the board of architecture review meeting. First item on the docket is the consideration of the minutes from September 30 of 2024. Board of architecture review meeting. Are there any corrections or modifications to the the minutes has submitted from the board. Saying none. I say any member of the public that would like to modify or correct the minutes has submitted. Saying none may have a motion, please. I move to accept the minutes from last weeks from our last meeting. Is there a second? Second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. Aye, is habit. Next we will move on to the consent calendar, Mr. Goh. Yeah, we just won one moment, let our new, our November situated here, second. the . Okay, so we have one item in the consent calendar this evening. This is item number three. Excuse me. BAR 2024-00335. Old district. Request for signage at 501 King Street. The applicant is the icon of sign the . The applicant is the . Is there anyone on the board that would like to remove the side of the consent calendar? Yes. Okay. Mr. Colkey. Yes, is there anyone here to represent a representative or the owner for this project? Seeing none, I guess we should push it back to the into the docket. We'll push that back to the into the docket. We'll go with our next item up, which would be our line to finish business and items previously deferred. Yep. All right, so we'll push that back. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. the . Under unfinished business and items previously deferred, we have one item tonight item before. It's BR 2024-0038, old district request for alterations at 201 Gibbon Street. The applicant is married denby, MHD builds. The applicant is the representative here to speak on behalf of the city. Thank you. So, the applicant or the representative here to speak on behalf of the project. Welcome. Good morning. Station name and address for the record, please. I'm Mike and this is Sarah. Rod. We are the owners and residents set to 01 and given street. You read staff recommendations. We have. Do you agree the staff recommendations? We do not. No. We have taken a different approach this evening. I know many of you are familiar with this case. And what we have put together is a several-page letter for you all. That carries a bunch of our thoughts on this. And I hope you have had a chance to read it or if not, I would ask that you please take the time to do so now in lieu of our running through it. Our selves are doing another presentation, but that contains all of our, all the issues we'd like to put forward to at this point. OK. I have had a chance to read it, but I think a couple of numbers have. So I'm going to give them a few minutes to read through it. Of course. And then we will be available to answer to the next room. I'm going to put a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to do a little bit of the same. I'm going to do a little bit of the same. I'm going to do a little bit of the same. I'm going to do a little bit of the same. I'm going to do a little bit of the same. I'm going to do a little bit of the same. I'm going to do a little bit of the same. I'm going to do a little bit of the same. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. Okay. Anyone need more time? All right. Now everyone has had a chance to read it. And these are your statements. I'm going to read it. I'm going to read it. I'm going to read it. And these are your statements. So I'll ask, is there any member of the public that would like to speak on it? Oh, questions, yes. Remember the board asked questions for the applicant. None. Mr. Vice Chair, do you have questions? Well, my question was more for Mr. Conkey just because I know we're reviewing a new window standard tonight. I guess that's for Parker Gray. It doesn't specifically apply to this. Is that right? We're actually doing it. So you'll see tonight. You'll see the chapter is for Parker Gray. We are actually proposing updating design, the administrative approval policy to reflect some of the things there as well, some of the more, some of the, it doesn't change regulatory stuff for old historic, but it provides a lot more clarity and you'll see that when we get to that. Yeah, that's what we've reviewed this before and this is the second time we've seen it. So, but these, understanding these guidelines may be similar or identical to what's proposed for the historic district. The specific policy we're reviewing today is not for the historic district, is that right? What you will be the guidelines. So the chapter that you see there, that is for part of the gray. There is the administrative approval policy, which is a separate document, which we are looking to update tonight as well, with some things that we learned from this chapter discussion. So I guess my question is just, since we're reviewing this contentious window issue, and we're gonna be reviewing new policies for a window review that have not yet been adopted, not wanting to put any undue strain on the applicant who's been here twice before already. I just wanted to raise that as an issue. I don't know if you've seen the docket. So the only thing I would clarify here is that nothing that we're proposing tonight would change this discussion. Well, has it had the windows been classified by anyone? No, no, but that doesn't really change the discussion because really what it comes down to is the, is whether these are repairable or not, and that's really a discussion here. It would fall under a category three. Okay. In our new guidelines, you've level three, right? You see level three, right? Level three, sorry, level three. Yes. If we were to be in there, but it's still, we would still have this discussion because this is still something that would come with the board. Okay, and just to be clear under our new guidelines that are proposed that we haven't approved yet, there are general guidelines for what levels of approval you can get for various states of repair. There's no blanket prohibition on replacing even a type one window. It would just require the board to approve that. That's correct. They would provide guidelines to the board members as to when it's appropriate when it's not. But these would be guidance. And finally, there's a proposed elevated standard, I will say, for windows that are historically are architecturally significant in the new guidelines. Has a determination been made? I mean, I read the letter from the applicant which asserted that these are not historically or architecturally significant. I just wanna know, has anyone from the city made that assessment? Yes, this would not fall into that category. This is historically, architecturally significant would be really one of a kind windows. These are pretty standard six over six windows. This does not fall in the category. Okay, thank you. Okay. Is there any member of the public that would like to speak to this application? Mr. Harris? Yes, I have one speaker form from Ellen McHally. Oh, welcome. Hello. Please state your name and address for the record, please. My name is Ellen. Is this on? My name is Ellen McColley. I am at 603 South Least Street, which is one house away from the applicants. The owners. OK. So thank you for allowing me to speak this evening. As I just said, I live one property away from 201 Gibbon Street. I walk by the property several times a day when I walk my dog Abby to the park when they'll help park as well as to the river. I really appreciate what the current owners have done to restore this home since they moved in a few years ago. Their home, their current home like my current home had been rented for years and there was significant delayed upkeep that was required. They bought the property and they have done, I think, a tremendous job in terms of the, at least the external maintenance that I have seen. I fully support the request to replace the two upstairs windows. Second floor windows. Existing windows are in terrible condition that can be seen from the naked eye. And the windows that they will match are the ones on the front which have made a tremendous difference on the curb appeal and what the home looks like. And in fact, there are several of us who have looked at that and admired as we walk our dogs back and forth on a daily basis. The owners in particular have invested a great deal of time and money to conscientiously restore this home and I hope that the bar continues to support their efforts. It is my understanding that two years ago the bar staff told them they could replace these windows and then subsequently change their mind. As someone who has come and I have used, worked with the bar staff before I have done anything at my house, including being told I didn't need bar approval or I did need bar approval, the bar is a really important component of our community and we depend on consistency with respect to interactions. It is my understanding that they were given permission and they went ahead and ordered windows that would match the rest of the house. It's also my understanding that that component, that part of their house is from the 1950s. Just like I have a component of my house, you know, it was built supposedly in 1870, probably 1890, but by the time you get to the back, it is 1850 or, excuse me, 1950s or after. So when the staff said that the windows were not original, then original, it does undermine public confidence in the system and it makes us worried that when we make investments to improve our homes, that things will change. And so that it makes it hard. So I would ask for consistency, especially if you're, especially if someone is told they do not have to do something in with respect to the historic district. So all in all, I greatly appreciate what my neighbors at 201, given have done. I hope that the bar will allow them to finish their project. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Harris, are there any more speakers? I don't have any more forms. Okay, with that, we will close up public here. Do you have a question? I had a clarification. I went on staff to make. And I don't know if it falls under when Mr. Scott spoke, or if I should wait for more. I always had clarification that I wanted Mr. Compton to make us well. And I was going to wait till we start deliberation and garage him with some questions. Thank you. There you go. So with that, we'll close the public hearing and move on to board deliberation. And I will let you speak first. You had questions from Mr. Comkey. So. Okay. So my first question. Thank you very much for your input. I do want you to know that the board works very hard to maintain consistency. We do our best. Mr. Ckey, as does the staff. Mr. Conkey, so in 2024, which was the next to the last BAR approval, during that approval, I believe I read earlier today that all of the windows accept these two windows and removal of a fireplace were approved, right? That's great, yes. Okay, so even though there was a texting or email between Marina and Nick stating what could be replaced and not replaced. But then at 2024 the decision was to hold these two windows out and the fireplace out for whatever reason, right? That's correct, yes. But I'm sorry, I should back up a little bit. The removal of the fireplace was never administratively approved because that can't be done administratively. That has to be a B-A-R. Okay. Decision. All right. So this was also not finalized, was it? The shimney? The two windows. The shimney was approved. The two windows have not been finalized. That's why we are looking at it tonight. Yes, that's what I thought. So it's it's a nuance but in fact those two windows had yet to be approved by this board So and that was 2024 so I Newances can be Portant in this particular case. So I just wanted to appoint that out that where where the board has been asked to approve them But in 2022 the board did not approve all of the windows Okay, so I too have an affinity for this block and I'm not going to wax on and on about it, but I wanna tell you that I lived at 600 Southeast Street for over 30 years and I admired this house tremendously. Every day, that house and my house were Cadi Corner to one another. Oftentimes when I said I lived on that corner, people would say to me, do you live in the charming brick to story historic home? I'm sorry, the charming wood to story brick to story home. And I'd always say, no, I'm in the brick house on the other corner. This is a special house. And it has a lot of charm and historic features for our community. So we are trying to give it every consideration and I just want you to know that a lot of people in the community really know this house, appreciate that the history of being consistent with what we're doing. And with that said, I appreciate all of the efforts that you have gone to. And I'm wondering if in your mind there's any other position that you could take other than you want to replace it with like with the exact window that you've already put in the rest of the house. Is there any other position? And by that, my thought is, and I'd have to talk with my colleagues here on the board and see what they would have to say. But there may be another way, and I just wondered if you had any thoughts on that. Are you asking a question? Are you proposing another way? Well, I guess I'll share my other way. Replicas, I was considering replicas of the windows that are in disrepair so that they would be single glazed. And the reason that I'm suggesting that is, that that is what it was historically correct on the house. And I see it as a compromise since we are previously of two different mindsets regarding these two windows. Mr. Conkey, I have some questions. Can you, sir? Layout, I am lying about when this all happened. Sure sure. I'd be happy to and that's starting from the beginning Yes, I believe the property was purchased in 2021 I believe is that correct? Yes So part that the current owners purchase the property in 2021 in 2022 the in 2022, the owners asked staff to come out and take a look at the windows throughout and make a determination about whether they're original, whether they could be replaced. Staff visited the site at that time and responded with the email that you've seen in the documents here. And then in 23, a administrative approval was a submission, was sent in to replace the windows on the main block of the house. That was approved. And it says in the staff work, but just to reiterate, those windows that were installed there are incorrect. It was a mistake in approval. These are double payment windows that should not have been approved there, but they were. So that's a staff mistake and not the owners mistake. That was 2023. The two windows, the subject windows were not included in that application at that time. That was for the main block of the house. And then in 2024, as you've seen in your packet here, the applicant submitted a administrative approval to replace these two windows. Staff, again, went out and visited the site and at that time, they determined that these windows were older than we then thought and could be repaired. And so we directed the application to the board at that time. And then that's kind of how we are where we are. OK. And it was not totally relevant, but there were structural repairs done. Yeah, so I should have covered that as well. This is an extensive repair, extensive restoration of this house. The understanding and the applicant can correct me if I'm wrong here. By understanding of it from visiting this light was there was a pretty significant structural damage at the foundation level of this brightens part of the house. So it had to be re the foundation had to be rebuilt and the building had to be jacked up and straightened at that part of the house. You know that always causes additional damage. Yeah. Ty 9 was this? This was in 23 or so, I think, and that work was happening in 22 and 23, is that right? Yeah, that was in the spring. Please step back over to the mic, please. Sorry, you're remembering correctly what happened that occurred in the spring of this year of 2024, that that was discovered in the midst of this big construction project, and they had to take immediate action to remediate. Okay, thank you. You didn't quite have the dates, right? But in spring of 24, that's when they had to take the structural remediation, which caused a lot of movement in the wall, of course. And so that opened up some of the damage that we, that we, and I've not really been able to see necessarily until it opened up a little bit, so that kind of revealed some more damage in the windows. So I hope that helps to explain the timeline. Miss Sandian, would you like to go next? Sure. So I just wanted to refer to the comment here that the city staff is different from board of architecture review and we look at the cases on a case by case basis and make our decision staff recommends there separately. And you had mentioned that you had gone to order and you ordered the window prior to basically or approval. We always strongly suggest that you know we should never order before prior obtaining a permit because nothing is certain and the construction shouldn't start prior to permit so and it has high risk as you have experience because things might change. And lastly, as you probably know because there's not under our purview of the board, so the comments that you have made on cost-based as you probably know, cost is not under our purview of the board. So the comments that you have made on cost basically and ordering ahead of the permit, your construction should not affect or will not affect our judgment on this. And from reading the case and the staff report and what you have found out, I saw that basically the, it seems to me that these windows are on a from an older era because the, are they our cylinder glass, correct? There was evidence for some years. Of center glass. And from the research that I did, the center glass stopped being made late 1800s to early 1920s. Therefore, and it seems that from all the blueprints that explanation of the staff that this was relocated, but they never said changed. So it seemed that it's possible that older windows were relocated to this location, or because they decided to change and not have that fireplace where they wanted to have, maybe they never changed the location of these. No, they would have changed them, because that's the elevation of that part of the wall. Didn't look like that in the 1950s. So, yeah, I mean, through what we've discovered through some of the, some of the research that the applicant has done and just through our own observations, it does appear that these windows were moved. It does seem consistent that they would be right around the turn of the century for the original construction of these windows and that they were moved in 1950. So that does seem to be... Moved, but not? Yeah, I mean, they were moved. So based on that, and it seems that most of, unfortunately, this is a historic 1820s or early 1800s building, but unfortunately, most of the historic parts of it is taken away and it has been replaced. Since these are the only potential two old part of the house that might refer and show that this was a historic building at some point, I recommend to