 Here's with expertise in interest or interest in historic preservation and design. We generally meet on the second Thursday of the month to review cases. Staff to the commission are our urban design and historic preservation staff. They are available to answer questions if you have them. But please do not interrupt proceedings if you do indeed need to speak with one of them. The meeting generally proceeds with the staff calling the case and describing it. I will call for the applicant to come forward, afterward to add to the basic description of the request if necessary, or if the applicant wishes to do so. If so, the applicant should keep the presentation to 10 minutes or less. The commissioners will then have the opportunity to ask questions. At this point, I will ask if there is anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for or against the proposal, and the audience comments shall be kept to two minutes per person. If there is, the applicant will have an opportunity to respond. This rebuttal shall not exceed five minutes. In most of the cases, we will make a decision tonight after all information has been presented. If your case is denied or if you feel that our decision was made an error, excuse me, you and anyone withstanding have the opportunity to appeal within 30 days of the decision. If you plan to speak about a specific project you must have signed in. The sheet is at the back of the room. Also, and so the members of the public understand, commissioners are under strict instructions to avoid discussing DDRC meetings and applications with members of the public or with each other outside of these proceedings to avoid ex parte communications. Now, if you wish to speak during the course of these proceedings, please stand and raise your right hand. Do you affirm to tell the truth in these proceedings? Very good. Would staff please call the roll? Mr. Boknight. Mr. Broom. Here. Mr. Kohn. Here. Ms. Fuller-Wilt. Here. Ms. Moore. Here. Mr. Savery. Here. We have Korn. Great. Does the agenda order still stand? We've had one change since the agenda was published under the historic portion of the regular agenda. Item number 3, 2101 Gervais Street, a request for preliminary certification for the Bailey Bill in the Waverly Protection Area has been withdrawn. Otherwise, the agenda stands. Thank you. Move to the consent agenda before we go to the regular agenda. The DDRC utilizes a consent agenda for those projects which require DDRC review, but which meet the guidelines and typically require no discussion. If anyone wishes to discuss an item on the consent agenda, I will ask that you speak up after the consent agenda is read, and we can pull the item for discussion on to the regular agenda. Thank you, Mr. Stafford. Please read the consent agenda. The first item is 1231 Geiger Avenue, a request for preliminary certification for the Bailey Bill and for design approval for an addition in the Cottontown Bellevue Architectural Conservation District. The next item is 415 Hardin Street, a request for a certificate of approval for a site improvement for an individual landmark. 2414 and 2416 Lincoln Street, a request for a certificate of design approval for exterior changes in addition and preliminary certification for the Bailey Bill in the Elmwood Park Architectural Conservation District. 81 Riverview Court, a request for a certificate of design approval for new construction in Earlwood Protection Area B. And 1730 Main Street, a request for a certificate of design approval for exterior changes and preliminary certification for the Bailey Bill for an individual landmark. Thank you. Is there anyone who wishes to take an item off the consent agenda for discussion? In that case, could I have a motion to approve the consent agenda and November meeting minutes, please? Mr. Chair, I'll make the motion that we approve the consent agenda and the November meeting minutes. There's a second. Second. Have a vote, please. Mr. Bachknight. Mr. Brown. Yes. Mr. Cohn. Yes. Ms. Fuller-Wilt. Yes. Ms. Moore. Yes. Mr. Savry. Yes. The motion passes. Thank you. Before we move on to the regular agenda, we have on our agenda an executive session. I'd like to ask actually Ms. Fuller-Wilt if she would make a motion to dispense with the executive session, not go into executive session. Yes. I move that we strike the executive session from the agenda. There a second? Second. Have a vote, please. Mr. Bachknight. Mr. Brown. Yes. Mr. Cohn. Yes. Ms. Fuller-Wilt. Yes. Ms. Moore. Yes. Mr. Savry. Yes. The motion passes. Thank you. And before I ask staff to present the cases on the regular agenda, I would like to ask that all folks in the audience who would like to make comments on the next two UG Street applications and members of the commission as well, please understand and be respectful of the narrow purview of the Design Development Review Commission. All of us as commissioners in our private lives have different areas of expertise. But the DDRC is specifically addresses very narrowly aesthetic issues with regard to sites and buildings. So while there is commentary on utilities, on traffic impact, on pedestrian impact, in particular when it gets off the site, we are not neither invested with the authority nor with the technical expertise to address those. We rely on staff and their advice on those decisions. So I would ask that for all folks who speak today in the audience and on the commission to be mindful of our purview, our narrow purview as the Design Development Review Commission, and also as much as possible to direct your comments and your questions specifically to the design guidelines. With that, if we could have the first case, please. The first case on the regular agenda is 1328 to 1400 UG Street. This is a request for site plan approval for new construction in the City Center Design District. We actually, so the next case is we have a site plan approval and a design approval for this case. So I think we're sort of going to do just a big presentation. And then you guys will need to do two motions, one for site plan and one for design approval. But just to run through a couple of the quick facts, and then I'll hand it over to the applicant. This is a project that was before you in September for an informational presentation. Then our October meeting was canceled for weather reasons, and then last month the applicant was here for a request for site plan and design approval. The case was deferred till this meeting. There were some outstanding comments on the site plan and the design approval. The motion was for the applicant to go work with the neighborhood and with staff to address some of those comments. They have done so and are back before you with those requests and asking for a decision this evening. So with that said, the applicant, Brad Wolfe with the 908 group, the developer is here. He has put together a presentation that we'll talk about the site plan and the design review. As soon as it comes up, it's a large file. For those of us who interview with PowerPoints on a regular basis, this is a nightmare scenario. Happens all the time in nightmares. Fingers crossed. There it is. Hey, everybody, I'm Brad Wolfe with the 908 group. I met most of you last time. Tom, you weren't here in Michelle either, but glad to meet both of you this time. This is our second formal hearing. Last month, we got deferred with some conditions to work with the neighborhood and staff to clear some of their comments. And we were here for an informal presentation two months before that just to get some DDRC feedback on our design and such. I wasn't here that time because the hurricane wouldn't let me come, but I was here last time and appreciate the DDRC feedback, staff, and the neighborhood feedback. So we've done some good work since last month. I've been working a lot with Jonathan and Lucinda. I'll kind of address site plan first and then design certificate. On the site plan, we cleared all substantive conditions from staff. There are some remaining conditions, but those are all, as I understand, boiler plate conditions that are on pretty much every approval. And then on the design certificate side, we cleared every staff condition. So there's just a glowing approval recommendation from Lucinda on that, which we're excited about. We wrote down every one of the DDRC member concerns last time. I was here, as well as all of the neighborhood concerns and did our best to address. And please, everyone, in all issues, I don't think we've necessarily resolved every issue with the neighborhood, but we're trying our best. And I think we've made a lot of progress. So onto my PowerPoint presentation. First, I'll talk about the site plan approval request. And Tom, stop me if I start talking about anything outside of Purview or