar, but not quite. It almost looks like an active window placement. If I may, Tom, I'm going to ask if I could share my screen for a second. Yes, please. So let's see, bear with me. Tom, I think what you're saying is if we use an approach like this, you know, granted, I haven't gotten to that base level, the ground floor, but just quick. I can't see your screen, Drew. Okay, let me try again. Sorry. Here we go. Can you let me know when you can see it? Something more or something more similar to that. Yeah, I mean, I just picked a gray time just to get something up there and how we take it up the top or not. Do you know what I mean? Whether we do something up here. I mean, either that would finish that out. I think, no, I see what you're saying. Yeah. So And that made, I mean, I don't know you guys, obviously, you're the designers. I mean, you may, now you're sort of getting a little bit of foreground background. You may not. Yeah, and you get the sense of the pilaster coming through, even without changing the span drill in the white bands in here. Just that alone starts to let that feel like it's a cousin to the Washington Street for some reason. Yeah, exactly. I think that's something we can do. I mean, you know, I think that color change is actually kind of about right, I think. You know what I mean? It's, what do you think, Drew? Do that kind of in the light gray family or something like that? Yeah, yeah, just so it's not mimicking too much what's going on here, but it's in the, you know, it takes it out to let this be the field in the background. So I think that that's a neutral. And we've talked with, you know, Jim's on the line, but we talk with Clayco and the color change isn't as big a deal. If it was a material change, that would be something else. So I think we're, you know, we're in there, you know, it's in the right neighborhood and it feels fine. So I know you're talking about, how are you talking about doing that on the back too? Is that your ambition as well? Yeah, I think so. Yeah, because we've got that same thing going on, Tom, right? And it would pick it up more. Yeah. So, and I think we just have to be judicious whether it feels with these guys, you know, because what it highlights or doesn't, that we might have to adjust them a bit, but it's at the same notion. Sure. I mean, do what you think looks right, but I'm just saying, and I don't think the north is as bad as the south. The south was, I don't actually mean to say bad, but it's as fabulous again. I was going to say between you and Jerry, we're getting pats on the back today. You know what I mean? No, I totally understood. Yeah, I think on the back, Drew, flip around at the back real quick. I think we could bundle, there's like four, maybe four columns. Yeah, we can kind of make it feel a little more symmetrical. Yeah, the bane of it is right here, but we can work towards getting that to be a little tighter as we, you know, take it through the rest of the design process. You know, basically go AA, BAA and go like that. I think your instinct to not have to compete with the rest is correct, but it just seems like it could be a little less monotonous. Yeah. Yeah. All right, let us study that because I don't think that, you know, that's, I actually think on the front part, it looks pretty good. I haven't quite seen how you would pick that rhythm up on the back, but maybe, but on the front, I think it adds some dimension to the whole thing. So, you know, we certainly put that in there and we'll study the back and maybe give you a couple of choices. Maybe that's what we'll do on the back. I just want to get a point where we can vote on it. You know what I mean? I don't, we won't have enough time to like do this one more time. So we need to like get a package that everybody is reasonably comfortable with. And if there's a couple alternatives, we could offer those up and discuss them, but I don't want to come back again. That that was, that'll be a problem. Well, I think that, you know, twice before we've done these work sessions and you've come back after the work session, you've gotten approved. So, I mean, unless, unless other commissioners have to speak up about it, which I hope that's not the case, it seems like we're heading the same direction we've headed in the past. Okay. Anything else from anybody? I'm good. Yeah, no, I'm good. I think we saw some pretty good improvements from what we saw last. Hi, great. There's one thing I just wanted to bring up from some of the past, the recommendations, or we had some conditions, I guess on the previous approval that had to do with just addressing the fact that even though the percentage of glazing has gone up on the ground floor on Assembly Street, I think we're still, we're still below 50% and on Washington Street were maybe just about 50%. So the recommendation on the last approval was to do something along on those panels on Washington Street just to try to activate where we don't have glazing. So I don't know if the commission wants to discuss that or but I guess the plants had come back at some point to try to soften that facade, but that was the maintenance concern. So I don't know if the developer is mental to looking into some murals or something like that, but we're, I guess we're way below what the recommendation is on both street-facing ground floors from a administration standpoint. You're talking those three panels, those three metal panels on Washington, right? Correct. Let's go to that picture. So we might sure we're all focused in on the same thing. Can Drew or somebody? Yeah, Bob, do you want to do it with us still or do you want me to do it through the model? Let's say, Drew, if you want to bring it up in the model, it might I think 3D is better because there is some depth there in that facade along the ground floor. So I want to make sure everybody can understand that. Sure, see if I can do it in one step this time. So put the pointer on where they are. Is there three of them or four of them? Let me get the sun up a little brighter. It looks a little dark on the screen to me. Are we talking about in the southwest corner, right? No, no, I don't think that's what she means. I think she means to the right of that. Yeah, it's kind of those middle, just where the storefront ends and then you're just got blank wall panels. Right, yeah. So there's four on the space behind there. Yeah, it's actually open. So those are seen as open and that we were looking to landscape it so that you created this. Like a colonnade. Yeah, going through there, got the depth, you know, had a little more interest. You see on, you do see beyond it, but it's looking very dark. Yeah, when you see it this way, you can see what's going on. So we're mimicking, you know, it's doing what the storefront's doing just without the glazing. And that's where we tried to grow it. Pardon