The design guidelines for this historic district do not permit mechanical louvers on street facing elevations. The intent is to uphold a compatible and appropriate solid to void ratio and minim minimize the visible impact of mechanical equipment to the surrounding historic district.

uh we've uh pun intended exhausted all options uh with the landlord and everyone in the community to explore uh those alternatives. We definitely did not want to be here uh with the the the changes that we need to make, but it is a need for us to be able to operate going forward.

I think my my overall feeling on this is that it being that the building is not a historic building, um, being that the building could have potentially have been built with louvers in 2005, 2004, uh, I'm hesitant to agree with staff's findings on this particular project.

louvers or other openings in the facades for mechanical equipment such as fireplace heating, ventilation, air condition, HVAC and laundry vents are not appropriate and shall not be permitted on primary street facing facades. These guidelines don't differentiate between contributing and non-contributing. The way they are identified is be between existing buildings and I think it's infill or yeah uh design guidelines for new buildings on infill sites. So these were the guidelines that were specifically written for new or construction.

I think I'm leaning toward um approving the uh proposal as proposed and I'm curious what other commissioners are thinking.

I think in order to address that um there is a possibility to perhaps recess the louver and um provide screening such that it is not so evidently an HVAC system. Um in doing so I think that needs to be addressing the nine transom windows as opposed to the six that this is affected you know in order to preserve the symmetry.

The sign and awning guidelines do state that dynamic signs and dynamic changeables copy signs are not permitted. Um and also those guidelines note that sign should not obscure or damage character defining features including windows, doors, plasters, columns and historic signs.

ultimately what we are talking about is something that is making no permanent changes to this building. We're talking about a film that's on the interior of the building inside of the window and a dynamic sign. And the question then becomes, you know, is this disrupting the the historic character of the district? And I would submit absolutely not.

I think that today the warehouse district is not storing materials. This is an entertainment district and this is consistent with that and it's doing so in a way that does not disrupt or do permanent damage to it in any way. And if we're not going to allow the commercial use to evolve, you you run the risk of freezing these things in amber and then the question becomes how are you going to preserve it long term?

I am reluctant um to accept that given the fact that this is coming as a retroactive application. Um, and so I just wanted to go on the record as as stating, while you may intend to be good neighbors, it does not appear as though you were necessarily good neighbors upfront.

The sign is dynamic, which is not allowed by the district guidelines. The sign is too big uh for the zoning guidelines. Um, and when it comes to the Secretary of Interior standards, um, I would argue that it has a pretty big impact on the visual relationship of the district.

I completely agree with the idea that the best way to preserve a building is for its continued use. I don't think that this sign will make or break the business's use of this building. I think the other piece of this that should be a part of this discussion is the reason that the warehouse district is currently functioning as an entertainment district to some degree is because of its historic resources.