All right. You start recording. No, no, some chat showing. Welcome everyone to Thursday, April 25th. Doesn't 24 store a lecture report meeting. I'll turn over to. Share more so I'll have one of the items today. So the only agenda I know for today is the application to alter the designated property of 258 North Washington Street. So everyone should have the materials in front of them. I think we have the applicant available by teams. And then we may have a member of the public as well that we can get to comments after the application or allow for that after the discussion. I think I'll start if it's okay with the applicant, if there's anything that you'd like to share to kick us off. And then we have the composition of our board typically includes two architects, but we only have one architect tonight, so she will be very much in the hot seat, so to speak. But we'd love to hear from you about the property and the project and and thank you for joining us. Yeah, absolutely. Sorry I couldn't be there in person. So before I forget all this documentation that's here we'll we'll cover in a moment. But it's been a minute. Can you wait one second we're gonna um amp the volume up a little bit in the room okay sure yeah let me know if you need me to keep talking test test test that's I think, uh, I don't know. I think it's better now. I'll try to find a teacher. Is that is that any better? You hear me? Okay. Yes. Okay. All right. So, um, so effectively that the biggest impact on heart for this submission packet is, as far as we can tell, is the removal of the existing porch on the structure. The one thing that's not covered in here that I would just like to sort of get some feedback on is that the existing front stoop, as you may notice when we drill down on these plans a little bit, is not actually on the property. It's on property that is part of the city of Falls Church. And so I don't know, we, you know, the next step in this process, if everything goes smoothly, would be to get a building permit and with their required street scapes stuff, I don't know where that leaves the front stew. So I'm just putting that out there. It seems like that's an unanswered question. And maybe I can get some of your feedback on that as well while we're tackling the rest of the application. Okay, that's how I don't know if we would have a you know forum answer on that often. opinion, not the abord member oftentimes with the historic designated structures. There is like a grandfathering concept. So I wouldn't be surprised if that isn't at play here, but I don't know for sure that would be something that would come up during the permitting process. Okay, it just seems like it would be potentially peculiar to remove that stoop to make way for this street scape when we're trying to keep as much of this property intact as possible. So anyhow, just putting that out there if anyone has any feedback. But beyond that, yeah, as you can see from the packet, we're pretty much leaving the existing house untouched, except removal of that side porch and then attaching this new and much larger. I think we have it as an eight unit multi-fantilating attached kind of at the rear just at the basement and first floor levels and then above that it stepped back for some separation between the old and new. I'm sorry I couldn't hear clearly you were talking about removing the front porch to make way for. No, I put it in front stew rather. Make way for something I couldn't hear it. Yeah, so so so we have no interest in removing the front stoop. I just don't know if when we apply for the building permit, because if you look at the distance that that stoop is from Washington Street, I mean there's only fairly enough room for the sidewalk. Yeah, and so I don't, I'm just putting that out there. I don't know if this is going to be something where building will come back to us and ask us to remove it. So I'm just putting that out there. Are you, is there a discussion of widening the sidewalk or anything that would affect it directly? There's not this packet is strictly hard. It was just a little bit of a back and forth between me and the architect. And we didn't know if the city would later down the line say, hey, you really need to have a wider sidewalk here. And then I can put you in touch with a contact and building safety and permits to ask that question. I can't say that I know I'm sent myself, but I think they're gonna work with you. And I think that would be helpful because Mr. Vinnie, especially if you are not interested in really the stoop to me, like if the stoop is part of the historic structure, I'm not sure would be kind of consistent with the ordinance for the city to ask you to demolish your altar. That's stupid. So, you know, if you decided that was something you wanted to do as part of your redesign, that's one thing, but I don't think the city, my understanding of the ordinance is that the city could not compel you to demolish that. It essentially grand. Exactly. And part of the existing structure. That is perfect. Okay. Yeah. That was our hope. Very good. That would be our view as well. What is the relationship and the project of the structure to kind of the new multi-family project. Is there any sort of relationship or does the existing historic structure just kind of sit adjacent to the new build? Yeah, you mean in terms of internal use? Yes, like is there any access between the two buildings? There's not, we did a few different concepts and it seemed like just from a structural standpoint, we touched on some fire stuff a little bit and generally it just seemed like it was much easier to have almost brand new structure and then the existing home with the existing internal layout and effectively if these were to be say for example of a condo building then we would effectively have the eight unit building is one phase and then the existing house untouched as like a single family home and that would be phase two and then potentially for caring for if that might streamline things where the owners of phase two would be responsible for maintaining all the historic existing items. Is that if I remember I think you visited with us once before is that structure currently used for office space or is it actually residential? It's yeah just at the current use is just a residential structure. It is okay. Any comments from the board on the proposed project? I have a question and maybe I should know the answer to this. But so you've come into this, purchase this property. The, the attaching of the new structure to the historic structure, is that a requirement to build on the law? We have to attach the two buildings in order to construct on this law. My understanding, and I may be wrong about this, but my understanding is that because of the historic structure and the lot size, I don't know if we can have two primary structures on the lot. And if we did, then there would be a separation requirement where it would just make the project more difficult to construct. That was kind of our back and forth. We did consider that. We could just have a separate. So building a separate condo structure would require you to use, well, it's either one of two things. You can't have a second primary structure on the lot and or it has to be like 30 feet away or something or 40 feet. There's either a distance or the fact that the lot can't even have two primary structures. And I think the bit, as far as we were concerned, the bigger issue was the separation between the two. That we were going to need to have a larger separation and then more of a lot would be consumed by the separation. So once you connect them even as tenuously as they're connected, then that removes that issue. So that's the goal, the reason for the connecting. You said you don't have to worry about the distance of separation. They can have this residential structure and you can have the condo building and be connected. It looks like they're really only connected on the one story or maybe two, but. Yeah, that's