that I shouldn't, but because some of these I'm responding to some neighborhood concerns that have come up, which I don't know whether I should be talking about. So let me know if I should just skip over something. We probably don't need too much emphasis on the traffic impact study, for instance. Okay, I'll skip those portions. Okay, so here's the city map with the different overlay district. Green showing the city center design district, as you all know very well. This is our site, 1328 and 1400 UG Street, right in between UG and Pulaski, south of Hampton and north of Lady Street. Just another reference to our location here, a property aerial showing the existing use as the old traffic court building. So it's going through some of the neighborhood concerns here that we've been trying to address. I think the neighborhood was concerned about the width on Pulaski, not allowing for two-way traffic. So we'll make sure with the new curb cut that we're putting in that it's at least 24 and a half feet wide to allow for two-way traffic. Another concern from the neighborhood was that we had 25 outstanding conditions from staff on our approval recommendation. We've cleared all of the substantive conditions. Again, only boiler plate conditions left and Jonathan can confirm that, I'm sure. Traffic study, I'll skip that. Again, traffic, parking concerns, we're zoning code compliant so I don't think there's much to discuss there. The drive aisle on location on Pulaski, something the neighborhood was worried that that may be dangerous so we studied site distance to make sure we had appropriate site distance from the top of the hill on Pulaski. So we're compliant there with our drive aisle location. And one thing we're really excited about that I talked a little bit about last time, Jonathan and Lucinda really encouraged us to do this is right now, if you're walking south on UG and trying to get over to Lady Street or Gervais, you're kind of out of luck because there's no sidewalk going down UG to Gervais. So we've created a sidewalk along the unnamed right-of-way on the north of our site, which there's none currently. And then a new sidewalk along Pulaski that connects all the way down Lady past our site. So we're bringing a new sidewalk connection here which I think it's been a problem for a while in this area and we're excited about solving that to be safer for our future residents and for the neighborhood as a whole. Also, we've been working with the neighborhood really since back in January through our rezoning efforts so I had a lot of times and learned a lot of their site plan and design related concerns way back when and put a lot of thought into our design from those conversations originally. So such as building height on the Pulaski site there's only three stories and two stories versus five stories on UG to make sure we're being sensitive to the condos across the street and preserving their view. Also our amenity location, our pool and outdoor amenities are contained within our building, not outside. So any noise related concerns shouldn't be an issue. And then also parking garage location, no one likes looking at parking garages. So on UG and Pulaski we've screened that parking garage with our buildings and on the one visible side, on our south property line we have trees and the parking garage is treated with metal screening and brick cladding and is set down below street elevation. So that's just kind of some narrative on the thought process of when we were putting together this site plan. So here's again the existing condition, the old traffic court building owned by the county. And as we walk through this, I just wanna know, okay, so that's North Hampton Street above, East Pulaski South, the Spring Hill Suites and West UG. And we're gonna rotate this in our plan view because it's kind of crooked. So as you'll see on this next slide, we rotate our plan view, so North Plan View West is Hampton East, there is Pulaski South is Spring Hill Suites and West is UG just to give you some orientation as you look through all of our next site plan slides. This is the existing property survey as we discussed, no sidewalks there currently. And here's our proposed site plan for orientation. Along the unnamed right of way, we have two story cottage, townhouse style apartment buildings. Along the middle, our internal drive aisle from UG to Pulaski sits on top of a huge city stormwater line, that's why we kind of split the site between each other. And then our three story apartments along Pulaski, then our two and a half story parking garage, and then our five story apartments as you work your way down UG. And here's the location of our new sidewalk that we're adding. So if you're walking from UG down to Lady or our residents from our site or even the neighborhood across the street you could potentially use this. The Spring Hill Suites residents can use this sidewalk. So that should help. Also along UG, the unnamed right of way and Pulaski, we're adding all new street trees and lighting to significantly improve all of those street fronting sides of our building. And to note that the unnamed right of way was kind of a weird instance. It's a leftover piece of land owned by the county. Technically, we're really not required to treat it as a road and add sidewalks and add street lighting and all of that. But again, Jonathan and Lucinda strongly encouraged us to do so and we listened and we think it was a great improvement to allow this connection. Here's just a colored version of some of the landscaping on our site plan. On UG, the current sidewalk is closer to the road. So we're gonna relocate that sidewalk further from the road to make that a safer pedestrian connection and add a bigger landscape strip in between UG and the new sidewalk. Along the unnamed right of way, I think we have a four foot landscaping strip than a sidewalk than our cottage apartment buildings. And along Pulaski Street, I forget the exact set. The sidewalk is right along the street due to existing power lines and then our buildings are set back much further from the road again for a neighborhood sensitivity to set our building back as a more residential private field. So here's a view, if you're standing on the corner of Pulaski and the unnamed right of way looking Southwest towards UG, this is the view you're looking at. And this is that new sidewalk that I've been talking a lot about from UG along the unnamed right of way, down Pulaski and up to Lady. And we're also replacing along UG the existing street lights with the much nicer looking street lights that's consistent with the design district overlay. And now I'm gonna kind of walk you through several of our rendering so you can visualize how our site is laid out. This is the main corner looking Southeast towards Pulaski and Lady. This is the existing internal drive aisle with the traffic court building. Our internal drive aisle is gonna be in the same location. So this is that same view. This is the main corner of our big building. As you're driving down UG, entering the Vista, this is what you'll see. So we've put a lot of emphasis on this corner. I'll get to the facade elements when I make it to the design certificate portion, but now I'll finish talking about the site plan portion first. And also you can see in this rendering the Spring Hill Suites to the south of our building there, which our building will be a little shorter than that due to the grade change. This is a little bit further north up UG looking the same way down the unnamed right of way. And this is our project view from that location on the corner of UG and the unnamed right of way. You can see our two-story cottage apartments and the five-story building there. This is another view that just shows the sidewalk going down the unnamed right of way. Same view. Again, just different perspective here to give you more of a feel for what that street treating and lights and trees will look like down the unnamed right of way. So now we're at that same corner as the sidewalk view I showed you from Pulaski and the unnamed right of way. Again, our two-story cottage apartments will be on this corner and then you'll work your way back up to Pulaski where our three-story building is. This is the southeast corner of our site on Pulaski looking northwest towards UG. You can see the Spring Hill Suites to the left and Pulaski going north towards Hampton on the right. And these are the three-story apartments that are hiding the parking garage that you can see there. Same view, you just get a little bit more view of the Spring Hill Suites parking lot here so that we can show some treatment of the garage and placement of the garage. You can see for site plan layout purposes, we put that garage in between the big building