me? What's behind it though? Like when you stand up and look into it, what are you going to see? You're seeing the roof of the utility spaces down below or it's open to them depending on which what we've got there. But that's why we're saying that we plant it along here so that you'd have the right height. Let me get it. Sorry. So you don't actually see over it. Well, yeah, you're going to see through it at some point. But down into it, you're trying to keep with the planting and the sill that it's high enough that it keeps you from seeing down easy across, yes, into the wall of the garage and the openings that we've got and the screening that we've got for the garage. Well, right, but you but just so everybody kind of understands there's a function going on too, right? Because there's louvers. That's what I'm saying. Well, these are these loupe screening here is for the plants for the planting to grow up down below it is back in this area is the utility spaces that we've got for the building, whether it's a fire pump room, transformer switch here down below. Right. So the idea Lucinda is that it's a it's a see-throughs panel, if you will. So like if you were going to put a mirror on, it would be behind it. It wouldn't do what you do. Do you know what I mean? I know I understand the function of the space. I guess it's just it's really just a matter of trying to mitigate the falling fall short of what the guidelines recommend, which is, I mean, it's open, but it's not activated. It's all about, you know, an active storefront or activity inside of a building, you know, I mean, the utility space, the parking garage, all that we just try to keep to a minimum along a street frontage. And it's just the concern is that we've got both Assembly Street and Washington Street with, you know, half or less than half being, you know, actual registration. Anyway, I'm just it was in the conditions for approval and it didn't ever feel like it was addressed. And I'm not sure if there's just an obvious easy answer. Maybe it's not a mural, but that's just kind of an important thing for us not to set precedents that 45% is is okay when it recommends 70%. So we'll just we'll just let us want to make sure we address the aesthetic that functionally, don't we functionally have to leave that open? Isn't that part of the whole function of that space? Like if we walled that up in some fashion, would that impact the functionality of that venting or whatever? We could get it through the roof, Jay, but we just thought it was, you know, a way of achieving both goals and that granted listen to the let the vegetation isn't as, you know, isn't the same kind of activation. But we thought it would get us in that neighborhood of it not just being a solid wall and that there's something happening and with your climate that we, you know, with the right selection that we could make that happen and even making it climb and trying to get some verticality out of it was to help activate it whether there's some art or not beyond here could be another way of then getting you that second level of kind of surprise and interest. I don't have any issue just for the record of putting art behind it. Like I don't have a problem with that if you know, we're going to have a lot of art on this building on the north facade, we're going to have a lot, right? But but I just think that you don't want to, I don't want to wall off the front of that because I'm afraid if I do that, I'm going to have functionality issues with the machine. Where's your actual open area? I assume you're talking about open area for the garage, right? Well, there's no machine below that. Like why don't you show the plan view? Well, I don't understand how those openings are are participating in your free area that you need. They're not participating in the free area of the garage. It was just what and what Jay was talking about was did we need them for the space below? They're not, but we thought since that space wasn't coming up that if we continue the facade across and carry that height so you do have a nice street wall going there and carry the colonnade aspect that Andrew was talking about that we're activating it in that way that as an architectural or architectonic feel it's there and then with the space and that's where Jay's point was then if we if we did put art on this back wall, I can't do it quickly. But you know if that if that became what you're saying I don't think that's activated then you're seeing that through the, sorry, I'm here with me once. Through the arcade almost. Through the arcade, yeah. I understand because it's really, you know then you get that unfilowed of windows going all the way down and yes some are truly open but the other you know but it is of that spirit and it felt better than trying to change it something else completely here. Well I so you're looking back at if you look through that you're not looking at louvers you're just looking at stucco panels right? Well we say if we put artwork or we did something so that what you look through sorry it is a little it's a little jumpy being back. But you're pretty quickly getting to the sill of that thing of those openings is pretty close to eye level. I mean it's I don't know why somebody would get under tiptoes and look through to that back wall to look at art. I agree with Lucinda's concern. Yeah I just think you know this space is you know there's a couple things going on here. You've got slope happening which is happening you know in the garage too. So you know the ceiling height you know is changing and you know I think I don't I just don't know if we can put panels in there or not like isn't this isn't there some kind of venting going on that's that in the roof of that garage below it. But it still it does have access I mean the the side walls aren't going to unfortunately change that Jay I know where you're going but it's these being solid or closed wouldn't change that venting through the roof necessarily. That's obvious I'm the honest. I guess what I thought before from one of the renderings was that and I just misread it that there were actually recessed panels in that wall where the glass in that they were just solid and it seems like a simple thing to put something graphic on there just to make it more interesting. I mean if that can be done that feels like what we're maybe suggesting especially if it has no impact on the ventilation. Well yeah I would agree with you there like if that's the case I'm not objecting to doing that I just want to make sure that I'm not goofing up the function somehow that's all. So why don't you let us look at Jay I'll jump in here there's no function concerns there if we were to put panels in front of those openings that would not impact the function mechanically behind there. I'll listen to now rather than later because I think I agree with your