correct. And only at the basement and the first floor. The first floor? Because part of it was we did have the initial concept. There were the first iteration I saw. We had the connected new structure substantially taller where it was connected. And it just it was better to just step it back and just have a connection. I mean, I mean, I think that, um, that I think that, yeah, I agree. I'm, even though I see that previous version, I can only imagine. I think that, um, that keeping that connection as innocuous as possible is probably a good thing. Because there's a little separation, even though it's connected only on the first and second floor, because there is a little separation, it really does sort of wrap. The new house, the new kind of, yes, sort of been gulps around the historic house. That's just kind of is what it is. Is there Linda, which do you think is the best view of the actual connection? I think I'm having a part time envisioning how they connect. I know the state. Yeah, I can kind of. Probably a street you looking east. If also Mr. you want me to go to a principal page of a document. I feel pretty call out. A number. I'm trying to look for a good plan. I'm sorry. Yeah, I'm. I'm. I'm. I'm. I'm. I'm. I'm. I'm. I'm. I'm. I'm. I'm. I'm. I'm. I'm. I'm. I'm. I'm. I'm. connect. There's the two gable roofs and then there's that little lower white roof on page eight. And so the connection though is because there's no kind of utilitarian access between the buildings. The connection is really just the walls meeting. It's just to technically make them connect it. Okay. That's my understanding from what I'm hearing. It's just because if you don't actually connect them, they would have to be farther apart. And so you can't get from one to the other. No, right? Right. Including the basement. Is there a basement to this house? And he says the first two, I don't know about the basement. The first floor in the basement, I thought it's. Yeah, there's no. It's like a there's a there's a basement. And so we would be connected at the basement. And there may be some reason to tie the parking garage into the basement for, you know, bicycle storage or something like that. They may they may be connected in that way. But at the first floor, you're making a connection through the basement. Yeah, I mean, we have it. I mean, the connection through the basement. Yeah, I mean, we have it. So the sort of the wall from the mag is that the term connected, physically connected, or pedestrian friendly connected. And the view is that that's a zoning limitation. I was just curious. I'm giving the sets from the applicant that it's a zoning limitation. Then if the, if I understand him correctly, that if the buildings weren't attached, then you have to set off, they would have to be separated. You have the historic houses, not parallel, the walls aren't parallel. Or, or, or see a variance, presumably. It'd be two size in that. Yeah. So like the team feet bridge building. So that's the building that would be 30 feet away from that, which is likely the reason. Yeah. It's it's it's primarily a reason just so that the buildings don't have to have such a large gap between them for the length of building. So and again, part of the reason to leave the existing structural loan as much as possible is because so much of it isn't straight, you know, even vertically, you know, things like that. And that plays into a little bit. Yeah, I mean, I think I understand what you're doing and why you're doing it. And while I think as an architect, you know, I appreciate, well, we'll start off, because I know I think the only thing you're really looking for from us, it sounded like was feedback or approval of the removal of the porch, which which it said was not original to the building. And I certainly don't necessarily have a problem with the removal of the porch. The side porch, the side porch that's coming off to make the connection. I don't see a problem with that, the removing of the porch. And I mean, I don't think there's gonna be a whole lot that we can say. I mean, it is, I appreciate the building will remain intact and will remain present. It would be nice if there was at least, I don't expect this colleague, if you're familiar with the Northside Social Project, that that project when they built on there was completely modern, you know, didn't look anything like the existing structure. But in their case, because they weren't trying to do, you know, eight condominiums, there was a much closer scale between the two buildings. So the one didn't seem to sort of be eating the other. There was a more modern building connected to the existing building, but there was a proportion. I think what's hard here is that the scale of the new structure is so much larger and engulfing the historic structure that it's a little difficult to see from my point of view. It's a little hard, but I can understand where you're gonna basically push back and say, yeah, but you gotta get eight, you know, you need that much square footage. So I think we're probably gonna be at an impasse there, because to me, the only way to make this a little bit better is to bring the scale of the new structure down some so that there is some relationship between it and the old house. But, you know, I don't know I see where that's gonna happen. I have a question that's probably gonna sound stupid but I don't care. Why can't it move over? How much property is left on the other as I'm looking at the front? Is all the base over here? Is that not a wire setback maybe? Part and maybe it's with fire setback? I don't know but there's a lot of space over here within the plan. And we, maybe just property separately. I mean, if you look at it, you look at the trees are, I mean, it looks to here, I don't know what they're for, it'd be great another building. It looks like I see about 20 feet, 10 feet to the property line, 10 feet from the side of this building to their property line, and then another 10 feet to the property line, 10 feet from the side of this building to their property line, and then another 10 feet to the next building. Because this was moved over that way. But they can't go right up to the property line. Yes. The thing is that the limit or is that actually the purpose? I don't know what the commercial zones that that are. Is this a T-zone? It's a T-zone. Yeah, I think it's an example of the revised. Because it looks like it's 10 feet from the property line on that side. Yeah, I think we're right at the. The way it's drawn it's right at it's right at the building restriction line on that sort of. Right side of the property or left side you're looking at it from Washington Street. Yeah I mean I can see what you've what you've done is you've basically got a big rectangular box and you put some gables on it to soften the big square box because the gables are only what you know maybe a couple feet or something, three feet, two feet, and then the box protrudes up through them. So it's basically a three-story box with some gavels around it to give it some non-box. Yeah, I think, I mean, get as much square footage as you can, which I understand from a commercial standpoint. Do you think, I'm just asking that, I'm just asking the question, do you think there would be, would it be worse for the property? Just for example, we don't plan to go this route, but would it be worse for this property if we were to add on to the historic house and make it the new structure to not be quite as massive and not quite as square. To have some more, you know, maybe the third floor to actually have roof lines and not be a box coming up through the gables. Or did not have a three-story building? But I understand where you're in a position where you're gonna say, well, that's just not economically feasible, that you need to get all that you can get out of this building, probably, running your numbers. But I don't know a whole lot I can say from an architectural standpoint, other than to in some way, in a modern