on UG and the small building on Pulaski and it's 10 feet lower in elevation than Pulaski Street and that garage is only 25 feet tall. So really the garage only stands 15 feet above Pulaski Street elevation and it will be hidden by the heavy landscaping and trees in addition to the screening and cladding and such here. I'll skip traffic. A lot of traffic slides. Might take me a minute. If you're interested just showing pedestrian routes to campus from our site but I know we're not talking about. I have way too many animations. I'm surprised this is working. Most cities it doesn't. We're in animated city. Okay, this is back to our site plan just reiterating some of our thoughtful design sensitivity to the neighborhood which I've talked about contained outdoor amenities, garage screened by the brick elevation and buildings. Only two and three story buildings across from the condo neighborhood across Pulaski. And then our original design way back was actually garden style three story apartments where our cottage apartments were. So through some of our previous iterations a long while ago with Lucinda and Jonathan we moved with the help of them to these cottage apartments which really accomplishes a much more residential homey neighborhood feel than a three story walk up garden apartment. Highlights on the site plan. We've been working with Jonathan and Lucinda for months. Planning staff recommends approval. There are a few conditions but as I understand like I said those are the conditions that are placed on pretty much every approval recommendation. So I don't think they have any issues. Zoning compliant, no variance requests. That new sidewalk connection is pretty big and we're happy with how the site plan is laid out and we hope that you all are as well. So you want me to go straight through my design certificate presentation? All right, I'll do the whole thing. So again, this is just location I can cruise through this and to talk through some of the neighborhood and DDRC voting member concerns we heard last time. Pretty much everybody hated our cornices, neighborhood and you guys and ultimately we agreed we changed them. We redid them all. We pulled some inspiration from some of the retail along Gervais, we'll show a picture of it and that's how we revised them, downsized them and just paid homage to other buildings in the Vista. They're gone. More brick. I think Paul mentioned wanting some more brick last time. The neighborhood definitely wants more brick and we've added a full story of brick along the UG facade wrapping the main corner and we've added more brick wrapping the visible corner of the parking garage on Pulaski and I'll show you how we did that there. More detail on garage screening and cladding. That one's kind of hard because you can't tell what it looks like in a rendering. So we took pictures of our architects, Humphrey's other projects, just showing those material selections that we'll get to so you can visualize more of what those materials will look like on the garage. DDRC made a motion to defer that we work with planning staff in the neighborhood. We've been working with the neighborhood since then. Like I said, I wrote down every one of their concerns and responded to it, made some real plan revisions for several of the concerns and some of them just responded with our justification of why we did certain things. And like I said, we've been working with Rick, Bart, Jim, Jonathan, Arsenal Hill, the V&A since January in different efforts. All great guys. We have a difference of opinion on some things but I hope we've made some progress together and we're looking forward to be a partner of the neighborhood with them in the future. So here's our old one that everybody hated. We got rid of these cornices and parapets and the green area is where we added brick along the Hugh G. façade. So that's the old one and this is the new one here. So these parapets are much smaller downsized and very similar to some other buildings along Gervais and the vista that we'll show you. And then you can see that full story of brick along Hugh G as you're coming down Hugh G as kind of the main corner. So Pulaski, here's the old rendering with the old parapets and you can see the corner of the garage is not brick there. We added brick wrapping that corner of the garage because that'll really be the only visible portion of the garage as you're coming down Pulaski. And here's the new one here with the new downsized parapets and the brick wrapping that corner of the garage. Here's the retail building that we pulled from, the retail with the wet willies and the 10 Lizzie's. We really didn't see a whole lot of any parapet or cornice in the vista and that's why we took your recommendation to downsize it but we wanted a little bit of an element. We read through the city center design guidelines and found it, it doesn't encourage design uniformity so we didn't wanna look exactly like everything else but this is where we pulled inspiration from. Here's a view of the Pulaski street corner facing the garage without landscaping just so you can see that brick treatment and then where the garage openings are, it's hard to tell in this rendering but there will be metal screening over that and I'll show you examples. So here's what it will look like if you had no landscaping and then here's what it looks like when you have the heavy landscaping and our landscape designer with Cox and Dinkins is gonna work with Lucinda and Jonathan to make sure we choose proper trees that have foliage during all times of year so this landscape screening actually works. And like I said, that garage is set down 10 feet from Pulaski so it's only 15 feet above the street. Just a closer view. So here is a much bigger project, urban project in Gainesville. The only reason I'm showing this is that those metal screens are the ones we've specified in those areas over the parking garage openings. So that's what the metal screen will look like and then brick treatment on the garage but obviously a much smaller project. Also, I think Paul and Robert Nguyen who's not here tonight and the neighborhood we're all wanting us to reduce the amount of hardy on the building which we did by adding more brick. And also just wanted to clarify, to make sure we're all on the same page I've heard people say hardy plank, we will not have any hardy plank on the building, no lap siding, I think it looks bad. So we used a hardy panel reveal system which if you look at this rendering the portions that aren't brick are that hardy panel reveal system. It looks more like a stucco, I think it looks better than stucco if you do it right and you have a contractor that puts it up right. So that hardy reveal panel system will be the only other element on our building outside of brick. Well this, and these are the same views. I can go back through them if you want. I'll talk through them briefly. Just showing brick along UG, all the way to the roof on the cottage apartments. Almost all the way to the roof on the big building wrapping the corner, it's your main street view. That brick going up wraps the corner of that building along the unnamed right of way. This is Pulaski, so brick all the way to the roof on the cottage, two storey cottage apartments along Pulaski. More brick wrapping the garage as we discussed and brick up to the second level on the Pulaski street elevations. So just highlights, again we've on the design certificate and architectural facade side we've been working with Jonathan and Lucinda neighborhoods for a long time. We have no conditions, full approval recommendation on the design certificate, pretty glowing narrative and I appreciate the help the planning staff, neighborhood and DDRC have worked with us to get there. It's been very rigorous, I won't lie. But I think it's gonna be a great project and I've enjoyed working with the city to get there. We made several design changes to get there and just from the beginning, I read the full city city design guidelines myself after this process became tough and we're happy about where the project is now. That's it. Your red brick, are you specifically matching anything in the district or is it or not? That doesn't necessarily matter, I'm just curious. Good question. You need to come to the microphone. This is Yao, who are architect from Humphries and Partners. Thank you. Thank you from Humphries. We have not picked a specific brick yet but we'll be happy to look at that with you guys. I think it probably will be some things that fits the neighborhood. That'd be good. If you could look to the older buildings, I know you can't match a 100 year old brick exactly but something that would be more in keeping with the texture and the color of the original historic buildings in the district, I