keep the buildings and as we discussed last time, maybe to rebuild these windows in kind and using the glass as much as possible. For only these two windows, I guess you got lucky with the staff mistake that you were able to change all the other windows in the house. So these are the only two windows that we would, I ask to rebuild, to save some historic aspects of this house. Thank you. Is that all? Sorry, is that all? Is Andy on? That's it. Mr. Lions Yeah windows what do we do without windows? Probably have sure meetings, but But yeah, I mean I appreciate you coming back again and it's unfortunately you had to come back again and again You've done a lot of work and research and I'll keep my comments to a minimum because they remain the same as they have for I think the previous two meetings and that is me as a regional, what I think is a reasonable person, a reasonable opinion. Those wonders just seem beyond repair to me. So I just don't see any other way. I mean, I'm sure there's another way, but I don't think it's unreasonable for us to allow you to replace those windows with something that still fits within the architecture of the community in the house and other bar guidelines. So I mean, I would support the approval of this certificate as opposed to the denial. Thank you. Mr. Adams. I support the staff's recommendation. I am interested, however, in what Miss Miller suggested, replacing them with a single pane wood window that would be virtually the same as what's there a bit of our time. But again, this hinges on the aspect of are they repairable, which none of us are experts in. The owner has had people speak about that, but it has been exhaustively studied. We see buildings just adjacent to City Hall here where they sent all the windows out and had them rebuilt. So I know, I think, technically, it can be done. So those are my two thoughts at this point. I'd like to hear others. Thank you. Ms. Downeynjou. Well, yeah, I appreciate the history you dug into this house. It's significant. And I understand these are relatively small windows of historic fabric. And my thought is, you know, if these relatively small, simple windows are not repairable, you know, what is, what could be. I imagine I'm leery of setting a precedent of saying too small windows that staff says are repairable are now, you know, irreparable. And I appreciate that, you know, years have gone by. And I support Miss Andean's comments that it's important to get your permit before you buy new windows. And especially if you have structural repairs to a wall, now your window opening may be different. And it would be important to have that custom window specifically made to possibly a slightly modified opening. I also think, you know, a complete, you know, if all else fails, you know, rebuilding exactly in kind of what is precisely there is similar to what Gadsby has done, I could support that. Thank you. Mr. Vice Chair. I just have a quick question from Mr. Conkey on this. I noted in the application that the proposed replacement is a Marvin Ultimate Wood window. Is that right? It's correct. Does that with montans? Yes. And now does that meet the require the standards for early business buildings? On this part of the building, yes it does. And can you just explain why? This is the rear of the building. So the double wind double payment is allowed in this section. Not would not be allowed in the front where they were mistakenly approved. Okay, thank you. So I appreciate the discussion here and I have a lot of respect for all my colleagues on this board. I think everyone is making a really good point. I do think there's a couple of, I think it's really unfortunate that the applicants have been kind of through the rigour morale on this because city staff mistakenly approved replacement of a whole bunch of historic windows. And now you have two left that weren't in scope of your first application. And now you want them to be the same as your other windows that you replaced. I think there's a couple ways of looking at that. One way is it's a pain for you to have two windows that are different than the other windows in your house. Another way of looking at it is that the city's staff probably saved you a lot of heartache and money by just approving a blanket replacement of many historic windows. And now we're sort of down to only two that we're discussing. I do think it's important to maintain historic fabric of our windows, especially in the historic district and in historic home such as this one. I will say that I concur with Mr. Lyons that I'm convinced based on your letter that these are really beyond repair. I guess the city's assessments as a type three, which is a new system word, just learning it'll be very helpful. Eventually right now it's new to us, but it would require extensive repairs to your windows. Given that the replacement windows you propose meet our standards. And you were mistakenly approved for a whole bunch of other windows. I am inclined to support your application just as a matter of equity in your building. I would just say though as a resident and a citizen of Alexandria, I would encourage you to think about maybe taking a different approach and thinking about keeping those two windows as historic and thinking about finding these old pulley windows. I think as a matter of fairness to you, I am going to vote in favor of your application, but it's only because of this. We're looking at new windows standards now. They're not really well defined. You got to prove for a bunch of other windows. And now there's two left. And now it feels like there's a different standard. I think when you have complications like that at the end of the day, probably the homeowners should get the benefit of the doubt. So I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. I would just ask you to think about just keeping two windows, either repairing them to the extent that you can or having a replication made rather than taking the marvell windows, which are lovely windows, but it really strips your building of any of that original, or maybe not original, but very early window technology. So that's kind of where I am. Am I allowed to make a comment? No, I mean, I'd be glad to hear from you. Yeah. So just to be clear, the windows that were already replaced were not historic windows. They were all replacement windows from the 1940s to the 1980s. The mistake was that as I understand it now, they approved double pain when it should have just been single pain, but we did not take out 15 historic windows. And we were talking about that. That's not helping your case as far as I'm concerned. So you're just. I'm good. Thank you. Thank you. Miss Miller, you said you had some additional thoughts. Yes. The first time I spoke was really for a clarification, but I did put my solution so that there would be some kind of an understanding on this between us, a better understanding than where we are right now. But I really want to make the comment to you, and I'm sure you know, having lived in Old Town before many historic homes tell a story. And when people come by a home, they often will say, they will look at it architecturally, they'll look at the doorway, they'll look at the windows, they may look at various other things that they can see from the outside. And most people never see the inside of your home relative to the number of people that come by your home and look at it. So for me, the story of this house, because we have had this confusion or misunderstanding or mistake on what should be single glazed, but is double glazed windows along the street facing windows. I think that the story of the house could be, and in this house, typically we use single glazed house, single glazing in the window panes historically, for this era of home, which by the way are exceptionally seen from the street. They're right, very close to the street, and they're right at eye level. So they are seen. I think the story could be, if you would respond to writing the story this way, that all of the windows were replaced in the home, but two windows that have some historic fiber in them have remained and those are here, over here on the side. So I just put that out as a continuation of the history of the little house. Thank you. I just like to follow up, because I really do agree with Ms. Miller here. And the fact that the windows never all matched really is not helpful to your case right you have two original windows and then you had a bunch of replacement windows that you replaced and then there's two original ones so my position has not changed I'm going to vote in favor of your application I just it's it's I with a with a building like this with windows like these it strikes me that preservation is, aside from what we might approve or not, it just seems like a noble aspiration that I would encourage you to think about in terms of preserving this historic home in these two fragments of history. But I do think this city kind of screwed you over, so I'm gonna go for your application. I'm going to go for your application. Standing you have additional comments? No, I also agree with Miss Miller that none of our houses all look the same. You can see where additions have been put on and where things have been replaced or where there used to be a window And now there's an infill so When if we were to make all of our buildings with all brand new windows and all the brand new siding I think we start to lose you know the fabric of our neighborhood Mr. Adams did you want clarification on front versus side? I understand, and it's a practicing architect in Alexandria. When