sense, make it complement the historic structure in either scale, proportion, some kind of, not trying to match it, but to complement it, because it just doesn't seem to complement it in any way. It's just there. But I don't know if any other board members have any other feedback on that. Just a question has thought been given to run off? It looks like your project is gonna make a great deal of the surface around the house in Curvea's. So you're gonna have a lot more water. I think driving by looks like the historic house is on a high point, but you might change that in the course of the project, right? That the parking lot, for example, behind might be higher. And if that historic house has a basement, I've seen a number of basements in Falls church that are lower than the house next door. And it's asking for trouble. So I wondered if any analysis has been done on the impact on the possibility of undermining the basement in the historic house. Not yet we had a preliminary meeting where we talked about some of the stormwater requirements, but the engineer hasn't really tackled any of it yet. The existing situation is pretty good for the for the historic house and that's a little higher up than that. You know, a similar question now and I had is understanding from the kind of aerial view how the two buildings meet, not being a structural engineer, but you're going to be doing foundational work right up against that historic structure. And so what is the impact then to the foundation of the historic structure? Like can you really kind of build a new foundation that close to the historic foundation without undermining that foundation? Especially for a building of that scale and mass. I was just saying because I was to make did that for Northside Social but it wasn't as large and maybe didn't have the basement, maybe didn't have the depth. I don't know what's going on there. They moved to the house. Yeah, well, I think we're going to think. I think our next step would be to bring in the structural engineer. Like they moved it so they weren't building on a pre- right? Oh, yes. We don't know the other project. Yeah, I don't know. Yeah, I think with her, as you know, our kind of purview is to share our views as people who are interested in those that actually have expertise in the area of architecture. It is advisory, but you know I hope in the context and having the discussion we can at least flag, you know, some, some things to think about as you're moving forward with the project. I have a similar view as Linda as a non architect work is. Or just like my view is as citizen walking down the street as if there doesn't seem to be like a symbiotic relationship between the two buildings. Like it looks to me like this one is very kind of contemporary and has like earth tones. And the other is more like Greek revival with the white and the black. And they just don't seem to kind of fit, like they're an odd couple. So I think if there is a way to, like Linda said, just make them look like a better married couple. What are the materials that the outside are going is going to be constructed on the materials chosen? Yeah, so just to so everybody knows kind of where we're coming from. This is the first hurdle of any that we've dealt with. So in terms of the the whole overall style of the building, of the whole overall style of the building. Materials, how it relates to existing building, we haven't had any permit drawings or anything. You guys are kind of the first ones to see any of this, which is why we're open to your feedback. And certainly whatever materials might make the most sense is everything's on the table. Is that little fact how it goes with the other building definitely is to what it's. Certainly. It's interesting. Linda not to put you on the spot, but like for the style of the existing structure. I think it's so symmetrical. Like there's the, you know, the kind of, I don't know if the term is the portico in the front, but like I feel like there's certain elements of that house. I wonder, if they're direct as we can give them of like, oh, if you brought this color in or you brought this clackboard in or I don't know what it is, but it's something that links... I look like stock out to me. This, yeah, the new build is... I'm sorry, I don't know. You kind of panel side and... Oh, actually, right. There are lines that I see on the screen that I don't see on the screen. But they're not very definitive. You know, if you like saying, I don't, again, I'm not trying to say we should copy the existing structure, but even if there was some kind of take on a window pattern copying or roof line, you know, instead of the cables being so steep, maybe they kind of mimic the pinch of the cables on the original house where you have something where, you know, since it's got three windows, maybe you have three windows or even if it's modern, we're not saying you should copy the other house but if there's something to give it some kind of relation ship to the other house. I mean it just really looks like you couldn't design that anywhere and stuff it next to that house that there wasn't any kind of like hey this is a modern take on the old house or this is trying to just create some kind of relationship between the other house. Like even if we had the columns or just something where they related to each other a bit more. Maybe it was a modern version of the portico or you know that you had three windows across somewhere. I don't know. I mean I guess the thing is do you guys really feel that you have to have that third story so blocky that you know but right now you've just put the gables on to soften it but it's basically a third square that's set in, but it's almost vertical. You know, the roof is the walls and the roof is vertical. Is there any chance of making that third floor something a little different? Yeah, again, this was this was this was a little bit of a I know first a first crack at it and we we've kind of gone back and forth. This was one idea we talked a bit about at one point I think doing some some large dormers or there's something like that at least on the front side. So yeah I mean there's some other options that we that we were kicking around to maybe soften it up a bit. Just to soften it down a little bit Yeah. Just to soften and scale it down a little bit and make it a little less blocky. Still, yeah. I mean, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not an architect. So I just put my opinions out there and this was, this was one option. So I think it was. I mean, I think what would happen is you might lose a little square footage and that's where you might get pushback. But if you could potentially give up just a little square footage on that third story, maybe one less condo or something a little smaller to bring that back in the scale a little bit. Might be nice. Well, yeah, definitely take your point on that. So we may have a lot of contact. I'm going and looking at the street view is. Is there a way to like. I actually like that there's some air between the two buildings. No group, you know, I think that's kind of nice. So I appreciate that you guys have given thought to them and even to kind of maintain some of the, like situational, I don't know what the right word is, like the kind of provenance or placement of the original house, could you have like a courtyard or some sort of transition element that brings you from the historic home to the more modern building but it's again just kind of softening that transition versus just the historic structure and then the big modern structure. structure. You do lose a little, sorry, you do lose like a little bit of the, um, kind of the value and the integrity of this sort of structure when it's overtaken by, by such a large building. You know, it's like you're maintaining it, but you're kind of maintaining it in a compromised fashion. And I mean that in a, you know, to be productive to the discussion, obviously a lot of preserve the house. So I appreciate that