think that would be preferable. Definitely. Are there any questions for clarification before we move on to comments from the audience on the part of the commissioners? Okay, let me first ask anybody who is in support of the application, if they'd like to make comments. Applicant as are, the grouping that signed in and the seated on the second row, we don't intend to make any presentation comments if there are questions that come up or we are available to answer, although that doesn't need much help answering but we are available, but we're not planning to say. Thank you. Mr. Saveri, we are in receipt of and some comments from the neighborhood that the neighborhood would like to be entered as exhibits to this case and it is an email from Barton Walrath dated December the 10th, 2018 and it's to Lucinda Statler and Jonathan Chambers in this regards to their open neighborhood concerns at 1328 and 1400 Hugie Street site planning certificate of design. And this, was this in our packet? It was not, it was received after the packets had gone out. And this wasn't the additional information that was sent yesterday, right? I think something was left out inadvertently. That was not part of the, yeah, that wasn't this at all. Chance to look at this. Thank you, Jonathan. Again, I would urge members of the audience and the commission to focus on areas that are within our purview. As I said before, we don't have, we don't represent on this commission expertise in traffic impact studies and vehicular safety. We rely on the expertise that's provided to the city and on city staff's recommendations to us. We are primarily and entirely a aesthetic review body. So I just want to put, not that we as individuals don't aren't concerned, but in our capacity as commissioners, that's our narrow purview. So you wanted to, if you could come to the microphone, please state your name. I'm a resident of the Vista and what I wanted to say is what we're going to present is an update on the status of the open items that are on that. Good, thank you. Pertaining to the design, the DDRC guidelines or are these pertaining to traffic impact studies and such? There is a traffic impact study issue and I'm confused because that's part of the site plan. Brad Wolf's response to us was that he would have people at this hearing that could answer questions of the DDRC and the neighborhoods. So I'm disappointed if you're saying those are off limits. I wouldn't say that it's off limits, but I would say that we're not in a position to make technical judgment. So if you're looking to this body to make technical judgment, we're not able to do that. We have to rely on staff recommendations in that respect. It's certainly not for me, it won't be a detailed traffic analysis question. It's pretty black and white that I think the authors of the traffic impact study. So that was the agreement, Brad. That's true, that's fine. Okay, do you want me to start before I use my two minutes? I wanted to start by saying the goal of the Arsenal Hill and the Vista is to work together with 908 to create an attractive design that goes well in our historic brick warehouse district and a development that complements the quality of life and safety in our neighborhoods. We have four, really three open issues that I want to talk about with respect to the site plan. Another speaker will pick up the open issues on the certificate of design. The first one is Pulaski. Brad has told us that his design accommodates placing asphalt up to the curbing he's putting in. The public works from the city of Columbia has told us that they'll repair along the other side of the road. What we, all we ask for is a written comprehensive plan to fix the entire Pulaski roadway and who's gonna do what? The site plan issue involves the intersection of Pulaski and Gervais, which we're concerned with and which is in the scope of the site plan. The site plan currently scores that intersection at the worst level right now and documents the facts that drivers make illegal left-hand turns under Gervais and it was just a serious accident there in November. But the site, yet the site plan states the intersection improves even after the increase in background traffic as well as 486 new residents, two blocks down the street. And I think that has to be explained to us why more traffic will make that intersection improve. Basically from a level F to a level E. The parking, we agree with the DDRC discussion on parking. We would like to know the provisions 908 is making for visitor parking and the number of visitor parking and how they figure out that to be adequate because that'll be the problem with those on street parking or parking lots anywhere around the site. Those are the three issues that I have. Thank you. Would the applicant like to respond? Sure and on the traffic impact side, I'll invite Tony Shepherd from Kimley Horn. He did the third party traffic study for us to first speak on the Pulaski and Gervais intersection. If you could state your name and you've been sworn in. Yes, sir. Tony Shepherd with Kimley Horn Associates and we did conduct the traffic impact study concerning the intersection of Pulaski and Gervais. What the gentleman spoke is correct. What you're seeing is looking forward to the background in the future. If you address those illegal maneuvers that are occurring, you get a delay reduction. Basically, we're not applying the violations that we saw in the initial what people were doing out there going forward because it is regulatory that those movements are not legal. So we took those out as we go forward with the studies looking at the intersection. So that's why you see the actual improvement over time because of the elimination of those illegal movements that are occurring. And one thing, I'll leave it to you on how far I get into this, but I actually spent the most of my time on my presentation on traffic, but I guess briefly on vehicular traffic, the gist of it is if you're coming from our site and you wanna get to campus from a car, you're gonna take a left on Lady and then you're gonna take one of four rights on Gatston Assembly Park. And I forget the other one. So there are four lighted intersections that you could take there. Just it's not intuitive to go down Gervais and take a left. Or you could take a left from our site, go up to Hampton, take that quick one way on Hampton down to assembly and get to campus. So there's very easy, intuitive ways, like nine options to get to campus. So you don't have to take a left on Gervais. So that's the traffic ones. I don't know if you wanna, should I go every point? Let me just say one thing. We are getting outside of our preview. Yeah. So let's just keep that in mind. Is that, are you finished? Should I respond to parking and the other issues briefly or? Sure, if you want. I think that, am I correct in understanding that parking requirements, in terms of staffs, the city's requirements are being met? That is correct. And we're not going to really have much to say about that here in this body. Yes, sir? Go ahead. Just a brief rebuttal. I guess they're saying they're counting on increased enforcement to improve that intersection, even with increased traffic flow. Again, I'm sorry, but this is really outside of the purview of the DDRC. No, no, it's part of the traffic. He's saying the way they got the numbers was saying increased traffic enforcement, which I question. And I would also ask why they wouldn't extend the median in that, recommend the median be extended there like they recommended on UG Street? I'm not saying I don't sympathize with your concerns. I'm not saying that I don't. I'm just saying that this is outside of our purview as commissioners. We have to rely on the expertise of those who make the study and those who receive it at the city and take their advice. We're just, that's not our technical expertise area. Yes, sir? Could you? Those are really punctual. Let's swear you in. You did? Okay. I just want to stay up front. I may take a few more than two minutes. We got quite a few people in there. I don't know why they picked me as an old country boy to talk, but they did. I'm sorry, did you state your name or carefully? Steve Hansen. Okay. But rather than have everybody kind of talk, I was going to talk about design and so on. And it may take a few more minutes because it's kind of a lengthy presentation we're responding to, so I hope that's okay. And I'm here, we understand that 908 has the right to build here, you know, and we're residents in the Vista. And our only goal is to be sure that it looks good. So aesthetics as you call it, I guess. So that's all I'm going to talk about is the look of it. And hopefully it will fit into the Vista, the fact that the way it looks and the way it fits into