concern about that. Yeah I think that that's fine we can do that I mean what will we Jim what will we put in there what would be the material. Well if Lucinda wants it to be or if you know if the board wants it to be a mural or something I mean whatever is the substrate would be you know for that to be applied to but well that's that's kind of my question to you what is it going to be. Well I'd like to jump in for just a second because I know in some of our earlier conversations with with the utility company with the electric company that just for you know for maintenance routine access we had previously had metal panels there and we were talking about maybe art you know patterns you know sort of water jet cut into it and things like that but the allow it to be accessible the electric the power company wanted those panels to be demountable so in a sense they were on hinges or they were panels so they could be lifted and taken out of place in case of emergency or just a swap out of fitness. Yeah we don't have a roof now over the transformer so we could do either or. Yeah I mean it's not going to make or break that to make demountable in some way or manageable so I haven't put artwork on these but it was just to give you the sense of the difference in the field. Well here's here's going to be my recommendation then I remember that discussion Bob and I just don't remember where it all ended up but if if we can if we can do this and we don't impact the mechanical functioning in some fashion you know and I'm not prepared to tell you but I do remember that conversation if we can do about that we'll we'll put them in there and we'll you know we'll we'll give the opportunity for I haven't figured out yet like what exactly the process will be for the artwork on the library passageway you know it'll be some kind of a process with some local artists you know I'm I'm not going to suggest necessarily a competition sometimes that's weird but but we'll select among what we've done in the past is we have people submit and then we kind of select somebody we think it fits the right mold and maybe we'll pick somebody different for the front but I don't have a problem with putting them in there I just don't want to commit to to a functional problem I mean you know sometimes you know you know that that just has to be accounted for so I want to make sure and we'll when we come back to you we'll have an explanation one way or the other but I just want to make sure we're not going to do something that's a problem yeah yeah and I was bringing it up not to I'm not I'm not trying to pass the road I love the idea of having art you know art there are panels I just know sometimes with utility companies they just have regulations and they're they can be fairly unyielding so that's the only reason I bring it up just it'll be okay a little more input from them we'll be okay and Lucinda I think if if you know to keep it moving and not have to come back you know the JS point earlier I remember in some of your notes you said you know this could this could be an area that we are we continue to work with you as we take it through the design process right so I think we're all aware of it you know everybody's you know committed to making this be what it needs to be on Washington so you know if there's a way of doing that and keeping it going forward yeah but but again Drew just to make sure everybody's on the same page we need to get this figured out by whenever we submit when do we have to submit what is the rule for when we formally submit for this next hearing um actually let me get my calendar up because just give me a second show in December 2nd that's the deadline for the January meeting sorry I didn't have that January 14th yeah yeah December 2nd Andy yes sir well and actually so we can we can wiggle with that a little bit um there's a little bit of flexibility there with the with the deadlines I mean there is no way to get you all into the December hearing but if we're you know looking at January we can certainly give you a little more time for drawing so let me um let me look at my calendar next week I'm actually not in the office this week and I will um coordinate with you guys on the drop dead deadline for the January hearing okay but it's going to be quick right it's going to be just not the second it's going to be the following week I mean I don't know I guess I mean it's okay it is what it is I'm just trying to frame this for everybody right well and Jay that's why I was trying to give a way of this is something that as long as if you're seeing it develop further that we're able to take it with some not minimal but with some work today that everybody feels like yes it's the right direction it may not be done done but that we can continue forward and go down or they have but we can't do that true we need this is a formal approval that these guys given if they view this as outside of administrative review then we can't do that so we need to get approved I want to let's let's don't get lost internally here well I mean it could potentially we might be able to work with you on something in the middle of December for getting the drawings turned in but I mean just to be clear today is nothing is not a formal approval right today is just guidance so that when y'all come back in January you can get the approval at the public hearing right but where I'm going is so I can understand this is not something that's going to be an evolutionary thing over the course of the the building this is going to be like approved on December 4 or January 14th or whatever it is and it needs to be submitted on December 12th or whatever it is so we need to get ourselves to understand that by December 12th or whatever that's all right uh any any other commentary that we should take into account I have a minor question actually and you can take it but but I'm just as we sit and look at this image um without moving yeah it's go back like to where you were so I just wonder on the right side on the left side of the how do I describe this the top the as the tower comes down and you've got the bands coming down on the right side you've got the four bands they come down and you know that little bit of space on the left side you've got that extra little piece of the lighter stuff and I'm wondering how you wouldn't do the same we would it's just oversight Tom in the modeling right it's just okay we were quickly banging this out so it would be the same on the right and on the left would carry it over as well yeah great okay sorry about that no problem okay I mean I think this has been been productive I think we've got pretty good marching orders uh anything else that you guys want us to take into account now okay appreciate your time very much likewise thank you right bye bye all right thanks guys thank you thank you thank you you too you too thank you