you're doing that. But just having a little more connection there and transition. There's one story. Yeah, we initially, I don't know if you would have any feedback on this. Initially, there was some minor discussion about if we left the porch there and turn it into, you know, I don't know, a vestibule or something for both structures or something. So that was one idea, but I don't know if that would achieve what you're painting it. It's kind of interesting. And you said at the beginning of the conversation, you said that you might said that you might turn the single family house as a feast to into like a condo. Is that how you describe that? Yeah, that was if we were to do this as a condo project versus apartments, that would effectively become its own condo unit. We're a be condo style ownership, but it would just be a single family home and everything Where would be condo style ownership, but it would just be a single family home, and everything inside would be unchanged. Okay, understand. This is gonna break up. It speaks. Yeah. What's that? Yeah, you see on the one path, you see the roof, the roof is so much better, it's a lot more than on the other path. All the stuff that's going on on the rooftop deck is the rooftop accessible. Sorry. Yeah, there's a whole garden. Yeah. And they've got like, don't get this. Mr. Yeah, what is on the roof are those like elevator access or what? No, doing those those would be yes spiral stairs up for the three top floor units to have small rooftop areas. So that makes the building even taller. Yeah, I don't think that's additional height from the step back enough. The idea was to have those for sure step back enough that you wouldn't see them from from the street unless you were pretty far back. So we didn't want to make it any taller. I'm kind of interested in the concept of preserving that porch is the best of you all. Like I'm I'm picturing some of the homes in Georgetown or even some of the commercial spaces in Georgetown. We have the historic structure and then there's kind of a glass. I wanna say sunrooms, not the right word, but you know, some sort of people. Yeah, I guess that's the better part of Best of You all. But that could also kind of connect the old and the new doctor's architecturally, but maybe that becomes a common space of sorts. Maybe that even becomes an entrance or something. It just seems like that could be an alternate way to bridge the two structures. Yeah, I think we were just at a bit of a loss on whether it would make more sense to try to do something like that versus removing the ports and having actual separation. I don't know that we had a great answer on that. It seems like you do a best guess. When doing that, eliminate the need to have the walls of both buildings against each other. As far as I know, there was, you know what, I wish I could speak more intelligently on the the nitty gritty, but there was some sort of issue where the way the old building is constructed, it falls into a certain class of construction and the new building would be a different class from a fire standpoint. I need to revisit that to give you a correct answer because I don't want to say something and be wrong. But I know that was a factor. Yeah, and I'm not. I mean, and I'm not, I'm not a commercial architect and so I don't know also the difference between this being a condominium unit and I come back to the North Side Social because clearly North Side Social was a historic residential building that was married to a newer commercial structure although it was not a residence. They opened up those two buildings and connected. So whatever fire codes or issues were going on there. The fact that we discussed it together. Different commercials. Yeah, the fact that we discussed it, it's not a lot of time. It leads me to believe that's still a possibility. So I mean, if certainly you had an opinion that from an architectural standpoint, that would be much more desirable to keep the porch and use it to tie them together versus what we have here. I mean, that's certainly good advice to have and we'll inform how we decide to marry this structures. Can I ask, can I run a question just in terms of the relationship between the T zone ordinance and the historic and cultural conservation ordinance. Do you have a sense like when you look at the historic and cultural conservation district, is this building technically considered an ancillary structure to the historic home. Because then then then like different size requirements and the proportionate scale matters more, right? In terms of what you can do in terms of the relationship to the house that's there and what else would be put on the parcel that's under the ordinance or like what is this for purposes of defining like the thing that's getting built there. I know what you're talking about. I know that we have to have a post-election looking at for the HEC. I was working closely with Paul on the TZM's to know exactly what the TZM limitations were, but this would be not because it's attached to the house. This is also maybe the reason why it's attached to the house. Because it's attached to the house, it's considered an extension, a massive square photo extension, but it's an alteration of the existing historic home rather than a completely separate structure on the lot. I think that's the that's kind of the type of counter there. So I know except for camera, as you see I think the antler structure height is like 1.5 stories or maybe it's even less than that. 20 feet. Yeah, it's like 20 feet. is like 1.5 stories or maybe it's even less than that. 20 feet. Yeah, it's like 20 feet. And I think the T-Zones opened up to be larger than that. And I think it's when it's one of the primary T-Zones height limit. But in terms of how does the store come? I think that's the reason why it's not considered an explainer. Yeah, and then I guess I just ask because to the extent it's an alteration or extension of the historic home. Then under the ordinance, right? The heart applies to standards. In terms of the secretary of the interiors like standards and you get back into the whole point about not having the change and goals the character and appearance of the initial property. So I didn't know for the after can the extent to which you had looked at the standards that actually apply for the building you're putting there and how you view the building as compatible and falling within the framework that actually applies for an extension to your historic property. You know, in talking about using the same materials and an extension of sort of the scale and the proportions and the historic period and the type of architectural period you would seek to replicate on the parcel given that it is designated as historic. Yeah, I mean, if there's if there's if there's guidelines from use, I think you said department of interior. And if the architect hasn't already been considering these items that we can add them to what we should be looking at. There's code sections of the difficult situations because it's unusual. It's like, I think the first application that we harbor seeing that has basically a development on property. But it basically is looking at trying to replace, you have accession match and it's the correct terms in kind. So it's not exact materials, but it's something that is. S like what Miss Alteno is saying is somewhat mimics an harmonious way. The kind of design of historical. I think what Aaron is citing is the more specific national register criteria. So basically that and reviewing alterations to make sure that they kind of comport with the integrity of the house. The statute specifically sites this national register criteria published by the National Park Service. So we can share that hyperlink, but it does kind of outline things to think about as far as materials and scaling, massing, and so forth. And I was referencing so undercurrent considerations by the R, so in section 48794 of the code, subsection C talked about altering a building