the Vista. When I look out in my condo, this is what I see. That's the lot that I see. When people come down UG Street and turn on Lady Street, one of the most important intersections in the state is Gervais and UG. And they come right by here when they come into town. And they don't only see the part that's right on UG Street, they see across that spectrum of the whole building. So we think it's important that it look good. When we came here in November to the DDRC, the DDRC asset, the 908 worked with the neighborhood. And I'll talk a little bit about the back and forth that we did. We kind of argued more than we, but we got some things done. The coordinates looks better and we appreciate that. And we still like a little more detail on the garage cladding. But the main thing we want to talk about is BRIC. When we came here in September for the preliminary meeting, the DDRC requested more BRIC than we had a hurricane. Then in November we came back in the DDRS specifically for 908 to work with us on more BRIC. So we waited for them to reach out to us on November 30th. They sent us an email with a bunch of information saying they'd added some BRIC, a little bit to one area on Pulaski and some BRIC on UG. But we responded and said, well look at a building that's not in the Vista, 1600 Whaley Street, which is in Olympia. It's near the historic Olympia Mill and it's all BRIC, it's an apartment building. We think it looks great. And that's kind of looked, in this location, which is really a much more visible than Olympia because you're right on UG Street. They responded, well look at the Empire and look at Canalside. Well the Empire is on Assembly Street. It's near the State House, it's near the Business School and the Koger Center. It's a completely different architectural venue than the area we're talking about. Canalside is the complete, really not in the Vista at all, it's a completely different area. So we'd like to go back and we've done this again and again, but the office is next to them, North of them are all BRIC. The hotel south of it is all BRIC. The State Museum is all BRIC. The Trustus is all BRIC. The Publix is all BRIC. The McDonald's is all BRIC. And if you talk about residential places right in that area, the Vista Lofts, which y'all are familiar with, which is at the Railroad Track on Jervay, all BRIC apartment building. The Vista Commons, which is on Pulaski itself, all BRIC. And the City Club, which interestingly is just south of the State Museum, as they are just east of the State Museum, all BRIC. So that's our question, is why can't this building have a lot more BRIC? When we first started talking in 908, they very convincingly told us that they didn't want to do market rate apartments because student rate apartments are like $800 a bed. So you get 3,200 bucks for a four bedroom place, which we accept, can I keep, I'm sorry. I'm not going to jail or anything. So you get like 3,200 dollars, which is much more profitable than a market rate apartment. So we understand that, we understand why they want to build a student housing place. But if that's true, why can't they put as much BRIC on it as these other places have been mentioned, which are right around the neighborhood? And they also, if y'all look at the response they gave us, they talked about the hearty panel, you know. In the example that they showed a while ago, to me it doesn't look good at all that hearty panel. And I don't think it fits in the VISTA. We say the VISTA is our beautiful old BRIC warehouse district, not our beautiful old hearty panel warehouse district. So we want more BRIC. And the other thing that I wanted to mention was this. If you look at, I don't know if I should do a handout. Can we do a handout? Is that okay? This is the first one, if you would. Thank you very much. That first handout is part of the bigger building. And our concern is that when you look across, you see vast expanses of this hearty panel when you come across. Again, you don't just see the part that's on the street. You look across there and you see all of it. But the first thing I'm showing y'all, I don't know if you, the first one, well, I'll wait till they get handed in. The first one is from the presentation, the second one is marked up some pens. The first one is a presentation in November. The second one is a presentation today. And what you notice is there's less BRIC on the current presentation. So when 908 was showing all the pretty green things about adding BRIC, they didn't mention that they deleted BRIC. And they didn't tell the neighborhood they deleted BRIC and they didn't tell the DRC that they deleted BRIC. So there's actually less BRIC. Does that design show, can y'all, it's kind of like where's Waldo button. See, the second one has less BRIC on it. Significant less BRIC. The one that you drew the arrows on is the first one. That's the second one. The one from November is the one with the most BRIC. And then the one with the errors is the one with less BRIC, which is the current. So they deleted BRIC from November until now, even though the DDRC requested the AND BRIC. So what this shows is that they added BRIC to the UG Street facade and they partially by removing it on the internal. That's correct, okay. So they kind of switched out BRIC, but that's not exactly the way it was presented, I guess is what I'm saying. So anyway, I know I'm talking about a lot of BRIC, but our request for the DDRC is the neighborhood, we have gone back and forth with 908, but we think ever since September from that initial meeting, the DDRC has requested that they have more BRIC. And we tried to work with them. And in our view, they haven't really added any BRIC at all. They've kind of switched it around. I mean, it may be marginally more, but we're afraid if it gets approved and the DDRC is go back and work with staff, then they'll work with staff like they work with us, which is not really adding any kind of BRIC and make it, you know, fit in with the VISTA like we like it to. So respectfully, what we like for y'all to do is either not approve it or defer it until they actually add, you know, a substantial amount of BRIC so it can look like other buildings like the VISTA Commons, like the VISTA Laws, like the City Club, and other residents and 1600 Whaley that are pretty much all BRIC residential units. Thanks very much. Thank you. Applicant, care to make a statement? Yes. So there is a net increase in BRIC. There was one area internal to our dry vial in the middle of the site on one of the towers where we took BRIC down a little bit. That's the only place, but there was a net increase in BRIC on this building. Also, like Steve mentioned, we have significantly more BRIC than other projects in the city center design district. And as we understood when reading through the city center design guidelines, we found it doesn't encourage design uniformity and in Lucinda's staff report and her write up, she indicated that if this building were to be all BRIC, that would set an unreasonable precedent here. If there are certain places that the DDRC or DINX still need more BRIC, I'd be happy to explore that with a suggestion to staff. We think there's a ton of BRIC. We've actually since the start of this design, which was well before we came to DDRC for our formal presentation with Jonathan Lucinda, we started with significantly less BRIC. We've actually added it four times, only once since we've actually seen you all because before we were going off of other projects like Canalside and Empire and the condos across the street from us actually, which has a significant amount of stucco or a hardy, I don't know what it is above the BRIC. So we've added a lot. We think it looks great. We think that hardy panel reveal system when done right looks fantastic and we don't wanna be the exact same as every building in the Vista. We wanna bring our own unique element, but if the board thinks we need a little bit more BRIC, tell us. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else who cares to speak in opposition to the application? Okay. Comments from commissioners or questions for anybody? I didn't expect that. Well, I just sort of as a clarification would like to address two things. One is the notion of a motion to work with the neighborhood. I think that was a gesture in good faith and it was I think a good gesture, but it's unorthodox. Really what we are charged to do, our responsibility is to simply see in our estimation in our interpretation if projects applications, projects meet the intent of the design guidelines. My personal preference would be for the project to be entirely BRIC. I was the architect for the Vista Lofts, but that's not what the design guidelines say. I think that it can be frustrating to be an architect on the DDRC because our charge is to try to enforce the design guidelines as they are and the design guidelines do not call for projects to be entirely clad in BRIC. So in that respect, I would encourage you to be active with your members of city council to encourage them to perhaps give the DDRC more leeway to make those kinds of judgments, but that's not what the design guidelines say. So again, I get back to our narrow purview and where we can actually be effective. I think that while the project is not as far as the neighborhood would like it to be and I sympathize, I understand that on a personal level, I think from the standpoint of a commissioner looking at the guidelines and looking at the process, and I wasn't here in November, last time I was here was September because of the hurricane, but I did see the initial information presentation and my opinion is that it has moved in the right direction, whether it's moved as far as the community would like to see, I think it's a different kind of question, but I would have to agree with staff that it meets the intent of the guidelines. So I think in the balance, it's been a positive process from what I can see just has not gotten as far as the neighborhood would wish it would and I understand that, but again, we're within the confines of the guidelines and what our charge and responsibility is with respect to that. I don't know, before we move to, we need two different motions, I guess. We need a motion to, on the site plan and then we need a motion on the certificate of design approval. For the site plan, there was a list of, which isn't here, I guess, there was a list of items that needed to be resolved internally with city staff. How do we move forward on a motion like that? If the commission is inclined to make a recommendation for approval, if you do continue upon staff comments, that would take all of those. And that's it? Okay. That would take all those into consideration and they would have to implement those. Okay, well, let me ask first for a motion on the site plan approval. I'll move that we make the motion to approve the applicant's site plan for new construction at 1328 and 1400 UG Street with, and keeping and working with staff for all the agency comments. Is there a second? Second. Any discussion? Did we have a vote? Mr. Bogg-Knight. Mr. Broom. Yes. Mr. Cohn. Yes. Ms. Filler-Wilt. Yes. Ms. Moore. Yes. Mr. Savery. Yes. Motion passes. And with respect to the certificate of design approval, that I have a motion for that. Or, pardon? I'll try, yeah. I make a motion that I'm gonna read this based on the preceding finding of the fact that we, I recommend for approval the, sorry, design approval for new construction at 1328 and 1400 UG Street. Is there a second? Second. For approval, right? For approval, sorry, yes. Any discussion? Would Ms. Filler-Wilt be amenable to amending that to ask the applicant to look at the possibility of working with city staff to look at the possibility of providing additional masonry to public facades? Yes, as long as I don't have to say all that. Can we use what Tom said? I would agree to amend my motion. Okay, then I guess we've had a second. So, moved to vote. Second. Oh, yeah, second. Mr. Bogg-Knight. Can you think of a way? An additional 20% to the public facades? Would that suit you? Okay. The stand is amended. Then we still, the second still stands? Yes. Mr. Bogg-Knight. Yes. Mr. Broom. Yes. Mr. Cohn. Yes. Ms. Filler-Wilt. Yes. Ms. Moore. Yes. Mr. Savery. Yes. Rushing passes. Thank you. Next item on the agenda, please. This is a 3215 Michigan Street within the Melrose Heights Oakland Architectural Conservation District. This is a request for certificate of design approval for a fence. The request is to keep the fence as is. A six-foot tall wooden fence was installed on this property sometime around May 2018 without approval or permits. And it was cited as violating the zoning ordinance in September 2018 by a city zoning inspector. The zoning ordinance states, sorry, the six-foot height exceeds the maximum height restriction for front yard setback. And the, like I said, the fence was installed without permits back in May. The height of the fence in this location also violates the district guidelines which allows for a maximum height of four feet in the front yard setback. The fence was in place before the current owners purchased the property. However, the height of the fence within this location is still a violation of the zoning ordinance and the district guidelines. So while the general design and material use of the fence is appropriate for the district, the height of the fence within the front yard setback is not in keeping with section eight of the Melrose Heights Oakland Architectural Conservation District Design Guidelines and therefore staff recommends denial of the request to keep the fence as is. Any questions for staff? Sorry. Where is this in the city? Melrose Heights, Oakland. Is somebody representing the applicant? Wishin' to speak? State your name, you've been sworn in. Jenna Cox. Promise to tell the truth. I do. Okay. Thank you for your time. I'm here this afternoon, like she said, I bought this home this summer. My wife and I purchased the home in July. We first saw the home on the market on Zillow in May 2018, in which case the fence was up. If we went to Zillow now, those pictures are still there. Then in September is whenever we received the notice. I did speak with the property owner at the time for the house on the left-hand side, if you're looking at 3215, which is 3213, was Bullen Ligon Walker and Associates. They have since sold the home to Suzanne and Carter Bagley and they are amenable to the fence staying as is. I also reached out to the property manager on the right, for the right side, which is also Bullen Ligon Walker and Associates, and they were amenable to it staying as is as well. I think my neighbor, one of the tenants there is here as well. We did actually speak towards, we like this, aesthetic of the fence whenever we purchased the home, did not realize it was against guidelines, and we have a lot of other projects that are, I guess, even some unexpected things that were financial expenditures that you'll find in old homes that I have found with my first purchase of an old home that we just weren't expecting to make this a priority right away and was unaware, so I guess that we were hopeful that it could stay since our neighbors on each side were amenable, and then at some point, whenever we were to redo the fence throughout the entire yard, because this doesn't show you the back, this is by far the best looking piece of fence in our yard. Anyway, that we would be in accordance with that time once we were ready to do the entire fencing. Any questions for the afternoon? Congratulations. This may be the most odd circumstance we've had come before us like this. Maybe. You're saying if you do the rest of the fencing, you're open to taking this one down. Like, whenever we redo our fencing for the entire thing, we're open to doing it. It was just an unexpected expense whenever we have had more of those pile up in an older home. Is there any reason you couldn't just take down the section of fence that is from the front of the home to the, where it's in violation? Just remove it until such time that you can replace all of it. So that's to like, basically, there was an existing fence there. It looks kind of like chicken wire. That's kind of, if you flip to the other picture, you can see that there's some form of a semblance. There is some of a fencing there, which is a little bit what you see in our backyard. I do think that we appreciate there being some fencing there. We both have larger dogs at our homes. I think that that's been nice to have some barrier with that if they were to be in the front yard at going home walks and things like that. Of course, nobody's saying you can't have a fence. They're just saying it's too tall. Any other questions for the applicant before we move on? Were you asking about bringing the fence back or just lowering the portion from the corner? I wasn't asking. I was asking. I was saying just remove that, the section that's in violation, that way it's no cost to you. You're just removing it until such time that you can put in the proper height. Is that a possible solution? That's my response about appreciating the fencing, being there with two large dogs at each home. This is along the driveway? Yes. It's a closed area. So I'm not quite sure how that would affect the dogs. They're not like off leash. That's not what I'm saying. I realize that that's against city codes and whatnot. Just coming back and forth and if that was to happen, knowing that there was somewhat more of a barrier, they're like more of a fence than the chicken wire type design that's on the backside. It's the front side yard. How far does that change to the side yard? It goes all the way back to the front of the house from what I understand that the zoning inspector, Stephen Green, who's got by my house, I'm basically back to where the front of our home is. So that will be, it looks like maybe 20 feet. I haven't measured it. So it would be four feet. It's currently six feet. Yes, sir. Four feet or 20 feet to the front of the house. And then so we're talking about 20 feet. We're talking. Looks like it's a little more than that. But anyway. 