a house is on a corner like this house, both facades are considered the front of the house. It's not a side. Zoning has those rules. Is that why I come to that? Right, so this is correct. And the front block of this building has two fronts because it's on the core fronts. Correct. This is on the setback L, so it's a different, it's a different, different, that's why the difference is because it's a setback L. But yes, you were correct that a corner building has two fronts. You're saying that? You're saying the main block of the house has two fronts, right? Not the L. For non-architects, you just want to explain what a setback L is. The portion of the building we're talking about here, not in line with the sidewalk. It's set away from the sidewalk. It's set back. It's not directly. The main block of the house is right there on the corner, and that has the two fronts. So when we talk about two fronts, we're talking about the main mass of the building. And because these are set back, in a way from the, they're separated by a wall and set back. Correct. In a way from, away from the, they're separated by a wall and set back away. And that's why this portion of the building does not count as a second front. As that is correct. Okay, thank you. Thank you for that clarity, Mr. Colkey. So my thoughts. So this, this L is from 1952. From that stake in Mr. Colony. The L has a complicated history. I would clarify that the current elevation of the L dates from 1952. There have been a lot of changes to this elevation. You can see it in the staff report and in the research that the applicant has done. There were infield, porches, everything else. The current configuration of this L, the elevation of this L, dates from 1952. I wouldn't say the L dates from that. It's had a lot of. Major modification. Now it's from 2024 What you're looking at now is dates from that time. I guess now it's from 2024 based on stranger structural modifications No, this house is constantly or changes. Yes. I agree with that So my thoughts are This is not The main portion of the building. Yes, these are windows that have been moved. Is it nice to strive to reuse historic material? Yes, I agree with that. My concern is from the professionals you brought in and write up that what percentage of this window are we gonna actually get rebuilt? And because this is in a 1952 edition, I don't see that having a brand new window rebuilt from scratch to match the old windows is a viable option from my perspective, because I'm still getting new material, new window. It's all new stuff. And that story, when you walk down the street, no one tells the story of a house. You can only tell the story of the house if you're the person trying to sell the house. It's only time you ever hear those stories. But when you're walking down the street, I'm not gonna look down the street and be like those are their two historic or injured windows, I can tell that from the outside. Unless, I mean, if we're saying that they should be, that they should, and this is where I fall, the argument falls a little flat for me is that they should replace them with single-paying windows because it's not on the main block of the building. They technically can replace them with double-paying windows because it's not the main front of the main block. But that's just my perspective. And I would vote to not agree with staff and let them replace these windows. But that's just my vote and I know many other board members feel differently, but that's just kind of how I look at it is I Know these windows are original material, but I have a feeling if we tell them they have to rebuild them in kind We're losing original material anyway So what I'm what am I getting at that point? But that's just my thoughts So what am I getting at that point. That's just my thought so I will leave it open for someone to make a motion. I'll make a motion. I move to approve application number two to four is triple O three eight. I don't know. Number four. I don't think. Is that proving it is. Because I think you were saying to deny it right that the application is to replace them So approving the application would allow the replacement. Okay. It's one and make sure I'm clear Yeah, no, it's I was the intent of the motion. It's like double negatives. Yes Is there a second second? Okay Mr. Comkey, I think you just called a roll call vote at this point. I'm sorry. Mr. Lines, was that your second? Yes. Okay, thank you. Ms. Andier. Thank you. Ms. Morn? Aye. Mr. Scott. Mr. Adams. Mr. Adams. Mr. Adams. Mr. Adams. Mr. Adams. Mr. Adams. Mr. Adams. Mr. Adams. Mr. Adams. Mr. Unnie knew? No need to continue, Mr. Goh. I mean, you can continue. Mr. Lyons? Yes. Mr. Spencer? Yes. So, what's pretty the motion fails? Make some fails. So, would you allow someone to like to make a counter motion? I have motion to approve staff recommendation. Is there a second? I do. Oh, sorry. Just to be clear that that motion is to deny the application. First, staff recommendations. Is that correct? Yes. Yes. Is there a second? My second. That. Good. Mr. My second. Mr. Conkey, we're all called please. Sure. Miss Andion. Aye. Mr. Miller? Yes. Mr. Scott? No. Mr. Adams? Yes. Mr. Adams? Yes. Mr. Tony Nioh. Mr. Lines? No. Mr. Spencer? No. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Your motion. the motion. Passes to staff recognition. Yes. Denypers staff recommendation. Denypers staff recommendations. Yes, we move on to new business Mr. Compton. Sure. So we do have the applicant for 501 given is here now. Okay. Do you want to do that now? We're doing it at the end. Let's do that now. I'm going to read that one back in Mr. Colkey. Yes, sir. Okay, this is item number three, which is removed from the consent calendar. The AR 2024 dash is 0, 0, 3, 3335, Oldenstort District, was for signage at 501 K Street, and applicant is a kind of sign incorporated. Welcome. Thank you. Please state your name and address for the record, please. Laura Mercier, 20272, Glenn Robin, Tehrath Ashburn. Okay. Have you read staff recommendations? Yes, I needed to actually pass by Z board to have a decision from you because the sign has illumination, but the sign has actually before illumination as well. So what the CVS actually trying to do currently is just to add the logo for like the signage. This is the only main change we are doing currently for the signage. This is the only main change we are doing currently for this signage. Hi. Thank you. And Ms. Miller, you said you had a question. I do. Good evening. Thank you for coming. I like your new logo with the addition to the heart of the heart. I know we've approved Halo Lit signage here before, but this was a different board. And I do not think that it is compatible, and I do not think that Halo Lit signage of this size blends in with the architecture of the building or the neighborhood. And I say that because I've been looking at the other CVS sign since it went up. So I wonder if you considered any other materials that were not Halo lit. So they're actually lit, illuminated, so yes you will have the allure, but that internet illumination. Not sure. That's Halo, okay. So now we didn't consider any other option because currently all the CVS are changing all their signage so they're just trying to match all the other CVS. So it's true that we didn't really talk about it with the staff to see if we can alter with another option but that again I will have to spoke with it with the property owner if you consider consider having another option for design edge. Okay. I guess our board will have to talk about that also. I would like to see an alternative to a halo lit because it is so, it is not in keeping with the architecture of the building or the community and it is a prominent corner So I would consider something else as well So I you will consider basically to don't have like the heart to have any illumination to don't be over like Dibujing is that can be a consideration or no? Oh. If we just do the hard separately, but without any illumination example, I wasn't thinking that, but I think that could be a consideration that we would. Well, that is something we certainly would consider. I was thinking no, hey, low lit sign edge, but rather just, I believe your color, the color of the sign is red. And I was thinking perhaps red was enough. Oh, okay. So that's how I was thinking. Okay, so basically do the heart red, but we can keep us lettering like the CBSS pharmacy in a wide or that we're not. Oh, because I know that previously was approved as it is right now currently wide and we are doing the hurt like in a wide as well to just match the current signage but I will see example like the hurt to be red. It's what you're trying to say. Sorry. No, what I was trying to say is that I didn't like the halo lit illumination of the sign. It wasn't selecting part of the sign. However, I think that's a consideration. If you want to come back to us with an alternate, and to see also what my colleagues think. Just to be clear, if they were the CVS pharmacy words part was already approved, they could leave those without any approval required. They could just remain as they are, and then separately come in with the heart if they wanted to do so. Is the sign currently lit or? It's a halo lit sign currently, yes. That was approved by the board. So the only change is that they want to add a heart to it. Correct. So can I ask you a question? The diagram we, the photos we see here, the mock up, you've got a forward slash on the left and there isn't one on the right between CVS and pharmacies that have you changed your application since