or structure. And then it talks about the board uses the criteria on integrity as set out in the most current national registered criteria. Like you said, under the per service or the secretary of the interior standards for rehabilitation and historic preservation projects to make sure that the alteration is more compatible with the structure and doesn't diminish the integrity of the structure. And so this sort of considerations are the ones we've been talking about. The new use requires minimal change to the historical and distinctive material, speech or spaces, spatial relationships, the historic character, the properties retained and preserved, you know, avoiding removal of distinctive materials and alteration of features, putting it in its kind of tiny space. So there's kind of a list of factors that you know, it would make sense to look at that the new additions exterior alterations are related to construction will not destroy historic materials features and spatial relationships that characterize the property and the new work will be differentiated from the old and compatible with the materials. The historic materials feature size, scale, and proportion and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. So that's all I was. Well, I think that it's hard to look at this given that scale and it's used as a commercial rental property of eight condo units as an addition, you know, the way the way that reads, this is not an addition to an historic structure. It's an ancillary structure attached to a storage structure. So it kind of, I think, is virtually impossible to adhere to the guidelines. At that said, I think the answer is kind of like, Cameraman said, this is a whole new ball game. It's a whole new thing we're dealing with that we haven't dealt with before. And as I said, I know I can come back with the closest to that, I can come up with this North Side Social because in that case, they didn't try really to mimic or in any way make it look like the historic structure. So all I'm pointing at, and I don't expect, I really don't personally expect the company to treat this like an addition to that house and use compatible materials. And I just think creating some kind of relationship to the house versus a structure that could have been built and put anywhere, it just happens to be next to this house and happens to be connected to the house. But it doesn't seem like there was any effort to create a structure that was unique to this location and unique to this house and maybe practice a little self restraint and not try to maximize every square footage at the expense of kind of keeping some scale and proportion. So the only thing I would ask is that to revisit the scale and the massing and to see if there's any way to show a little more consideration to the existing house and create a project that has some relationship to the existing house and still hopefully try to get as much as you guys need to make the profit that you need but maybe you don't need rooftop decks. Maybe you don't need a square vertical third floor. That would probably help a lot. If there's any way to see you're way back to a two story building with a roof line that is a little bit more residential and feel instead of so boxy. That would be my comment. But I understand I don't think you're going to actually ever try to follow the guidelines as if this were in addition to the existing historic structure. That should be sale. No, I take your take your point on all these items and trying to make it a little bit more compatible. As a non-architect, I mean, let me ask this question, only because you mentioned that north side, the addition there kind of doesn't reflect or relate to the existing structure. Do you think this would be better or worse if the new structure was just a box with no dormers and it looked ultra modern? And, you know, would that be worse than what we've got currently? And I don't know that you can answer that, but it's just a deal. Are you referring to the third floor of this structure as dormers? Is that what I'm hearing? No, no. If it was just, if we didn't even put dorm, if it was just state of box and we removed the kind of... Oh, remove those little gables? Even the hints that the gables, and we just made it even more modern looking, so it didn't look anything with the people. Yeah, I might say, I might prefer, I think the gables are a little disingenuous. I mean, they're kind of just tacked on there to the box. I think you either own it. You either own it, you just do your box or you give it more of a rear roof line, but to have these little kind of gables sticking up on the outside of this box. You're not only fooling anybody, like take them off, give me a real roof or commit to the box. Understood. Okay. I mean, that's why I asked a question. Because I really, I mean, I really don't know, you know, I look at it and I'm like, I don't know what's a building. And then given the pitch of the variables and the off-center, I don't think the Gables are doing anything to marry it to the other structure. I mean, maybe the architects, that was his difference and his way of trying to be residential. But I don't think, I think, I think he missed on that one. As a nonprofit, that's my personal opinion. I think that maybe either you go I think that maybe you go more one way or more the other. But as Kero was trying to pull up the north side, they didn't do like a monopod troupe. Yeah. So no. Okay. And I think the difference is, you know, it is bigger in the back, but the front sort of scale or the side sort of scales and then if you get to the front of the building the front scales. Yeah because I'm thinking because from the front you really don't see the big addition as much because we could almost have it scaling in a similar fashion where where Roof is going you know away from the structure. Yeah, the same way. So yeah, that's something to think about. Maybe you bring down the street side, a little more in proportion to the house, even if it builds up on the side that's not facing the street. Yeah, it could even be stepped up that way. Yeah, okay. Yeah, because clearly you can see that the North Side structure, the second one is not, you know, it's very modern. It's very not like the other house, but I mean, in their case, it just is more scale. You know, your building is so much bigger because you're trying to do a three-story building next to, you know, a two-story building, whereas this is two-story and two-story. So that's where you've got your architect has a bit more of a challenge. And they have a lot of space door when you're in the back. They keep the back. Right. If you keep the back high in the front a little bit low and kind of get it to step away from your and kind of get it to step away from your, bring that second, bring that third story back away from the street. Yeah. And maybe a different roof picture. A picture, a picture with more echo than a picture of the store accounts. Maybe a monastic, but yeah, a monopinch like North but the but it's a lower one because you know the existing house doesn't have a 12-12 pitch it's a much lower pitch so maybe if you want with some kind of roof line that at least was a little bit more in the same same pitch even if it was not Even if it was not. There's some things to try. Something other than this band. Yeah, it was an ask it. Are you know? No. Okay. I didn't I didn't I was hoping you were wailing to speak and you were boxing you out. So I think there are full interesting kind of procedural elements here, which we seem to have had many of over the last year. year and Aaron raised some really good questions and you know, when this comments are very valid about how you really evaluate kind of what's defined as an alteration to a residence when the alteration is a large larger residence. So it's almost. Here's what it's interesting is I've been reading the ordinance as we sit here since this one raised it, but like there is a different process for an alteration versus