40 square feet of fence that needs to be removed. Yes, sir. And it would be compliant. She can modify what's there just by. I think that. The skill saw? Yeah. I do not have design similar to the last presentation. I apologize. But I think that that would be the worst. I'm just trying to get the quantity of what's in violation of us. I would think that would look worse, but. But that conforms to the design guidelines. Right. It's in question. When he had cut it off, the design of the fence is acceptable. Right. Yes. And I think in the past, we've had one that was much harder than this, that they were required to lower it and they were able to just cut it and then kind of cap it. You're referring to just lowering it. Or are we talking about? When you look at the backside, I mean, it's a. Yeah. You two by four is between the posts and then cut it off and it's done. I mean, yeah. My thoughts too. It's not a lot to. You don't have to tear it down and start over. Right. Anything else that you care to say before we move on? I figured it was worth it. We're not done yet. So anybody here other than a family member in support of the or anybody opposed? OK. Any further discussion on the part of? One question. Can you put a time constraint on this? I mean, to be accomplished within the next 12 months? I mean, we're OK with working with them with that time. I'm not. I would have to talk with the zoning inspector since there is an open violation. I understand prioritizing home projects. So if we could put a 12 month to accomplish this, would that help you? If it's compliant with zoning, OK. I would get that caveat. If you were about to make a motion of something. I don't know. OK. I've got a motion. Would anyone care to make a motion? OK. I move that the minutes at 3215 be brought into compliance by lowering it two feet to the front of the house within the next 12 months. Intention on? Intention upon zoning approval. I second that. Any discussion? Did we have a vote? Mr. Bogg Knight. Yes. Mr. Barum. Yes. Mr. Cohn. Yes. Ms. Fuller-Wil. Yes. Ms. Moore. Yes. Mr. Savry. Yes. Motion passes. Thank you. Next item, please, or other business? Under Other Business, we have an informational presentation for some feedback from y'all on 1230 Sumter Street, which is the Kenan building. Tara Jordan is here to talk you through the site plan and some of the exterior changes that are proposed. We need a microphone closer to you, I think. Hi. You've been sworn in? Yes, sir, I have. So my name is Tara Jordan with Boudreaux, and we are speaking on behalf of the Lady Street Redevelopment LLC. And they are the current owners of the former Kenan office complex that is looking out 1310. We need the microphone a little closer. We have a hard time hearing you. Sorry. Is this better? They are located at 1310 Lady Street at the former Kenan office complex building. That also includes several Sumter Street addresses, which I believe it's addressed as the 1230 Sumter Street. And up here, we have a site plan of this. So there are, I think we can read the resolutions a little difficult to read. OK, so this is the aerial image of the property. So you can see the corner of Lady and Sumter. So on the corner is the six-story building, and that was built in the 1920s. And then the 10-story building, that's adjacent to that, was built in 1950, and that was built deliberately as an addition to that building. And then the three-story building that faces Sumter Street was added in the 80s, and then they all became part of the Kenan office complex. Here are some existing photos. And as you may recall, it used to have some cladding around the exterior. May I just interrupt you for one minute? I'm so sorry. I'm a little bit unclear. I want to listen properly. So what is it that we're giving as a body? What are we giving feedback on? So y'all are going to be reviewing the site plan, just as you did for the Eugene Street project today. You'll be seeing that next month. So you'll have very similar comments coming at you. And then exterior changes that Tara will talk about on this building. So they're looking for a certificate of design approval for some of those. This building already has the Bailey Bill on it, but some of the changes were things that hadn't previously been really looked at. So I wanted to bring it back to y'all for the entries, for instance. But this is just for information. This is just for information today. So if anything sticks out at you, if you have questions, if something seems off, that would be valuable information for Boudreaux to have. Could you tell us what your current thinking is? Are you going to be submitting a approval for what they've presented to you? I just want to put it in perspective. Sure, yeah. No, I think what they're doing is in line with the guidelines. I think they're planning to do rehabilitation work that's in keeping with the building and with the Bailey Bill. So these are some existing photos of their original buildings to give you a point of reference. So those are currently where we're all business use and largely abandoned. And so these will be renovated from business to residential use for market-rate apartments. And that will be 109 apartments total with new commercial lease space on the street level. And then there will be some additional parking that that's not required by zoning, but it will also be provided in the Marion Street Garage, which is adjacent to the building and actually connects to it. So here's a site plan. And you can see where the existing six-storey, the existing 10-storey building, existing three-storey. There is a courtyard in the middle that we are proposing. So that is actually, if you see the one-story large canopy that comes out, we are proposing to demolish that canopy. And that one-story portion of the building to open up a new courtyard, which will act as we partially public, partially private. And you can see on the site, and basically that first third will be open to the sidewalk and that will have entrances to some of the commercial retail space that we are proposing. And then the back portion will be private use for tenant amenities. This is a proposed elevation, which the approach for the six-storey building, which was built in the 20s, is that we'll come back and try to restore some of the old cornice work that was removed and as well we'll reestablish the corner entries on the building, which we can see where they're from the historic photos. And then the primary entrance will be on Lady Street for the tenants. And that's where the current building entrances now will propose a new canopy over that entry facade. And then this is a Sumter Street elevation. We're doing very minimal work at the ground level. We are only putting in the new entrances. But the existing storefront will remain, but we're proposing to put clear glazing. Currently it's all tinted, so you cannot see in it all. So we're proposing to do clear glazing to help activate that street level and being more in accordance with current design guidelines. And you can see in this elevation to the courtyard that we're proposing, the very tall object is a green wall feature, which we imagine this to be a hybrid of a landscape and art feature that will be almost like a living wall and to add some green space to Sumter Street and provide us a sort of landmark along Sumter Street, which is not very lively at the moment. These are some perspectives. You can see the corner entry that we're planning to reestablish, the corner of Lady and Sumter in the six-story building. And this is a view also looking at the corner of Lady and Sumter. And this is walking down Lady Street, and then that view from Sumter Street. You see the scale of the green feature that we're proposing. And then this is a view into the courtyard that we're establishing by the demoing that one-story building. And the trust work that you see up there is actually planned to be reused from the one-story structure that's currently there to provide some infrastructure and help define the space, but also to tell the story of what was once in that space. We have included some of the floor plans, and that would be more comprehensive with the site