this? No so basically the left side it's what currently existing on a building and the right side it's what we proposing just to add again the heart of it. So you'll remove that one? Not yet. We didn't remove any signage until, like, basically, the bar approved for it. And then we will be removing the signage. Yeah, yes, I understand. I guess you're saying you just want to add a heart, right? But the image shows a different sign on the left. Yes, because we will actually remove the entire signage, because it is on the right way when we're pulling them. So we have to basically remove the old signage to put the new one. So it will be a whole new sign. Yes, correct. Did you read the staff recommendation about keeping it to 150 lumens or less? I do not. Have you seen it? Well, no. You haven't asked your question. Yes, that question. Do you saw the staff recommendations? No, okay, let's let's It's table this again Mr. Conkey So just you have the chance to read the staff recommendation Thank you The question I'm gonna ask you is if you if CVS is able to limit the illumination to 150 lumens, it's really a technical question about your sign. Yes, that I'm sure we can go with it. Okay, so one of the city staff are going to bring you a copy of the report so you can take a look at it. I mean, it's up to the board whether you want to put this here again later on tonight or the only, there's only two conditions. One is that the sign be installed to the motor joints, which is a typical condition, and then the 150 lumens. And that was my only question. Is it possible to adhere to those? For the elimination, yes, for sure. We will be able to reduce basically the elimination and to meet your staff requirement. If it's that the only issue with it. Okay, thank you. Yes. Okay. Anyone else has questions with the applicant? It's 150. That's our staff. Sandy, on do you have questions? Okay. Well, I still have a question. Do you know what the lumens are now? Currently no because the signage is not us who are basically put them so we have no really clue what is the current illumination but we are ready to like and I meet the illumination requirement if that the only issue if we can still keep like the main signage as it is as we proposing basically. Okay. Smiller question for you. Are you comfortable or are you still not comfortable? Misty only you ask questions. So I see that you also have some signage on North Pit Street. So is it both streets? Yes. So you have the front elevation and then you have the side elevation. And they're both wet? Yes. Anyone else has questions? Any member of the public that has questions for the applicant? Seeing none, we will move on to deliberation. Is Miller back to you? So, sorry. If we could clarify what the loomans are now versus what 150 is, I would be comfortable. But I certainly don't want any brighter and I was hoping that we'd be able to to reduce the amount of brightness. Of course. Well, after this previous sign going to be removed it. So however, the illuminate we're going with it. So if it's 750, the new sign will be 150, means the lettering and the hurt. After for like the exact illumination that we have currently, I cannot give you an answer because those signage has not formed as company I have to follow the exact illumination that we have currently. I cannot give you an answer because the signage has not from us company or like we was not the one who is telling them. Mr. Comkey. When that sign was installed, were there illumination requirements? I don't believe so. I don't believe Mr. Harris here knows the history of this point. I believe that the 150 lumens is a standard city requirement for lights used on things like street lights and that the BAR, I don't know the exact year, but a few years ago the BAR started to use that standard for illuminated signs as well, adding that condition. I don't believe that was a condition of the previously approved sign here. You know it would be good, Mr. Kunky. What's that? I have light. Is it? A lighting seminar so we could understand what 150 actually gets you versus something less. Sure. Something more. I'm always open for some educational opportunities. Yeah. Just being because I think 150 sounds fine, but I have no reference to kind of, we can go up with some diagrams showing what that looks like. Or maybe we could walk the city at night and look. Yeah, I'll grab a light meter and be able to have a light meter, we can actually check this stuff. That would give us foot candles, not lemons, but we can figure something out. I mean, I'll be happy to put together an educational something for the board. However, that works out. Right. So, all right, board members, would someone like to start deliberations on make a motion? I would also like to comment that this may be a good point where we defer. Could you defer this until we can figure out whether 150 lumens is brighter or less bright than what is there now? Yes, well, I can give an example of usually the signage that we do are 500 so they're brighter. Yes Like now I know that some city has changed like this onion and we go on 350 to 500 So it's really a bright illumination to basically be see at least for three feet from like the street But yeah, if we go on 150 is true that you will be like we will lose some illumination to it It will be less brighter that what is currently it is, I'm sure. But again, I cannot confirm for what he wasn't studied previously and what it is. But I can always check with the appropriate owner and see if that any of your friends to it. Question for you. Yeah. I know you're not the lighting expert. No, sorry. But I assume these are going to be adjustable LED light fixtures. Yes, exactly. For that, we really don't mind changing the illumination because it's basically just LED. And we didn't even have a manufacturer as a sign yet. So we can still go with the manufacturer, try to change the illumination. And even like every sign has to come with a URL label to search it like the elimination of it and every data for the electrical for that I see I can go back on this previous sign edge and get the exact elimination that's currently all. Mr. Kong, do you have a question for you? Is it possible? And if this thing, if this package gets approved, we could put a condition on it that the temperature of the lighting has to be approved per site recommended, a site visit. So that we could also set up various times to go out and look at it and say, it would be a staff visit I mean we're not gonna not gonna have It wouldn't yeah, yeah, it would be a condition And you can you can ask staff to consider and temperature my question back to you in the top of that it would be If you could pull together your presentation before this happens, so that we have an understanding of what we may be getting and when you go out to look at it, we can say, no, we don't really want 150, we want 125, or whatever it was. How quickly can you turn that around? I have to look at it and see. I'm not sure. And I don't know the timeline for the applicant in terms of when they like to do the work. I assume you guys are ready to go put the new sign in like tomorrow. No, not really. We still have to manufacture the sign so we pretty much always wait to have a permit to be for basically start like the production of the sign then do the installation. Usually take us between the months, months in a half to receive the sign and then we proceed with the installation. It's a month and a month and a half to receive the sign and then we're present with the installation. It's a month and a month and a half too much time for you, not a half time for you, Mr. Colkey. Yeah, I mean, I think if it sounds like to me and this is my trying to read in lines on the board members here, that the board members would almost like to see a deferral, you know, I'm going to make a motion. So, okay, approve. I think we're getting ahead of ourselves and I have tons of respect for my colleagues on this board. But I do think that we are trying to craft new sign policies based on this application and I think we owe it to the city and ourselves to have a delivered process. I personally think it's a good idea to have front-lit signs rather than halo signs. But this is a larger discussion about what belongs in Old Town. I don't think we should wedge this discussion into your application. And I certainly don't think it's appropriate to be holding you to a different standard than we've held every other building on King Street too. So based on that, if the city staff thinks 150 lumens is appropriate and we've been approving these a lot of times, then I'm just going to make motion to approve the application with staff recommendations. I make a comment. I think we're ready to that. Okay, I'm happy to wait on the motion. I did on the motion. I don't want to force the applicant to withdraw, because my concern is that I've seen 150 in lumens, and I think a lot of the 50 in lumens might be too bright. So we can ask for different. So the next, so tonight you're here, tonight at the end of our cases, you're gonna hear, you're gonna see the revised window policy come to you. The next thing that we're looking at is science. So we have seen some new halo signs that have gone in under the 150 and they're pretty bright. I'm just, I'm just, I'm just, I'm just, I'm just, I'm just, and steady and that's cool and maybe we'll come up with something great but I don't think we should ask the homeowners and business owners of Alexandria to wait on us. In response to Mr. Scouts comment about the design guidelines, the Windows chapter has taken several different