an antler structure. And so I'm guessing that connection of the external walls is deemed sufficient by city staff to constitute an alteration. I mean, that's how people drove in playing an apartment of what this would be. And we thought it would be kind of swallow the, it could be a answer structure, though, by like a counter definition, that state is more to do that, but by the requirements set in the code of what I sort of structured would be, that would be a much counterintuitive to the purpose of the T zone to I mean this is a classic combating of historical needs and development of I think a 20-feet backpack for a in a code for an anti-structure but the purpose of the T zones was to open it up to have you know more development and housing. So the limit that you have in 20 feet would be kind of kind of, you know, kind of intuitive. But if it was not connected, that would be situation though. There was this connected, you know, the same probability that that would be a starting structure. But connection of the external walls, like setting aside this project, just like speaking practically, if you were talking about an alteration to a residence, you would not alter your residence in a way that you could not access the alteration. Is it, are the two, and I know the door between or anything, or is it just touching the exterior? Mr. Ernie? Yeah, the way that it's drawn, it's, yeah, it says it has been described where it's just exterior wall touching. But I mean, I would say this if the code or the, you know, building code said that they needed access, we would put in access. I mean, that's kind of a, you know, we do whatever we had to do there to satisfy it, that makes sense. Yeah, I think that makes sense. I think what I heard from CitySap is the application was interpreted in a way to kind of further the T zone ordinance. Okay. I mean, yes, but also, I agree at that point. I, if you're gonna I agree at that point, if you're gonna have a B in addition, then a connection would make sense to allow that. Because that kind of that is the hinge of this project is the, that is the old building that's making an alteration rather than a separate structure. I mean, yeah, the thing that's unusual about it is that it's an addition, but it's also a multi-unit building where the multi-units aren't all connected. So it's right. Yeah, that's kind of it. But we already meet both goals where there's like, a little bit more integrity in the view of the large structure being alteration if they're connected and you gain the historical integrity if you maintain that best of you or something that's like with the porches. Right, where the porches, like a legitimate connection so that it is a legitimate alteration, or at least could be interpreted that way, and you kind of have the, I don't know, the mayor keeps saying the marriage like the old and the new. Because it does seem to me, I mean, just a little disingenuous to say the external walls touched that it's an alteration now that I'm reading this and I do think who brought it up, I think it was you, if there is a danger in building to another building wall wall to a house, if it goes extends all the way to the basement that's going to damage the it's so close and I know even with the it's so close because it has to be because it has to touch right so you created it with your attitude but it wouldn't have to touch if you had the best of your touch right but even me the less of your whole lose. My understanding is that's a little too story. That the, they say, the driving, that I don't know this technical term, but driving the like, highlands or whatever at the Whole Foods Project, have a reverberation down all of one, right? That was a consideration but raised by the homeowners on that street, some of whom do you have historic homes or you know 1920s maybe not on the register but I think that is I think that's something it's not really in our purview other than to raise it as a consideration for the integrity but I wouldn't be interested in just learning as a project of all because that seems like something that would be problematic for other projects in the city if they are going the T zone ordinance and the historic ordinance because you have the general ordinance and then you have additional protections for specific parts of the land and normally your specific protections, you know, specific controls over the general and so I don't believe it is the same. So I can definitely, well, she will be seeing this eventually, but I can ask you that question. Because in the planning shop, this was the first time that you see an application like this first time harvesting it with the whole new two-zone development. So this is definitely a once, a question I can forward to the Zaire Administrator. I'm not really interested just because I think it's important for all of you in determining how to exercise your authority that you properly define what it is that you're looking at in order to set some criteria to your own exercise of that discretion and authority. I mean, I wonder, Cameron and Erin, because it does drive to kind of be interpretation of this ordinance, which we, you know, we've had many questions about over the past six months if we should actually have a formal motion to have the zoning administer to review it just so that that is clear for the public record that we asked and, you know, that it's later answered. We can do that at the end of this. Okay. Because I think even, and Mr. Pinnardy has been so great in the presentation and the dialogue with us. You know, I think we've all said it,innett has been so great in the presentation and the dialogue with us. You know, I think we've all said it, but we very much appreciate coming to the table, endeavoring to preserve the structure. But I think with that question at hand, I'm also not really sure what our action is because, you know, if we motion based be some alteration, we're kind of bypassing the stuff that we've asked that we intend to ask the zoning administrator. I see what you mean. I, I'm speechless. Well, I'm mad at the input to I know I don't want to hold up the application and have had that are due weight on the model. But also to believe in, I mean, through lots of unprecedented times in the car recently. Yes. To get the answer. I think there's a view, I mean, there could be a view, not a city staff, but there could be a view that. One interpretation of the statute is there's really no requirement that we vote if it's due to alterations like that there is that line and ordinance that says effectively that you know if we don't act it's's a, you know, something like that. I have to find it as I'm sitting here like that. I think is there a question that this would not be a addition or alteration rather an asset structure? I think that's exactly what we're driving at. I'm glad that we discussed it here because I think there because I think there was a decision made in presenting it to the to the board as an alteration that it is new, it is novel, it's not necessarily that anyone did anything like wrong or nefarious, it's more just yeah we should get a view on that because we we are finding there are many inconsistencies in the ordinance which make it difficult for us to act within our authority and act within the guidelines of the ordinance. The, I think the employee structure would also require sure amounts of side yard setbacks, which, so those other things incorporate into that. And if that's the direction when it goes to hold off on motion, then I probably, if it's a little more official in that way, I probably ask that someone in the board, right, the letter to have a part of the Decided to the Executive Administrator. I think we can do that. I think what we can do is maybe motion, let me just write a motion quickly. So I have to make clear in my head. And then following the meeting, presuming everyone is aligned with the motion we can send the letter. I wanna make it clear, Mr. Frenady, our goal is not to hold up