plan review. We can go to the, I believe this may be hard to read, a pointer on it. So the corner, if you can see it, at the north of the page is the Lady Street and then to the left is Sumter Street Elevation. So at that front corner, you can see that outline. So that would be a proposed commercial tenant space, more of a cafe or market type tenant. And then to the plan south of that and the three-story would be a proposed pop-up retail space and both of these spaces are connecting to that public courtyard. So the idea being that that courtyard can be an overflow space from those tenants to have a street market type vibe to, again, help activate Sumter Street, which is pretty barren at this point in time. And the majority of the rest of the ground level will be for residential use. There is a current tenant in the 10th-story building, which is a salon that will remain and then some tenant amenity lounge space and leasing offices. But all around the perimeter around the street front will be the more public use spaces. But in general, we're not proposing to make a ton of exterior changes. We're really trying to keep in the distinct character of each building, what they bring to the table and really focusing on trying to restore the six-story building and some of those key elements, like the cornice work in the corner entry and then cleaning up, removing the seal that was from the original cladding. And then on the 10th-story building, we are planning to keep some of that seal that got added in the 70s with the cladding, but we will remove the corrugated metal that's from the back and clean that up. Partially, this is structural and cost issue to remove it, but also it helps hold the story of what happened to that building, so we will try to clean that up. I'm sorry, I didn't quite catch, but when you started talking about the corrugated metal and the structural... At the top of the 10th-story building, they built up, you can see there's some still infrastructure that's up there, and so with that has corrugated metal on the backside of the seal. I'm sorry, but I'm not quite catching everything you're saying. So with that, you're doing what? We would plan to remove the corrugated metal off of the back of the seal, but the actual seal infrastructure would remain and try to clean that up as much as possible, but on the 6th-story building, which has a lot more intricate detailing, we would remove all of the seal cladding and seal infrastructure on that building. You see at the corners and up around the top of the balustrade. I'm still not quite... I'm sorry. I'm still not quite following what you're saying. You're not removing, on the 10th-story, you're not removing the metal that was added in total. You're leaving what? Just the steel frame, but not... You see how it looks solid on the back? We would remove that portion. One of your elevations showed it a little bit better. Yeah, I'm not seeing corrugated metal up there. Okay, the frame, you're removing. Yeah, I'm not... My friend is not because I don't like what you're talking about. I'm just trying to understand what you're... So I... Well, it would look like that. Or you could give us this perspective you can see at the top. This frame that's showing here, you plan to leave it. You've taken all the backing off of it. You're going to clean that metal framing up. Yes, sir. And it becomes... An object up there. Yeah, just to show what was there. I'll tell the story of these buildings, but then the 6th-story building will be... More restored, in a sense. What are we going to see? Once the corrugation is removed, is it...? There will be mechanical elements, but the height, they will all be set back from the parapet, so you won't be able to see any of that from the street level. We're also proposing a new roof deck on the roof of the 6th-story building, and that actually is modeled in these perspectives, but it will not be visible from the street level. I'm sorry, you're proposing what on the 6th-story building? A roof deck. A roof deck, okay. Top of the 6th-story building that connects from the 10th-story, and that will not be visible from a street level view. And so you're adding a cornice on the 6th-story building. What is that going to be? We're actually, and this was approved as part of the previous Bailey bill, but we would propose to use a synthetic material because of the... It's already been approved? Okay, never mind. It's been approved as part of the Bailey bill. So the cornice work, with the exception of the ground level, we were proposing to use a lighter material to still replicate the form of the cornice work. So what you're really showing us today is basically the new storefront down at the bottom, the new courtyard, and the fact that you're going to take off the corrugated aluminum and leave the structure on top of the 10-story roof. That's kind of it in that show. Extended exterior changes, and then it will be going to site plan review because of the quantity of the residential units, which is triggering the site plan review. But we don't anticipate, like I said, parking is going to be required, and we don't anticipate. I think it's actually a great addition to the city and having those buildings actually be occupied and help activate that street corner. We don't anticipate any major concerns with bringing tenants back to that building. What about the windows? The windows, so we, as I mentioned before, we're planning to replace the glass on the ground floor, but the existing windows, all the above floors will remain as they are currently. So those are the tinted glass, and that was all done as part of the 70s renovations. They are tinted? Yes, ma'am, they are. So you're leaving those? We leave those, and that's from the second floor and up, but at the ground level where you can see three rear-provision clear-glazing at the street level. And due to the quantity of windows, that's a very large, large budget item. Any thoughts or comments? I think it's good. I will mention that we had discussed a little bit about some, maybe some, working out some of the details a little bit more in the courtyard. So there's sort of comprehensive sort of concept behind that, since it's a really nice opportunity to have a public and private space there. There's a lot of that on Main Street, isn't there sort of where capital places did their stuff? And you can see that. Well, I should back up. Are you planning to develop further than we're looking at here before you submit it? I assume that. This is currently what has been submitted for site planner review. The actual building elements have been developed, but the green wall as we're calling it has not yet been fully designed, but we'd be happy to work with staff on the detailing. So it's gonna be down in phases? It's gonna be down in phases, like one, two, three? Right, we're really like the art piece, the green wall piece is something that will be designed, developed as we go through. But the rest of the building is all planning. The one-story building will be demolished as it was the first phase, and then the rest of the buildings will all be constructed at the same time. So every day I come down Lay Street and Southern Street looking at that building. Thank you for bringing my attention. I hope you best of luck. So I understand, so we're going to be looking at a site planner review, but this view that we're looking at right now, you're anticipating just handling that through staff, the development of that design? I think we could, if y'all are comfortable. I mean, what would happen is if you're not comfortable, you'll throw it to us. I just wanted to make sure I understand. That's actually new to this. It had just been left, and typically where people are leaving existing later elements, we just, we don't require changes to those. So we're moving the plan. Is the building occupied now? It's partially occupied for the most part. It's, there's a few tenants that are lingering that will be moving out. So the Ashley's Alley Salon and Spa, which is in the sixth story, like that, or sorry, in the 10th story building, that will remain and that's on the ground floor. And then Columbia Smiles, which is a dental office, is actually on the fifth floor of the sixth story building. And those are the only tenants that will continue throughout with, and then we're going to be adding the new commercial tenants on the ground floor. Everything else will be residential. They're bizarre gutted floors because I go to Columbia Smiles and I get the elevator open for some reason. Like an elevation. We'll fix that, too. Anything else? Anything else from anybody here? Great, thank you. I appreciate your impact. Any other business? Motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. All right. Adjourned.