meetings to get to this point. And then we still have to discuss the science chapter and the committee. So the illumination discussion would definitely happen as part of that design guidelines discussion. I also will note that there have been several illuminated sign cases that have come to the board within the last two, three years, and the 150 lumens has been a standard condition that's been approved on those cases. Just to note that. Yeah. And I'm thinking about those cases and I envision those like. Maybe, and we'd be happy to, as part of the presentation, when the revised signage policies come to the board, we'd be happy to bring some diagrams to explain what that looks like, as part of the sign policy discussion. And for the case that's currently being discussed, it's written in the staff report that the current CVS signage was approved in 2010. So if the case were deferred, staff could look up the 2010 application to see if that information was included in that to see what that illumination was. We probably have that somewhere in our records. And then just to talk on to that halo that signage was approved on this building in 1993, 2001 and 2010. I only have a problem with it. I don't personally have a problem with the halo signage. If it's LED, that's adjustable, then that's not an issue one way or the other. My purpose is something. So if it's really the illumination, the issue, and I understand it's white, so it's make it more brighter. How about we do an opac? That will kind of get everybody to block the illumination of it. So instead to be a vignil, currently we assign its vignil aluminum. If you add a background opac to the sign, it's kind of like the illumination goes less brighter. We go still with 150, but we will be adding a background opac. We'll take that, Carl. Okay. It's an idea after that. I'll miss that. Thank you. I'll miss Doninho. Okay. So for the 150 lumens, is that per letter, is that per lineal foot, or exactly what is 150 lumens? So it's by letter. Each letter has its LED and each of them basically do it. So the total for this one was 600. Next, so we can, as I see, getting down to 150, but as well I'm proposing the OPEC because I know that example, I know it's different country, but in Fairfax country, they have the same issue with illumination and especially for white sign because it's really brighter for the street, for the people driving and everything that don't want to disrupt this path. So if we are adding background opak, because it's what the option we've been giving all the time, it's literally breaking down the brightness of the sign at night. And on the day time, we can barely see it, because obviously it's a day, so we cannot see it. And at night, it will like be less bright. Okay, and what is the temperature of the LED? I cannot tell you for that. Because that makes quite a difference. And if it's 4,500 or 3,500 or 2,500, I don't think we can talk about this today and you know make a recommendation without having to go you know through an entire signage thing. But I do think it's important to talk about the temperature and exactly. So if I had a whole bunch of little letters and they're all 150 lumens, that would be pretty bright. Or if I have two giant letters and they're 150 lumens, that's not pretty bright or if I have two giant letters and there are 150 lumens that's not so bright. 150 lumens is about six to eight watts. So, yes, yeah. But it's currently what we was proposing basically was a 642 ton signage. So we can maybe reduce the entire, not maybe for sure, reduce the entire signage and basically you want the total signage to be 150 if I understand correct. So, you know, if it's 600 the world but it's not it's 120 Walled total for this signage the entire yes I Don't like to make a another comment as well. Are you finished? I don't want to be labor this at all and I am not asking you to wait for the City of Alexandria to update their signage policy as might have been suggested by somebody up here. But I also don't want it. There's a block in Oldtown where the Harris-Tedar grocery store is and it is not in the historic district. How it's surrounded by buildings in the historic district. And when that sign went up, I heard from so many citizens about how did that sign get approved, what's going on. Well, in fact, it is larger and brighter than other illuminated signs in the city of Alexandria. So that was for me, I wanted to know just how bright this would be. As I also said, it does in the evening, especially, it seems unnecessarily bright and taking away from the architecture of the community, not just the building. So maybe there's a way you can work with staff on this. And I was thinking, that's what I was thinking, did it have to, that's what I said originally, does it have to be illuminated? But I could ask my board, what do you think about? I don't think we have enough information to make a reasonable decision, because we don't know how bright 150 lumens is with hard CVS pharmacy. But Brendan, do you have some, you mentioned there are several that have been approved in the last couple of years. Do you have other examples that are under 150? The two that I can think of that have been approved in the last two years. There's one at the bridge yard apartments at the very south end of Old Town. The Woodstore. The bridge yard apartment building the very south end of Old Town. The wood store? The bridge yard apartment building just under the beltway. That one I believe had a condition added by staff for 150 lumens. Another one that's closer to the center of the historic district is along Washington Street by the Baldi Cheese store. That one was approved and I believe also had the 150 lumens condition on it. Mr. Harris, what about this signage at the Animal Hospital on the King Street? Is that to the same standard? I'm not sure. I can actually look that up right now. That would be helpful. I can't see what's the one I'm thinking of when I think of. That's a new sign. It went in. I think that's a new sign that appears to be right to me. Well, you look that up. I just want to ask my question again because I was looking at staff recommendations and the recommendation is that the illuminate this gets to Miss Del Nino's question. It says the illumination shall be no greater than 150 lumens, which I think suggests the entire sign, not each individual letter or anything. So if we were to approve this with staff recommendations, then it would basically be approved as long as the entire sign in aggregate is no more than 150 lumens. I just wanna make sure that is something that's technically possible that you could comply with. Yes, here is possible. Can I have another question. If you manufacture this light, I assume it's with LEDs. Is it something that's adjustable after it's installed or do you manufacture to a specific brightness and then that's it? So I think we can modify it. But it is really electrical, so we have a master electrician going and everything is adjustable. So when you open the set of the later, you just have a cover and each one has a lead. So what we can do is instead to have all the lead to be on, we are basically just turning some of them off to lose this illumination on all the signs basically and to meet the hundred-fifth year. How about the color temperature? Can you adjust that? illumination on all the signs basically and to meet the 150. How about the color temperature? Can you adjust that? I'm not sure what to mean by the temperature. Yes, it's not lighting. Yeah, I'm not the electric call over here. Sorry about that. It's OK. It's the color of the light. Sometimes it's really bright. Sometimes it's kind of more yellowish. So does that? It's a bit yellowish. So does that white? So does that really white in inside? So it's blueish in color? So for all town, we are more like to go towards the yellowish, like a little bit warmer color. I actually say then, cold color. Yes. Okay. I have yet another comment. And I just thought about this. There are two CVSs in historic Old Town. And so we were just talking about that. This one is for King's Street. But I think we should get this figured out. Should you ever consider replacing the other? I think it's doubly important that we know what the brightness will be. All right. I guess... Unfortunately, I don't think we can consider something that's not on the docket. It's something... I think that we might not figure this out today, but we need to figure this out. And... But I feel a little more comfortable when she said she would think about the opaque. Backing to Tony Downsum. But Mr. Harris, did you find out what that other sign was approved to? I did find the case number and I'm pulling it up right now. Well, while you look it up, I'll just say my motion still stands. I know no one has seconded it yet, but I would add a condition that you include the opaque backing. So it would be approved for the staff recommendations and on the condition you include the opaque backing on the signs to sort of reduce the overall impact of the light. Second. Second. I did make a motion. He made a motion before. No, and I did. Yeah, he made his motion. I did find the report if the board would like to know that before. Sure. Make voting on the motion. Okay, so the at 515 King Street, this is November of 2023 at the pet medic urgent care. The sign was approved by the board with the following conditions. The brightness of the lighting at the entrance is subject to fuel inspection by staff at night to ensure the lighting levels do not overwhelm the building in the neighbors. The second condition is that the final