your project. We appreciate you talking. It seems like it's going to be a great project and you're a great kind of steward for the property. It's more about evolving the role of this board in an ordinance that at times is very difficult to interpret as the city is rapidly evolving. Yeah, thanks for that. I don't really have anything to add except to say that in any interactions we've had our our pre-lim meeting with a lot of the parties from environmental and building safety and stuff. Nobody indicated to us that this was anything other than an alteration. So that's the guidance that I've been given. Okay. Can I ask you a quick question? The fact that you have eight units, that you have five units on the first two floors, then three on the third floor. Is this project financially feasible with only two floors without the only five units instead of eight, or do you, do the developer, do you feel like you absolutely have to have eight units to make this? I would have to do some work in my spreadsheet again. One of these units is going to be a affordable unit. And if we went to a lower amount, then we wouldn't have to have been one of them be affordable. So that would impact. I'd have to run the numbers. I can't answer that. I don't know what you're saying, because I just think not having that third floor would just go a really long way towards improving the relationship between the two buildings. But you know, obviously I know this is a business venture. So people have to crunch their numbers. But to me, having two floors of apartments versus three of your condos would certainly go a long way to helping them assing. Yeah, a big part of this project, unfortunately, is a guess on my part on what people will be willing to accept in terms of parking spaces so if we didn't we couldn't get by with fewer parking spaces then we could have units in the basement instead of parking but I don't know how many people are willing to so live car free just yet so that's a big part of this project part of this project. Okay. Sorry. Just for you. So you have been in contact with permanent in-built and safety care? Yes, we had a prelim meeting where it was a little less evolved than this. And they were encouraging and kind of wanted to see it move forward. And we're supposed to have a second prelim meeting. I'm just waiting on when everybody is able to get us on that calendar so that should be any time in the next week or two. But again, I mean, we just didn't receive any information other than this is an alteration. Yeah, it's a little strange because wherever Cimico that they're running off of probably is does not include that type of language or requirements of does it make the project as an x-wear or addition or anything like that. It's a specific car language. Okay, so I wrote some notes. We can work with it together before we make the formal motion. So motion to ask the zoning administrator to provide guidance to harm on the intersection and application of the general and application of the general zoning ordinance and the HCC. And a second bullet point. Which I'm wondering if it should go to the zoning administrator or again to see attorney Gillette, which is to. Or maybe just back to city staff, it'd be interested in misplendent from a procedural standpoint, what you think makes sense, but it seems like there should be a determination of what is an answer structure versus an alteration, because I'm not sure at least the HCC is super explicit. I agree with that. So, um, human for for the kind of the second point, the insular structure versus an alteration, is your view that that analysis goes back to C staff or then we request that it goes back to C staff or do we as Mr. Lettowain on that directly I'm not sure that piece. This is ready. Okay. And I guess the question is then is the request specific to this application. You know, with an eye to the clar flying more generally. I think you would be a general question for clarification with specifics or changes application when also knowledge that it's maybe this, the answer is pending the decision based on SAP and so there's kind of a tightliness to her answer. But yeah, I would frame some more general question because this is like you said, it's a new precedent to set of how we deal with these type of applications. Okay. Is there a definition if you scroll down more about, oh yeah, just asking. Yeah, I'm both doing this. There is a definition for alteration. But I did not see a specific definition, at least. And each, oh no, here. Yeah. I don't know. No specific definition for. Cancelery structure. There it is. It's not a definition. Really, it's kind of well-su-deemed. I understood the word ancillary to refer to a structure that's large. Ancillary structure. Ancillary structure. Ancill her structure. Ansical are very small. Okay. Absolutely. It's supposed to be really subordinate to the structure. Yeah. But that is a good sign bow. It's very additional. But it raises still that is one and a half stories. Right. Three-stole. And never large. Providing necessary support to the primary entity. I'm an extra. Yeah, I don't, I mean, I don't think it's clear. And I think as a result, it's unclear. Having a subordinate subsidiary or a secondary nature. I think that's an ancillary. It's certainly not subordinate or something. Well, you would say like if the, let's say, if it's a historic parcel that the primary, you could say the primary use of the parcel is the historic property on the parcel, so to the extent that there just depends, do you view it in terms of a purpose driven use, do you view it in terms of potentially a physical relationship? Yeah, I think the short answer is one, they wrote the code, they didn't anticipate this use or it doesn't been to state this situation and that it mean to state this situation and that's needs up to those are administrators and interpret under the new context of what they believe it means. Yes, and can the question include do they have to touch? Yeah. I mean, I think it's nice that sort of it'd be complimentary, but clearly, the service aren't really dope out to touch. They all think don't exactly. Yeah. But an alteration, for some of the way it does. I think you're right, Cameron. I think it obviously wasn't contemplated, but then it isn't really our role to contemplate it and answer it. Come back to your motion. Sounded like you're. Yes. Okay. So I'll read it again. Can we do you want to write it this time? I do. Yeah. We pull over. Sorry. Uh oh. We lose Mr. Finnerty. Um, not enough. There's western song. Okay. Okay. I think we're going to be ready. All right. Emotion to ask the zoning administrator. To provide guidance to the heart. On the intersection and application of the general zoning ordinance Thank you. Motion passes only a Mr. Bright guidance at your heart. On I don't know. From net one. The interaction of. Sorry. Sorry. Interaction and application. Back up to the first. Sorry. I want to go back. I'm going to ask the questions that provide guys to hard on the intersection. And the application intersection. And the application of the general zoning ordinance to the HTC ordinance. and delete interaction. Nice. To clarify. No, maybe we use the same burbiot and to and to provide guidance to par on the distinction between an ancillary structure and an alteration. under respective ordinance. We have to take it a little over. I wish that the zoning and prevent the bright guidance to the harm on the intersection. zone, zone, zone, zone, zone, zone, zone, zone, zone, zone, zone, zone, zone, zone, zone, zone, zone, zone, zone, zone, zone, zone, zone, zone, zone, zone, zone, zone, zone, zone, zone, zone, zone, zone, zone, zone, zone, zone, zone, zone, zone, zone, zone, zone, zone, zone, zone, zone, zone, zone, zone, zone, zone, zone, zone, zone, zone, zone, zone, zone, zone, image, right, guidance for the harp on room and at one or a or something. After the harp on first, after the on. Yeah, I know. Like, yes, the intersection. And, and then sorry, where the period is, yeah, do the V now. Oh, sorry, HEC ordinance and V. And then maybe delete up to the distinct like delete there up to the distinction, I think. You can't tell me the other somewhere that I keep live up. And the distinction would answer your structure in an alteration, I think that works. Any other, that is, sorry. Yeah, can I ask you something here? Yes. Yeah, I'm sure that you've had historic structures where people put large additions on them. I guess I guess I'm just trying to figure out if we're thrown for a loop a little bit because this isn't like something you've seen before but I mean just reading with the ancillary structures I don't see any way that this is one. If that makes sense I mean I just see it as a visit big addition that you just had a you know a single family home I'm sure families have put very large additions on them and I don't know if this discussion has been more. Not even close. We're talking about here. Not even close. There's no way this is even close to any addition. We've generally seen on our residential structure. Which leads me to believe that there's no way that it would be considered an ancillary structure. Commercial structures, commercialies, own, right? It's T and all T's out of this. It's a lot of outings, but... It's residential still. It's commercial, maybe residential. Well, I think that's a little bit... I think that's a little bit... I think that's a little bit... I think that's a little bit... I think that's a different scene. It's just a different scene. It's not home. It's a different scene. I guess it's an August school. But I think are you a Mr. Fonerdi as well? Yes. I think you're absolutely right. I think that's what is making it so hard for us to interpret how to apply your NANDs, because the ordinance really was written for a residential context. And so to kind of apply what's in here and you know, earing read some of the specific requirements of keeping in kind, keeping in, in it's not like the actual commercial. Exactly. You can't expect him to actually adhere to that and try to create this project. Right. Just. Right. So actually, it turns it through to a question of like, you have a use on a parcel that has more restrictions than the General T1 parcels do. And so they expanded property rights on the General T1 parcels do. And so they expanded property rights on the General T1 parcels, but it's a question to how your restrictions continue to interact with expanded property rights as to what owners can generally do versus what you're able to do given that the structure you're seeking to alter is one that's protected by a specific code. Yeah, I mean, I take the conflict between the zoning and the and the hard code because it's really just the work seemingly hung up on. Whether or not this is an addition, I just we haven't this is the first time I've heard that someone would classify it as ancillary structure because I'm thinking of like garages and things like that. Hey, it's not from New York City so you know this commercial buildings and everything and all that. I mean this is a commercial. We boil this is a inertia. Revoid is a motion property. So it's not a residential. We use it as a restaurant. Yeah, and I think again, and I know it doesn't make it any easier. Our view is not to, you know, we're not against your project. We love that you came here. We love it. Yeah, we just try to understand. Yes, especially for setting the precedent here. Do I understand? I was doing. Yes, especially for setting precedent here. Do I pull it or do I understand what they're doing? And I think it was, I mean, it was obviously a long two years, but I think it was a point that was raised and asked to be addressed during kind of the T zone deliberations, but I think it was ultimately hunted. And I think we have put football. So we think we need to pass the football along to the next stage. Okay. So just in terms of next steps would you anticipate know if you file this motion, would the, you think they would have an answer inside of a month? I mean, what I'm just what's to expect next? our next regular scheduled meeting, which is 1026. Then the fourth is to the Zoning Administrator, and then I would be specifically following the further and say that we need a decision. I mean, even sooner than that, because that A pass on hard and hard needs to have time to to look right and importantly, more than day before the meeting. So we're, we're foring this question to her, getting the answer hopefully it will spend two weeks. And then prepping to meet again, 26. And it also may be an opportunity if you want to go back to your architect with some of the comments that have been brought up today. And you can choose not to change anything or you can choose to take some of those comments and see if they can enable them into more promotion design, but ultimately, we'll have the answer for you as soon as possible. And I'll ask the questions in our percent shirt. I can share the Zany Manestrainers celebration with you as soon as she delivers that to me or do I have to wait until the next meeting to give it to you. I'm not a homosexual, I'm not answering that answer, so I'll ask that question. But to answer your question, yes, we'll have the answer what before. Okay, sounds good. Thanks for the details on that. Are we ready for the motion? Yes. I motion to ask the zoning administrator to provide guidance to the Harb on the intersection and the application of the general zoning ordinance to the HCC ordinance and the distinction between an ancillary structure and an alteration under each respected ordinance. Second. All right. I'll do it. It's very good. Yes. What are we? Can you? I'm sorry. I'm motion to. To approve the motion. Motion to approve the motion. I'll say approve. Okay. It's for approve. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. All right. Much less pass. Charlie's absent. All right. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, and copy you? Yes. Okay. I'll also call their tomorrow just give background and explain things but if you know sooner or later. Can I ask before the meeting I got sent a by here it was a staff report for this. I'm just wondering how that was produced. That was something that I created one. Previously we had done that with staff reports for previous product recently, the DIGDU1, and that we just internally discussed that it would like to start having a little bit of back information for members to look at. So produced by staff. OK. Now I just said in that, it mentioned that it was an alteration and that there was a motion to approve that. Yeah, that was, that was going to it. What, what I just gave, what I created. Okay, so that was just like a framework for the meeting. Yes. Yes. Okay. Any other questions or business to discuss? Mr. Fenderty or Mr. Fenderty? Well, we're going to get the comments. From the zoning industry. Do you have a motion? Do you have more comments? Oh, so the. It's supposed to come out as a meeting of our comments. We can get those in writing. Well, I don't know how we know. I don't have some first type of time. So I don't know how you want to do this. Yes, so it's really similar how it was tonight with the dialogue of just kind of the live feedback of think of this. You know, we lean really heavily on our two architects. And then thank you for your includes. Thank you for allowing us to share. If there is no other business, I'm ocean to adjourn the meeting. Second. New book from all this more. Yes. Mr. for us. Yes. So I'll see now. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. All right. Mr. Verdi, I, you know, I found a number. Feel free to email chat. Call tomorrow. And we'll, I'll give this to the zone admin. Okay, yeah, keep me in the loop and I'll go back to the architect and kind of give them the feedback if they're not watching this meeting. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Have a good evening. All right. Thanks. Have a good night. Oh, is he not local? Oh, no.