illumination shall be no greater than 150 lumens and the color should be warmer rather than cooler and no greater than 3,000K. Okay. Yes, and that's why I'm concerned because that light fixture is very bright. rather than cooler and no greater than 3,000K. OK. Yes. And that's why I'm concerned. Because that light fixture is very bright. That sign is just very bright. That's why I think the 150 may be too high. But I'm willing to let it go if we do the opaque backing. Because the only way we're really going to figure this out is actually by exploring and seeing what happens. We're not lighting experts. Just can't keep them all something together. But if it's something that's on the screen, that also affects how it looks. And if it's something that's a printout, and so on the quality of the print. And it's definitely happy to include this type of discussion when we talk about signage. When we talk about the signage chapter, this is the thing we can talk about. But I agree with Mr. Vice Chair that I don't think we should hold up. We can only do our best at this point and try to move it forward. But I will see what other members think. We do have a motion and a second moment to move. Could I make a friendly amendment to have it I'm not sure if you're going to see the position at a second moment. Did I make a friendly amendment to have it no cooler than 3500? Yes. We can actually go for the warmer side as you are saying for the yellow LED instead to go for the white to be let's bright at the opak and me, sort of them 250. 150 I'm sure that the same would be Right then what we origin that you proposing for sure. I accept the friendly amendment. I want to make a friendly amendment to As well to say that Same conditions that we added to the other Project was staff should go out and look at it in the evening I would say if no now that staff knows that we think that one that we're proved is too bright, and get it toned down a little bit more. Right, I would say no more than 3,000, even. That's important. It does look... What did we say last time, Brendan? 3500. 3500. It was 3,000. Oh, that was 3,000. We can do the same condition. Yeah Well, why don't I just amend my original motion and then we added the opacity requirement and then we add on those requirements that we put on the last applicant. Could you repeat your motion so I make sure I have everything correct? My motion is to approve docket item number three with staff recommendations and that the sign include an opaque backing and that the same requirements for the animal hospital that you listed, which I think was no greater than 3000 lumens and that the final brightness of the 6000 Kelvin. 3000 Kelvin, what 3000 Kelvin's? Kelvin's 3000 degrees Kelvin. I have another friendly amendment. Okay, let me finish mine. 3000 Kelvin's and that the final elimination of the sign be subject to field inspection by the city. I think that captures what we required last time. And that is my motion and then I will wait for the bill or. Would you accept a friendly amendment that would ask the applicant to work with the city to determine the brightness. I didn applicant to work with the city to determine the right nose. I didn't hear that express. I think the pardon me. I meant to include that as one as the first that the first object to field inspection. So yes, I think my intent was to include that. Thank you. Okay. There's a second. Second. Thank you. Thank you. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed say nay. Eyes have it. And Mr. Conkey, we're moving on to new business. Yes sir, we are moving on to new business. And I'm we are moving on to new business and I am going to be accusing myself for this for item number five and six and Mr. Harris will be taking over my duties. Okay, Mars team chair is taking a quick break. So we can proceed. Is the applicant here? Oh, hi. Could you please state your name and address for the record? Sure. Hi everyone. I'm Karen Conkey. I'm the architect my clients, Jill and Sean Milliken. My address is 407 Southleast Street. Thank you. And did you want to give us a presentation or just answer questions from the board? Super quick. This application came before the board in 2022. Almost identical with a couple small exceptions of windows changed proportion a little bit on the east elevation and we added a dormer on the back. So other than that, that's the only thing I'm here that's new and different from 2022. Thank you. Do any of the members of the board have questions for the applicant? I have one question. Do I understand correctly that all of the windows are being replaced from double-hung window to a case-man window? Yes, that's the intent. Do any other board members have questions with the applicant? Does anyone in the audience have a question for the applicant? Okay, so we'll close the public hearing and we'll open it for deliberations. Ms. Andi, do you have any comments or further anything to add to your question? You want to come later? Okay, Mr. Lyons, do you have any statements? No. Ms. Del Nino, do you have any statements? I can support this. It looks like it works well with the neighbors, the dormers and the neighborhood. Mr. Adams. Very nice work. I support the application. Great. Thank you. Miss Miller. No comments. Very nice to have done. Thank you. Is Andy and are you ready to make a comment? Sure, yes. Same as the other applicant. It's a very nice house and well done. Thank you. Thank you. Well, I echo the comments of my colleagues. Mr. Harris, is this going to be a roll call vote or is this going to be a voice vote? Yes, it is a roll call vote. OK, can I have a motion on this application? So moved. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Harris, can you call the role please? Ms. Andion. I. Ms. Miller. Yes. Are we waiting for the chair? No. No. Mr. Scott. I. Mr. Adams. I. Mr. Don was Scott. I, Mr. Adams. I. Mr. Donnie-Yoh. And Mr. Lines. I. Congratulations. Your motion is approved. Fantastic. Thank you so much. Have a good evening. And we'll just give it a quick pause until our esteemed city architect returns. Thank you. No, I think Jane. You to the next floor. No, I think Jane. No, you just go to the back. There's no reason to wait for him. You know, you got my feathers up when you suggest that I was trying to get it. Are we ready? Sorry, to get the opportunity to do that. I'm not sure if you're going to get the opportunity to do that. I'm not sure if you're going to get the opportunity to do that. I'm not sure if you're going to get the opportunity to do that. I'm not sure if you're going to get the opportunity to do that. I'm not sure if you're going to get the opportunity to do that. the applicant is Russell and Michelle Sheerer and B.A.R. 2024-00342, Oldenstark District, Quest for Partial Demolition and Capsulation at 609 Queen Street, the applicant is Russell and Michelle Sheerer. I are you the applicant? My name is Patrick Kamis, I'm a studio of Kamis. Yes. I am here representing the Sheerers. I'm happy to answer any questions. I think we just need your address for the record. 225 North Pitchery. Terrific, I'm gonna pass the gavel over to our actual chair and let him take over. Hello. I assume you're making a presentation, you just wanna answer questions. I'll have to answer questions. The stuff of board looks good. Okay, so staff recommendations are good for you. Is there any member of the board that has questions for this applicant? Seeing none, Mr. Harris, are there any public speakers for this application? I don't have any forms. Okay. That we will close the public hearing and go into board deliberation. May I have a someone start deliberation or her start a motion? I'm motion to approve staff recommendation. Is there a second? Second. That was Ms. Andy. I'm with a second. We're going to. We're going to give it to her. It was the first voice I heard. You're closer to me though. So maybe that's why it was the first one. I'll be so. Please, couple of seconds. Excuse me. This is probably so. Yes All right, so this is a roll call vote Miss Andion I Is Miller I Stop I Mr. Adams Is on you. You Mr. Adams. Hi. Is there a new year? Hi. Mr. Alliance? Hi. Mr. Spencer. Hi. Congratulations. Thank you. Thank you. Have a good day. What's next, Mr.? So we have two items in our dark at left. The first one is the consideration of updates to the window and shutter chapter of the Parker grade design guidelines. I'll turn this over to Mr. Harris. Walk you through the revisions that were been made based on board comments at the last year. Mr. Harris, do you need a minute for your partner to show up? I was just wondering if he's still here. He is. He was right there in the audience. He might have went to the restroom. Okay, maybe we can give him a minute. I mean, I think that's what the staff is. He was right there in the audience. He might have went to the restroom. We can give him a minute. I can also give a brief short action on what I've been working on on this chapter since the last year. Basically, all the staff has changed and this chapter is directly in response to the comments from the board at the last year. originally staff based on the direction of the committee had proposed certain policy changes on things like what requires certain levels of approval and then we made some updates in this current version based on the feedback from the board. So things like originally we had proposed making replacing a window on an early building a street facing early building to be a board approval and the board said that that should really be a that we were going to be able to do that. We were going to be able to replace a window on an early building. A street facing early building to be a board approval. In the board said that that should really be a staff approval as it currently is. Things like that. All the feedback that the board gave we made those changes. There is also a suggestion that we need some more clarity under some of the boxes, such as the replication kind under a staff review, just some of those wording changes. And then there is a new page that staff created with a glossary for window definitions. Staff felt that this would provide more clarity on some of the window parts for customers or contractors who are reading the chapter. And that way when those definitions come up in the guidelines, there's a reference for that as well. And then I'll turn it over to Mr. Cox if he has anything else to add to that. No sir, only that as the board members who are on the design And I think that's a good idea. And I think that's a good idea. And I think that's a good idea. And I think that's a good idea. And I think that's a good idea. And I think that's a good idea. And I think that's a good idea. And I think that's a good idea. And I think that's a good idea. And I think that's a good idea. And I think that's a good idea. typos in it. There is an obvious absence of a couple of photographs that we're still trying to get that will be really important to explain to people what the difference in a type 2 and a type 3 window is. But we wanted to make sure y'all were okay with the general guidance and the discussion before we searched out and found those windows. But we're in the process of restoring and working on windows at the Freedom House Museum right now with the same contractor that did the Meridic Foset House. So I think we have some good examples. I just wanted to hear what y'all had to say tonight before we find those photographs. All right. Who would like to begin? Ms. Miller. For the first time, I don't have anything to say right now. All right. All right. Zambian. Not for the first time, but I don't have anything. That's right. Mr. Lions, I have quite a list. No, I'm just kidding. I think it looks great. Thanks. Okay. Let's down. I like the button profiles that were in the report today. With the years, I don't know if that's something we want to try to shoehorn in too. We can look at that. We can look at us during some of those graphics. Sure. Okay. Mr. Adams. Mr. Adams. Thank you. And Mr. Vice Chair. Well, not for the first time. I do have a comment. Of course. That's why I made you vice. Actually, I want to second what Mr. Vice Chair. Well, not for the first time I do have a comment. Of course. I actually, I want to second what Mr. Elnino said. I think it's a great idea to include those. Those are really helpful. I only have one comment. And it's on your typologies. And we did cover this last time. So type one is routine maintenance. So if I'm a homeowner two minor repairs. I understand that. It's a comment about the window. The window needs minor repairs. Type three major repairs and partial replacement. I understand that. Type four replication in kind. No. That is not a comment on a condition of the window. That is a type of replacement of the window. So type four should say something like irreparable or beyond repair. It should be about the condition of the window, not the action you take in response to the condition of the window. So I think type four should be irreparable and then the actions are replacement in kind or just replacement for replication in kind or replacement. It's just for consistency. So excellent. We're talking about the wisdom. Yeah. That's my only comment. That makes sense. Yeah. Irreparable is a little strong, maybe. It's a beyond repair. Beyond repairs. Not a repair. Whatever it is. I don't want to define it for you. It should just be about the window itself, not what you do in response. Yeah. I agree with that. Language consistency. I understand. So I really appreciate you incorporating all my detailed feedback from last time and everyone else's. I think it's great. Well, please remember, Mr. Scott, this is all the design guidelines are living documents and subject to changes technology changes as the community changes. And so expect to see changes to this in the next couple of years as well. As we learn more information. Yes sir. And we test them against. Yes. Aces. We may wait a little while to talk about Windows again. We have a couple of years worth of work on the rest of the design. Actually I did have another question. Yes sir. And you guys know I'm not an architect. I do know what mountains are. I also know what mullions are. Yes. People usually use the word mullion when they mean muntin. Correct. Would it be helpful to include mullion in our glossary? Oh, yeah. I had added that to talk to Brandon about it at the next committee meeting. That's what I meant by there's some typos, clarifications that I would like to add. That's a good point. And you can mean of anything. Martin versus Maya. Good point. Yeah, I think you should put both in. And everyone can learn what I learned. 100%. Yeah. And one of the things we talk about all the time with these chapters, I mean, it's guidance for the board. But it's is public education. For contractors, for homeowners, board members. Yeah, members? I mean, yeah, it's just an same public education in the audience. Though I think we're going to need to get Mr. Scott an architecture degree by the time this is done. You know, I have two years left on my GI Bill, so. I got a lot of math and science from undergrad maybe. There's a school on Prince Street that would love your attendance. Yep. Oh. And it's in Prince Street right here in all of a sudden. You're going to send him over to the WAC. Send you to the WAC. All right. Great professor's there. If so, if WAC. If it's the Washington, Alexandria architectural center. For those who don't know. Oh, yes. We have some formative years of my- We have some alumni in here. So very formative years of my time. So if we were, if I'd like to have a vote to adopt this chat, I was about to ask for a motion. Sorry. I guess I'll do the motion since I gave the input. I moved to approve the Parker Gray District window and shutter guidelines as presented to the board with two conditions. One is you make this sort of typographical cleanup to mention, including adding the definition of mullion and also on the typologies, just making sure that type four actually refers to the condition of the window and not the action you would take in response to the condition. And additionally, a minute, adding the button profiles that were shown. Oh, yes. Yes, I'm sorry I forgot that. I intended, yes. I accept that for a leave. Diagram. OK. Is there a second? Second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. May oppose, say nay. Eyes have it. What's next, Mr. Harris? The next document is some minor changes to the administrative approval policy for windows and the reason that we're including this. The administrative approval policy is applied to the olden historic district as well as the Parker Gray District for commercial buildings. So based on some of the wording that we've adopted for the Parker Gray Windows chapter, some of that same wording is found in this document. So we're just proposing to take whatever wording was adopted by the board and the design guidelines chapter and to use that same wording in the administrative approval guidelines. So there's no policy changes proposed here from what is currently there. Thank you. May I have a motion? Or would people like to deliver? I have motion to approve. Policies is written. Second. Second. Sorry. All those in. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed say nay. Eyes have it. Thank you, Mr. Cox. Mr. Harris opposed, say nay. Eyes have it. Thank you, Mr. Cox. Mr. Harris for our great work. Thank you, Cox. What's next, Mr. Colnkey? That's all we have tonight. Next hearing is on a Wednesday, so we'll go back to Wednesdays. I just have a question. It won't take long. When those signs are put up, I'm referencing that sign. Does somebody actually go back out? I mean, what's the process to check that there's like the 150 and whatever those numbers are? Does staff go out and make sure? Does staff go out and check on things like that? What's that? You're asking if something does this. Yeah, I mean, because honestly, I've been approached by a few people about that sign in particular, and it looks very bright to me. I mean, off the check and see, because there's a zone in component to this as well, so we'll off the check on that and see. Can you measure the lumens of a, I'd describe it like a light meter. The foot candle, that's a fiscal candle. It measures differently, but different. And this gets really confusing Lumin's wattage and foot candles. Foot candles is the light produced Lumin's is something different than that so we can When we go to the signage Chapter will kind of be too better education on that Yeah, I mean, I know we approve a lot of things and I know we can't check go back and check I'm single thing, but I was just curious about that because that sign just does seem very brand That's why I was questioning the 150. What's your environment? We'll check on that and again we'll bring that to as part of our presentation. You know when we do these chapters some of it is an education to the board to get you guys everywhere. I want to be on the same language we're talking about so that we can discuss this and we'll make sure we do that. Okay. Any other questions or comments from board members? Saying none lets adjourn. Thank you.